Quote:
|
Originally Posted by martinguerre
i'm not sure where Harris gets his definition of moderation. i consider myself to be a moderate...i am not fond of literalizing scripture, but i am not fond of excessive innovation, either.
i do NOT think this is an effective call for rejection. some of the most important conversations i have had are as a moderate talking to the conservative. i don't have to convince them to beleive like i do. what my goal in speaking is to make them aware that my viewpoint is Christian...that it is grounded in scriptures, based in the traditions, and looks to the cross as the central moment of my faith.
|
I think a central point of the article was that you CAN'T convince fundamentalists to believe like you do. It is axiomatic that if the Bible is the inerrant and literal word of God, then anyone who takes a contrary view, with regard to even one passage of text, is wrong, from a fundamentalist's point of view. The other problem for me, as a moderate, is that it would be disingenuous to on one hand reject the literal truth of some scripture, and at the same time presume that I can tell the difference between passages meant to be read as metaphor and those which are literally true. I call myself a Christian, as you obviously do also, but fundamentalists would disagree. If the Bible is in fact the literal and inerrant word of God, then they would be right; if not, they're wrong. Personally, I don't buy in to original sin. This alone, even accepting everything else, makes me a heretic in the eyes of a fundamentalist.