ausposaunen

Am 05.08.2016 um 15:11 schrieb Tom Qualey:
>„Fundamentalism“= FUNDMENTALISMUS really is a problematic word... and I think that those religions that apply the term to themselves can easily be seen as excessive in one or more ways.<

Well, I all my adult-life applied the word onto my own Christian being. It’s only these last years, when Islam became a danger as “Islamists“ where called FUNDAMENTALISTS.
But isn’t it obvious that if this word really fits here, that Islam (fundamentally executed) is a fearful and antihuman as well as anti-God religion?!

>…………..I think it is a real mistake to make the claim that one believes in the literal interpretation of the Bible! And, yes, I am quite serious. Should we read the Bible literally or symbolically? See: CAF<

There in CAF the „Catholic Answers Staff“ answers
-----------------------------------------------------------
in a rather a „simplified stereotype“ answer, for that’s even clear in everyday smalltalk. Metaphors e.g. can't be taken literally, but they still must be taken literally. No contradiction. Both is right. One must differ. Christ Himself said: He who wants to understand, is given understanding.

>>Although this principle is easy to state, it isn't always easy to apply.<<

It’s easy to those who ask God for understanding. It’s impossible to doubters.

>>Some things in the Bible, such as the parables of Jesus, are clearly symbolic, but what about other things, such as Christ's words about the Eucharist? Are they to be taken literally or symbolically? Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, many Lutherans, and many Anglicans take them literally. Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, and other Protestants do not.<<

They got to be literally. But it’s plain daft to think this is the actual FLESH of Christ. It’s got to be realized as Christ Himself who is with us in Person then. We might say „someone was actually there in flesh and blood“ meaning the Person was really present. Simply take Genesis 37,27: after all, he is our brother, our own flesh and blood. Or our own linguistic usage of suchlike phrases.

>>Yet all Christians claim Christ's words, as well as the tenor of the New Testament, support their belief, and all claim to know what Christ intended when he spoke them. How do we decide who's right?<<

That’s a in my opinion very stupid statement, for it’s obvious who is right: The Catholic Church is in her teaching. But every real believer feels what’s right anyhow.

>>Based on literary and historical analysis, scholars often can determine how the biblical writer wanted his words to be understood.<<

This I think any believer does naturally know even without tutorial - once they (we) got belief.

>>This is why in studying Scripture we should familiarize ourselves with its literary and historical background.<<

„Studying scripture“ - what about believing kids and people without books and bibles.

>>Still, scholarship alone can't solve all of our interpretative problems. There are scholars, for instance, who affirm the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and those who deny it, just as there are those who think the New Testament teaches distinctively Catholic beliefs and those who don’t.<<

I wouldn’t pin it at the Eucharist, for this emphasizes differences between the two main Christian denominations,which we are to avoid, not to poke up the differences, but instead seek commons. Christ won’t ask us first which denomination we belonged to, but how near we where to God, how strong was our belief.

>>Because of the possibility (and frequency) of such scholarly impasses, the Catholic Church insists that Christ established the magisterium--the teaching authority of the Church--to propound biblical truth infallibly.<<

Exactly!

>>The authentic explanation of the biblical message has been left neither to our own meager interpretive abilities, nor to the greater, yet still finite, exegetical skills of scholars,<<

I dare to doubt this. Remember the priest Brother Klaus? If I had followed this „scholar“ then I’d be off belief now :-(

>>but has been safeguarded by God himself.<<

This however is ever so right! But both in this sentence doesn’t really go together.
—————————————

Tom went on;
>For example, we are to believe - <

I wouldn’t ever NOT EVER! say ARE TO BELIEVE - for belief is an ever so natural thing. As soon as any Christian thinks he MUST believe this or that to be a believing Christian, his belief is void.

> - that God made everything out of nothing, that original sin was passed down from our first parents, that God promised a Redeemer and that there were numerous prophecies about His coming, that this was fulfilled with the voluntary cooperation of Mary, as she remained a virgin, that Christ is true God and true man, established One Church, that the Eucharist is really the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, that He gave the power to forgive sin to men, that He rose from the dead on His Own Authority and that He will come to judge the living and the dead. I did this from memory - but, I think I got most of them... if not, let me know what I missed. <

Nothing missed - though belief consists of several libraries ;-) We still don’t have to study all the books written ever since Christ’s resurrection - a lifetime wouldn’t be enough to do so, but any child who believes solemnly in God - has all we need.

>But, when compared with all that is written in the Bible, these doctrinal truths do not take up much physical space.<

That’s what I meant :-)

>And notice the real issue is that the Catholic Church has clearly defined what must be believed - it is not a matter of interpretation.<

MUST BE BELIEVED I’d never say, for there is no MUST really. I mean even simple minds know without any must or teaching, that ice is cold and fire is hot. Same everyone who attempts and asks God for the grace of belief and being allowed to believe knows theseentials of Christ’s doctrine, which is LOVE.

>Everything else, however, can have a personal interpretation as long as it is not contrary to the defined beliefs. For example, some people believe that God created everything out of nothing and took billions of years to accomplish this act, while others believe God created everything out of nothing in 6 days.<

No contradiction between the two. It’s One. Even Millions of „years“ are one day when God didn’t create a DAY yet. (Sunrise and sunset).

B>oth are acceptable in the Catholic Faith because the basis is that God created everything out of nothing - that is the point, not just how did He choose to do it because He could have chosen either way, or a way we have not even thought of yet!<

Well it’s simple, for God doesn’t neey anything to create what so ever, but creates out of His mere will.

>So, when says they take the Bible literally - they must explain that statement.<

But why? I do take the Bible literally in meaning. This meaning is manyfold explained in the New Covenant. But not all are allowed to understand, that’s why Christ, as He said Himself, often spoke in metaphors.
And besides, like Paul said in 1 Cor 2,9/10, we of course can’t grasp all before we see, but will as soon as we united with God in heaven.

>When Christ said in Matt 5, that if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out…
did He mean that literally (since we all sin - all of us would be without at least one eye)?<

It’s anyhow always two eyes we then had sinned with - so had to plug out both. Of course God doesn’t want us to mutilate the great body He gave us. God never wants us to harm ourselves. It’s still to be taken literally. So, this in Mt 5,29/30 is meant like to depart from some essential habits we think are indispensable - but led to sin.

>…...Over half fell for the lie of Arianism, there is nothing to say that somehow today's hierarchy is immune from such grave error<

Let’s be sure that those who fell for it, didn’t ever possess real believe at all, but in fact took St. Paul’s word in 1Thess 5,21 examine all things; hold fast to what is good, in private consideration instead of in consideration of Christ’s Doctrine.
. Learning the truths of the Catholic Faith may be more complicated today - but, my suggestion is to begin with the Catechism and learn what we are to believe.<

I never did. As I said before, I only had the Catechism, since I was in Christian forums 1992 and later in English speaking Christian forums, for it eases answers :-)
However - as to FUNDAMENTALISM or fundamental belief, I never found anything in it.

Yours
Bruno