Wow, just took a look at the CP article itself. In short "RLC's follow just the words of Jesus in the Bible, but they disagree with my political positions, therefore THEY HATE JESUS! The end." Classic Andy. --Kels 14:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Strange, it seems to still be there, but it doesn't show up on searches. Someone should archive it before Andy decides to cover his tracks.
So, seriously, I had never heard of this movement. And I so COMPLETELY relate to this! Thank you RationalWiki for helping me grow in my Christian faith. Peace! — Unsigned, by: 220.127.116.11 / talk / contribs
- You're welcome ;) I prefer the pre-Schlaflyized version of the CP article. What a twat. What an asshole. "In sum, '''Red-letter Christians'' are liberal Christians who downplay or ignore what Jesus taught against immorality and instead see tolerance towards all attitudes and behavior." He can't even write coherently. ħuman 04:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- It's kind of hilariously hypocritical, because elsewhere he's decried the whole "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" by arguing that "Jesus didn't actually say that". Apparently, only he gets to determine which parts of the Bible are worth listening to.KrytenKoro (talk) 02:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Sects, beliefs, etc
This article was written from the point of view that there is a particular "thing" that is red letter christians. and while there is a movement that individual christians guide their world with, it's not really any particular assemblage, making it hard to talk about 'who these people are'. GodotRIP original "muahahahah". 1...2....3...4...muahahahahah 15:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
The 3 Bibles in the See also section all focus on Jesus as does the Red-Letter Bible.
- Prox - there is nothing to suggest that this loose group of people fights any more than the Holy See. In fighting is part and parcel to every single Christian denomination. There is also nothing at all in Red leter xianity to suggest it is a literal reading of the bible or of Jesus. Please stop reverting things that you have put in, in error.GodotRIP original "muahahahah". 1...2....3...4...muahahahahah 17:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I’ve altered the reference slightly so the title of the Christianity Today article I used as a source stands out. It’s clear from the title and the content of the article that Stan Guthrie believes the Red-Letter Christians are a Democratic blue rather than a Republican red. Godot in her wisdom took that out. Why?
The section below was also in the article, I altered the formatting slightly to avoid a useless section heading in this page.
There also appears to be a bit more room for dissent and disagreement within their ranks than among most Christians. One of the founders, Tony Campolo, considers practiced homosexuality to be a sin (while still supporting the legal rights of gays), while his wife Peggy disagrees, feeling that monogamous homosexuality is acceptable.
- How this works with the fact Jesus didn't write anything in the bible is left unanswered.
I didn't write that, it has been in the article since the start and several authors elaborated it much more than I did. Godot in her wisdom took that out too. Why? Does Godot imagine she is always right and all those other authors must be wrong? Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)