[te_chris]

I agree with gp, over here the evangelical churches are almost always more extreme in their doctrine so myself and my friends perceive them as fundamentalists. You often find other Christians present themselves by their sect to distance themselves from the evangelicals.

[rhizome]

I understand, but my sense is that fundamentalists are separatists where evangelicals are communitarian and trying to build the flock, so to speak. Fundamentalists are "you're with us or you're with the enemy." Maybe I have only experienced relatively friendly evangelicals, though. :)

[socceroos]

Well, my specific denomination named themselves evangelical presbyterian, but we're fundamentalists. While you can glean that we have a Presbyterian form of government and purport to be evangelical in nature, to be honest, you cannot read too much into a name - a group of Christians are best understood by their fruits.

I've always struggled to reconcile how someone could suggest they're Christian but only choose to believe certain parts of the bible and dismiss the rest as just stories (note, I'm not referring to how specific parts of the bible are illustrative in nature). For me, the whole thing crumbles away if you dismiss parts of it.

I've heard people suggest that it's more important to take away the good things and good examples than to actually believe in the stories as facts.

Anyway, that's just a slice of my opinion.

I'm interested in your statement that evangelicals are communitarian and fundamentalists are separatists, I see this practically in some church communities - but I see the opposite in others. I would consider my church more on the separatist side than communitarian.

[lotharbot]

> "I've always struggled to reconcile how someone could suggest they're Christian but only choose to believe certain parts of the bible [as literal facts]"

"For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally."

That was written by Origen of Alexandria, one of the most prolific Christian writers ever, in the early 200s. Yes, that's the right number of zeros. Those very modern sounding remarks are 18 centuries old.

The rise of Liberal Christianity in the 1800s (which decided that everything in the Bible, including Jesus, was figurative) led to the rise of Fundamentalism in the 1900s (which decided that nothing was figurative). Prior to that, most Christians understood that parts of the Bible describe real truth, but within the mold of figurative stories. They would consider it "dismissive" to treat the stories as literal and therefore to miss the real truths being communicated figuratively.

It can be quite enlightening to read ancient mythology and discover the ways some Biblical stories use the same elements but turn them on their heads. For example, the Genesis creation account uses almost all of the same elements as the Egyptian creation account -- but the things that are "gods" for Egypt, like the sun and the moon, are treated as mere objects not even worthy of being called by name in the Genesis account (read it carefully; they're just "lights".) The point isn't to communicate that the sun and moon were created approximately 6000 years ago, but that they are objects with no personality or power or claim to godhood, which God created specifically in order to shine on the earth.

I hope this illustrates how someone can be a thoughtful and serious Christian, and yet not treat every part of the Bible as literal fact.

[socceroos]

"Prior to that, most Christians understood that parts of the Bible describe real truth, but within the mold of figurative stories."

Citation needed, otherwise you're just making stuff up. =)

[lotharbot]

I recommend reading ancient Christian texts. Start with http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html . You'll find a large number of references to parts of scripture as figurative. You might especially enjoy Augustine's "On The Literal Interpretation of Genesis".

Counterchallenge: find me ANY citation older than ~1870 AD that states that all of scripture should be read literally.

I must admit, my studies have not been completely exhaustive. But I'm quite confident in claiming that "some of scripture is figurative" is by far the majority view in Christian history.

[socceroos]

I think I may be confusing things by conflating disparate ideas. And this is the basis of my interpretation of your statement - which I still see as slightly ambiguous.

Biblical hermeneutics is a separate concern from biblical inerrancy. They're similar because they're both concerned with the ultimate interpretation of scripture, but separate in their scope and effect.

What I was referring to in my original statement was the interpretation of decidedly hermeneutically-literal passages as figurative due to their apparent improbability. These include miracles that Jesus performed, historical events, and even extends down to the account of creation.

I do not disagree that some parts of scripture are designed and meant to be read figuratively - much of Revelations comes to mind as a basic example.