Fundamentalism

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I've made it perfectly clear that one of the major functions of this forum is to assist Local Churchers in seeing the Truth of the Gospel and the true character and nature of God as revealed in the Bible. This forum does not lend itself to this major function and it should be painfully obvious to all that it does not and probably never will.

UntoHim, I honestly feel than in an environment where young adults are regularly experiencing "breakdowns" -- sometimes even to the point of being diagnosed as schizophrenic -- that there are probably other needs that go to the top of the priority list.

People in the Recovery have often been told that they should just "forget about their problems" and "turn to their spirit." I think we all know how much damage that has caused over the years.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

[COLOR="Navy"]Oh I wouldn't worry about Local Churchers not being exposed to alternate views, the Internet is full of them!
In fact the VAST majority of religious/philosophical Internet sites are extremely anti-orthodox/evangelical Christian. Most consider the Bible as full of myths and stories made up by the early disciples. In most of the free world Local Churchers can delve into this kind of stuff any time they want....they just are going to have to ask for the password if they want to do that here!

Google lists 746,000 Evangelical Christian websites so there are plenty of opportunities for Leecal Churchers to get the orthodox evangelical view elsewhere too. They won't ask because you have hidden this forum from view and forbade us to inform them of its existence. Remember : "DO NOT QUOTE POSTS ON ALTERNATIVE VIEWS TO ANOTHER FORUM BOARD, OR BRING DISCUSSIONS FROM ALTERNATIVE VIEWS TO ANOTHER FORUM BOARD."

I've made it perfectly clear that one of the major functions of this forum is to assist Local Churchers in seeing the Truth of the Gospel and the true character and nature of God as revealed in the Bible. This forum does not lend itself to this major function and it should be painfully obvious to all that it does not and probably never will.

If that's a major function, why not perform it right here on this forum where we can discuss it freely?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

UntoHimI honestly feel than in an environment where young adults are regularly experiencing "breakdowns" -- sometimes even to the point of being diagnosed as schizophrenic -- that there are probably other needs that go to the top of the priority list.
People in the Recovery have often been told that they should just "forget about their problems" and "turn to their spirit." I think we all know how much damage that has caused over the years.

Points well taken ray. The problem is that mental/psychological issues are extremely difficult to address on an Internet forum. I know from experience with close family members that these issues are best dealt with by a professional. I do know that seeking this kind of help is discouraged in the Local Church, at least I know that it was in the past. Admittedly, Christians do have a tendency to over-spiritualize these matters, but again, there is a chance to do more harm than good trying to get too practical out here in cyberspace.

In relation to your reaction to my comment about "seeing the Truth of the Gospel", I think you may be selling the Gospel a little short. (no worries, we all do!) You see the biblical Gospel addresses much, much more than just "saving us from our sins", it actually addresses the many effects of The Fall, of which mental/psychological problems are one of the major effects. The apostle Paul described one of the effects of The Fall as subjugating Man to "The law of sin and death"(Rom 8:2), and the Gospel addresses this "law" with another "law" - "The law of the Spirit of life". (Rom 8:2) There is no doubt that we are still suffering to one degree or another from the effects of the first law, but to the extent that we believe and grow in "the faith of the Gospel"(Phil 1:27) we will begin to experience the effects of the law of the Spirit of life, and this surely includes the healing of our mind.

So I strongly believe, and it is my experience, that the answers for those suffering from the negative effects of false religion is to point them towards the genuine article - the faith of the Gospel as related in the living and abiding Word of God. This was one of my main considerations in setting up this forum, and it remains as one of the foundational principles today.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

Truth, or God, can handle it, surely.

Oh it's not Truth or God that I'm worried about, its our dear brothers and sisters in the Local Church.

I knew we were outside of the free world ... ... but can outside LCers even see alternative Views?

Oh they can see it just fine, it's listed there on the main forum page just like all the other forum boards. If they are interested they will simply ask for the password and they will get it, immediately.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

Google lists 746,000 Evangelical Christian websites so there are plenty of opportunities for Leecal Churchers to get the orthodox evangelical view elsewhere too. They won't ask because you have hidden this forum from view and forbade us to inform them of its existence. Remember : "DO NOT QUOTE POSTS ON ALTERNATIVE VIEWS TO ANOTHER FORUM BOARD, OR BRING DISCUSSIONS FROM ALTERNATIVE VIEWS TO ANOTHER FORUM BOARD."

Wow, am I speaking in some foreign language that you can't seem to understand? THE FORUM ALTERNATIVE VIEWS IS VISIBLE ON THE MAIN PAGE OF THE FORM. IT IS THERE FOR ALL TO SEE JUST LIKE ANY OF THE OTHER FORUMS. The only difference is one must take a few seconds and request a password ONE TIME in order to view and participate in the individual threads themselves. It's not like that they have to walk over hot coals or jump through a ring of fire

In regards to not cross posting from one forum to another, this is just plain common sense and part of Internet forum netiquette. Of course due to the nature of the discussions here it makes this even more important.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Wow, am I speaking in some foreign language that you can't seem to understand? THE FORUM ALTERNATIVE VIEWS IS VISIBLE ON THE MAIN PAGE OF THE FORM. IT IS THERE FOR ALL TO SEE JUST LIKE ANY OF THE OTHER FORUMS. The only difference is one must take a few seconds and request a password ONE TIME in order to view and participate in the individual threads themselves. It's not like that they have to walk over hot coals or jump through a ring of fire

In regards to not cross posting from one forum to another, this is just plain common sense and part of Internet forum netiquette. Of course due to the nature of the discussions here it makes this even more important.

All the person sees without a password is "Alternative Views" not even the topics are visible for people to decide whether they are interested or not. Cross posting is not necessarily malicious, and therefore should not absolutely be prohibited.

I would like to see a more robust defense of Christian fundamentalism here, and it doesn't look like that will happen unless others are allowed in.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Points well taken ray. The problem is that mental/psychological issues are extremely difficult to address on an Internet forum. I know from experience with close family members that these issues are best dealt with by a professional. I do know that seeking this kind of help is discouraged in the Local Church, at least I know that it was in the past. Admittedly, Christians do have a tendency to over-spiritualize these matters, but again, there is a chance to do more harm than good trying to get too practical out here in cyberspace.

Agreed. However, these issues don't have to be addressed directly. Just knowing that other people went through similar things, felt similar things, or received similar reactions, can be a real relief.

There are many people in the Recovery who feel like they "know too much." There are many people in the Recovery who will occasionally whisper "sideways" comments about yellow chairs, tennis rackets, World's Fairs, and John Ingalls. These things are not quite as hidden as we might like to believe. Yet there remains this air of secrecy.

Sometimes the biggest help is for others just to pull back the curtain a little. To hear some kid shout, "What the heck, the emperor's not wearing any clothes!?" Outsiders are ill-equipped to do this. (If you've never been in the Recovery, it's quite challenging to "connect the Recovery dots.") The people in the best position to do this are those of us who have experienced the nonsense firsthand, in all its particulars.

[rayliotta]

I'm mostly glad it's password protected, so that others don't have to see our bickering. LSM loves this stuff, and they don't need to see it. (That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.)

"While sheep bicker, wolves will play."

[zeek]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I'm mostly glad it's password protected, so that others don't have to see our bickering. LSM loves this stuff, and they don't need to see it. (That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.)

"While sheep bicker, wolves will play."

Ah, I see. But, if we discuss issues like grown-ups, it doesn't have to be bickering. We all might learn something. We might each come to a better understanding of the issues and acceptance of one another as we really are instead of a false show of unity. The Leecal Church suppressed free thought and presented the false face of conformity to the world. Why be concerned about what LSM thinks? I haven't made decisions based on what they love or hate since I left, I'm not going to start now.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

I would like to see a more robust defense of Christian fundamentalism here, and it doesn't look like that will happen unless others are allowed in.

It's indefensible because it is all a matter of faith. Not much of it makes rational sense. The trinity, virgin birth, Christ's divinity, death, resurrection, and ascension etc are just divine mysteries for the Christian faith. However, does the Bible support all of these divine mysteries? That is where there has been a lack of defense of these matters. It seems like all we receive here is a regurgitation of the same ole stuff without thoughtful responses. It is what it is. It is hard to get off the dime of superficial issues from the LC.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I'm mostly glad it's password protected, so that others don't have to see our bickering. LSM loves this stuff, and they don't need to see it. (That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.)

"While sheep bicker, wolves will play."

I guess if we just all agree with each other then that makes a good conversation and people won't see disagreements. If you think about it, isn't that what happened in the LC? In fact, they attempted to suppress disagreements or questioning to the point of filing lawsuits, excommunicating members etc. Isn't that what is being done when our discussions are labeled as "bickering" and thus placing a negative label on legitimate questions? If we disagree we are "bickering". ...interesting perspective. My take on this is that people evolving out of the LC need to see that we can question each other and carry on adult conversations without suppression, even subtle suppression such as labeling discussions as "bickering".

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Agreed. However, these issues don't have to be addressed directly. Just knowing that other people went through similar things, felt similar things, or received similar reactions, can be a real relief.

The people in the best position to do this are those of us who have experienced the nonsense firsthand, in all its particulars.

Points well taken again! And you know what, these kind of matters can be addressed out on the open forums, no problem! I only addressed it on this forum because it was posted on this forum. In general, I don't see any problem with this on the open forums.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

It's indefensible because it is all a matter of faith. Not much of it makes sense. The trinity, virgin birth, Christ's divinity, death, resurrection, and ascension etc are just divine mysteries for the Christian faith. However, what we have been trying to address on this thread is this: does the Bible support all of these divine mysteries? That is where there has been a lack of defense of these matters. All we receive here is a regurgitation of the same ole stuff without thoughtful responses. It is what it is. It is hard to get off the dime of superficial issues from the LC.

Hey Dave. Just because it hasn't been defended well doesn't necessarily mean it is indefensible. In the first place, you state it is a matter of faith. If that is the case, it can be defended as faith. So, faith that recognizes itself to be faith as opposed to knowledge or perhaps other kinds of knowledge can be defended as such. From another standpoint, we need to look at the assumptions we bring to the table. Now, I think you bring naturalistic assumptions, whereas others bring supernaturalistic assumptions. If as a naturalist you think that nothing but nature exists, the word nature means to you merely everything, whatever exists. Then of course, nothing supernatural can ever happen and the miracles in the Bible will have to be explained away somehow.

Most if not all the NT historians you are reading bring naturalistic assumptions to their analysis of the Bible. So, for example, a historian might say that the Gospel of John must have been written after the execution of Peter, because, in that Gospel, Jesus is represented as predicts the execution of Peter.

The historian assumes that a book cannot be written before events which it refers to. Why? Because prophesies of the future don't really happen. Of course, if real prophesies do occur then this argument for the date of the Gospel of John falls apart. She takes it for granted that they don't. She may be right, but she didn't discover this principle by historical inquiry. She brought her disbelief in the reality of prophesy to her historical work as an assumption.

Unless she had, her historical conclusion about the date of the Gospel could not have been reached at all on the basis of Jesus' prediction about Peter. If the question whether or not prophesies are real, the historian's conclusion is of no help. It begs the question. The historian bases her conclusion on a negative presupposition. And more often than not, the historian won't make the grounds for the assumption explicit.

A parallel assumption happens on the supernaturalist side. It is assumed that miracles can happen. Hence, the impasse that we find ourselves in. And, of course, on the other forums of this website site, philosophical analysis of assumptions is sacrosanct, so it's impossible to make the assumptions explicit without offending the moderator or others. Or, at least it has been in the past. That's why I started this thread in this forum; so that, we could discuss rationally how we get to these impasses and hopefully come to a better understanding of our respective positions. How are we doing?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

In relation to your reaction to my comment about "seeing the Truth of the Gospel", I think you may be selling the Gospel a little short. (no worries, we all do!) You see the biblical Gospel addresses much, much more than just "saving us from our sins", it actually addresses the many effects of The Fall, of which mental/psychological problems are one of the major effects.

If one includes the book of Proverbs as part of the Gospel, then much wisdom is available to us there.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I'm mostly glad it's password protected, so that others don't have to see our bickering. LSM loves this stuff, and they don't need to see it. (That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.)

"While sheep bicker, wolves will play."

My sentiments exactly!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

All the person sees without a password is "Alternative Views"

No, they see: "Alternative Views - PassWord Protected - Request PassWord from UntoHim."

Originally Posted by zeek

not even the topics are visible for people to decide whether they are interested or not.

Yes. it says "No threads to display".

Originally Posted by zeek

Cross posting is not necessarily malicious, and therefore should not absolutely be prohibited.

Well it does display " Alternative Views - PassWord Protected - Request PassWord from UntoHim," so we are free to advise to request a password from UntoHim.

Originally Posted by zeek

I would like to see a more robust defense of Christian fundamentalism here, and it doesn't look like that will happen unless others are allowed in.

But I believe it's UntoHim's mission to bring LCers out of the LC and into mainstream Christianity, or to fundamentalism.

The problem with that is that it presupposes that there's only one right way to come out of the local church. And we know that's just not true.

But given that there may be some that have come out of the local church, that have legitimate concerns about speaking publicly, I have mixed feelings about Alternative Views. They may find a safe place to express themselves.

However, if they don't come to AV, then it's just us few that are enjoying AV, which seems like all we'll end up with is talking to ourselves, that have few disagreements (other than bickering) That's not all bad, but good discussions require heartfelt disagreements.

And yes, I would love it if some great thinking fundamentalists, or perchance very devoted ones, came out in defense of fundamentalism. One reason I'm here is to learn. Therefore I welcome the challenge of disagreements.

Will that happen on AV? Time will tell.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

"While sheep bicker, wolves will play."

Are you calling me a wolf?

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Dave

I guess if we just all agree with each other then that makes a good conversation and people won't see disagreements. If you think about it, isn't that what happened in the LC? In fact, they attempted to suppress disagreements or questioning to the point of filing lawsuits, excommunicating members etc. Isn't that what is being done when our discussions are labeled as "bickering" and thus placing a negative label on legitimate questions? If we disagree we are "bickering". ...interesting perspective. My take on this is that people evolving out of the LC need to see that we can question each other and carry on adult conversations without suppression, even subtle suppression such as labeling discussions as "bickering".

Yikes! Guess I should have been more clear!

I'm all for vigorous discussion and debate. I was referring to the discussion re Alt Views, passwords, etc. That's all I was referring to as "bickering." It just struck me as a discussion that could occur offline.

Peace.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I'm all for vigorous discussion and debate.

The very purpose of fundamentalism was to put an end to discussion and debate. Like the creeds, it was saying, "these are the basics and we're no longer debating these matters."

Originally Posted by Ray

I was referring to the discussion re Alt Views, passwords, etc. That's all I was referring to as "bickering."

The concern is that no one is seeing Alt Views, and we're just talking to ourselves.

Fundy was a reaction to science seeing the way things are, not the way superstition saw/sees it.

Like science it is a matter of seeing. And zeek's concern is that very few see what's going on on Alt Views.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by awareness

The very purpose of fundamentalism was to put an end to discussion and debate. Like the creeds, it was saying, "these are the basics and we're no longer debating these matters."


The concern is that no one is seeing Alt Views, and we're just talking to ourselves.

Fundy was a reaction to science seeing the way things are, not the way superstition saw/sees it.

Like science it is a matter of seeing. And zeek's concern is that very few see what's going on on Alt Views.

OK. Peace.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Yikes! Guess I should have been more clear!

I'm all for vigorous discussion and debate. I was referring to the discussion re Alt Views, passwords, etc. That's all I was referring to as "bickering." It just struck me as a discussion that could occur offline.

Peace.

Just speaking truth to power that's all.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Yikes! Guess I should have been more clear!

I'm all for vigorous discussion and debate. I was referring to the discussion re Alt Views, passwords, etc. That's all I was referring to as "bickering." It just struck me as a discussion that could occur offline.

Peace.

Thanks for the clarification!

[Dave]

One question that has been gnawing at me over the last few months as I have read all of the discussions on this forum is who are the real Christians? We have listed "beliefs" of fundamentalists and discussed fundamentalism but who are the real Christians? I think there are several parts to this question. However, this does not assume that everyone has had the Christian born-again experience. The real Christians are:

1. Those who say they hold all of the fundamentalist beliefs but whose life doesn't reflect the values presented in the gospels? They may even read the Bible and attend church regularly and pray.
2. Like those who are in the LC which teaches another gospel?
3. Those who live the values of the NT but don't necessarily agree with all the fundamentalist beliefs? (also see #6)
4. Those who attend an Evangelical Church, don't really understand what they believe, shout Hallelujah and Praise the Lord and use Christian language throughout the week? However, they are more interested in monetary gain then Christian values and say, "the poor you will have with you always" and indicate that the Bible teaches people to accumulate wealth.
5. Those who quote Bible verses, pray occasionally, etc, don't attend church very often and don't communicate much with other Christians other than make comments on a forum sounding like they are Christians....in other words, they have the form of Christianity but there is no substance in their lives?
6. Those like Albert Schweitzer who is well known for his efforts as a medical missionary but made statements such as this, "The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the kingdom of God, who founded the kingdom of heaven upon earth and died to give his work its final consecration never existed. He is a figure designed by rationalism, endowed with life by liberalism, and clothed by modern theology in a historical garb. This image has not been destroyed from outside; it has fallen to pieces from the inside."? In other words he doesn't hold the fundamentalist beliefs but his life work reflects what Christianity is all about.
7. Those who hold the fundamentalists beliefs, pray, attend church, read and study their Bible, communicate with and support other Christians, but also support the poor, destitute and downtrodden etc.?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Dave

One question that has been gnawing at me over the last few months as I have read all of the discussions on this forum is who are the real Christians?

Even though your questions are at least rhetorical, and actually seem more like declarations than questions, I'll play along for a moment.

Your "questions" remind me a lot of what the apostle Paul wrote to the Romans, except that that he was answering the question "Who are the real Jews?"

For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God. Romans 2:25-29

Now this covers the "moral" part of the question, but for the real nuts and bolts, rubber-meeting-the-road answer, I suggest we go to person for whom "Christians" are supposedly named - Jesus Christ. At some point in his ministry the Lord Jesus gave his disciples a pop quiz of sorts:

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets." He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

Now we're gettin somewhere! I would submit the main thing here is "revealed this to you". A true Christian, according to the man for whom the Movement is named, is someone who has had a "revelation of Jesus Christ", this is a spiritual revelation which is only revealed by God Himself. Of course there are other important "fundamental" accouterments in the true born again, saving faith, such as repentance and acknowledgement and belief in the sacraficial death and bodily resurrection of Christ, but without this revelation it all can be just as circumcision was to many of the Jews there in Rome in Paul's day.

I'm sure you're familiar with the quote from Ghandi "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." What Ghandi was reacting to, I'm quite certain, was seeing the actions and attitudes of of a people who held to a certain religious belief but never had a true revelation of Christ. But the thing is, and there is no way around this, Christ never asked us to like him, he asked firstly for us to believe into him and what he said about himself and his Father. Only later does he say "pick up your cross and follow me". Your questions, my friend Dave, reflect your observation of the great majority of "Christians" who are spiritually unable to fulfill what the apostle Paul called "to live is Christ". They are impotent for many reasons - too many to get into right here - but it all comes down to the abject fact that many have not had a genuine spiritual regeneration. They have had the physical "circumcision" (so to speak), but they have not had the circumcision which "is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter".

Anyone who has not had a genuine spiritual regeneration, actually and truly born again, IN MY OPINION, is really not a Christian at all. They may be very religious and even do everything "by the letter", and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and the apostles, but they have not become a son of God. They may still need to have the spiritual epiphany of "You are the Christ! The Son of the living God!".

But hey, this is America and anybody can call themselves anything they want, including "Christian".

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

One question that has been gnawing at me over the last few months as I have read all of the discussions on this forum is who are the real Christians?

Originally Posted by UntoHim

. . . I would submit the main thing here is "revealed this to you" . . .
. . . anybody can call themselves anything they want, including "Christian".

If I determined what a Christian is by everyone that calls themselves one, I'd never be able to define what or who a Christian is. Neither would I want to call myself a Christian based upon some that go by that name. Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson, come to mind. Watchman Nee and Witness Lee also. I don't want to be associated with them. If they are Christians then I'm not.

Even if -- and perhaps especially so -- "the Father has revealed it to me."

UntoHim makes an undeniable point. In a nutshell, only God knows who are the real Christians. It takes God to make 'em. It requires a revealing from the Father.

For example, for all I know, all those I listed above may be real Christians. And UntoHim, after all he wrote in his grand Christian sounding post, may not be.

I don't even know about myself. I'd hate for what it is to be a real Christian to be define by me.

Maybe there's only one that lives up to the name ... and all of us fail to be the or a model of what a real Christian is.

Ultimately, honestly, I can't answer Daves' question.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Anyone who has not had a genuine spiritual regeneration, actually and truly born again, IN MY OPINION, is really not a Christian at all. They may be very religious and even do everything "by the letter", and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and the apostles, but they have not become a son of God. They may still need to have the spiritual epiphany of "You are the Christ! The Son of the living God!".

Reading the letters of Ignatius as he was on his way to martyrdom in Rome I came across one letter he wrote to the Romans. He asked the Rome church not to interfere with his martyrdom. Although he was eventually burned at the stake he thought he was going to be torn apart by wild beasts and he indicates that he wants to suffer as much as he can as Christ suffered. In fact he indicates that he wants the wild beasts to consume his entire body so nothing is left. He tells the Rome church that if they interfere with his martyrdom then it will be problematic for him. He states,

"I bid all men know that of my own free will I die for God, unless ye should hinder me... Let me be given to the wild beasts, for through them I can attain unto God. I am God's wheat, and I am ground by the wild beasts that I may be found the pure bread of Christ. Entice the wild beasts that they may become my sepulchre...; come fire and cross and grapplings with wild beasts, wrenching of bones, hacking of limbs, crushings of my whole body; only be it mine to attain unto Jesus Christ"

Polycarp, Justin and others were also martyred. Interestingly, however, they were not martyred because they were Christians since being a Christian was not illegal but for other reasons (they wouldn't worship the state gods). We know that Nero persecuted them but that was localized and he used them as scapegoats for the burning of Rome. It should be noted that Jews were not persecuted because they would not worship the state gods mainly because they were considered a religion of antiquity. Christianity was just an upstart religion. Of course, Ignatius thought he was being martyred because of his faith and maybe that is sufficient or maybe he just got carried away. My point is, is this the real Christian or just having the attitude of an Ignatius?

Originally Posted by UntoHim

revealed to you

I agree that it should require revelation and a genuine transformation but most on this forum claim that they have experienced regeneration so are we left with some ambiguity? In other words, most if not all on this forum claim that they are Christians who have had a regenerative experience with Christ...So they have had the revelation but when we look at Albert Schweitzer compared to Ignatius or others the questions remain especially as we ask the questions of 1-7 or do we just say "only God knows". I am fairly confident how I view a real Christian and it may contrast with your perceptions of a real Christian. It appears based on the first quote above that you would not agree that it doesn't matter what your "fundamentalist" beliefs are but it is the way you live your life that counts even if you originally had a regenerative experience. Or do you get around that by saying if you are not living by fundamentalist or Evangelical beliefs now you really weren't regenerated to begin with which is the way some Baptists view it?

Thanks for responding!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

Reading the letters of Ignatius as he was on his way to martyrdom in Rome I came across one letter he wrote to the Romans. He asked the Rome church not to interfere with his martyrdom.

Just like Muslim martyrs today Christians back in Ignatius' day believed that Christian martyrs went straight to heaven.

In the HBO documentary "Questioning Darwin" I was struck by interviews with fundamentalist Christians that were schooling very young children about the early Christian martyrs. They were using the early Christian martyrs to indoctrinated these young ones that as they grow up they can expect to be persecuted, ridiculed, and mocked, for their belief in the Bible and creationism. By such indoctrination they were essentially locking these children into a intellectual prison. This revealed to me that by using the example of the early Christian martyrs, these fundamentalist creationist Christians are a cult.

And their Holy of Holies today is right here in Kentucky, at the Creation Museum.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by awareness

Just like Muslim martyrs today Christians back in Ignatius' day believed that Christian martyrs went straight to heaven.

In the HBO documentary "Questioning Darwin" I was struck by interviews with fundamentalist Christians that were schooling very young children about the early Christian martyrs. They were using the early Christian martyrs to indoctrinated these young ones that as they grow up they can expect to be persecuted, ridiculed, and mocked, for their belief in the Bible and creationism. By such indoctrination they were essentially locking these children into a intellectual prison. This revealed to me that by using the example of the early Christian martyrs, these fundamentalist creationist Christians are a cult.

And their Holy of Holies today is right here in Kentucky, at the Creation Museum.

So is that picture from the creationism museum?

Interesting about Ignatius when he said, "Entice the wild beasts..." He is asking the church members to help him become eaten alive. This is all R rated stuff or worse. I find it interesting that Paul, Polycarp, Ignatius and others write these letters while they are in prison or being transported to Rome for their martyrdom which gives the letters more import. Are these the real Christians whose lives we should follow? These are definitely the "hot" Christians and not the lukewarm ones who will be spewed out of the mouth of Christ.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Dave

One question that has been gnawing at me over the last few months as I have read all of the discussions on this forum is who are the real Christians? We have listed "beliefs" of fundamentalists and discussed fundamentalism but who are the real Christians? I think there are several parts to this question. However, this does not assume that everyone has had the Christian born-again experience. The real Christians are:

1. Those who say they hold all of the fundamentalist beliefs but whose life doesn't reflect the values presented in the gospels? They may even read the Bible and attend church regularly and pray.
2. Like those who are in the LC which teaches another gospel?
3. Those who live the values of the NT but don't necessarily agree with all the fundamentalist beliefs? (also see #6)
4. Those who attend an Evangelical Church, don't really understand what they believe, shout Hallelujah and Praise the Lord and use Christian language throughout the week? However, they are more interested in monetary gain then Christian values and say, "the poor you will have with you always" and indicate that the Bible teaches people to accumulate wealth.
5. Those who quote Bible verses, pray occasionally, etc, don't attend church very often and don't communicate much with other Christians other than make comments on a forum sounding like they are Christians....in other words, they have the form of Christianity but there is no substance in their lives?
6. Those like Albert Schweitzer who is well known for his efforts as a medical missionary but made statements such as this, "The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the kingdom of God, who founded the kingdom of heaven upon earth and died to give his work its final consecration never existed. He is a figure designed by rationalism, endowed with life by liberalism, and clothed by modern theology in a historical garb. This image has not been destroyed from outside; it has fallen to pieces from the inside."? In other words he doesn't hold the fundamentalist beliefs but his life work reflects what Christianity is all about.
7. Those who hold the fundamentalists beliefs, pray, attend church, read and study their Bible, communicate with and support other Christians, but also support the poor, destitute and downtrodden etc.?

I like Dave's list. But I think it is incomplete. The first question missing question is what is it to be "born again" and does the typical evangelical definition of "born again" actually reflect what Jesus meant as he used the term when speaking to Nicodemus? While on one hand we have endeavored to discover what are true fundamentals and what are commonly thought of as fundamentals (not really the same list, although there is overlap), haven't we also determined that to some extent it is possible that as fundamental as even the shortest list may be, there it may be that there is even less of that which must be believed for "salvation?"

And for me, one of the problems with the whole "born again" thinking is that over the past 100 – 200 years being born again has been distilled down to a decision made at some kind of real or created point of crisis to make a prayer or statement about belief in Christ. But since that is so strongly held as a central tenet of fundamental belief, then there is a problem when the understanding is that "whosoever believes," not "whosoever believed" has eternal life. "We" as evangelical/fundamentalists so often see salvation as this event that happened, past tense, when the only thing that is currently understood as truly past tense is the death and resurrection of Jesus.

And to throw a monkey wrench into much of the standard evangelical/fundamental thinking on this subject, what if someone never has such a crisis moment during which a line of demarcation between their own personal understanding of "not saved" and "saved" is crossed? Say someone who is brought up in and older, non-evangelical tradition that teaches belief and obedience together as the path of the Christian? Do we declare that those who believe in Jesus within that system cannot be "saved" because they cannot separate their belief from their obedience (and therefore works)? Is belief in Jesus null and void if you don't clearly understand that the one thing that made you "saved" was only by your faith and not the works? Does the fact that there were works even before you clearly believed deny you the gift of God's grace?

Therefore, the question is, if you don't realize that your works were not involved in your becoming "born again" is your faith and belief in Jesus nullified?

If the answer to the above question is "no" then I propose that most of the categories of people on the list I quoted may be Christian, yet may not be Christian. The real thing is that being a Christian is about belief — not just claimed intellectual assent to facts, but living in a manner that it is evident that you believe. This does not dictate any specific mix of actions, works, worship, affiliation, etc., to be a Christian. But certain of those are things that we so often look at when we are trying to determine whether we think someone else is a Christian. Yet, while not entirely definitive, it would seem that claiming to believe should be among the more prominent things we rely on because that is an affirmation. And claiming to believe is not synonymous with claiming to have undertaken any kind of evangelical "decision for Christ."

On the other hand, James very prominently stated that faith without works isn't really faith. But then what are the right works. And how much continued human error is a detractor from whatever the real works are? Or said differently, now much lack of visible evidence of faith is evidence of no faith? Even James did not state that those he was chastising had no faith. But instead he said their faith was dead.

So if I must believe to be saved, and my belief/faith is dead, do I believe?

That is the real question. And the one that the Evangelicals (of which I am a part) and Fundamentalists typically do not ask.

And the one that brings the whole "line-in-the-sand" demarcation into question.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by OBW

If the answer to the above question is "no" then I propose that most of the categories of people on the list I quoted may be Christian, yet may not be Christian. The real thing is that being a Christian is about belief — not just claimed intellectual assent to facts, but living in a manner that it is evident that you believe. This does not dictate any specific mix of actions, works, worship, affiliation, etc., to be a Christian. But certain of those are things that we so often look at when we are trying to determine whether we think someone else is a Christian. Yet, while not entirely definitive, it would seem that claiming to believe should be among the more prominent things we rely on because that is an affirmation. And claiming to believe is not synonymous with claiming to have undertaken any kind of evangelical "decision for Christ."

On the other hand, James very prominently stated that faith without works isn't really faith. But then what are the right works. And how much continued human error is a detractor from whatever the real works are? Or said differently, now much lack of visible evidence of faith is evidence of no faith? Even James did not state that those he was chastising had no faith. But instead he said their faith was dead.

So if I must believe to be saved, and my belief/faith is dead, do I believe?

That is the real question. And the one that the Evangelicals (of which I am a part) and Fundamentalists typically do not ask.

And the one that brings the whole "line-in-the-sand" demarcation into question.

Your statement is certainly to be considered in regards to the real Christian. It is about belief and yet what about works?

But what is belief? Let me use an example. In Genesis we know that God created Adam and then Eve was created out of the rib of Adam. In Genesis 3 the serpent enters the picture. We also know that God spoke to Adam and Eve. The serpent spoke to Eve in Chapter 3. Christians believe that the OT and NT are literally the spoken word of God. Okay, then do we assume that both God, Adam, Eve and the Serpent spoke fluent Hebrew? In other words, God created Adam and Adam immediately was fully fluent in the Hebrew language and had all of his faculties understanding what just happened. Eve was formed out of the rib of Adam and boom she was fully cogent of the Hebrew language and was fully cognizant of what just happened. Obviously the serpent knew that they spoke Hebrew so he spoke to Eve in Hebrew. In order for God to speak to his creations he had to speak Hebrew. It wasn't until Genesis 11 with the Tower of Babel that other languages were developed. Thus, the history of the development of language. There is a term for this: Edenics.

In other words you have to believe this story or some semblance of it to be a Christian according to the Evangelicals. But what if you say it is just folklore and don't believe it is literally true. Are you still a real Christian?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Dave

In other words you have to believe this story or some semblance of it to be a Christian according to the Evangelicals. But what if you say it is just folklore and don't believe it is literally true. Are you still a real Christian?

So considering that it might be that God set the universe in motion, and set a sequence of events to happening that caused limited life to both remain, and to slowly create other life — all in concert with the plan. And as these things continued over millions (billions?) of years, there eventually was a being unlike the others (although with some visual similarity to the apes) that God had intended to be the ones that he would imbue with special faculties (higher order thinking ability, and whatever it is that is called "spirit," among a few others). When was this? Not clear. After that time, there was something that happened that caused these humans (that what we now call them) to be cut off from the kind of fellowship with God that had gone before. Were there still only two? Or were there many more at that time? Not sure. And not sure it really matters (although certain theologians are determined that it has to be simply Adam and Eve since that is how it is referred to all the way into the NT). Was the flood as simplistic as described? Was it as close to the time of Abraham as it seems to be indicated in the Bible (while other peoples already had alternate versions of the story)?

But the most important thing is whether any of this is reason to dismiss God or the Bible? Those earliest portions were written in whatever kind of Hebrew was around at the time of Moses since he is the original historian. Got translated over time, eventually into Greek.

I would say that the stories are true in figure, and possibly true in detail. But what I think about them is not the key to salvation. If I believe that the one true God sent his son to earth and his name was Jesus, then that is the thing required. In the OT, we learn about God shepherding his people through difficult times in an era in which wars of serious casualty was the way of life in a fallen world. But in the gospels we are introduced to the way of God in a more complete way. Love God, love your neighbor, and live righteously. And believe in the Son of God for the forgiveness of your sins.

Just one possible version of the history that would fit within the miniscule amount of vague verbiage provided in the early chapters of Genesis.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

So is that picture from the creationism museum?

So far I haven't been crazy enough to actually go to the Creation Museum. I'm just following it and keeping up with its development. The Commonwealth is now funding their next attraction: The Ark Encounter. I got the picture of riding a dinosaur by googling images for the Creation Museum. They do teach that man and dinosaurs lived together, and have pictures of humans riding them. You can even get your picture taken riding a dinosaur.

I think Mike's point of "creativity" applies here.

Originally Posted by Dave

Interesting about Ignatius when he said, "Entice the wild beasts..." He is asking the church members to help him become eaten alive. This is all R rated stuff or worse. I find it interesting that Paul, Polycarp, Ignatius and others write these letters while they are in prison or being transported to Rome for their martyrdom which gives the letters more import. Are these the real Christians whose lives we should follow? These are definitely the "hot" Christians and not the lukewarm ones who will be spewed out of the mouth of Christ.

I wonder how many would be Christians today if it meant being martyred?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by OBW

I would say that the stories are true in figure, and possibly true in detail. But what I think about them is not the key to salvation. If I believe that the one true God sent his son to earth and his name was Jesus, then that is the thing required. In the OT, we learn about God shepherding his people through difficult times in an era in which wars of serious casualty was the way of life in a fallen world. But in the gospels we are introduced to the way of God in a more complete way. Love God, love your neighbor, and live righteously. And believe in the Son of God for the forgiveness of your sins.

Just one possible version of the history that would fit within the miniscule amount of vague verbiage provided in the early chapters of Genesis.

You run into all kinds of problems with a literal interpretation of scripture. What they had to do in the 4th and 5th Century is just make stuff up to fit their theology. Paul never wrote that there was a Trinity or that Jesus was both God and Man since both of those are called mysteries. They can't be understood any other way. Genesis 1-3 is a mystery. The different accounts of Luke and Matthew's rendition of the virgin birth to include the virgin birth itself are also mysteries. The different contradictory acounts in the gospels of the crucifixion, death, burial, resurrection, etc are all mysteries. Jesus' appearance to all of the different people after his resurrection are simply mysteries.

What about the mystery of Matt 27:51-53, "And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split. 52The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.…" Whatever happened to all those people who were raised out of their tombs and entered the city---a mystery.

My story is simple---I accepted Jesus as my personal savior back in August 1964 and then I believed everything that Christians around me told me to believe to include all the mysteries I have listed above. I never questioned a thing. I went to Bible College shortly thereafter for about 3 years until I ran into Karl Hammond who introduced me to the local church Santa Cruz. I had never questioned the Bible since it was the Word of God. Like all of us I became very active in the LC but after two migrations I wondered what is going on around here. I remember thinking at one point in a meeting, do I really want to raise my chldren in this environment? I left the LC, started attending another church AOG but after awhile just didn't feel comfortable in it or couldn't get into it even though the Pastor had me teaching adult Sunday School. I tried a couple other churches but they didn't work for me. Let's face it --- not a lot of it makes sense but people believe it on faith and give up on trying to figure it out. However, people also rationalize it or try to explain the contradictions away. It's true, if you have faith you don't need to understand any of it.

Originally Posted by awareness

I wonder how many would be Christians today if it meant being martyred?

When you look at this country which started democracy with the Pilgrims and the Mayflower Compact promoting religious freedom as they fled from England and the Anglican church think about how many Native Americans were killed, how many slaves we brought over here in the name of Christianity etc. Once the Christians had the upper hand they were making martyrs of everyone else. Of course, many "Christians" were martyred during the middle ages by the RCC with the Inquisition who were also the Christians of the day. Fortunately today we do have the freedom to speak our own opinions without being persecuted...even if we don't fit into the square peg of fundamental Christianity.

[OBW]

What's funny about this whole thread is that there is a significant part of Evangelicalism that goes to great lengths to separate themselves from the modern Christian fundamentalists. And at some level, I believe rightly so. They like to think of themselves as nice fundamentalists (they believe in the fundamentals without the finger-pointing and wall building that seems to go on within fundamentalism).

The problem is that there are foam-at-the-mouth fundamentalists imbedded within the Evangelicals, so it is hard for many of them to actually make the claim. They want to. And try to. But there are too many ready to change churches over a 6-day creation, picket every business that hires gays, and fight to bring American back to God and its rightful place being blessed by God (as they speed down the highway with their radar detector . . . gag me with a spoon — please!).

[Dave]

Originally Posted by OBW

What's funny about this whole thread is that there is a significant part of Evangelicalism that goes to great lengths to separate themselves from the modern Christian fundamentalists. And at some level, I believe rightly so. They like to think of themselves as nice fundamentalists (they believe in the fundamentals without the finger-pointing and wall building that seems to go on within fundamentalism).

The problem is that there are foam-at-the-mouth fundamentalists imbedded within the Evangelicals, so it is hard for many of them to actually make the claim. They want to. And try to. But there are too many ready to change churches over a 6-day creation, picket every business that hires gays, and fight to bring American back to God and its rightful place being blessed by God (as they speed down the highway with their radar detector . . . gag me with a spoon — please!).

Along with that is the violence that goes on in this Christian country. Can you imagine Jesus saying "Granny get your gun" which seems to be the heartbeat of the Bible belt. We have the most violence of any developed country, the most people in prison per capita, one of the worst health care systems for the poor of any developed country. Even Cuba does a better job of treating everyone even though in some of their rural areas as I found out when I was there it certainly is not perfect. We are also one of the richest countries using up more resources then any other country.

Where is Jesus in all of this? Where are the Evangelicals in trying to make this a better world? Jesus has left the country. The problem is that Evangelicals apparently think --- read your Bible, pray and shout Hallelujah and the rest will take care of itself. It doesn't mean they don't give money but consider someone like Bill Gates who gives away billions to help the world's most poverty stricken countries fight disease and poverty. He doesn't do it as a Christian but as a humanitarian. Again, what would Jesus do? Would he even visit any of the Evangelical churches?

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by Dave

Along with that is the violence that goes on in this Christian country. Can you imagine Jesus saying "Granny get your gun" which seems to be the heartbeat of the Bible belt. We have the most violence of any developed country, the most people in prison per capita, one of the worst health care systems for the poor of any developed country. Even Cuba does a better job of treating everyone even though in some of their rural areas as I found out when I was there it certainly is not perfect. We are also one of the richest countries using up more resources then any other country.

The reason for US's many problems is regulatory capture and government corruption

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

which I believe is so deep now that there's probably not much anyone can do about it. Ironically what led me to Jesus after being a lukewarm Christian most of my life started with investigating blatant fraud in the metals market and why it was never addressed that led me down a huge rabbit hole...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...0130425?page=2

There's an oligarchy running everything while the American public is asleep listening to Katy Perry or watching American Idol. The best we can do is as Jesus said is to be the salt of the earth. The world is moving towards a certain direction, all we can do is to slow it down by loving our neighbor including the poor and downtrodden and giving people the only true hope which is in Jesus Christ, our hope of glory.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by bearbear

The reason for US's many problems is regulatory capture and government corruption

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

which I believe is so deep now that there's probably not much anyone can do about it. Ironically what led me to Jesus after being a lukewarm Christian most of my life started with investigating blatant fraud in the metals market and why it was never addressed that led me down a huge rabbit hole...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...0130425?page=2

There's an oligarchy running everything while the American public is asleep listening to Katy Perry or watching American Idol. The best we can do is as Jesus said is to be the salt of the earth. The world is moving towards a certain direction, all we can do is to slow it down by loving our neighbor including the poor and downtrodden and giving people the only true hope which is in Jesus Christ, our hope of glory.

I think you nailed it... In Gal. 2:10 Paul writes, "They asked only one thing, that we remember the poor, which was actually what I was eager to do." We need to remember that Paul's letters to different churches were mainly to address a variety of problems whether it was in Corinth, Philippians, churches of Galatia etc. These were specific letters to specific churches and yet we take them as though they were written to us. My point is that despite all the issues he was addressing he writes, "They asked only one thing, that we remember the poor..." They asked only one thing.... What drives me crazy is this doctrinal differentiation. So what if you are doctrinally correct...I find it distasteful...it divides people and it always has.... Why don't we get on the same page? They asked only one thing....that we remember the poor...read the verses before this one and you will see the importance of it.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Dave

Along with that is the violence that goes on in this Christian country. Can you imagine Jesus saying "Granny get your gun" which seems to be the heartbeat of the Bible belt. We have the most violence of any developed country, the most people in prison per capita, one of the worst health care systems for the poor of any developed country. Even Cuba does a better job of treating everyone even though in some of their rural areas as I found out when I was there it certainly is not perfect. We are also one of the richest countries using up more resources then any other country.

There's 300+ million people in this country. Why the need to make these generalizations?

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by OBW

What's funny about this whole thread is that there is a significant part of Evangelicalism that goes to great lengths to separate themselves from the modern Christian fundamentalists. And at some level, I believe rightly so. They like to think of themselves as nice fundamentalists (they believe in the fundamentals without the finger-pointing and wall building that seems to go on within fundamentalism).

The problem is that there are foam-at-the-mouth fundamentalists imbedded within the Evangelicals, so it is hard for many of them to actually make the claim. They want to. And try to. But there are too many ready to change churches over a 6-day creation, picket every business that hires gays, and fight to bring American back to God and its rightful place being blessed by God (as they speed down the highway with their radar detector . . . gag me with a spoon — please!).

At the end of the day, how big are these groups relative to the world as a whole? As I just pointed out, there are 300+ million people in the US. While that's an awful lot of folks to be generalizing about (my last post), the flip side of the coin is, it's still just ~5% of the world's population.

And as for the Lord's Recovery, it is a minority that live in the US. It is a minority that live in the Western Hemisphere. Do we really believe that self-described "evangelicalism" or "fundamentalism" is the destination for most departed Lord's Recovery members? What makes people so certain about the correct path to take?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

At the end of the day, how big are these groups relative to the world as a whole? As I just pointed out, there are 300+ million people in the US. While that's an awful lot of folks to be generalizing about (my last post), the flip side of the coin is, it's still just ~5% of the world's population.

And as for the Lord's Recovery, it is a minority that live in the US. It is a minority that live in the Western Hemisphere. Do we really believe that self-described "evangelicalism" or "fundamentalism" is the destination for most departed Lord's Recovery members? What makes people so certain about the correct path to take?

In the scheme of things God is counting on me and God is counting on you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvnsB_kVNYI It takes individuals to make a difference.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

There's 300+ million people in this country. Why the need to make these generalizations?

This is primarily a Christian country and always has been. These are not generalizations. They are all realities--we do have the most crimes, violent crimes in the developed countries per capita. We do have the most individuals in prison per capita. I am not making this up. Our health care system sucks when it comes to the poor compared to other developed nations per capita. I don't care if we are 300 million or 20 million we stand out like a sore thumb. We are the only developed nation that has capital punishment, we scarcely have any significant gun laws compared to the other developed nations....I don't need to make this up...check it out.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Dave

This is primarily a Christian country and always has been. These are not generalizations. They are all realities--we do have the most crimes, violent crimes in the developed countries per capita. We do have the most individuals in prison per capita. I am not making this up. Our health care system sucks when it comes to the poor compared to other developed nations per capita. I don't care if we are 300 million or 20 million we stand out like a sore thumb. We are the only developed nation that has capital punishment, we scarcely have any significant gun laws compared to the other developed nations....I don't need to make this up...check it out.

Well, I went to college, too, Dave. Yes, approx 73-76% of the US identifies as Christian, depending on which surveys we consult. But it sounds a little like saying that if a community church is in a neighborhood, and crimes or bad things occur in that neighborhood, then that is automatically a reflection on the neighborhood church.

I'm not a Christian myself, but I'll be the first to acknowledge that a Christian church has the potential to foster peace and good will in a community.

In any event, there are plenty of Americans who wish that America were more like Europe. That's fine. But maybe all these statistics comparing the US w/the so-called "developed world" are mostly about saying, "Why aren't we more like Europe?" (Maybe cuz...we're not Europe? I don't know...)

Lumping together the populations of the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the European Union (and including Norway + Switzerland which are not part of the EU), we have a total of ~900 million people. If we include Russia (which you're probably not including as a "developed nation"?), that brings us between 1.0-1.1 billion people. Either way, this construct of "developed nations" apparently includes 15% or less of the world's 7 billion people.

The US has a frontier tradition and gun laws which have certainly resulted in high violent crime in the present day. As for healthcare, I have a funny feeling that there are some poor Gypsies and poor Algerian immigrants, in various places in Europe, who might (just might) not get the best healthcare in the world. But...I could be wrong...

[Dave]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Well, I went to college, too, Dave. Yes, approx 73-76% of the US identifies as Christian, depending on which surveys we consult. But it sounds a little like saying that if a community church is in a neighborhood, and crimes or bad things occur in that neighborhood, then that is automatically a reflection on the neighborhood church.

I'm not a Christian myself, but I'll be the first to acknowledge that a Christian church has the potential to foster peace and good will in a community.

In any event, there are plenty of Americans who wish that America were more like Europe. That's fine. But maybe all these statistics comparing the US w/the so-called "developed world" are mostly about saying, "Why aren't we more like Europe?" (Maybe cuz...we're not Europe? I don't know...)

Lumping together the populations of the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the European Union (and including Norway + Switzerland which are not part of the EU), we have a total of ~900 million people. If we include Russia (which you're probably not including as a "developed nation"?), that brings us between 1.0-1.1 billion people. Either way, this construct of "developed nations" apparently includes 15% or less of the world's 7 billion people.

The US has a frontier tradition and gun laws which have certainly resulted in high violent crime in the present day. As for healthcare, I have a funny feeling that there are some poor Gypsies and poor Algerian immigrants, in various places in Europe, who might (just might) not get the best healthcare in the world. But...I could be wrong...

Living in several countries in Europe is not ideal. I have friends with a couple homes in Italy and that country is in serious difficulty financially as well as a significant influx of immigrants. In the US we are rebounding from a serious recession. Quite frankly, my life is ideal. I have a great very active wife. Right now she is part of a team spotting Right whales along the coast to keep track of them. I live a couple blocks from the ocean, in a warm climate, a small city etc. I can go fishing or kayaking, biking almost the entire year. I have always had health insurance. My kids are a couple hours away. We are part of an interfaith group which feeds the poor every day and involved in providing temporary housing until people can get on their feet. I have already mentioned that my wife has been involved with the local free medical clinic. Our church has been involved with Habitat to build homes for people. My wife is president of the local community garden teaching people how to grow their own food.

I have seen first hand the change in our economy when people who were middle class lost their jobs and were in lines for food for the homeless with their kids or came to the Food Pantry for food. We have to start with our local community. I have spoken to many people who don't have health insurance and have to use the emergency room every time they have a health problem. I am sure this is going on where you are located.

To me it is not statistics, it's personal and fundamentalist Christians if they were living their faith should be at the forefront of taking care of the downtrodden, poor, the sick etc and unfortunately from what I see they are not. They even vote against aid to those in dire straits. My cousin who is a fundamentalist said to me, "the poor you have with you always' but God said we should gather wealth and that is very typical of the fundamentalists I have met. Don't get me wrong there are some who have a love for people but they are more the exception.

You can probably listen to any mega-church fundamentalist Minister on Sunday on TV and they won't be talking about caring for the needy. They will be quoting the Bible but not Gal. 2:10.

Fundamentalist Christians are the most likely to belong to the NRA especially in the South, against universal healthcare, against funding the poor, etc. This is their legacy.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

To me it is not statistics, it's personal and fundamentalist Christians if they were living their faith should be at the forefront of taking care of the downtrodden, poor, the sick etc and unfortunately from what I see they are not. They even vote against aid to those in dire straits. My cousin who is a fundamentalist said to me, "the poor you have with you always' but God said we should gather wealth and that is very typical of the fundamentalists I have met. Don't get me wrong there are some who have a love for people but they are more the exception.

Fundamentalist Christians are the most likely to belong to the NRA especially in the South, against universal healthcare, against funding the poor, etc. This is their legacy.

So judgmental Dave ... you obviously have maintained all these years the "disease" you caught from Lee. And like Lee, you are always tooting your own horn ... have you also forgotten the scripture, "let him who boasts, let him boast in the Lord."

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Dave

Living in several countries in Europe is not ideal. I have friends with a couple homes in Italy and that country is in serious difficulty financially as well as a significant influx of immigrants...

OK, so...living in Italy is not ideal. Living in Paris is, apparently, not ideal. Where exactly is this magical other "developed" world you're comparing the United States to?

[rayliotta]

In any event, I think these issues tend to be very complex. Believing that a federalized healthcare program is a poor policy decision may just be an excuse for not wanting to help anybody. Or, it may be an informed opinion that takes into account a variety of factors, economic and social, that push and pull against each other.

It's great that you help in a food pantry and community garden in a well-to-do area near a beach. I believe this kind of local involvement can be quite rewarding. But it doesn't really have that much to do with how one votes (or, wishes they could vote) in regards to macrogovernmental policy.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

OK, so...living in Italy is not ideal. Living in Paris is, apparently, not ideal. Where exactly is this magical other "developed" world you're comparing the United States to?

There ... you had to go and do it didn't you? You just popped the liberal bubble!

Just like Toto pulling open the curtain on the wise ole wizard ...

Liberals are always hatin' on christians and the usa ... Claiming to be looking for a better place ... Only found on the flat screen ..

[Dave]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

OK, so...living in Italy is not ideal. Living in Paris is, apparently, not ideal. Where exactly is this magical other "developed" world you're comparing the United States to?

I am not going to list them all but I have friends in Canada and they love it and indicate that those in the US who make hay about universal healthcare don't know what they are talking about. I have friends who are millionaires and rave about Denmark whose son was living there for a few years whom they visited. Check out Finland, Germany etc. I am not sure why you are mentioning Paris just because they had a terrorist attack. I met several from that area when I was in Cuba who are quite happy to be living in France. Our country has its pluses, that's why I live here but areas that are problematic (e.g. healthcare) are the areas I noted. I have had healthcare my entire life so it is not my issue. It's just the rest of the country that has a problem. We are/were supposed to be the richest people who ever lived on this earth and we can't provide healthcare to our population.

As I noted earlier I had a physical problem develop when I was in Cuba and went to the emergency room in Baracoa which is a small seaside city. Their facilities weren't perfect but they had several doctors to include specialists who checked me out and their care was great. No cost. Try that in the US. You may not know this but Cuba has sent many of their well trained doctors to Venezuela to help them out with a shortage of doctors.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

We are/were supposed to be the richest people who ever lived on this earth and we can't provide healthcare to our population.

18 Trillion in debt? That makes us the richest?

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Dave

We are/were supposed to be the richest people who ever lived on this earth and we can't provide healthcare to our population.

Who made that rule?

Originally Posted by Dave

As I noted earlier I had a physical problem develop when I was in Cuba and went to the emergency room in Baracoa which is a small seaside city. Their facilities weren't perfect but they had several doctors to include specialists who checked me out and their care was great. No cost. Try that in the US.

That's great! And if you're going to assume that every Cuban Joe Schmoe gets the same treatment as a well-to-do, educated American tourist, then you're free to make that assumption. And I hope that assumption is correct.

Originally Posted by Dave

You may not know this but Cuba has sent many of their well trained doctors to Venezuela to help them out with a shortage of doctors.

That's great, too! I also know that when Hugo Chavez was in charge, he shut down entire media outlets for daring to disagree with him over the airwaves, just like any right-wing or left-wing dictator does. And I also know there are progressive-minded professors here in the States who practically professed undying love for Mr Chavez, and seemed to have no problem looking the other way at his authoritarian practices.

There's plenty to go around.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Who made that rule?

Let's look at Norway which is ranked higher (4th) per capita than the US (we are currently 6th but most of the countries higher are much smaller (Luxemberg), financial districts (Singapore), Arab countries (Qatar), or a country like Norway with considerable resources (in any case considering our size we are the runaway winner for wealth): What is life like in a truly liberal capitalist country such as Norway? It is better than life in the USA. Let’s take a look at a key economic statistic.
Per capita income: USA = $50,789, Norway = $58,645
Taxes as a percentage of GDP: USA = 25% Norway = 41%
The Norwegian tax system is more “progressive” than the system in the USA: Poor people pay much less; Wealthy people (and corporations) pay much more — with fewer tax loop-holes and government subsidies.
And what do Norwegians get for their higher taxes? Extensive cradle-to-grave social services: health care, education, child day care, libraries, recreation and arts facilities — plus an extensive public transportation system. These are free or are offered at low cost, subsidized by taxes.

For eight years Norway has had the United Nations’ #1 ranking in “Quality of Life,” which is based on a number of factors such as income, life expectancy, college graduation rates, etc. As a result of lower taxes and higher levels of social services, there are far fewer truly “poor” people in Norway than in the USA.

The fundamental argument for making Norway's economy even more conservative is that “we will all be better off if the forces of unregulated free-market capitalism are allowed to prevail.” Norway proves this is not true (as do most of the other nations of Western Europe, by the way.)

Originally Posted by rayliotta

That's great! And if you're going to assume that every Cuban Joe Schmoe gets the same treatment as a well-to-do, educated American tourist, then you're free to make that assumption. And I hope that assumption is correct.

Unfortunately I received the same care as any Cuban Joe Schmoe---there is no discrimination. I was fortunate to have Cuban friends bring me there to explain what was going on.

Originally Posted by rayliotta

That's great, too! I also know that when Hugo Chavez was in charge, he shut down entire media outlets for daring to disagree with him over the airwaves, just like any right-wing or left-wing dictator does. And I also know there are progressive-minded professors here in the States who practically professed undying love for Mr Chavez, and seemed to have no problem looking the other way at his authoritarian practices.

I am not saying I agree with Chavez' politics, I am only pointing out that Cuba has heavily invested in their medical system and can provide this kind of support.

[zeek]

Turned into a real pissing contest this. Nice.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Turned into a real pissing contest this. Nice.

Pissing contests are not unique to humans. Trevor Corson's The Secret Life of Lobsters describes a pissing match between lobsters:

The American lobster urinates not from some posterior region of its body, but directly out the front of its face. Two bladders inside the head hold copious amounts of urine, which the lobster squirts through a pair of muscular nozzles beneath its antennae. These powerful streams mix with the gill outflow and are carried some five feet ahead of the lobster in its plume ... What the researchers discovered during the ensuing fights was that dueling lobsters accompanied their most punishing blows during combat by intense squirts of piss at the opponent's face. What was more, in scenes akin to a showdown at the OK Corral, the winner of the physical combat almost always turned out to be the lobster that had urinated first. And well after the fight was over, the winner kept pissing. By contrast, the loser shuts off his urine valves immediately.

[bearbear]

There are also examples of places where non-socialist, conservative capitalism has succeeded such as Hong Kong and Switzerland. Norway is exceptional because of its abundant oil resources which have been nationalized for the benefit of all and it's excellent public education system. One trait all these countries share is low corruption and access to quality education for everyone.

The US on the other hand has growing inequality and unequal access to education. Income inequality used to be low between blacks and whites but the war on drugs unfairly targeted black families even though whites and blacks used drugs at the same rate. So we had generations of blacks who grew up in homes with no dad (who was in jail) and thus poorer and less educated leading to a vicious cycle of ghettofication of black neighborhoods.

The gap is being made worse by the federal reserve's money printing/quantitative easing policies which is giving too big to fail banks cash in exchange for mortgage backed securities. Banks in turn invest the cash into risky derivatives and stocks, thereby inflating stocks and commodities making things more expensive for the average joe, while making the rich who own stocks and real estate richer all the while wages stay the same. Repeal of laws such as Glass-Steagall (dismantled by both parties) and the fact that no one except Madoff was punished for the 2008 crash will make the next crash perhaps the last one. To big to fail banks such as JP Morgan are still investing depositor money in risky derivatives to a much greater extent than in 2008 and nothing is being done about it.

Neither Democrats or Republicans are addressing these real issues because they are owned by the same people who determine the harmless talking points and irrelevant issues for the parties to disagree on and debate about in msnbc and fox news.

Both parties worked to pass horrific legislation such as NDAA (suspension of habeus corpus, and the govt now can detain you indefinitely without due process) and the so-called Patriot Act. The Nobel peace prize winner Obama killed American citizens including a teenager with drones without any due process or trial yet no one from either party confronted him about this (not that I have anything against the president, because he is most likely a puppet, http://mondoweiss.net/2013/06/renege...ssive-promises). The fact that private banks own the federal reserve and can print money to serve their own interests without any accountability is also never addressed.

".... Despite these warnings, Woodrow Wilson signed the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. A few years later he wrote: I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -Woodrow Wilson

More warnings from past presidents here:

https://deusnexus.wordpress.com/2013...esidents-warn/

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Pissing contests are not unique to humans. Trevor Corson's The Secret Life of Lobsters describes a pissing match between lobsters:

The American lobster urinates not from some posterior region of its body, but directly out the front of its face. Two bladders inside the head hold copious amounts of urine, which the lobster squirts through a pair of muscular nozzles beneath its antennae. These powerful streams mix with the gill outflow and are carried some five feet ahead of the lobster in its plume ... What the researchers discovered during the ensuing fights was that dueling lobsters accompanied their most punishing blows during combat by intense squirts of piss at the opponent's face. What was more, in scenes akin to a showdown at the OK Corral, the winner of the physical combat almost always turned out to be the lobster that had urinated first. And well after the fight was over, the winner kept pissing. By contrast, the loser shuts off his urine valves immediately.

Yes, we're in bed with the lobsters now. It is the realm of the flesh as Paul would say or in the locus of the reptilian... no crustacean brain a neuro-scientist might say. Having engaged in many political pissing contests I have found them to be a colossal waste of time. Like religion, political positions are not arrived at through purely logical conscious thought processes so are not subject to change by arguments or presentation of evidence.

Silly me, when I started this thread I hoped we could actually discuss the matter dispassionately. I'm finding more and more each day how little I know. Everything I have thought and experienced up to the present moment...my mind-set as it were are my prejudices. If I stay with them, hang on to them, I close myself off to experiencing the new, the novel, perhaps even something that would change my mind about everything. So, I try to keep an open mind. At the same time, my LC experience has made me hypersensitive when anyone tries to sell my a line of bull****.

Anyway, I'm not trying to persuade anybody of anything. More, I present my way of seeing things and I'd like to get yours...everybody here's really and thus be enlarged a little. Sort of the opposite of what I came to feel we were doing in the LC. And the opposite of the kind of disputation I'm seeing going on here at the moment.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So judgmental Dave ... you obviously have maintained all these years the "disease" you caught from Lee. And like Lee, you are always tooting your own horn ... have you also forgotten the scripture, "let him who boasts, let him boast in the Lord."

We can have honest disagreements without going off the deep end into disagreeable attacks on individuals on this forum. I don't know what is going on in your life which causes you to have to be so nasty. Your statement makes absolutely no sense in response to what I said. I would like to end this "pissing contest" which you seem intent on pursuing and let's get back to discussing fundamentalism if it is possible whether or not you agree or disagree with me or others points of view. Comparing me to Lee ("like Lee", "the disease you caught from Lee") is ridiculous and inappropriate. How in the world does what you quote relate to me tooting my own horn...it doesn't compute? This is the last time I will respond to your inappropriate comments.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

Turned into a real pissing contest this. Nice.

Okay zeek you seem to know what we should be talking about...let it rip and get us off of this crazy Ferris wheel that won't stop. We seem to have discussed most everything about fundamentalism so I am more than willing to hear more...go at it.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

Okay zeek you seem to know what we should be talking about...let it rip and get us off of this crazy Ferris wheel that won't stop. We seem to have discussed most everything about fundamentalism so I am more than willing to hear more...go at it.

Oh no. Talk about whatever you like. I'm just giving my honest reaction to what I read. Doesn't everybody recognize that their politics and religion are just theirs and not the final, true and ultimate one? I mean I'm doing the best I can with what I've got and I grant that you are doing the same. Now let's talk about it. Given my way of thinking, fundamentalism doesn't seem to be a live option for me any more. I have a half dozen book on my shelf about how awful fundamentalism is. But, here on this website I'm talking to what I assume to be real human beings and I see more to them than the stereotype. There are things I associate with Christian fundamentalism and that I experienced in the LC that I cannot abide with. There are a few things that go on here that make me cringe. But, there is more to it than that here including a humanity and spirituality that I think valuable. I believe in communicating, dialogue, the dialectic really. Like I said to Ohio, I'm not trying to persuade people to my way of thinking. But, if that's what you are trying to do, go for it. It doesn't violate UntoHim's rules, at least not here in the dungeon.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

Oh no. Talk about whatever you like. I'm just giving my honest reaction to what I read. Doesn't everybody recognize that their politics and religion are just theirs and not the final, true and ultimate one? I mean I'm doing the best I can with what I've got and I grant that you are doing the same. Now let's talk about it. Given my way of thinking, fundamentalism doesn't seem to be a live option for me any more. I have a half dozen book on my shelf about how awful fundamentalism is. But, here on this website I'm talking to what I assume to be real human beings and I see more to them than the stereotype. There are things I associate with Christian fundamentalism and that I experienced in the LC that I cannot abide with. There are a few things that go on here that make me cringe. But, there is more to it than that here including a humanity and spirituality that I think valuable. I believe in communicating dialogue, the dialectic really. Like I said to Ohio, I'm not trying to persuade people to my way of thinking. But, if that's what you are trying to do, go for it. It doesn't violate UntoHim's rules, at least not here in the dungeon.

Okay, but not many are willing to venture into your esoteric conceptualizations with Kierkegaard nor would they want to venture into my conceptualizations I have developed with James Luther Adams. I have tried to make it practical using what we all are familiar with---the Bible which is what "fundamentalism" utilizes as their basis of faith. You started this thread so why don't you provide some practical Biblical fundamentalist ideas that you agree with or disagree with...to get us back on track....

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Dave

Let's look at Norway which is ranked higher (4th) per capita than the US (we are currently 6th but most of the countries higher are much smaller (Luxemberg), financial districts (Singapore), Arab countries (Qatar), or a country like Norway with considerable resources (in any case considering our size we are the runaway winner for wealth): What is life like in a truly liberal capitalist country such as Norway? It is better than life in the USA. Let’s take a look at a key economic statistic.
Per capita income: USA = $50,789, Norway = $58,645
Taxes as a percentage of GDP: USA = 25% Norway = 41%
The Norwegian tax system is more “progressive” than the system in the USA: Poor people pay much less; Wealthy people (and corporations) pay much more — with fewer tax loop-holes and government subsidies.
And what do Norwegians get for their higher taxes? Extensive cradle-to-grave social services: health care, education, child day care, libraries, recreation and arts facilities — plus an extensive public transportation system. These are free or are offered at low cost, subsidized by taxes.
For eight years Norway has had the United Nations’ #1 ranking in “Quality of Life,” which is based on a number of factors such as income, life expectancy, college graduation rates, etc. As a result of lower taxes and higher levels of social services, there are far fewer truly “poor” people in Norway than in the USA.
The fundamental argument for making Norway's economy even more conservative is that “we will all be better off if the forces of unregulated free-market capitalism are allowed to prevail.” Norway proves this is not true (as do most of the other nations of Western Europe, by the way.)

I don't have time to respond in detail at the moment, and in any event it seems that you're trying to re-rail the discussion.

I will say that Norway has a population of ~5.0 million people, <2% of the US population. It's also far less diverse than the US. So it seems like a bit of a trade-off. What if we compared Norway to Vermont? Perhaps it would be more appropriate to compare the EU as a whole to the US as a whole? Combining Vermont and Alabama tends to average things out, as would combining Norway and, say, Lithuania.

Originally Posted by Dave

Unfortunately I received the same care as any Cuban Joe Schmoe---there is no discrimination. I was fortunate to have Cuban friends bring me there to explain what was going on.
I am not saying I agree with Chavez' politics, I am only pointing out that Cuba has heavily invested in their medical system and can provide this kind of support.

Why is that unfortunate? It sounds very fortunate, and I hope it's accurate! But to me, to say, "there is no discrimination," is a bit like saying, "it's perfect." Which to me implies that human beings probably aren't running it.

You have to understand, Dave, I grew up in an odd little group that in many ways resembles a cult. I spent a lot of time being told that the habits and characteristics of that one group were somehow completely different, and superior to, other groups. It could be called "either/or thinking." So I tend to avoid that kind of thinking nowadays.

Heck, I don't even vote anymore.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

Okay, but not many are willing to venture into your esoteric conceptualizations with Kierkegaard nor would they want to venture into my conceptualizations I have developed with James Luther Adams. I have tried to make it practical using what we all are familiar with---the Bible which is what "fundamentalism" utilizes as their basis of faith. You started this thread so why don't you provide some practical Biblical fundamentalist ideas that you agree with or disagree with...to get us back on track....

Fundamentalism seems to me to be the inevitable result of a relatively free modern liberal democracy. It cannot be destroyed so it must be manged or else it will become ascendant. We who were once a part of fundamentalism but have seen through it are in a position to understand it. We can communicate that understanding to those who have only looked at fundamentalism from without and we can communicate our new understanding to those who are operating within a fundamentalist mindset. But, overt persuasion doesn't work. At least not in the short term.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

Fundamentalism seems to me to be the inevitable result of a relatively free modern liberal democracy. It cannot be destroyed so it must be manged or else it will become ascendant. We who were once a part of fundamentalism but have seen through it are in a position to understand it. We can communicate that understanding to those who have only looked at fundamentalism from without and we can communicate our new understanding to those who are operating within a fundamentalist mindset. But, overt persuasion doesn't work. At least not in the short term.

Yes, we can communicate it but we are not viewed as having a better understanding but more that we have degenerated away from the truth in fundamentalism. For example, our new understanding may very well be that the Bible is not literally the word of God. Saying that is tantamount to being accused of falling down the rabbit hole.

I have to agree with the idea that only in a free modern liberal democracy can fundamentalism be managed. I would add the word "literate" to the definition of managing fundamentalism. We can see in other countries that if the populace is illiterate it is more susceptible to radical fundamentalist ideas. That is also born out from the Middle Ages when the Enlightenment and Renaissance evolved out of that darkness. Interesting that Renaissance is translated "rebirth". I have to say that rebirth is exactly the way I feel having left the radicalism of the LC.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

Yes, we can communicate it but we are not viewed as having a better understanding but more that we have degenerated away from the truth in fundamentalism. For example, our new understanding may very well be that the Bible is not literally the word of God. Saying that is tantamount to being accused of falling down the rabbit hole.

Yes, but Dave, you possess that fundamentalist understanding of yourself as a memory of how you would have viewed your present self when you were on the inside. And though that may not be a live option for you now, you can still access it to empathize with how those for whom it is feel now. What we can't do is expect that those who view us that way will necessarily change their opinions of us. I sometimes find that difficult to accept; but, there it is.

I have to agree with the idea that only in a free modern liberal democracy can fundamentalism be managed. I would add the word "literate" to the definition of managing fundamentalism. We can see in other countries that if the populace is illiterate it is more susceptible to radical fundamentalist ideas. That is also born out from the Middle Ages when the Enlightenment and Renaissance evolved out of that darkness. Interesting that Renaissance is translated "rebirth". I have to say that rebirth is exactly the way I feel having left the radicalism of the LC.

Yes, recent events in Paris bring it home don't they? Ironically, my own intellectual rebirth came with being "born again" at the age of 19. One of the persons instrumental in my conversion was a psychology professor. After that, I immersed myself in clinical and experimental psychology and began reading existential philosophy and theology voraciously.

Paul Tillich became important in my transition to secular life after the Local Church when I read his Systematic Theology in three volumes. Here was a theologian with more breadth and depth than Witness Lee. Of course, I was already studying and being supervised in psychoanalysis including the works of Jung and the self psychologists like Kernberg and Kohut. After Tillich I moved away from psychology to philosophy. I discontinued practicing psychotherapy when I moved to Tallahassee in 1992. I found that without someone else to practice on philosophy makes a more fitting home for thought than psychology.

[zeek]

Anyway, the way of fundamentalism is closed to me. Biblical literalism and supernaturalism seem to be untenable. I will never get involved in a group that requires me to follow anyone with unquestioning obedience again after the Local Church. Fundamentalists believe they are the only true Christians and that entails rejecting modern science, believing a lot of fantastical things and, more than ever before, a particular set of conservative political beliefs. As society becomes more complex and uncertain, fundamentalism hardens and becomes more militant. Or at least that's how it seems to me since I left the church in 1986. Does anybody see it differently?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

Anyway, the way of fundamentalism is closed to me. Biblical literalism and supernaturalism seem to be untenable. I will never get involved in a group that requires me to follow anyone with unquestioning obedience again after the Local Church. Fundamentalists believe they are the only true Christians and that entails rejecting modern science, believing a lot of fantastical things and, more than ever before, a particular set of conservative political beliefs. As society becomes more complex and uncertain, fundamentalism hardens and becomes more militant. Or at least that's how it seems to me since I left the church in 1986. Does anybody see it differently?

I think you may have somewhat overstated it as it relates to most groups, however there are probably individuals, and certain small groups that fit well. Somehow that little Baptist church that keeps picketing funerals for soldiers comes up in my mind as the one place that an entire assembly is in sync on something that is just not acceptable to what I understand Christ and his followers to be like.

But there are some fundamentals. They just aren't sticks to beat others with, but guideposts for ourselves. And I believe that God still is in the supernatural business, although I do not see that as necessarily meaning 6-day creation, or man living with dinosaurs before the flood, etc. As I have said somewhere in the past year or so, when it comes to the origins of the universe, everyone believes in something beyond what science can provide. Even the most atheistic scientist. They just don't all believe in God, or a god. But they believe beyond their science. Even the big bang leaves you needing something to go bang. So there is faith there.

I realize that statistics neither prove or deny the possibility of a genus of creature with the significantly advanced reasoning of humans. But it does make one wonder if we are left with only chance. There is just too much with respect to the mind and the rest of what we call the soul that suggests something more than evolution. Some parts of it seem irrelevant to have "evolved" because of survival of the fittest. Maybe someone can supply a better explanation on that one.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

Anyway, the way of fundamentalism is closed to me. Biblical literalism and supernaturalism seem to be untenable. I will never get involved in a group that requires me to follow anyone with unquestioning obedience again after the Local Church. Fundamentalists believe they are the only true Christians and that entails rejecting modern science, believing a lot of fantastical things and, more than ever before, a particular set of conservative political beliefs. As society becomes more complex and uncertain, fundamentalism hardens and becomes more militant. Or at least that's how it seems to me since I left the church in 1986. Does anybody see it differently?

I think part of the problem on this forum (which is why we are stuck in alternative views) is that many of the people on the forum are fundamentalists or perceive themselves as fundamentalists who respond with a "black and white", "you're in or you're out" perspective. It transfers in their lives to the political realm which is one of the reasons I can't buy into the Christianity in the US...it is so politicized that it is almost unbearable. It started with the moral majority under Reagan and it has worsened. Do fundamental Christians today really see themselves as politically neutral and focused on the Christian life? I would like to meet one.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Why is that unfortunate? It sounds very fortunate, and I hope it's accurate! But to me, to say, "there is no discrimination," is a bit like saying, "it's perfect." Which to me implies that human beings probably aren't running it.

You have to understand, Dave, I grew up in an odd little group that in many ways resembles a cult. I spent a lot of time being told that the habits and characteristics of that one group were somehow completely different, and superior to, other groups. It could be called "either/or thinking." So I tend to avoid that kind of thinking nowadays.

Heck, I don't even vote anymore.

I meant unfortunate for your question. Again, by "no discrimination", I was referencing my experience in their emergency room. There is discrimination that exists but I saw a limited amount of it from my vantage point.

In regards to your group it sounds a lot like the local church. What caused you to get involved in the LC?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Dave

I think part of the problem on this forum (which is why we are stuck in alternative views) is that many of the people on the forum are fundamentalists or perceive themselves as fundamentalists who respond with a "black and white", "you're in or you're out" perspective. It transfers in their lives to the political realm which is one of the reasons I can't buy into the Christianity in the US...it is so politicized that it is almost unbearable. It started with the moral majority under Reagan and it has worsened. Do fundamental Christians today really see themselves as politically neutral and focused on the Christian life? I would like to meet one.

Good question. And one that probably is nuanced in understanding. For those who are truly the fundamental Christians that you are probably talking about, the answer is probably "few." But the are becoming to be more and more that believe in the things that are called fundamental (not the expanded list of 20 or so that was published in this thread earlier) but that understand them as relevant to their own lives, and not to the political landscape of the nation and world.

As a humorous sidelight, I have a friend who is a genuine liberal in every sense of the word. I haven't seen her much in the past few years, but sort of keep up with things through the little that I visit my facebook page. Back during primary season, she posted that she was tempted to vote in the republican primary just to try to stem the tide of "T-baggers" getting to the November ballot. I chuckled and replied that while we were on opposite ends of the political spectrum, I had to agree with her on that one. (I'm sure that I am stepping on someone's toes by saying that.)

I am not concerned whether the laws of the US allow abortions or gay marriage. I have an opinion about both in terms of God's righteousness, but it is not important whether the government is fully righteous under God's law. It is important that I live by it (as if either is going to be my problem). I am little influenced by positions on either issue when it comes to voting. My politics are about the legitimate functions of government and those are so "down there" on the list of important things (if they are on the list at all) that I just can't let them be my reason for how I vote. And every time that someone makes some political statement from the auspices of a "Christian" group, I duck and claim to not know who those people are. Doesn't matter if the statement they make is one with which I would agree. Because it is given in a manner that labels Christians as being a block in favor of it, I want to puke. It makes it so difficult to declare that Christ is about changing lives when the Christians that the world sees are about forcing change in everyone's life with or without Christ.

[OBW]

As for who is in and who is out, while I cannot say that little matters, there is a lot that even the group I meet with stands for that I feel no need to insist upon.

Actually, A year or so ago, I was listening to a podcast done by a bunch of Dallas Theological grads and they were talking in one series about doctrinal statements. The general consensus was that a church should effectively have three different statements. One that is very general, one that is more specific that you have to at least agree that you will teach according to if you have any kind of teaching position (even in Sunday School), and one for the leadership that is much more detailed. But even that last one should not require absolute agreement on all points, but rather the agreement that you can abide by them with respect to your position with the group.

A church I attended for many years did an 18 month study to decide if they were going to change their position on whether a woman could teach from the pulpit. When they came out with "yes" it was a nuanced answer. They did not declare that everyone thought it was definitively the right answer, but everyone agreed that it was acceptable to move forward with. (A kind of "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" kind of position rather than an absolute "you have to believe this" kind of doctrinal point.) And I know of at least one elder that did not really think it was the best answer, but could see no reason that it was an impediment to his continued participation and even continuance as an elder.

When people who think that way have beliefs that are considered "fundamental," then there is hope that this politial army of Christian fundamentalists will eventually go the way of the dinosaur and the distinction as blievers in Christ will return to the only preeminence as "fundamental."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

I think you may have somewhat overstated it as it relates to most groups, however there are probably individuals, and certain small groups that fit well. Somehow that little Baptist church that keeps picketing funerals for soldiers comes up in my mind as the one place that an entire assembly is in sync on something that is just not acceptable to what I understand Christ and his followers to be like.

But there are some fundamentals. They just aren't sticks to beat others with, but guideposts for ourselves. And I believe that God still is in the supernatural business, although I do not see that as necessarily meaning 6-day creation, or man living with dinosaurs before the flood, etc. As I have said somewhere in the past year or so, when it comes to the origins of the universe, everyone believes in something beyond what science can provide. Even the most atheistic scientist. They just don't all believe in God, or a god. But they believe beyond their science. Even the big bang leaves you needing something to go bang. So there is faith there.

I realize that statistics neither prove or deny the possibility of a genus of creature with the significantly advanced reasoning of humans. But it does make one wonder if we are left with only chance. There is just too much with respect to the mind and the rest of what we call the soul that suggests something more than evolution. Some parts of it seem irrelevant to have "evolved" because of survival of the fittest. Maybe someone can supply a better explanation on that one.

I just came across this, from all the way back to the 4th c. B.C.E:

Aristotle’s universe possessed a remarkable logical consistency throughout its complex and multifaceted structure. All motion and process in the world was explicable by his formal teleology: Every being is moved from potentiality to actuality according to an inner dynamic dictated by a specific form. No potentiality is brought into actuality unless there exists an already actual being, a being that has already realized its form: a seed must have been produced by a mature plant, as a child must have a parent. Hence the dynamism and structured development of any entity requires an external cause— a being that serves simultaneously as efficient cause (initiating the motion), formal cause (giving the entity form), and final cause (serving as goal of the entity’s development ). To account for the entire universe’s order and movement, therefore, especially for the great movement of the heavens, Aristotle posited a supreme Form— an already existing actuality, absolute in its perfection, the only form existing entirely separate from matter. Since the greatest universal motion is that of the heavens, and since that circular motion is eternal, this prime mover must also be eternal.

Aristotle’s logic could be represented in the following way: (a) All motion is the result of the dynamism impelling potentiality to formal realization, (b) Since the universe as a whole is involved in motion, and since nothing moves without an impulse toward form, the universe must be moved by a supreme, universal form, (c) Since the highest form must already be perfectly realized— i.e., not in a potential state— and since matter is by definition the state of potentiality, the highest form is both entirely immaterial and without motion: hence the Unmoved Mover, the supreme perfect Being that is pure form, God.

This absolute Being, here posited by logical necessity rather than religious conviction, is the first cause of the universe. Yet this Being is wholly self-absorbed, since for it to take any heed of physical nature would diminish its perfect undisturbed character and immerse it in the flux of potentialities. As perfect actuality, the Unmoved Mover is characterized by a state of eternal unhindered activity— not the struggling process (kinesis) of moving from potential to actual, but the forever enjoyable activity (energeia) made possible only in a state of complete formal realization. For the supreme Form, that activity is thought: eternal contemplation of its own being , unqualified by the change and imperfection of the physical world it ultimately motivates. Aristotle’s God is thus pure Mind, with no material component. Its activity and pleasure is simply that of eternal consciousness of itself.
-Tarnas, Richard (2011-10-19). Passion of the Western Mind (Kindle Locations 1282-1288). Random House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

But, overt persuasion doesn't work. At least not in the short term.

Well worming works. But it takes a persistent abiding love.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by OBW

Good question. And one that probably is nuanced in understanding. For those who are truly the fundamental Christians that you are probably talking about, the answer is probably "few." But the are becoming to be more and more that believe in the things that are called fundamental (not the expanded list of 20 or so that was published in this thread earlier) but that understand them as relevant to their own lives, and not to the political landscape of the nation and world.

As a humorous sidelight, I have a friend who is a genuine liberal in every sense of the word. I haven't seen her much in the past few years, but sort of keep up with things through the little that I visit my facebook page. Back during primary season, she posted that she was tempted to vote in the republican primary just to try to stem the tide of "T-baggers" getting to the November ballot. I chuckled and replied that while we were on opposite ends of the political spectrum, I had to agree with her on that one. (I'm sure that I am stepping on someone's toes by saying that.)

I am not concerned whether the laws of the US allow abortions or gay marriage. I have an opinion about both in terms of God's righteousness, but it is not important whether the government is fully righteous under God's law. It is important that I live by it (as if either is going to be my problem). I am little influenced by positions on either issue when it comes to voting. My politics are about the legitimate functions of government and those are so "down there" on the list of important things (if they are on the list at all) that I just can't let them be my reason for how I vote. And every time that someone makes some political statement from the auspices of a "Christian" group, I duck and claim to not know who those people are. Doesn't matter if the statement they make is one with which I would agree. Because it is given in a manner that labels Christians as being a block in favor of it, I want to puke. It makes it so difficult to declare that Christ is about changing lives when the Christians that the world sees are about forcing change in everyone's life with or without Christ.

Certainly we agree on several issues. Back in the mid-60s when I was with Teen Challenge in Detroit I would meet with others ahead of time, pray for about an hour and then go into the worst places in downtown Detroit and share the gospel with people who were into drugs and every other unbelievable thing you could imagine. In their cases they were lost in their environment. Later in life I could see where we could have gone into those areas and offered them hope of higher education, a brighter future in housing as well as healthier living.

At this point we are 2000 years out from the death of Christ. There was Jesus' gospel, then Paul's gospel, John's gospel and the Apostolic fathers gospel followed by those who established the doctrines and canon of the Christian faith. Of course, that resulted in the Catholic church followed by the reformation started by Martin Luther in the 16th century. Each time frame has played out over the last 2000 years differently. Where does the Spirit play out in all of this? There are still groups forming such as Acts 29, Youth with a Mission etc...Is the Spirit intentionally dividing Christians into various segments....? How does this all make sense to you? How is this consistent with what Paul taught or the NT for that matter. Would Paul be running a mega-church by now or what? Can't make any sense of it. How is the Spirit inspiring the Bible for these people?

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Dave

I meant unfortunate for your question. Again, by "no discrimination", I was referencing my experience in their emergency room. There is discrimination that exists but I saw a limited amount of it from my vantage point.

In regards to your group it sounds a lot like the local church. What caused you to get involved in the LC?

Like I said, I grew up there.

[OBW]

Awareness,

Your lines concerning (from) Aristotle are interesting and indicate that he considered there to be the absolute need for something, a being, already there to make anything we see happen, therefore no time of literal nothingness since there is always the previous being. But when he says the following, I find it interesting, but not necessarily an imperative.

Originally Posted by awareness

Yet this Being is wholly self-absorbed, since for it to take any heed of physical nature would diminish its perfect undisturbed character and immerse it in the flux of potentialities. As perfect actuality, the Unmoved Mover is characterized by a state of eternal unhindered activity— not the struggling process (kinesis) of moving from potential to actual, but the forever enjoyable activity (energeia) made possible only in a state of complete formal realization.

Therein lies the weakness of our own explanations. When we assert what the nature of the "being" must be, we limit that being to that of self absorption. Why? Because Aristotle thinks so.

It is a little like those who assert that a God of mercy cannot be a God that requires justice. Yet humans can even express a little of this kind of dichotomy. Why not the divine even more so?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Dave

Where does the Spirit play out in all of this? There are still groups forming such as Acts 29, Youth with a Mission etc...Is the Spirit intentionally dividing Christians into various segments....? How does this all make sense to you? How is this consistent with what Paul taught or the NT for that matter. Would Paul be running a mega-church by now or what? Can't make any sense of it. How is the Spirit inspiring the Bible for these people?

Like I commented to zeek in another thread, your response here seems to indicate that Christians either need to get it all right or they are not Christians. You didn't actually say that, but there is a shadow of that kind of thinking.

The problem is that no matter how much we allow the Spirit to illuminate, we will also embellish with what we think on our own. Yet the Spirit continues to work with us. And while that sometimes leaves us wondering where certain groups came up with "that," I see the Spirit working in the fact that the walls that Lee declared to be high and absolute are not really so much there. Surely each feels that they are where they are because they believe it is right, or the best there is. But a growing part do not dismiss the others for failing to fall in line. It is both a curse in that we have do deal with the fallout of outsiders pointing at the diversity, yet it is also a blessing when we are seen moving beyond those distinctions in our outreach in both the gospel and in our love for neighbor.

Can you point to examples that contradict this? Surely. But you cannot show that it is entirely that way.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

Would Paul be running a mega-church by now or what?

Bro Dave, lift up your eyes and see. Paul started a worldwide mega-church: the church of the gentiles. Where's the Jewish church today, that made up the first Christians? Paul started a mega-church that reached into parts of the world that weren't even known in Paul's day. And the apostle Paul is now swaying elections here in America even today. All the mega-churches today are Paul's gentile churches. Not to mention the Roman Catholic Church ... the biggest mega-church ever ... Paul is behind all Christian churches in the world today. Mega-churches today pale in comparison to Paul's church; they're children of Paul.

Originally Posted by Dave

How is the Spirit inspiring the Bible for these people?

Spirit? What Spirit? Christianity today is book inspired, not Spirit inspired.

We're told Christianity was started by the moving of the Spirit at Pentecost. Those were the good 'ol days, that we look back on - in awe - and admire. But when Christian writings began to circulate there was a shift.

The Spirit can't be conjured at will. It's easier to follow a book. So -- to me I must say - hedging UntoHim perchance --- Christianity became a cookie-cutter copy of Judaism, living by the law, The Book, with 27 books added to the Tanakh.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Like I said, I grew up there [in the LC].

My condolences. Seriously ... MY CONDOLENCES. You must be really screwed up. You poor kid. I call that child abuse.

I know because Southern Baptism screwed me up, and they're nowhere close to as fanatical as the LC.

Much love to you bro ...

[Dave]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Like I said, I grew up there.

I said elsewhere on the forum, maybe to you, that there was a point when I decided that I didn't want to raise my kids in the LC environment and eventually left. I thought it was too problematic for someone to grow up in that type of crazy environment. For all that we have to say about the LC it was directionless then (late 1970s) and it appears to be now. It seems that many people cling to it because they don't know where else to go or they feel safe in a closed environment offered by the LC.

As awareness just said, he was raised up in the Southern Baptist environment and it had a negative affect on his life. While certainly not as traumatic as the LC even these closed church environments often wreak havoc on kids growing up. Part of the problem from my perspective is wondering where one would go or what one would do if they left something that had all the answers to life in a book or in God.

Being in the Unitarian environment i hear it all the time but surprisingly the RCC seems to be maybe the worst of all aside from the LC or other cult like closed environments. The guilt trip is laid on thick. This is in contrast to my wife who was raised Unitarian. In Sunday school one year they took the kids around to different churches (including Moslem, Jewish etc) for some exposure to different religious practices and religions and as they grew up they could discover their own way and make their own decisions. Unlike many kids she never had to rebel because no one was cramming religion down her throat for her to rebel against.

What is important, to me anyway, is that we bridge the gaps between religions and become as much as possible inclusive rather than exclusive. This is a message from Rev. Lavanhar, senior minister of the largest Unitarian church in the United States, in Tulsa, Ok. (they have 3 different services) as he shares the pulpit with a mega-church Evangelical Minister and talks about reconciling with Evangelicals: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jPEYJjeu8o

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

I think you may have somewhat overstated it as it relates to most groups, however there are probably individuals, and certain small groups that fit well. Somehow that little Baptist church that keeps picketing funerals for soldiers comes up in my mind as the one place that an entire assembly is in sync on something that is just not acceptable to what I understand Christ and his followers to be like.

Yes, in practice fundamentalism shades into evangelicalism into liberalism. The objective world is a matter of more or less. Nowhere is this more evident than in the area of social groups. Religious groups are a species of social group and are not absolute despite their most strenuous efforts at absolute definition.

But there are some fundamentals. They just aren't sticks to beat others with, but guideposts for ourselves.

They are there for denominations and religious groups if that's what one is into. For the rest of us, we need to commit to no more than that is how it seems to us at any given moment in time.

And I believe that God still is in the supernatural business,...

He is if you assume that metaphysics is a determinate sphere of human thought. If you don't, you're looking for another less hubristic way of thinking about God.

...although I do not see that as necessarily meaning 6-day creation, or man living with dinosaurs before the flood, etc. As I have said somewhere in the past year or so, when it comes to the origins of the universe, everyone believes in something beyond what science can provide. Even the most atheistic scientist. They just don't all believe in God, or a god. But they believe beyond their science. Even the big bang leaves you needing something to go bang. So there is faith there.

Maybe there isn't faith there. Maybe there is an understanding (or misunderstanding from your perspective, perhaps) of the limitations of conceptual thought if you choose.

I realize that statistics neither prove or deny the possibility of a genus of creature with the significantly advanced reasoning of humans. But it does make one wonder if we are left with only chance. There is just too much with respect to the mind and the rest of what we call the soul that suggests something more than evolution. Some parts of it seem irrelevant to have "evolved" because of survival of the fittest. Maybe someone can supply a better explanation on that one.

Yes well I have no problem with any honest attempt to think our origin through that does not deny the objective facts. For the moment let's just call that speculation. But, the fundamentalist does not admit that what he is doing is speculation. If he does, he has already stepped out of his fundamentalistic presuppositions and that is exactly what he refuses to do. Rather, if you're on the premises where he rules and you suggest that he is speculating, he will either convert you or you will be shown the door. If notions like yours ever occur to the members, they learn that suppressing them is part of the rules of the game.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by OBW

Like I commented to zeek in another thread, your response here seems to indicate that Christians either need to get it all right or they are not Christians. You didn't actually say that, but there is a shadow of that kind of thinking.

The problem is that no matter how much we allow the Spirit to illuminate, we will also embellish with what we think on our own. Yet the Spirit continues to work with us. And while that sometimes leaves us wondering where certain groups came up with "that," I see the Spirit working in the fact that the walls that Lee declared to be high and absolute are not really so much there. Surely each feels that they are where they are because they believe it is right, or the best there is. But a growing part do not dismiss the others for failing to fall in line. It is both a curse in that we have do deal with the fallout of outsiders pointing at the diversity, yet it is also a blessing when we are seen moving beyond those distinctions in our outreach in both the gospel and in our love for neighbor.

Can you point to examples that contradict this? Surely. But you cannot show that it is entirely that way.

Certainly I agree that it has been an issue from the beginning. Paul was writing against the Judieazers in Galatians and the Docetists in 1 Corinthians. There were internal conflicts of Christianity. Christians were peeling off into other groups from the beginning. There were early letters written such as "The Gospel according to the Ebionites", "The Secret Letter of John", "The Gospel of Truth", "On the Origin of the World", "The Wisdom of Jesus Christ" and many others which were not added to the canon developed later by proto-orthodox Christians. Tertullian (about 200AD) and Irenaeus (about 180AD) both wrote books against many of these groups which they tagged as "heresies". However, proto-orthodox Christian groups were never together until Constantine in the 4th Century allowed Christian groups to flourish and he formed the Council of Nicaea in 325AD and asked them to solve their differences and come up with a concrete position on Christ etc. Of course, we know that led to the Roman Catholic Church disaster and then the Reformation when the church split up even further etc. In fact, that was Lee's point which is easy to point out but the problem was his own divisive solution which has really gone nowhere.

The "World Council of Churches" started in August 1948 meeting with Christians all over the world which has as its mission today, "A worldwide fellowship of churches seeking unity, a common witness and Christian service". However, it didn't do very well even though it continues and I don't know if Evangelicals continued being involved or even attended. In any case, from my standpoint the "Spirit" is a work in progress in leading people or groups anywhere. I am not saying it should be perfect. I am saying it is not perfect and more than that, it is confusing. So, what Spirit are people following? The Spirit of disunity?

Let's face it, you can get together with some Christians, you find unity in the Spirit when you form your own group (sometimes) and doctrinal unity but where are you going with it. To me it seems almost like "team spirit". Think of a football team who believes in their college, work together and when they go out on the field there is a unified feeling of "team spirit". They fight together for a common goal. They feel something between each other especially when they get together. Well, then they graduate and go on their separate ways although they might keep in touch remembering that team spirit that once kept them together. Sorry about this example but its the best I can do on short notice and I know people who are true believers for their teams over the course of their lives and get together and share stories etc. They have a common interest which lasts. Anyone of them who would be against their team would be problematic and they might eschew. I just see all of these churches fighting for their beliefs and members who would agree with them.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by Dave

Certainly we agree on several issues. Back in the mid-60s when I was with Teen Challenge in Detroit I would meet with others ahead of time, pray for about an hour and then go into the worst places in downtown Detroit and share the gospel with people who were into drugs and every other unbelievable thing you could imagine. In their cases they were lost in their environment. Later in life I could see where we could have gone into those areas and offered them hope of higher education, a brighter future in housing as well as healthier living.

That's interesting you had a background in David Wilkerson's ministry. To my understanding a lot of people were helped tangibly and came out of drug abuse and dangerous lifestyle through that ministry.

To me, Wilkerson came across as a man of God in his sermons often calling for repentance, a life of holiness and devotion to God and had done a lot to help the poor.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by bearbear

That's interesting you had a background in David Wilkerson's ministry. To my understanding a lot of people were helped tangibly and came out of drug abuse and dangerous lifestyle through that ministry.

To me, Wilkerson came across as a man of God in his sermons often calling for repentance, a life of holiness and devotion to God and had done a lot to help the poor.

If you've read Wilkerson's Cross and the Switchblade you know that is true (i.e. Wilkerson was a sincere man of God who helped many people). Having been in the midst of it I know the sincerity and dedication of those involved. Certainly his organization provided hope for a considerable number of young people. Unfortunately, many of those areas still remain problematic 50 years later in part because there was not a long term solution for those economically depressed areas which was not Wilkerson's focus.

What he did was certainly innovative and successful at the time as well as constructive and commendable. In fact his 1958 Teen Challenge lives on today helping addicts. I was so surprised to run into one a few years back that I immediately gave a donation to the organization because of my experience and the good things they do for people.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Dave

The "World Council of Churches" started in August 1948 meeting with Christians all over the world which has as its mission today, "A worldwide fellowship of churches seeking unity, a common witness and Christian service". However, it didn't do very well even though it continues and I don't know if Evangelicals continued being involved or even attended. In any case, from my standpoint the "Spirit" is a work in progress in leading people or groups anywhere. I am not saying it should be perfect. I am saying it is not perfect and more than that, it is confusing. So, what Spirit are people following? The Spirit of disunity?

Let's face it, you can get together with some Christians, you find unity in the Spirit when you form your own group (sometimes) and doctrinal unity but where are you going with it. To me it seems almost like "team spirit". Think of a football team who believes in their college, work together and when they go out on the field there is a unified feeling of "team spirit". They fight together for a common goal. They feel something between each other especially when they get together. Well, then they graduate and go on their separate ways although they might keep in touch remembering that team spirit that once kept them together. Sorry about this example but its the best I can do on short notice and I know people who are true believers for their teams over the course of their lives and get together and share stories etc. They have a common interest which lasts. Anyone of them who would be against their team would be problematic and they might eschew. I just see all of these churches fighting for their beliefs and members who would agree with them.

Not much to say on all the history of people drawing lines in the sand. It has been a problem from the beginning.

While the World Council of Churches may not have ever had a complete following, nor have had the impact they desired, I note that much of the extreme rhetoric against the RCC has toned down in the past several years. More and more people are coming to realize that while there are some serious problems with certain teachings and practices, there is nothing making them "unchristian" as a group. And further, many have begun to realize that coming to faith in Christ is not exclusively through evangelism followed by a crisis time when you dramatically pray to be saved (such as through the old-fashioned altar call of certain groups). That believing in Christ is the key to obtaining the saving grace of Christ. And therefore salvation within the RCC may not be such an unexpected thing as we were previously led to believe. No, they will seldom have the outward experiences of those in a charismatic group, the LRC, or even some other evangelical group. But the experiences in these are often more tied to the nature of the group than the unique experiences of God.

As for referring to "spirit" in terms of "team spirit," there is evidence that some of the references to spirit (not The Spirit) in the Bible are to something just like that. When Paul makes reference to a spirit of [something] it is not referring to the Holy Spirit or to the spirit of man, but to some kind of attitude of mind, therefore a lot like team spirit. Or to attitude. Or several other things that are not man's spirit nor the Spirit of God. No, frame of mind or of will does not make anything happen. But if our goal is to both belief and obedience, then having a frame of mind to undertake the obedient things is surely part of the process.

There are some that surely fight about what they believe. But I have been part of two different congregations over the past many years that have specific beliefs, but do not hold those out as the primary thing. They are not seeking to sway everyone to their way of thinking, although if they do believe it, I would not expect them to be totally silent about it (and they are not). But their primary concern is that people come to know Christ and become connected to others who know Christ. Here or elsewhere. The "fights" that I see anything about recently have been related to practices, and to political positions (something that the church should be much less visible in). Few spoke critically of Mark Driscoll until he made some statement about voting for Obama (political) and then when there started being some evidence of church discipline that exceeded rational bounds provided in the Bible. But there was little real criticism of his basic teachings, even from people of different "traditions." There is a lot of criticism of the prosperity gospel, but seldom of the underlying denomination within which certain famous proponents of that thinking are operating. There is a lot of open criticism of that little Baptist church (in Missouri or Kansas or somewhere near there) that goes around being obnoxious at soldiers' funerals. And they deserve it. And if you read the writings of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, and an Anglican, you will see different emphases and even different opinions on certain things. But not really that much "fighting" with each other. To me that seems to be an overlay on the differences not supported by the evidence.

[zeek]

Here's a blogger who thinks Fundamentalism started out well and lost its way http://jeriwho.net/lillypad2/?p=2363 whereas I think fundamentalism's rejection of objective scientific and historical research was throwing out reality with the bathwater. Fanaticism, intellectual suicide and authoritarian leaders who take their followers on magic carpet rides seem to have been the inevitable results. My view is supported by Armstrong who I would not characterize as a skeptic since she sees value in religion and spirituality as do I:

"Fundamentalists have turned the mythos of their religion into logos, either by insisting that their dogmas are scientifically true, or by transforming their complex mythology into a streamlined ideology. They have thus conflated two complementary sources and styles of knowledge which the people in the premodern world had usually decided it was wise to keep separate. The fundamentalist experience shows the truth of this conservative insight. By insisting that the truths of Christianity are factual and scientifically demonstrable, American Protestant fundamentalists have created a caricature of both religion and science."
Armstrong, Karen (2011-08-10). The Battle for God: A History of Fundamentalism (Ballantine Reader's Circle) . Random House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

[zeek]

Since no one on this website has stood up to give a robust defense of Christian Fundamentalism, let me provide a link to, if not the best one I've seen lately, at least the most colorfully embroidered one: http://thriceholy.net/fundamentals.html

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

Since no one on this website has stood up to give a robust defense of Christian Fundamentalism, let me provide a link to, if not the best one I've seen lately, at least the most colorfully embroidered one: http://thriceholy.net/fundamentals.html

There is probably something true in there, but I couldn't get past the ridiculous presentation and format. Taken as a whole, it just cannot be taken seriously. It has to be intended to elicit derision and laughter.

Or the author is missing an oar, a taco, or sufficient stops on the elevator.

Or (last) they are looking for a few good suckers to populate yet one more exclusivist cult and keep some huckster employed.

I'm just not sure which I should expect.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by zeek

Since no one on this website has stood up to give a robust defense of Christian Fundamentalism, let me provide a link to, if not the best one I've seen lately, at least the most colorfully embroidered one: http://thriceholy.net/fundamentals.html

Here's another very recent one by Dr. Michael Brown on Newsweek in defense of evangelicals and biblical inerrancy which touched on many points made here and by Bart Ehrmann both for and against.

http://www.newsweek.com/response-newsweek-bible-299440

[OBW]

Originally Posted by bearbear

Here's another very recent one by Dr. Michael Brown on Newsweek in defense of evangelicals and biblical inerrancy which touched on many points made here and by Bart Ehrmann both for and against.

I like this one better than the other. It takes on the textual issues of the Bible more even-handedly than the foam-at-the-mouth one.

The first link is out to make controversy with everyone that is not on board with their particular version of how it should be. The second is demonstrably showing how even the variations are so minor as to primarily being the difference between writing "Dr." v "Doctor."

And on the one that is so often brought up these days (the woman caught in adultery) the correct assertion is that almost no one believes it is not part of the Bible. It is almost universally accepted as part of the gospel accounts. The problem seems to be with where it belongs, not whether it belongs.

And as a humorous aside, I note that the first link, when discussing the immaculate conception, it provided an alternate reading for the woman caught in adultery as follows:

And Jesus went unto mount Olivet. And early in the morning he came again into the temple: and all the people came to him. And sitting down he taught them. And the scribes and Pharisees bring unto him a woman taken in adultery: and they set her in the midst, and said to him: Master, this woman was even now taken in adultery. Now Moses in the law commanded us to stone such a one. But what sayest thou? And this they said tempting him, that they might accuse him. But Jesus bowing himself down, wrote with his finger on the ground. When therefore they continued asking him, he lifted up himself and said to them: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. He does not say, 'the Law of Moses is rescinded, the penalty is cancelled,' He only requires sinless stone-throwers. At this, a matron stomps forward, picks up a huge rock, and heaves it. Jesus says, "You know, Mom, you can be a real pain sometimes."

[Dave]

Originally Posted by bearbear

Here's another very recent one by Dr. Michael Brown on Newsweek in defense of evangelicals and biblical inerrancy which touched on many points made here and by Bart Ehrmann both for and against.

http://www.newsweek.com/response-newsweek-bible-299440

I read most of the article---it was long... He took Ehrman's statement out of context since what Ehrman is referring to is the 98% of the errors which are minor. He also quoted Metzger took it out of context as well In addition, I have heard the argument before that there are more manuscripts of the NT than the ancient writings have available such as Socrates and yet the ancient writings are used by people. The problem with that argument is that no one considers Socrates a god nor the other ancient writings as sacred even though they might be quoted or evaluated as to the meaning of what the ancients might say. The fundamentalists attempt to show that the Bible is God's written word and establishes salvation for all of humanity etc. Yes, it needs to be scrutinized and Brown talks about all the scholars who have been scrutinizing it but the majority of them are from Conservative Seminaries such as Daniel Wallace and already are convinced of the "truth" and will go to great lengths to prove it if there is any doubt.

The first time anyone started writing the NT was at least a couple decades after the death of Christ and most were decades later. We only have copies of copies---no originals. Also, the first time the 27 book NT canon was listed by anyone was Athanasius in 367AD and not as Brown quoted in 223AD. In any case, there are so many problems with Brown's response that I don't want to go into any more detail at this point.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

There is probably something true in there, but I couldn't get past the ridiculous presentation and format. Taken as a whole, it just cannot be taken seriously. It has to be intended to elicit derision and laughter.

Or the author is missing an oar, a taco, or sufficient stops on the elevator.

Or (last) they are looking for a few good suckers to populate yet one more exclusivist cult and keep some huckster employed.

I'm just not sure which I should expect.

Are you dismissing the thesis as ridiculous because it misrepresents fundamentalism or because it accurately represents it?

[awareness]

Ludicrous!

That's the word that comes to mind after reading zeeks link in post #585, to The Blogger, and bearbear's link in post #587, to Dr. Brown.

Brown was great, by the way. At least he sounded intelligent. But his arguments seem to be coming from a predetermined position, what could be termed coming from a devotional position; or, devotion before, during, and after, coming to conclusions; the predetermined conclusion determining the final conclusion.

Let's face it. Fundamentalism is squirming. In fact, it started as a squirm. And it's getting beat up way more than when the Five Fundamentals were squirmed out in the early 20th c.

Now they're squirming between each other. Over who are the real fundamentalists ... and who lost their way, being compromised by the new modern liberal [educated] Christian (so called) views and thinking.

And grown up as a fundamentalist, and one in the local church, it now hits my funny bone to see them squirm. Serves 'em right. I had to squirm. I know personally how it hurts to find out what you assumed to be right and true to be wrong. It hurts to be wrong, more than it hurts to be wronged.

I'm amazed to meet some out here that have been in the LC for 30 and 40 yrs, and then come out and admit they were wrong all those yrs.

Amen to you all for being able to do that.

And I'm sorry for laughing at my fundamentalist brothers and sisters. I know it ain't easy.

It had to be easier, back in the days when we could ride dinosaurs.

And if that don't make you laugh then you don't have any trace of a sense of humor ... or are a fundamentalist.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by awareness

Ludicrous!

That's the word that comes to mind after reading zeeks link in post #585, to The Blogger, and bearbear's link in post #587, to Dr. Brown.

Brown was great, by the way. At least he sounded intelligent. But his arguments seem to be coming from a predetermined position, what could be termed coming from a devotional position; or, devotion before, during, and after, coming to conclusions; the predetermined conclusion determining the final conclusion.

Let's face it. Fundamentalism is squirming. In fact, it started as a squirm. And it's getting beat up way more than when the Five Fundamentals were squirmed out in the early 20th c.

Now they're squirming between each other. Over who are the real fundamentalists ... and who lost their way, being compromised by the new modern liberal [educated] Christian (so called) views and thinking.

And grown up as a fundamentalist, and one in the local church, it now hits my funny bone to see them squirm. Serves 'em right. I had to squirm. I know personally how it hurts to find out what you assumed to be right and true to be wrong. It hurts to be wrong, more than it hurts to be wronged.

I'm amazed to meet some out here that have been in the LC for 30 and 40 yrs, and then come out and admit they were wrong all those yrs.

Amen to you all for being able to do that.

And I'm sorry for laughing at my fundamentalist brothers and sisters. I know it ain't easy.

It had to be easier, back in the days when we could ride dinosaurs.

And if that don't make you laugh then you don't have any trace of a sense of humor ... or are a fundamentalist.

I really wonder if they are squirming. The true believer will remain the true believer of fundamentalism despite the inaccuracies and inconsistencies. Forget the fact that in Mark 2 v25-26 Jesus referenced 1 Samuel 21:1-6 and said "Abiathar" when the quote was actually a reference Abiathar's father Aheimelech and not Abiathar. It was an error. When Jesus references the mustard seed in Mark 4:31 he calls it "the smallest of all the seeds on the earth" which it is not. It was an error. Paul said that the first thing he did not do was go to Jerusalem after he converted (Gal. 1:16-17). In Acts he said that was the first thing he did after leaving Damascus (Acts 9:26). There are different stories told of the same event in the Gospels whether it was the Passover, the crucifixion or the resurrection which are hardly reconcilable. But for the true believer none of this matters. If it's the word of God it is the word of God...and it is one of those mysteries like the Doctrine of Christ or the Doctrine of Trinity...if they can't be explained they are just many of the mysteries. That's where faith enters in and you just believe what you are told to believe and not what you are actually reading. Why squirm? Just believe! In your case, you didn't stay a true believer.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

Are you dismissing the thesis as ridiculous because it misrepresents fundamentalism or because it accurately represents it?

Sorry to disappoint, but neither is the case.

I dismiss it for some of the same kind of reasons that Dave gave. I cannot comment on the nature of the quotations of Ehrman or Metzger, but I do know that the serious bulk of any discrepancies are not what the various translation differences are about. It is a strawman created to create a preference.

No. I may not have given all of the possibilities as to what the site may be about, but it is clearly about something somewhat extreme and/or dogmatic.

And, yes, it does represent some of the more extreme of fundamentalist dogmas. Sort of a KJV-only kind of dogma gone haywire. One that has the same kind of dogma attached by some to each of the primary fundamentals, plus a few of the sidebars that some think are just as fundamental.

The problem with this whole thread is that it has seemed to presume that fundamentalism in Christians is somewhat kin to the Jihadists among Islamics. If we eliminate a huge amount of what Christian fundamentalism includes and reduce it to the extremists, like this one, or Lee, or that little Baptist church somewhere in mid-America, then we have found a voice for many of them. Sort of a smorgasbord of the fundamentalist dogmas put on steroids and made available for consumption at one location.

. . . .

Or, are both the case? Maybe.

It does not represent the core of historical fundamentalism, other than in base content, but even that is somewhat off-track from the historical core.

But it does represent what I almost see as a collection of the worst of the various extremist groups that have arisen from it. KVJ/Textus Receptus dogma. Not only finding fault with side-cults like JWs, and Mormons, it assaults every group that is not as stanch about things as they are: Jesus seminar, claiming the day of the week for worship (Sunday) is really important, overly dogmatic about what it means for God to "not change," takes certain parts of the Trinity dogma to extremes (not saying it is not a good doctrine, but that just like Lee, there is a lot of dogma that arises from it).

[zeek]

bearbear, OBW,---Perhaps you prefer Brown's article, because he defends evangelicalism not fundamentalism. Seems he himself recognizes that there are Christians to the right of him who's position is rationally indefensible.

Early on Brown throws his more conservative brethren under the bus: Brown states:

Is it those who “wave their Bibles at passersby, screaming their condemnations of homosexuals”? If so, why even mention such people – especially in the opening line of the article – since they are absolutely miniscule in numbers (less than a fraction of a fraction of a percent of evangelicals) and they are universally condemned for their actions and attitudes by virtually all circles of evangelical Christendom.

But, is this true? Do most evangelicals condemn those who condemn homosexuality? Brown asserts it but offers no statistical evidence to back it up.

it can be argued that American families were healthier before prayer was taken out of public schools in 1962 than after.

Just about anything can be argued especially when it's not backed up with evidence as this proposition is not. 1962 takes us back to the days of school segregation so what exactly were folks praying for in school and why does Brown think those were brighter days? He doesn't tell us.

Now Eichenwald's citations demonstrate a familiar fundamentalist phenomenon:

The Bible is not the book many American fundamentalists and political opportunists think it is, or more precisely, what they want it to be. Their lack of knowledge about the Bible is well established. A Pew Research poll in 2010 found that evangelicals ranked only a smidgen higher than atheists in familiarity with the New Testament and Jesus’s teachings. “Americans revere the Bible—but, by and large, they don’t read it,’’ wrote George Gallup Jr. and Jim Castelli, pollsters and researchers whose work focused on religion in the United States. The Barna Group, a Christian polling firm, found in 2012 that evangelicals accepted the attitudes and beliefs of the Pharisees—religious leaders depicted throughout the New Testament as opposing Christ and his message—more than they accepted the teachings of Jesus.

Brown admits this is true. The Bible is a closed book for many Christians. It has a singular, literal, obvious meaning that in many cases they learned when they were children. They already know it. It's simple and boring and settled. You're already saved, so why bother reading it?

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by zeek

bearbear, OBW,---Perhaps you prefer Brown's article, because he defends evangelicalism not fundamentalism. Seems he himself recognizes that there are Christians to the right of him who's position is rationally indefensible.

Early on Brown throws his more conservative brethren under the bus: Brown states:

But, is this true? Do most evangelicals condemn those who condemn homosexuality? Brown asserts it but offers no statistical evidence to back it up.

There's a difference between condemning homosexuals and condemning homosexuality.

Dr. Michael Brown has actually done previous apologetics and debates against the concept that you can be gay and Christian which was an "in-house debate". Paul says in 1 Cor 5:12 that Christians are to judge those inside the church, not outside, unfortunately this advice has fallen on deaf ears of some that Dr. Brown is referring to.

So I think Dr. Brown is referring here to those who are judging and espousing hate towards homosexuals using the bible as a medium to channel their hatred.

"Love the sinner but do not love the sin". Every Christian I've met has said something along the same lines regarding LGBT issues.

I've read of Westboro Baptist Church and other types like them, but I've yet to meet one in real life. But then again I live in Northern California where even the most evangelical conservative churches lean towards being relationally liberal towards others (focus on loving others and not being judgmental) while remaining conservative in theology (biblical inerrancy etc). I think Michael Brown is referring to the same anecdotal evidence from his own personal experience here.

Brown admits this is true. The Bible is a closed book for many Christians. It has a singular, literal, obvious meaning that in many cases they learned when they were children. They already know it. It's simple and boring and settled. You're already saved, so why bother reading it?

That's actually interesting you worded this paragraph like this because Dr. Michael Brown is a self professed Arminian and wrote a book titled "hyper grace" attacking the concept that after a Christian is "saved" he is free to do whatever he/she desires since his salvation is secure and that many such believers who abuse grace are not actually saved:

http://www.gotquestions.org/hyper-grace.html

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00E78FTKW?btkr=1

You mentioned Michael Brown throwing his far right Westboro Baptist-type brethren under the bus, but I don't think he considers them to be true believers and therefore not his brothers.

Jude 1:21
For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

Matthew 7:21
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

Hebrews 10:26
For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by bearbear

That's actually interesting you worded this paragraph like this because Dr. Michael Brown is a self professed Arminian and wrote a book titled "hyper grace" attacking the concept that after a Christian is "saved" he is free to do whatever he/she desires since his salvation is secure and that many such believers who abuse grace are not actually saved:

http://www.gotquestions.org/hyper-grace.html

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00E78FTKW?btkr=1

You mentioned Michael Brown throwing his far right Westboro Baptist-type brethren under the bus, but I don't think he considers them to be true believers and therefore not his brothers.

Jude 1:21
For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

Matthew 7:21
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

Hebrews 10:26
For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.

What surprises me regarding your response on this matter is that having been originally saved as a Pentecostal I learned what is called elevator salvation. Okay, I am saved now but if I sin I am not saved (e.g. lust after my neighbors wife or don't turn the other cheek) and I have to get saved again. It is a life of constant guilt and being resaved over and over? When you receive the Spirit in you how do you get it out. Does it fly away and come back every day if you fail at keeping all the laws or maybe don't pray when you should and then get resaved? ...this puts us right back in the arms of WL. Your scriptures do not refer to the born again experience. This is the danger of isolating scriptures to prove a point and we all do it but there is more to it than what you have stated. There is no scripture that indicates that you can be un-reborn especially again and again. Just use the human experience which is our reference point. Once you are born...can you go back into the womb and be unborn? This is common sense.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by Dave

What surprises me regarding your response on this matter is that having been originally saved as a Pentecostal I learned what is called elevator salvation. Okay, I am saved now but if I sin I am not saved (e.g. lust after my neighbors wife or don't turn the other cheek) and I have to get saved again. It is a life of constant guilt and being resaved over and over? When you receive the Spirit in you how do you get it out. Does it fly away and come back every day if you fail at keeping all the laws or maybe don't pray when you should and then get resaved? ...this puts us right back in the arms of WL. Your scriptures do not refer to the born again experience. This is the danger of isolating scriptures to prove a point and we all do it but there is more to it than what you have stated. There is no scripture that indicates that you can be un-reborn again. Just use the human experience which is our reference point. Once you are born...can you go back into the womb and be unborn? This is common sense.

I think the flavor of Arminianism that says you lose/gain salvation based on a single sin is extreme. Jesus did teach on assurance of salvation saying he would never lose even one of what the the Father has given him (John 6:39). The question is how do you know you truly are one of Jesus' sheep and belong to God and are elected for salvation? Shepherds during ancient times knew their sheep intimately and could call them out by name. The sheep were so familiar with their shepherd that they would not respond to the voice of another person.

Regarding hyper-grace, modern hyper-grace is even more extreme than "free grace" which originated from the Brethren movement because it insists confession of sins is unnecessary and the Holy Spirit never convicts us of sin and both are also different from OSAS.

For example, Calvinists believe in OSAS but also that a believer needs to demonstrate spiritual fruit and evidence of salvation, one being "perseverance of the saints" - the idea that a truly saved/elect person's faith will endure until the end (Matthew 24:13). So someone who professes belief in Jesus, but later dies recanting their faith was never truly saved or even born again.

Another flavor of Calvinism, experimental predestinarians believe you can not be absolutely certain of salvation until you die and find yourself in heaven. David Pawson touches some on this here (interestingly from an Arminian perspective):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy3tSIg7Gi0

In the parable of the sower, temporary belief does not equate to salvation. The seed that fell on the rocky place "believed for a while", but later fell away and bore the same fate as the other seeds except the good earth (Luke 8:13).

I think I fall under the lines of 2 Timothy 2:19 where I think Paul tries to capture some of the nuance behind God's salvation and our own response:

"Nevertheless, God's solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: "The Lord knows those who are his," and, "Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness.""

Only God knows who's truly saved, but we for sure have to do our part to turn from wickedness (a life characterized by being enslaved to sin), which is different from living a life characterized by righteousness but stumbling into the most serious of sins such as murder and adultery as King David had, and repenting. Yet the Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God. Knowledge of one's salvation could be a private matter that is spirit to Spirit, between us and the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:16), yet it is best to remain humble and have the mindset of working out our salvation with fear and trembling (Phil 2:12) and not proud because God gives grace to the humble and resists the proud.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Dave

I said elsewhere on the forum, maybe to you, that there was a point when I decided that I didn't want to raise my kids in the LC environment and eventually left. I thought it was too problematic for someone to grow up in that type of crazy environment. For all that we have to say about the LC it was directionless then (late 1970s) and it appears to be now. It seems that many people cling to it because they don't know where else to go or they feel safe in a closed environment offered by the LC...

Yes, people do cling to it for a variety of reasons such as these. And, a lot of people feel trapped there. If their involvement in the Recovery helped them to overcome some other demon in their life -- say, a drug or alcohol dependency -- then it's not hard to see how the Recovery itself can become a new dependency.

Are there other reasons a person could come to feel "trapped" in the Recovery? What is the process by which Francis Ball and other leaders went from questioning Anaheim's practices, to becoming faithful, trustworthy loyalists? It's as if they underwent some sort of conversion process, the result of which is that they came "under the thumb" of the movement (reference the Rolling Stones song).

In some cases I believe there is a serious element of guilt involved. In some cases this guilt may relate to some dark, hidden things. And continued involvement in the movement somehow assuages that guilt. But that's a topic a lot of people don't have the stomach for...

[Dave]

Originally Posted by bearbear

Another flavor of Calvinism, experimental predestinarians believe you can not be absolutely certain of salvation until you die and find yourself in heaven. David Pawson touches some on this here (interestingly from an Arminian perspective):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy3tSIg7Gi0

David Pawson offers an interesting perspective: we are never fully saved until we have been perfected and then at the end of our lives we can shout "once saved, always saved"...none of us on this forum are probably doing enough in our lives to live the perfect life...maybe awareness but he is an exception. It is interesting in the Didache while not included in the canon was probably written before many of the later NT canon books and references earlier books. At the end the author says "to live a perfect life but if you can't then live the best you can". I think that is all we are trying to do.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

But for the true believer none of this matters. If it's the word of God it is the word of God...and it is one of those mysteries like the Doctrine of Christ or the Doctrine of Trinity...if they can't be explained they are just many of the mysteries. That's where faith enters in and you just believe what you are told to believe . . .

Pastor Peter LaRuffa, "If somewhere within the Bible, I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I'm reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and then do my best to work it out and understand it." From: An interview on an HBO documentary Questioning Darwin

There's a risk to/with faith. Not only because it defeats doubt, but because it can also defeat reality, and come to naught, or worse. When you place faith in something it's like placing a bet. It may pay off. It may not. It may be disappointing, with disappointing results and outcomes. Sometimes it can end up being harmful. Not always. But it's not wise to deny reality.

I look back and see where it harmed my life to have misplaced faith. It had real consequences. It was misplaced faith that got me in the local church, and kept me in there.

So saying that "it's by faith" is not a magic pill. Be careful with it.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by bearbear

There's a difference between condemning homosexuals and condemning homosexuality.

The difference is that homosexuals are allowed to "live" as long as they suppress their sexuality. Since humans are sexual beings for the most part, that is unacceptable to many.

Dr. Michael Brown has actually done previous apologetics and debates against the concept that you can be gay and Christian which was an "in-house debate". Paul says in 1 Cor 5:12 that Christians are to judge those inside the church, not outside, unfortunately this advice has fallen on deaf ears of some that Dr. Brown is referring to.

I believe in the value of religious freedom within limits. If people voluntarily choose this route it's one thing. However, indoctrinating children into a world of self-hatred is another and that is what fundamentalist churches seem to be doing.

So I think Dr. Brown is referring here to those who are judging and espousing hate towards homosexuals using the bible as a medium to channel their hatred. "Love the sinner but do not love the sin". Every Christian I've met has said something along the same lines regarding LGBT issues.

That's better than overt hatred but still will be understandably unacceptable to those who find it incompatible with their freedom to pursue of happiness.

I've read of Westboro Baptist Church and other types like them, but I've yet to meet one in real life. But then again I live in Northern California where even the most evangelical conservative churches lean towards being relationally liberal towards others (focus on loving others and not being judgmental) while remaining conservative in theology (biblical inerrancy etc). I think Michael Brown is referring to the same anecdotal evidence from his own personal experience here.

You seem to live in a bubble where supernatural stuff happens all the time but you don't see common every day evils.

That's actually interesting you worded this paragraph like this because Dr. Michael Brown is a self professed Arminian and wrote a book titled "hyper grace" attacking the concept that after a Christian is "saved" he is free to do whatever he/she desires since his salvation is secure and that many such believers who abuse grace are not actually saved:

There's no way to know.

You mentioned Michael Brown throwing his far right Westboro Baptist-type brethren under the bus, but I don't think he considers them to be true believers and therefore not his brothers.

How convenient for him.

Jude 1:21
For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.


Matthew 7:21
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

Sounds like a formula for inducing an anxiety disorder. Thanks for sharing.

Hebrews 10:26
For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.

Quoting verses like these out of context is more likely to induce an anxiety disorder than to cure homosexuality or bigotry.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

What surprises me regarding your response on this matter is that having been originally saved as a Pentecostal I learned what is called elevator salvation. Okay, I am saved now but if I sin I am not saved (e.g. lust after my neighbors wife or don't turn the other cheek) and I have to get saved again.

I knew a brother that left the LC and went hogwild into the world; into drinking drugs and women. He moved about 2 hrs drive from me and another exLCer and I would pay him a visit from time to time. Once we visited and he was attending a Pentecostal church and was on fire for the Lord. Everything was Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, and Bible, Bible, Bible. The next time we'd visit he was back to drinking, drugin, and women. And the next visit he'd be back to Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, again.

My wife had a friend, a wild thing. She was saved at an Apostolic church. She too went in and out. She'd visit and be on fire for Jesus. The next thing we knew she was jumping into cars and trading sex for crack rocks. Then, she'd show up and be Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, only to be walking the streets again in a month or so.

I determined, after witnessing this sort of in and out repetitive behavior, and thinking about it, that, God must love us so much that he provides churches for bipolars.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

David Pawson offers an interesting perspective: we are never fully saved until we have been perfected and then at the end of our lives we can shout "once saved, always saved"...none of us on this forum are probably doing enough in our lives to live the perfect life...maybe awareness but he is an exception. It is interesting in the Didache while not included in the canon was probably written before many of the later NT canon books and references earlier books. At the end the author says "to live a perfect life but if you can't then live the best you can". I think that is all we are trying to do.

You're a funny guy bro Dave. UntoHim might disagree with you about me.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Dave

David Pawson offers an interesting perspective: we are never fully saved until we have been perfected and then at the end of our lives we can shout "once saved, always saved"...none of us on this forum are probably doing enough in our lives to live the perfect life...maybe awareness but he is an exception. It is interesting in the Didache while not included in the canon was probably written before many of the later NT canon books and references earlier books. At the end the author says "to live a perfect life but if you can't then live the best you can". I think that is all we are trying to do.

I am going to begin with this post and probably respond to some of the ones that follow in the process.

I, like you, began life in the Pentecostal movement. The AOG. Arose mainly from the Methodists, therefore of Arminian belief on salvation. I grappled with the various verses that seemed to say opposite things for years (though not at much during that time because I was not quite 18 when I joined up with the LRC) before concluding that the Calvinist position seemed more correct. Yet all these years later, I hold a very nuanced view of Calvinism that actually might be best described as being able to look back and declare that it is so.

What I think is missing is that most of the places that support eternal security are packaged for us, and have been ingrained in our being as meaning that once the line in the sand is crossed, eternity is secure. But I an coming to believe that this is not what any of it actually says. It is the overlay that we view it through. Those who believe will not perish but have eternal life. But if I cannot find a glimmer of belief in me, how can I claim that saying I had belief in the past is sufficient. It did not say "those who believed" or "those who have at any time, even for just a while, believed." No, it says "believe." And today is time to believe. Just like yesterday and tomorrow.

And what is belief if you do not actually live as if the one you are now claiming to be your God, King, Lord, is your God, King, Lord? If I do not obey the one who has the right to command everything, how can I be understood as believing? Maybe believing that I will now spend my eternity elsewhere?

The problem is that the proof of belief is not complete success at obedience. But at the same time, lack of any attempt at obedience is probably decent proof of a lack of belief. Therefore the elevator salvation that we both grew up with was not supported by the scripture. But neither was the simplistic "once saved always saved" mantra of the average non-theologian Calvinist. I must believe. And to really believe, I must obey. But failure rather than success while trying to obey is different from failing to try to obey.

I realize that this places a completely different dynamic on who is in v out. And I am happy to leave that to God to sort out. And it argues that one of the very important things that should be taught to all believers is obedience. Not just to some list of things, but to righteousness in general. To love for neighbor as self. Whether we are trying to much in our selves, or leaning sufficiently on the Spirit for our working will be a problem, but it is not the difference between unacceptable (works) and acceptable (grace), but rather the proof that we need more of the Spirit in our lives.

But once the only "line" is crossed, that of the beginning of belief, the thing that matters is living the belief. Some will do it better than others. Some will have different things put upon them by the Spirit to follow. Some will be asked to lead. All will be asked to be righteous and charitable. If you can't get righteous and charitable right, then leading is out. (And this is where Nee and Lee should be rejected out of hand.)

But freezing up over whether you are obedient enough to prevail, so you just quit is a little like declaring your master to be a hard man, reaping where he does not sow (almost wrote that backward), and so burying what you have in the ground.

To me, the only question is what is the line at which you simply no longer believe at any level, and therefore cannot be said to believe in the Son. At that point, Arminius (or however you spell the name) was right and Calvin was wrong. Or they both nuanced their messages so much that both accounted for the other and just emphasize different aspects of the spectrum differently? I'm really not sure.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

That's better than overt hatred but still will be understandably unacceptable to those who find it incompatible with their freedom to pursue of happiness.

Since this is a one-liner in response to a small part of a large post, I am curious what the context is for your comment on "freedom to pursue happiness." Is this something you see as inherently provided by the Bible? Or something that America grants its people? Or it is an overlay of American thought onto the Bible to grant people rights/freedoms that would not otherwise appear to be granted?

Whichever it is, are you asserting that as your position, or holding it up as a position different from bearbear, worthy of considering, but not necessarily your own?

You may see the answer as simply and a no-brainer. But accept the question as meaning your response was not so clear. I admit to being no genius. But when I stare at something for a while and wonder what is intended, I think that others might think the same thing.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

Since this is a one-liner in response to a small part of a large post, I am curious what the context is for your comment on "freedom to pursue happiness." Is this something you see as inherently provided by the Bible? Or something that America grants its people? Or it is an overlay of American thought onto the Bible to grant people rights/freedoms that would not otherwise appear to be granted?

Whichever it is, are you asserting that as your position, or holding it up as a position different from bearbear, worthy of considering, but not necessarily your own?

You may see the answer as simply and a no-brainer. But accept the question as meaning your response was not so clear. I admit to being no genius. But when I stare at something for a while and wonder what is intended, I think that others might think the same thing.

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" are examples of unalienable rights as proposed in the United States Declaration of Independence. These are core American values which the Declaration says are given to all human beings by their Creator, and for which governments are created to protect. I don't find them incompatible with the Bible wherein the concept of salvation explicitly includes life, freedom and joy and therefore is synonymous with eternal happiness. Each individual subject has to work out what this means for themselves. Unlike some societies, America was founded on the ideal of supporting this process. This is not to be confused with the proposition that the USA is a Christian nation.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" are examples of unalienable rights as proposed in the United States Declaration of Independence. These are core American values which the Declaration says are given to all human beings by their Creator, and for which governments are created to protect. I don't find them incompatible with the Bible wherein the concept of salvation explicitly includes life, freedom and joy and therefore is synonymous with eternal happiness. Each individual subject has to work out what this means for themselves. Unlike some societies, America was founded on the ideal of supporting this process. This is not to be confused with the proposition that the USA is a Christian nation.

Thanks. I sort of thought that.

And I agree that in terms of society, everyone has the right to the pursuit of happiness — ending at the overlap with others' rights.

So the discussion is phenomenally nuanced since the Christian life, while full of liberties in Christ, is also full of limitations supplied by Christ. Some of those limitations run counter to the somewhat unrestricted rights provided by the American constitution. And when I write here about things surrounding fundamentalism, I am speaking in terms of the affect on the Christians. And there are plenty of rules put on the Christians by fundamentalists that not only would be disdained by outsiders, but are not even really there for the Christian. And at some level, the problem with fundamentalism is that they are often as much or more worried about how this all ought to affect the non-Christian world and not just looking at the household of faith.

And within the household of faith, some level of "cleaning house" might be in order. But when it comes to the world, it is one thing to state your moral preference for no abortions, or limits on the open display of homosexuality, but it is another to take your religious jargon to the political marketplace and start bashing everyone on the head with it. That is such an un-Christian act.

So in the world arena, we need to learn how to love our neighbor, whether they are straight or gay; married with children, unmarried and pregnant, or even have had an abortion; etc. That does not mean that within the church there is not a basis to accept a person of homosexual tendencies but direct that they should at least not be known to be pursuing it actively in order to maintain fellowship. I have said it tersely and therefore with no love. But the fact is that they are entitled to pursue their homosexual passions, but are not entitled to demand continued acceptance within the Christian community if they do. It is like the man that Paul told the Corinthians to expel from fellowship until he repents and ceases his sexual affair.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

But the fact is that they are entitled to pursue their homosexual passions, but are not entitled to demand continued acceptance within the Christian community if they do. It is like the man that Paul told the Corinthians to expel from fellowship until he repents and ceases his sexual affair.

No one has the right to "demand continued acceptance within the Christian community." Anyone can be expelled, for all kinds of things. My cousin was expelled from her independent Southern Baptist church for not attending. And they knew she was missing because she was taking care of her husband, who was dying of cancer, and grieving afterwards.

I think it's safe to say that, the church at Corinth was not the only church back then that experienced concupiscence in their midst. Yet we have record of Paul telling just one church to expel for sexual immorality. If Paul hadn't told the Corinthians to expel the immoral one would they have allowed him to stay?

What about all the other churches, that weren't told by Paul, to expel those of sexual immorality?

Maybe that's why we have the Metropolitan Community Church today. They come down the line that weren't told to expel for sexual immorality ... at least in spirit.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

Thanks. I sort of thought that.

And I agree that in terms of society, everyone has the right to the pursuit of happiness — ending at the overlap with others' rights.

So the discussion is phenomenally nuanced since the Christian life, while full of liberties in Christ, is also full of limitations supplied by Christ. Some of those limitations run counter to the somewhat unrestricted rights provided by the American constitution. And when I write here about things surrounding fundamentalism, I am speaking in terms of the affect on the Christians. And there are plenty of rules put on the Christians by fundamentalists that not only would be disdained by outsiders, but are not even really there for the Christian. And at some level, the problem with fundamentalism is that they are often as much or more worried about how this all ought to affect the non-Christian world and not just looking at the household of faith.

Yes, there is a fundamentalist movement that is working toward either a nation governed by a conservative Christian understanding of biblical law. Prominent among these are the Calvinist Christian Reconstructionists and the charismatic/Pentecostal Kingdom Now movement and the New Apostolic Reformation.

And within the household of faith, some level of "cleaning house" might be in order. But when it comes to the world, it is one thing to state your moral preference for no abortions, or limits on the open display of homosexuality, but it is another to take your religious jargon to the political marketplace and start bashing everyone on the head with it. That is such an un-Christian act.

There doesn't seem to be a consensus about the proper role of Christians in society among Christians themselves.

So in the world arena, we need to learn how to love our neighbor, whether they are straight or gay; married with children, unmarried and pregnant, or even have had an abortion; etc. That does not mean that within the church there is not a basis to accept a person of homosexual tendencies but direct that they should at least not be known to be pursuing it actively in order to maintain fellowship. I have said it tersely and therefore with no love. But the fact is that they are entitled to pursue their homosexual passions, but are not entitled to demand continued acceptance within the Christian community if they do. It is like the man that Paul told the Corinthians to expel from fellowship until he repents and ceases his sexual affair.

All of which has the practical result that homosexuals are marginalized and delegitimized within the church. If they wish to express their sexuality, they must do it surreptitiously in promiscuous ways. The growing trend towards legalizing gay marriage is legitimizing homosexuality which may, if the experiment is successful, support them in making positive contributions to society and decreasing promiscuity. Yet conservative Christianity opposes this trend which seems to result in relegating homosexuals to lives of repression and shame. I saw horrific examples of this in the Local Churches.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

All of which has the practical result that homosexuals are marginalized and delegitimized within the church. If they wish to express their sexuality, they must do it surreptitiously in promiscuous ways. The growing trend towards legalizing gay marriage is legitimizing homosexuality which may, if the experiment is successful, support them in making positive contributions to society and decreasing promiscuity. Yet conservative Christianity opposes this trend which seems to result in relegating homosexuals to lives of repression and shame. I saw horrific examples of this in the Local Churches.

This is a problem that almost none have successfully addressed. And the problems are on both sides of the discussion.

It is hard for so many that have the insider's view who cannot accept that anyone undertakes homosexual acts other than through sheer desire for some hedonistic pleasure, therefore to them the whole thing is simply sin. They do not consider that no matter how it came to be, some have desires that arise other than by willful intent, therefore failure at abstention is potentially (and at varying levels) no different than a drug addict with a craving for a fix.

But on the other side, too many cannot accept that the thing that they crave could be sinful since they assert that God made them that way. I have no basis for taking a position on the debate about being made "that way," so I must treat it as possibly true. But I disagree that God "did it." Rather, it is the fall that did it. It is one of many variations in the makeup of sinful man that must be overcome. Not really different from those with a predisposition to steal, to fall into all kinds of sexual sin, to drink to excess (and loss of virtually all control), etc. Everyone knows how hard it is to abstain from something. It may be something seemingly innocuous, but it is still there.

So the healthy Christian assembly will eventually include some who will have certain mannerisms that mark them as homosexuals, but who are at least seeming to abstain from practicing as such. And in that position, it should be no different for them than for anyone else who has joined the community of faith in that they are participants with the body. Only the political debate about the particular sin should mark it as unusual. In all other aspects, it is simply another foible common to man.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

Yes, there is a fundamentalist movement that is working toward either a nation governed by a conservative Christian understanding of biblical law. Prominent among these are the Calvinist Christian Reconstructionists and the charismatic/Pentecostal Kingdom Now movement and the New Apostolic Reformation.

There doesn't seem to be a consensus about the proper role of Christians in society among Christians themselves.

All of which has the practical result that homosexuals are marginalized and delegitimized within the church. If they wish to express their sexuality, they must do it surreptitiously in promiscuous ways. The growing trend towards legalizing gay marriage is legitimizing homosexuality which may, if the experiment is successful, support them in making positive contributions to society and decreasing promiscuity. Yet conservative Christianity opposes this trend which seems to result in relegating homosexuals to lives of repression and shame. I saw horrific examples of this in the Local Churches.

As we see from God himself, inequality is at the heart of the Bible---Genesis 17:9-14--- 9 God said to Abraham, “As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. ¹⁰ This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. ¹¹ You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. ¹² Throughout your generations every male among you shall be circumcised when he is eight days old, including the slave born in your house and the one bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring. ¹³ Both the slave born in your house and the one bought with your money must be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. ¹⁴ Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.” From God's standpoint circumcision creates equality and not how you treat another person.

Equality is a human invention. Fairness is a human invention. Democracy is a human invention. Why didn’t God include an eleventh commandment?---you shall not enslave another human being. The only evidence of equality and fairness is from Jesus who spoke about the coming kingdom when everyone would be equal. What Jesus spoke out against was the inequity in society which he condemned. Paul never spoke out against slavery or women’s equality. Paul brought his own version of the Christian message which has been followed ever since and of course a bunch of white Caucasian men liked his teachings and made them part of the canon. The group who put the canon together never consulted with one woman or one African or one Hispanic or one Asian person or one gay person…not one. The entire Bible for that matter was written by a bunch of white guys to include books named female such as Ruth etc. Where is the majority of support for the Bible today?---a bunch of white guys. Black slaves wrote songs related to the freedom Jesus mentioned and that is why you do see black churches today and token blacks in white churches.

I looked at the church my grandparents, mother and her brothers were raised in and I attended a few times and it is a “white” church. http://www.brightmoorchurch.org/ in the city of Detroit no less.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

This is a problem that almost none have successfully addressed. And the problems are on both sides of the discussion.

It is hard for so many that have the insider's view who cannot accept that anyone undertakes homosexual acts other than through sheer desire for some hedonistic pleasure, therefore to them the whole thing is simply sin. They do not consider that no matter how it came to be, some have desires that arise other than by willful intent, therefore failure at abstention is potentially (and at varying levels) no different than a drug addict with a craving for a fix.

But on the other side, too many cannot accept that the thing that they crave could be sinful since they assert that God made them that way. I have no basis for taking a position on the debate about being made "that way," so I must treat it as possibly true. But I disagree that God "did it." Rather, it is the fall that did it. It is one of many variations in the makeup of sinful man that must be overcome. Not really different from those with a predisposition to steal, to fall into all kinds of sexual sin, to drink to excess (and loss of virtually all control), etc. Everyone knows how hard it is to abstain from something. It may be something seemingly innocuous, but it is still there.

So the healthy Christian assembly will eventually include some who will have certain mannerisms that mark them as homosexuals, but who are at least seeming to abstain from practicing as such. And in that position, it should be no different for them than for anyone else who has joined the community of faith in that they are participants with the body. Only the political debate about the particular sin should mark it as unusual. In all other aspects, it is simply another foible common to man.

Suffice it to say that people will make up their own minds. Meanwhile, we have people in Christian pulpits saying things like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gjm...ature=youtu.be

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

But on the other side, too many cannot accept that the thing that they crave could be sinful since they assert that God made them that way. I have no basis for taking a position on the debate about being made "that way," so I must treat it as possibly true. But I disagree that God "did it."

Well what does God make and what does the devil make?

What about hermaphrodites, or babies born with ambiguous genitalia, with both sex organs? Does God make them? They don't choose to be that way, yet they are physically ambiguous, being both male and female. Will they be judged by God for it, like many Christians claim homosexuals will be judged by God?

If God makes hermaphrodites He can just as easily make homosexuals. How, then, can God judge homosexuals, that He makes, any more than He can judge those born as hermaphrodites, that He makes?

Who really knows what God makes, or judges? God has information not available to us.

And why can't gays marry? Don't they deserve to have the right to be just as unhappy as those in heterosexual marriages?

From what I've seen, staunch conservative anti-gay Christians experience a change of mind, when one of their children come out as gay. They then have to decide which they love the most, the Bible, or their child. Most choose the child.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

As we see from God himself, inequality is at the heart of the Bible---Genesis 17:9-14--- 9 God said to Abraham, “As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. ¹⁰ This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. ¹¹ You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. ¹² Throughout your generations every male among you shall be circumcised when he is eight days old, including the slave born in your house and the one bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring. ¹³ Both the slave born in your house and the one bought with your money must be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. ¹⁴ Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.” From God's standpoint circumcision creates equality and not how you treat another person.

Generally, I see the Bible as salvation history in which the concept of God culturally from being a local tribal god to the Creator and Savior of the universe. I also entertain the proposition that ritual precedes myth in the cultural evolution of religion. So, according to that theory, the ancient Jews may have found themselves practicing the tradition of circumcision before this mythological explanation of why they were circumcising males originated. While this was earlier interpreted as a sign of God setting the Jews apart, that process itself came to be seen by Christianity as a vehicle through which God could save humanity.

Equality is a human invention. Fairness is a human invention. Democracy is a human invention. Why didn’t God include an eleventh commandment?---you shall not enslave another human being. The only evidence of equality and fairness is from Jesus who spoke about the coming kingdom when everyone would be equal. What Jesus spoke out against was the inequity in society which he condemned. Paul never spoke out against slavery or women’s equality. Paul brought his own version of the Christian message which has been followed ever since and of course a bunch of white Caucasian men liked his teachings and made them part of the canon. The group who put the canon together never consulted with one woman or one African or one Hispanic or one Asian person or one gay person…not one. The entire Bible for that matter was written by a bunch of white guys to include books named female such as Ruth etc. Where is the majority of support for the Bible today?---a bunch of white guys. Black slaves wrote songs related to the freedom Jesus mentioned and that is why you do see black churches today and token blacks in white churches.

And yet the idea of equality first seems to have originated form the concept of equality before God which morphed into the concept of equality before the law which is possible the only kind of equality there is. And that exists only theoretically as a universal value for which we strive and never actually arrive at. The general principle is there as a seed in the Bible in the notion of justice which develops in the Hebrew Bible, in the idea that the ruler and the slave are equal in prayer and that God is "no respecter of persons.' Whether humans created God or God created humans just begs the question.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Dave

From God's standpoint circumcision creates equality and not how you treat another person.

Your Bible must be missing a lot of pages. Either that or you have a REALLY SELECTIVE memory of what you have read. I suspect the later. Originally, circumcision was not a matter of equality but rather a matter of identification with God and his chosen people. Of course, as men are apt to do, they took this ordinance and turned it into a godless, religious form. The apostle Paul addressed this in several of his epistles, but most notably to the Romans: (hopefully your Bible still has Romans in it): "For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God."(Rom 2:28-29) - "a Jew is one inwardly" is very telling here. I think it had to do at least partly with how you spoke to and treated other people.

Equality is a human invention. Fairness is a human invention. Democracy is a human invention. Why didn’t God include an eleventh commandment?---you shall not enslave another human being. The only evidence of equality and fairness is from Jesus who spoke about the coming kingdom when everyone would be equal.

Ok, if you say so, but who "invented" the humans who supposedly invented equality and fairness? I know, I know, you think a bolt of lightning hit a puddle of inorganic primordial soup and the impossible just happened, and from there a single celled amoeba type thingy sprang forth, then a worm, then a this and then a that (and all the while DNA was just programming itself..another impossible that just happened!)...and before you know it, here comes this all-benevolent creature who invents equality, fairness and democracy...wow, what a nice, tidy comfortable worldview!

Jesus who spoke about the coming kingdom when everyone would be equal

Ok, this must be coming from that Bible with missing pages again. This statement is so whacked on so many levels I wouldn't know where to begin..so I won't.

The entire Bible for that matter was written by a bunch of white guys to include books named female such as Ruth etc. Where is the majority of support for the Bible today?---a bunch of white guys. Black slaves wrote songs related to the freedom Jesus mentioned and that is why you do see black churches today and token blacks in white churches.

Now I'm really wondering what "Bible" you have to begin with.
Moses was "white"?
All the Prophets were "white"?
King David was "white"? Oh, I forgot, all those dudes who painted all those paintings must have seem him in person
Oh, and everybody knows that all those first century Galilean fisherman where all pasty white
And everybody also knows that the apostle Paul was from that famous "white" tribe of Benjamin

Where is the majority of support for the Bible today? Glad you asked!
The biggest growth in the Christian Church today is from CHINA (not a lot of whites hangin round there) AFRICA (mostly black) and THE MIDDLE EAST (mostly non-white). In some of these places just possessing a Bible is a major crime, but people are still begging for just a few pages here and there. (maybe you could find the ones missing from yours and mail it to them)

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by zeek

All of which has the practical result that homosexuals are marginalized and delegitimized within the church. If they wish to express their sexuality, they must do it surreptitiously in promiscuous ways. The growing trend towards legalizing gay marriage is legitimizing homosexuality which may, if the experiment is successful, support them in making positive contributions to society and decreasing promiscuity. Yet conservative Christianity opposes this trend which seems to result in relegating homosexuals to lives of repression and shame. I saw horrific examples of this in the Local Churches.

In the Local Churches even heterosexuality is repressed. Perhaps that could be called an experiment, too.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Dave

Where is the majority of support for the Bible today?---a bunch of white guys.

Actually I thought church attendance generally skews disproportionately female? I know where I live, I'm a lot more likely to hear preaching from women than men. And most of them are white women. But some of them have skin of different shades.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

In the Local Churches even heterosexuality is repressed. Perhaps that could be called an experiment, too.

True, but heterosexuality at least could be legitimately expressed through marriage. Not so homosexuality. Life is an experiment, bro.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by zeek

True, but heterosexuality at least could be legitimately expressed through marriage. Not so homosexuality.

True, assuming you can remain "asleep" until you have both a bachelor's degree and FTTA graduation.

Originally Posted by zeek

Life is an experiment, bro.

Perhaps. Just as long as we're experimenting w/ourselves, and not w/others...

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well what does God make and what does the devil make?

God made male and female. That was before the introduction of sin. The introduction of sin was due to the actions of Satan.

Originally Posted by awareness

What about hermaphrodites, or babies born with ambiguous genitalia, with both sex organs? Does God make them? They don't choose to be that way, yet they are physically ambiguous, being both male and female. Will they be judged by God for it, like many Christians claim homosexuals will be judged by God?

You have simply re-asked the same question we are already discussing. It seems different. You can see nuances that may not be in the homosexual question. But it is really the same.

Don't be like the guy who thinks that changing the question over and over again is the same as a solid discussion with boundaries. If you keep changing the question to get a different answer, eventually you may get a different answer, but it may not be for the reason(s) that you think. You may have just pushed it into a completely different discussion. Besides, constantly trying to move the goalposts does not necessarily help us find truth.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

From what I've seen, staunch conservative anti-gay Christians experience a change of mind, when one of their children come out as gay. They then have to decide which they love the most, the Bible, or their child. Most choose the child.

And, like a lot of other discussions going on around here, both positions are wrong. The Bible does not simply condemn the homosexual in the way that "staunch conservative anti-gay Christians" do. It condemns the sin of homosexual activities. Those "staunch" whatevers are busy pointing fingers and yelling things about burning in hell, and withholding any kind of love for the person to which the attack is heading.

That is a horrible attack on the commands of the Bible.

Meanwhile, when their own son/daughter declares their sin, they either dig in and even add fuel to their homophobic hatred, or they chuck it all and decide that it is simply OK. Neither is OK. It is not OK to hate people in that manner, and it is not OK to willfully engage in sin. Until the homosexual person becomes a believer, my only responsibility to them is to love them as I love myself. And I don't hate myself enough to have the kind of hatred toward them that so many display. After belief in Christ, the person with homosexual tendencies, leanings, or whatever you think it actually is, has a propensity for sin that would probably stand right in there with Paul's thorn in the flesh. It is something that must be grappled with and ultimately overcome. Open engagement in the "lifestyle" will be subject to the kind of excommunication that saved a brother from his somewhat similar sin in Corinth. It does not make him a renewed target for hate crimes or derision.

But until someone can show me where the Bible does not really stand against homosexuality, just feeling bad for them and letting them go on without consequence is no better than the hateful way that the staunch conservatives attack them when they aren't even claiming to be Christian.

And your constant stirring the pot with comments that effectively ignore the conversation that is going on is getting a little annoying. Yes, there are people who claim to be Christians that do not act very Christ-like. We do not need to divert our attention from what we think should be back to the bad apples every time you decide to post something. It is getting a little old.

Or are you determined that Christianity is just about people who want to be right and find others to be wrong, therefore constantly worthy of your negative comments and scenarios?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

And, like a lot of other discussions going on around here, both positions are wrong. The Bible does not simply condemn the homosexual in the way that "staunch conservative anti-gay Christians" do. It condemns the sin of homosexual activities. Those "staunch" whatevers are busy pointing fingers and yelling things about burning in hell, and withholding any kind of love for the person to which the attack is heading.

That is a horrible attack on the commands of the Bible.

Meanwhile, when their own son/daughter declares their sin, they either dig in and even add fuel to their homophobic hatred, or they chuck it all and decide that it is simply OK. Neither is OK. It is not OK to hate people in that manner, and it is not OK to willfully engage in sin. Until the homosexual person becomes a believer, my only responsibility to them is to love them as I love myself. And I don't hate myself enough to have the kind of hatred toward them that so many display. After belief in Christ, the person with homosexual tendencies, leanings, or whatever you think it actually is, has a propensity for sin that would probably stand right in there with Paul's thorn in the flesh. It is something that must be grappled with and ultimately overcome. Open engagement in the "lifestyle" will be subject to the kind of excommunication that saved a brother from his somewhat similar sin in Corinth. It does not make him a renewed target for hate crimes or derision.

But until someone can show me where the Bible does not really stand against homosexuality, just feeling bad for them and letting them go on without consequence is no better than the hateful way that the staunch conservatives attack them when they aren't even claiming to be Christian.

And your constant stirring the pot with comments that effectively ignore the conversation that is going on is getting a little annoying. Yes, there are people who claim to be Christians that do not act very Christ-like. We do not need to divert our attention from what we think should be back to the bad apples every time you decide to post something. It is getting a little old.

Or are you determined that Christianity is just about people who want to be right and find others to be wrong, therefore constantly worthy of your negative comments and scenarios?

So then, what are the legitimate non-sin ways of expressing homosexuality that are unworthy of condemnation?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Your Bible must be missing a lot of pages. Either that or you have a REALLY SELECTIVE memory of what you have read. I suspect the later. Originally, circumcision was not a matter of equality but rather a matter of identification with God and his chosen people. Of course, as men are apt to do, they took this ordinance and turned it into a godless, religious form. The apostle Paul addressed this in several of his epistles, but most notably to the Romans: (hopefully your Bible still has Romans in it): "For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God."(Rom 2:28-29) - "a Jew is one inwardly" is very telling here. I think it had to do at least partly with how you spoke to and treated other people.

I understand what it says in Romans and Galatians etc but Paul was writing this to the Romans and others in regards to the Judaizers who were insisting on circumcision for Gentiles after they were saved. It doesn’t negate the quote from Genesis 17 when circumcision was initially instituted where there is a direct quote from “God” (i.e. “God said to Abraham”) even more important than Paul’s writings to the Romans and others I would think. I mean it was a direct quote….God said…. Paul said some good things about equality but in his other writings he marginalized women and demeaned blacks by supporting slavery. While in prison, Paul met a runaway slave, Onesimus, the property of a Christian -- presumably Philemon. He sent the slave back to his owner. This action is forbidden in Deuteronomy 23:15-16: "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant who has escaped from his master unto thee." Although it appears from your perspective Paul was just following Jesus? He not only violated the scriptures but ethical behavior.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Ok, if you say so, but who "invented" the humans who supposedly invented equality and fairness? I know, I know, you think a bolt of lightning hit a puddle of inorganic primordial soup and the impossible just happened, and from there a single celled amoeba type thingy sprang forth, then a worm, then a this and then a that (and all the while DNA was just programming itself..another impossible that just happened!)...and before you know it, here comes this all-benevolent creature who invents equality, fairness and democracy...wow, what a nice, tidy comfortable worldview!

I would never be so presumptuous to agree with every proposition of evolution because even Stephen Meyer’s Intelligent Design has some interesting thoughts when considering the Cambrian explosion. However, I have difficulty with Genesis which has God creating two completely formed humans who spoke fluent Hebrew. Of course, God also spoke Hebrew, I presume. Stephen Meyer doesn’t advocate the Genesis concept either. Whether it was a bolt of lightning or created otherwise it wasn’t as described in Genesis. In the end, neither you nor I really know how this all came about but we do know that the Bible did not consistently advocate equality or social justice.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Ok, this must be coming from that Bible with missing pages again. This statement is so whacked on so many levels I wouldn't know where to begin..so I won't.

Matt 5:3-4 ..3"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 "Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.… His first miracle was performed in response to a plea from His mother (John 2:1-11) His first revelation of Himself as Messiah was to a woman (John 4:25- 26) His greatest miracle was performed at the request of two women (John 11:1-44) His death was memorialized by a woman (John 12:1-8) Women were included in His expanded group of disciples (Mark 15:41). Women stayed with Him throughout His crucifixion, even after the men had left (Matthew 27:55-56) Women observed His burial (Matthew 27:61) Following His resurrection, He appeared first to a woman (John 20:1- 16) He commissioned women as the very first evangelists (Matthew 28:1- 10; John 20:17) “I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her" (Matt. 26:10)
Matthew 19:22-24…22..But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property. 23…And Jesus said to His disciples, "Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24…"Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."…

Matthew 10:7-9…7 "And as you go, preach, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.' 8 "Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Freely you received, freely give. 9 "Do not acquire gold, or silver, or copper for your money belts,…

Jesus promised a coming kingdom with equality. This is not a whacky conclusion: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1524117.html

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Now I'm really wondering what "Bible" you have to begin with.
Moses was "white"?
All the Prophets were "white"?
King David was "white"? Oh, I forgot, all those dudes who painted all those paintings must have seem him in person
Oh, and everybody knows that all those first century Galilean fisherman where all pasty white
And everybody also knows that the apostle Paul was from that famous "white" tribe of Benjamin

Where is the majority of support for the Bible today? Glad you asked!
The biggest growth in the Christian Church today is from CHINA (not a lot of whites hangin round there) AFRICA (mostly black) and THE MIDDLE EAST (mostly non-white). In some of these places just possessing a Bible is a major crime, but people are still begging for just a few pages here and there. (maybe you could find the ones missing from yours and mail it to them)

Last time I checked Jews were listed as white Caucasian. If you know otherwise maybe you could give me a reference. This is from Wikipedia regarding race: 'In various editions of On the Natural Variety of Mankind, Blumenbach defined five human races based on color, using popular racial terms of his day, justified with scientific terminology, cranial measurements, and facial features. He established Caucasian as the "white race," as well as Mongoloid as the "yellow race," Malayan the "brown race," Ethiopian the "black race," American the "red race."' I was only pointing out the background of the people who developed the Bible and those who practice in the US and not the growth of Christianity throughout the world which is another story.

BTW….You left out South America which has probably had the largest growth and surprisingly they are mostly moderate to left leaning politically compared to the US. I don't expect a response from you because for one thing...there is no responsible answer...otherwise...it's just your way...

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

And your constant stirring the pot with comments that effectively ignore the conversation that is going on is getting a little annoying.. . . .
. . .Or are you determined that Christianity is just about people who want to be right and find others to be wrong, therefore constantly worthy of your negative comments and scenarios?

Sorry if I annoy you bro Mike. I'll do my best to correct that. But if I were you I'd doubt I'll ever manage it.

I was responding to your statement: "But I disagree that God "did it."" I pointed out that God does actually do physical ambiguous sexuality sometimes, to counter your presumption. Did I misunderstand you?

When I stated that when anti-gay Christians discover their child is gay they have a change of mind I'm not speaking in the abstract, constructing a straw man to bring Christianity down.

I'm right now involved trying to get one of my cousins out of a debilitating depression. Most all his life he's been a Southern Baptist fundamentalist. He raised his only child as a ideal image of a clean cut straight-laced Christian boy; his/their pride and joy.

Not long ago the apple of his eye introduced him/them to his gay lover. It got real ugly. My cousin told his son that he was an abomination to God. They got into fierce fights, even on Facebook, for the whole world to see, much to his shame.

My cousin crashed into serious depression, that even prescription drugs have failed to pull him out of. He's questioning the veracity of his Christian faith. He feels like Jesus failed him; cuz Jesus failed to save his son from homosexuality.

I have loved my cousin since kids. (I turned him onto Watchman Nee) I'm very concerned about him, and his wife.

He told his son that God was going to judge him, and he would go to hell for being a homosexual. So I told my cousin about God creating hermaphrodites. Trying to comfort him. That, God made his son the way that he is, and so can't judge him. But he insists that the Bible condemns homosexuality.

This is serious. I'm trying to get my cousin back to loving his son. I've been thru this already, with another anti-gay Southern Baptist cousin, that had to deal with their daughter coming out gay. In fact, it was in discussions with them that hermaphrodite cases came up.

Bro Mike, please have patience with me. And don't forget that I'm living smack dub in the middle of fundamentalism, and grew up with it. So the flaws stand out to me. Sorry for that.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

So then, what are the legitimate non-sin ways of expressing homosexuality that are unworthy of condemnation?

I think you are reading something into what I said that I did not actually say.

I tried to be consistent in stating that the typical rhetoric of hatred that comes from the mouths of so many is not welcome, whether pointed at an unregenerate or regenerated person of homosexual persuasion. That did not make expressions of homosexuality suddenly acceptable.

I'm not sure what it is that brought that statement, unless it was where I said something like seeing some homosexual mannerisms in the meetings (in another post or an unquoted part of this one). While no one likes stereotypes, there are things that people do that are "tells" that are not, in themselves, any kind of sin. Where found, it is often part of having been among a subculture that lives a certain way (outwardly) and it becomes the habitual way of living for them. I do not condemn that — just note that it will be visible.

If that was not it, then I am not sure what you are talking about. There are plenty of non-sexual aspects of love that are understood as the activities between people who do, or maybe will engage in sexual behavior. Not certain where they become part of the unacceptable part of the "lifestyle" and where they do not. Personally, I think that much of anything that evidences same-gender union is, at minimum, dancing around the flames of passion, and contrasts to the same activities directed toward heterosexual union. Even at just the dating phase.

In short, the only thing that I think should have been considered "acceptable" would be personal mannerisms. But, like other things, I can be persuaded.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

I was responding to your statement: "But I disagree that God "did it."" I pointed out that God does actually do physical ambiguous sexuality sometimes, to counter your presumption. Did I misunderstand you?

We have a different take on what it is that "did it." Simply because genetics is claimed to be the source is not evidence that it is just God that did it. You are blowing right by that and taking it as fact without further discussion. Treating it as a stipulated fact.

It is not. Therefore your tack-on conclusions would appear to be based upon a "fact" upon which we do not agree.

But there is no guarantee in life that everyone around you, whether related or not, will live in the manner you choose for them. And as long as we conclude that the outcome of our children will be dictated by God if we do X, Y, and Z, then we are living yet another version of the healthy, wealthy, and wise gospel.

I would not abandon your cousin. But you cannot just join in his finger-pointing as he deals with his grief. If believing parents always resulted in believing and obedient children, then the Western world would be virtually all Christian because there is at least one Christian parent somewhere back in everyone's past. If they could guarantee the outcomes of their kids, then that would guarantee the outcome of the next generation, and so on. Marry into the families with no such ancestor and now their next generation is affected. Christianity would not be waning in Europe, but growing toward saturation.

And becoming Christian was never a guarantee for a better set of current circumstances. Yes we pray for that. And sometimes we get it. But not always. The jobs lost in the latest recession were not all non-Christians. The lives lost in the 9/11 attacks were not all heathen. Yet we are prone to look at particular circumstances and ask God "why me?" when the real question is "how long, oh God?".

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

We have a different take on what it is that "did it." Simply because genetics is claimed to be the source is not evidence that it is just God that did it. You are blowing right by that and taking it as fact without further discussion. Treating it as a stipulated fact.

True. God might have nothing to do with it. It may just be the way of nature some times. There's plenty of evidence that, same sex relations happens thru-out the animal kingdom.

The fundamental question is: Does God judge for it? And: If God judges for it should we?

To the typical Christian, of the fundamentalist persuasion, if not family related, the loud answer is: YES!

But let your son or daughter come out and it's another matter altogether. Now your heart is torn apart. It's very traumatic. It put both my cousins into a tailspin.

I remember my cousin, a deacon in his SBC, telling me that he went to members of his church about his daughter coming out. I remember it well. He said, "The ones that knew their Bible the best had the most hateful advice." Fortunately he and her mother didn't take their advice. They didn't disown their daughter. They chose the way of love. She died about a year ago. At their house. Of a heart attack. They're very glad they decided to love her, and accept her as she was; as the person -- so her mother says -- she was born to be.

Did God do it? If so He can't judge someone for it.

Did the devil do it? Then God can't judge the person for that either.

Did the fall cause it? Would a just and fair God judge for something caused by the fall? Wouldn't it be expected?

Or did nature cause it? If so there's no judgment at all, one way or another, to be found.

Does the Bible judge it? That's a resounding YES!!!

And thus the inner heart and mind conflict of the fundamentalist thrown into discovering their child is gay.

May the love of God be with them.

[OBW]

I'm sure that you are understanding what I have said, yet it seems that you are so focused on the wrong that so many do in the name of right.

Originally Posted by awareness

The ones that knew their Bible the best had the most hateful advice.

And this particular quote is among the most telling of the failures among us to follow the great commandment because if someone can say that, then we are not loving or neighbor as ourselves.

[rayliotta]

This conversation seems awfully dualistic to me.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

This conversation seems awfully dualistic to me.

I understand the sentiment, but I believe that this conversation has gone where it should have been decades ago.

There should be a kind of dualism in the Christian life. It is loving toward God and everyone else, but hard on itself as it sees how it is failing in the call to truly believe and obey.

It is like the verses that say don't judge anyone while others seem to say to judge. Seems that we are not to usurp God's place in judgment on the world, but we are to judge among ourselves, such as in areas of personal weakness and in church discipline. But remember that church discipline is for the church, not the heathen (or as I sometimes say, heathren — opposite of brethren).

We are to love and preach the gospel to the heathen. And most of our preaching should be without words. If they can't find reason to want us to speak because our wordless preaching is poor (or nonexistent) then speaking will not really help much. They need a reason to ask us about our hope.

And unloading our stance against whatever the sin of the month club is selling is not a very good enticement for asking about the hope we have.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

I understand the sentiment, but I believe that this conversation has gone where it should have been decades ago.

There should be a kind of dualism in the Christian life. It is loving toward God and everyone else, but hard on itself as it sees how it is failing in the call to truly believe and obey.

It is like the verses that say don't judge anyone while others seem to say to judge. Seems that we are not to usurp God's place in judgment on the world, but we are to judge among ourselves, such as in areas of personal weakness and in church discipline. But remember that church discipline is for the church, not the heathen (or as I sometimes say, heathren — opposite of brethren).

We are to love and preach the gospel to the heathen. And most of our preaching should be without words. If they can't find reason to want us to speak because our wordless preaching is poor (or nonexistent) then speaking will not really help much. They need a reason to ask us about our hope.

And unloading our stance against whatever the sin of the month club is selling is not a very good enticement for asking about the hope we have.

Who said it was going to be easy to love our neighbors? Many of them seem unlovable, or worse. Maybe Jesus could do it, but it doesn't come natural to human nature.

Then add, : "Love your enemy," and ,"resist not evil," and we're talking the impossible.

Who can keep what Jesus taught? Not even the fundamentalists can keep it. I don't see anyone that's kept those teachings of Jesus; maybe Gandhi, and he wasn't Christian.

The Bible must be the word of God. That's why we can't keep and live it.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

I think you are reading something into what I said that I did not actually say. I tried to be consistent in stating that the typical rhetoric of hatred that comes from the mouths of so many is not welcome, whether pointed at an unregenerate or regenerated person of homosexual persuasion. That did not make expressions of homosexuality suddenly acceptable.

So, for you, both hatred and homosexuality are unacceptable. But, do you really believe homosexuality is merely a "persuasion"?

I'm not sure what it is that brought that statement, unless it was where I said something like seeing some homosexual mannerisms in the meetings (in another post or an unquoted part of this one). While no one likes stereotypes, there are things that people do that are "tells" that are not, in themselves, any kind of sin. Where found, it is often part of having been among a subculture that lives a certain way (outwardly) and it becomes the habitual way of living for them. I do not condemn that — just note that it will be visible.

I don't think so. My observation is that effeminate mannerism in boys and masculine mannerisms in girls manifest themselves in early childhood regardless what the parents teach. That's why the preacher in the video I posted advocates verbally abusing and beating it out of kids. I take it you wouldn't approve of that. That kind of abuse results in self loathing and painful psychological conflicts according to the testimonies of many gay and transgender people. Yet it seems to be a common tradition among Christians who find support for it in the Bible.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

This conversation seems awfully dualistic to me.

I usually think of dualism as a kind of metaphysical position which doesn't seem to be what you mean. Please clarify.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

So, for you, both hatred and homosexuality are unacceptable. But, do you really believe homosexuality is merely a "persuasion"?

I'm not sure that I accept that every case of homosexuality is because of some "way I was born," yet I do not close the door on the notion that there are sometimes factors that do easily push in that direction.

I think that persuasion makes it almost completely about outside forces and/or a simple decision consciously made. It is more complex than that. But at the same time I am not sure that even birth defects are absolute determiners of homosexuality. There appears to be an aspect in which environment has an effect. But even that is not sole arbiter of the issue.

I will leave it at "it is complex" and note that no matter how it comes to be, the Christian response for someone who has already gone down that road (whether by genetics or persuasion) is to treat it as a sin that must be overcome. I know that is not a popular position among those who want to cause the Bible to simply allow homosexuality. I did not create what I read and understand. And so far no one has managed to do more than make those "it's not fair" and "it seems that a loving God would" arguments without foundation other than the determination that it should not be so (in their minds).

This is one of those places where it is somewhat instructive to say that in the beginning, God made man in his image, and man has been returning the favor ever since. We want a God that thinks like we do, not a God that requires that we think like he does.

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't think so. My observation is that effeminate mannerism in boys and masculine mannerisms in girls manifest themselves in early childhood regardless what the parents teach. That's why the preacher in the video I posted advocates verbally abusing and beating it out of kids. I take it you wouldn't approve of that. That kind of abuse results in self loathing and painful psychological conflicts according to the testimonies of many gay and transgender people. Yet it seems to be a common tradition among Christians who find support for it in the Bible.

While there are legitimate debates about what the "spare the rod" kind of discussions in the Bible means, it is clear that beating thoughts out of the minds of children does not seem to be supportable. And where is the evidence that this is what was actually practiced (excluding the idea that there have always been those who will abuse others)?

No, I do not agree with beating things out of our kids. But I do not consider that separating them from an environment in which they are encouraged to undertake the mannerisms that will label them as part of, the drive them to the groups in which homosexuality is accepted, practiced, and taught would be a bad thing. To the extent that you are aware, and can take action, you would not allow them to be part of a group that regularly robs other students and stores, and vandalizes property. If you believe that homosexuality is a sin, just praying your kid will withstand the pressures as the group that is accepting him/her pushes them that way is more than foolish. Until they leave my home, I have a responsibility. I can't just let political correctness keep me from my duties.

And yet the response when a child announces that they are homosexual should not be "hit the road Jack." Pray that it is not over. Pray that God will get through to them. Do what you think you can do to change their mind. Even if it is not simply a persuasion, the mind can still be changed concerning how they respond to their own desires.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by OBW

I'm not sure that I accept that every case of homosexuality is because of some "way I was born," yet I do not close the door on the notion that there are sometimes factors that do easily push in that direction.

I think that persuasion makes it almost completely about outside forces and/or a simple decision consciously made. It is more complex than that. But at the same time I am not sure that even birth defects are absolute determiners of homosexuality. There appears to be an aspect in which environment has an effect. But even that is not sole arbiter of the issue.

I will leave it at "it is complex" and note that no matter how it comes to be, the Christian response for someone who has already gone down that road (whether by genetics or persuasion) is to treat it as a sin that must be overcome. I know that is not a popular position among those who want to cause the Bible to simply allow homosexuality. I did not create what I read and understand. And so far no one has managed to do more than make those "it's not fair" and "it seems that a loving God would" arguments without foundation other than the determination that it should not be so (in their minds).

This is one of those places where it is somewhat instructive to say that in the beginning, God made man in his image, and man has been returning the favor ever since. We want a God that thinks like we do, not a God that requires that we think like he does.

While there are legitimate debates about what the "spare the rod" kind of discussions in the Bible means, it is clear that beating thoughts out of the minds of children does not seem to be supportable. And where is the evidence that this is what was actually practiced (excluding the idea that there have always been those who will abuse others)?

No, I do not agree with beating things out of our kids. But I do not consider that separating them from an environment in which they are encouraged to undertake the mannerisms that will label them as part of, the drive them to the groups in which homosexuality is accepted, practiced, and taught would be a bad thing. To the extent that you are aware, and can take action, you would not allow them to be part of a group that regularly robs other students and stores, and vandalizes property. If you believe that homosexuality is a sin, just praying your kid will withstand the pressures as the group that is accepting him/her pushes them that way is more than foolish. Until they leave my home, I have a responsibility. I can't just let political correctness keep me from my duties.

And yet the response when a child announces that they are homosexual should not be "hit the road Jack." Pray that it is not over. Pray that God will get through to them. Do what you think you can do to change their mind. Even if it is not simply a persuasion, the mind can still be changed concerning how they respond to their own desires.

A couple years ago my wife and I were attending different churches in our area during the summer. One of those churches was the Metropolitan Christian Church http://mccchurch.org/. It is a Christian church which is LGBT oriented and most of the people attending are LGBT. They are an international Christian denomination. They believe in the Nicene and Apostolic Creed and the message was entirely Christian. They were certainly an enthusiastic group and I spoke with the pastor who is much beloved among the congregants. They describe themselves as follows:

“Our communion table is open to everyone. There are no requirements or limitations. God welcomes all with open arms, and so do we!
Following the example of Jesus and empowered by the Spirit, we seek to be a transformational community that demands, proclaims, and does justice in the world. We are a Christian denomination who worship together in love, respecting the spiritual paths of each of our companions on the journey. Our paths converge in our commitment to justice so that all may thrive.”

From the standpoint of Christian fundamentalists this Christian church is a paradox but yet they tread where most Christians fear to go. In fact, they set an example of acceptance which most Christians are unable to live out in their lives. It is often a haven for those who are rejected by their families, other Christians, and many in society. However, they are as devoted Christians as anyone on this forum..

People interpret the Bible according to their own prejudices whether it was the KKK or against slaves or even women. It wasn’t the fundamentalist Christians who fought for women’s rights. It was Susan B. Anthony, a Unitarian, who was at the forefront. Fundamentalist Christians were screaming bloody murder over freeing the slaves as well establishing civil rights for women. Christians today are also fighting against environmental improvements or any rights for people who are different from them. It is a long standing pattern. In these instances, Christians are involved in the practice known as doublespeak---say one thing and do another whether consciously or not. Unfortunately, it is not a perception but a reality.

[OBW]

I have little to add to your post, although I think that virtually every fight for and against progressive positions, such as on slavery and women's rights, have had Christians on both sides making claims that theirs it the right way.

But the following statement is a bit odd in the midst of this discussion:

Originally Posted by Dave

Fundamentalist Christians were screaming bloody murder over freeing the slaves as well establishing civil rights for women.

Why odd? Because fundamentalism as we know it was essentially set in motion in the 20th century in answer to the trend of liberal groups that began to over-allegorize the Bible (in the opinion of the fundamentalists). So they established their fundamentals: virgin birth, Biblical superiority and infallibility, and so on.

It is difficult to assert that the current fundamentalists would have been on the "wrong" side of the issue if they had been around in the mid-1800s or the turn of the century. It is a speculation based on the fact that part of fundamentalism seems to be a fight against any change.

But in the face of a God whose morality is not a matter of convenience or popular opinion, that is not an entirely unreasonable position. At least as the place from which the argument must move rather that the point that is simply presumed wrong.

I am not saying that there have not been people around that fit the popular (and broader) used of the term forever. But the Christian fundamentalism which is supposedly the target of this thread was not around in the mid-1800s. On either side of the slavery debate.

(I hate to think where I might have been on that discussion if I was around then. Isn't it best when you can look at arguments of the past and see the right answer when already decided?)

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Dave

People interpret the Bible according to their own prejudices....

Right, including YOU. And your interpretation (if you can even call it that) is shaded by a rather archaic and whacked out worldview. I thought anyone who had experienced the Witness Lee "ALL Christians are this, or ALL Christians are that" garbage wouldn't fall back into that kind of all-or-nothing, black-and-white kind of mentality.

Fundamentalist Christians were screaming bloody murder over freeing the slaves as well establishing civil rights for women.

Just because you keep repeating something over and over again will never make it true. As a matter of fact, most reasonable, rational people will just assume the opposite is true. And in the case of your rantings this dynamic holds up big time. I don't suppose you noticed the quote I placed on the home page from William Wilberforce - a WHITE CAUCASIAN, EVANGELICAL, CONSERVATIVE (the kind you call "fundamentalist") CHRISTIAN - who was the major force behind the abolition of slavery in the British Empire. Of course you will simply blow this off as some insignificant aberration, but that's ok, the record will stand whether you acknowledge it or not.

Christians today are also fighting against environmental improvements or any rights for people who are different from them. It is a long standing pattern. In these instances, Christians are involved in the practice known as doublespeak---say one thing and do another whether consciously or not. Unfortunately, it is not a perception but a reality.

There you go again (remember that on from your hero Ronald Reagan.) ...Christians this, Christians that. Are you like Witness Lee who apparently was able to be everywhere in the entire world and over a period of hundreds of years to know such a thing - that ALL (fundamental or not) Christians are this or ALL (fundamental or not) Christians are that? "any rights for people who are different from them"? I have a feeling of your idea of "rights" includes all sorts of things that have nothing to do with rights that have been established by God, the Bible or even established under the constitution of our republic. But hey, we're here in the wild and wooly land of Alternative Views, so you're welcome to keep at, my man! But always remember that it IS simply your perception and NOT necessarily reality at all.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by OBW

I have little to add to your post, although I think that virtually every fight for and against progressive positions, such as on slavery and women's rights, have had Christians on both sides making claims that theirs it the right way.

But the following statement is a bit odd in the midst of this discussion:
Why odd? Because fundamentalism as we know it was essentially set in motion in the 20th century in answer to the trend of liberal groups that began to over-allegorize the Bible (in the opinion of the fundamentalists). So they established their fundamentals: virgin birth, Biblical superiority and infallibility, and so on.

It is difficult to assert that the current fundamentalists would have been on the "wrong" side of the issue if they had been around in the mid-1800s or the turn of the century. It is a speculation based on the fact that part of fundamentalism seems to be a fight against any change.

But in the face of a God whose morality is not a matter of convenience or popular opinion, that is not an entirely unreasonable position. At least as the place from which the argument must move rather that the point that is simply presumed wrong.

I am not saying that there have not been people around that fit the popular (and broader) used of the term forever. But the Christian fundamentalism which is supposedly the target of this thread was not around in the mid-1800s. On either side of the slavery debate.

(I hate to think where I might have been on that discussion if I was around then. Isn't it best when you can look at arguments of the past and see the right answer when already decided?)

It's not speculation... Actually I was kind when I was saying that the fundamentalists were screaming bloody murder...a significant majority of the Bible Belt today has as their ancestors those who fought for slavery quoting the Bible I might add and fought against Civil Rights for that matter e.g. 1960 Greenboro, N.C., 1961 Freedom Riders, 1961 Montegomery, Ala., 1962 Merediths enrollment at Ole Miss., 1963 Birmingham, Ala., 1964 Freedom summer workers. The majority of these the people who tried to undermine this progress and the progress today were/are Bible thumpers. In my own town they used water hoses on blacks and poured acid on them in 1964. It's not that the majority of them aren't good people it is just that prejudice as I have described it runs deep. They were willing to kill to protect their rights to slaves. They fought against progress. We all have prejudices but my point is that fundamental radical Christianity as we know it has a long history against progress in the US. I don't want to paint everyone in that corner but it is a significant majority of fundamental Christians. The same is true today against the LGBT community. I don't have any relatives who are gay as awareness has noted he does but it seems that the fight of the LGBT community today is for their basic human rights such as it was for women and blacks among others last century.

I am trying to make a distinction between Christians who are/were progressive and those who wanted and want to keep progress in check i.e. the fundamentalist Christians for the most part. It's not that I don't know what I am talking about...my parents lived in N.C. when I came back from Nam and I saw it first hand. I have already noted elsewhere on this forum what I saw and experienced so I don't want to repeat it here.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Right, INCLUDING YOU. And your interpretation (if you can even call it that) is shaded by a rather archaic and whacked out worldview. I thought anyone who had experienced the Witness Lee "ALL Christians are this, or ALL Christians are that" garbage wouldn't fall back into that kind of all-or-nothing, black-and-white kind of mentality.

I didn’t say all Christians because that would not be accurate. I said, “Fundamentalist Christians” specifically because they are the leaders in this endeavor to undermine progressive Christian efforts. Of course there are exceptions but the majority are problematic. You keep repeating “whacked out”… You must be listening too much to Rush Limbaugh who uses that phrase all the time.

I am sure my world view is different than yours but then again I respect your world view even if you believe that the KJV is the only Bible to read, the earth is 6000 years old, dinosaurs were put on earth by the Devil to try and confuse Christians today, or that they were too big to fit on the Ark, or that two people were formed by God to create the entire world population and all languages starting with Hebrew, angels mated with women in Genesis, etc. Could all of this be true? Maybe, but the probability would most likely be very low. Of course, I am not saying you specifically believe all of that but even if you did I would respect it although it would be open to discussion from my standpoint.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Just because you keep repeating something over and over again will never make it true. As a matter of fact, most reasonable, rational people will just assume the opposite is true. And in the case of your rantings this dynamic holds up big time. I don't suppose you noticed the quote I placed on the home page from William Wilberforce - a WHITE CAUCASIAN, EVANGELICAL, CONSERVATIVE (the kind you call "fundamentalist") CHRISTIAN - who was the major force behind the abolition of slavery in the British Empire. Of course you will simply blow this off as some insignificant aberration, but that's ok, the record will stand whether you acknowledge it or not.

Wilberforce was certainly an advocate of abolishing slavery but it was because he saw the British Empire as decadent and crumbling and his main thesis was that this decadence was a result of slavery which was destroying the British Empire. It does seem like it is a reach to use Wilberforce from over 200 years ago as your example of a fundamentalist Christian who fought against slavery. Of course, I have tried to keep this particular conversation limited to the US. Which reminds me, Martin Luther King, a Christian---despite his flaws was instrumental in moving the chains for the civil rights movement.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

There you go again (remember that on from your hero Ronald Reagan) ...Christians this, Christians that. Are you like Witness Lee who apparently was able to be everywhere in the entire world and over a period of hundreds of years to know such a thing - that ALL (fundamental or not) Christians are this or ALL (fundamental or not) Christians are that? "any rights for people who are different from them"? I have a feeling of your idea of "rights" includes all sorts of things that have nothing to do with rights that have been established by God, the Bible or even established under the constitution of our republic. But hey, we're here in the wild and wooly land of Alternative Views, so you're welcome to keep at, my man! But always remember that it IS SIMPLY YOUR perception and NOT necessarily reality at all.

I will agree with you that we have a different view of what reality is all about. I never said all Christians and I specifically have focused on the US fundamentalist Christians. For example, in South America the Evangelical Christians are not right wing but more moderate to liberal politically in their viewpoint so I haven’t been concerned about the rest of the world. I don’t see the drumbeat among Christians that has been exercised in this country in other parts of the world.

In any case, awareness and OBW were discussing the issue of awareness' relative being gay, the prejudice that surrounds it as well as how people become gay to include parenting and the interaction of the Biblical point of view. I only added to the conversation that there are Christians who are LGBT and in fact they are an entire Christian denomination. In context it was obvious I was referencing a point of view of some fundamental Christians and not all Christians by using that example. How you came up with some comparison to Witness Lee is beyond me. Your response led away from the point of my earlier post and apparently I led you here which was not my intention.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by zeek

I usually think of dualism as a kind of metaphysical position which doesn't seem to be what you mean. Please clarify.

I'll respond to this in the next day or two. But first let me say that I have watched "full-timers" go a long way in helping to "persuade" a few young people that they are, or might be, gay. The fact that we all knew who each other's adolescent crushes were, and that they just so happened to be church kids of the opposite gender, didn't seem to make much difference to these full-timers. And the fact that church elders had poured cold water all over their desire to take the object of their opposite-gender infatuation out for ice cream, didn't seem to make much difference to them, either.

I've seen young people being ostracized from within their "locality" so many times. And insinuating that a young person was "gay," "asexual," or otherwise sexually "different," was often just one bullet point on a list of things that were being whispered around town. The other things being said were often of a spiritual nature, and sometimes race or nationality was even an issue for these people.

To put it a different way, zeek, do you think there's some kind of firewall between culture and biology?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Dave

It's not speculation... Actually I was kind when I was saying that the fundamentalists were screaming bloody murder...a significant majority of the Bible Belt today has as their ancestors those who fought for slavery quoting the Bible I might add . . .

Slavery was primarily a southern phenomenon in the US because of the plantations. But the fact of geography does not make the thing that is modern fundamentalism include these people and their thoughts. You will be able to find people of that way of thinking right on through to today. And they have continued to brow-beat the Bible to support themselves. Just as others on the other side of things now brow-beat the Bible to support very progressive things that have not yet been successfully shown as supported by the Bible. You have a 100-year gap between the Civil War and the Civil Rights movement (coming up below) and declare that it is simply the fundamentalists who did both because they are in the south? Then I could then start to argue that modern pluralism is a product of the north and shoehorn every serious error of Christianity into a north/south divide. And we both know that this would be ridiculous.

Of course, we could simply go back to decide what version of "Fundamentalism" we are going to talk about here. Seems that we (not just you) are equivocating all over the place on this. The Christian group that took on the mantle of "Fundamentalist" earlier in the 20th century was not about race, gender, or orientation. It was about remaining true to what was understood as facts in the Bible and not just stories told to make points with people. Did they draw the lines well? Not entirely. But it was a point of divergence in theology that was resisted.

At the same time, since part of the core of that movement was/is the constancy of the Bible and the Christian faith, it collects those who are resistant to any kind of change. So among its ranks would be those who will not even think about the righteous position on the equality of all people. Or the value of a woman relative to a man.

So which are we talking about? The Christian fundamentalists, or those who will resist any change, especially where it goes against the preconceived notions of right and wrong without regard to the Bible, while carving up the Bible to make their case? You might want to argue that they are simply the same group and I will disagree. Most of what you would call evangelicalism is fundamentalist in the sense of holding to Biblical truth. But they are far from all on board with the continued positions of bigotry and hatred.

Originally Posted by Dave

. . . and fought against Civil Rights for that matter e.g. 1960 Greenboro, N.C., 1961 Freedom Riders, 1961 Montegomery, Ala., 1962 Merediths enrollment at Ole Miss., 1963 Birmingham, Ala., 1964 Freedom summer workers. The majority of these the people who tried to undermine this progress and the progress today were/are Bible thumpers.

And calling them Bible thumpers does not make those of the 1860s into 20th century fundamentalists. You can point to similarities of thought. They are prone to considering the status quo as being God ordained. But their status quo is not the same.

Originally Posted by Dave

The same is true today against the LGBT community. I don't have any relatives who are gay as awareness has noted he does but it seems that the fight of the LGBT community today is for their basic human rights such as it was for women and blacks among others last century.

I am trying to make a distinction between Christians who are/were progressive and those who wanted and want to keep progress in check i.e. the fundamentalist Christians for the most part. It's not that I don't know what I am talking about...my parents lived in N.C. when I came back from Nam and I saw it first hand. I have already noted elsewhere on this forum what I saw and experienced so I don't want to repeat it here.

I will start by saying that the biggest problem in this debate is not simply a lack of progressivity. Being progressive is not the issue (according to my understanding of the Bible). But how we interact with those who do not hold to Biblical teaching is the problem.

I have stated enough about what I see as the problem today. And unless you have something that actually provides a different view, I have been unable to conclude that God is accepting of the behaviors that have been traditionally understood as sin. But I disagree that God is unaccepting of the people or that he has somehow decreed that we are to treat them differently just because their sin is "X" rather than something else.

I think I have said enough on this. And I think that the process of simply pointing at those who take the bigoted approach to things and rag on them is not really worth a lot. We do need to recognize it. But mostly so that we do not become part of it. They should hear what I believe is the true Christian approach (not that I think I have a corner on what that is — I am still open to reconsideration of things and that is how I got where I am today).

Enough. If you want to create a super-fundamentalist group that simply uses the Bible from age to age to fight against real Christian progress, then you are not looking at anything much different than Islamic fundamentalism. And both are problematic. That does not mean that there are not fundamentals that we should stand for within our community of faith. Just not all the ones that those people stand for.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by OBW

Of course, we could simply go back to decide what version of "Fundamentalism" we are going to talk about here. Seems that we (not just you) are equivocating all over the place on this. The Christian group that took on the mantle of "Fundamentalist" earlier in the 20th century was not about race, gender, or orientation. It was about remaining true to what was understood as facts in the Bible and not just stories told to make points with people. Did they draw the lines well? Not entirely. But it was a point of divergence in theology that was resisted.

Since this is a fundamentalist thread I have tried to address what I see as fundamental Christianity. I would agree that the earliest group of the 20^th Century focused on Biblical thought especially those who wrote in 1910, the Fundamentals, which was an attempt at combating theological liberalism as you have stated.

In Wikipedia, Christian Fundamentalism is defined as “…a movement manifested in various denominations with various theologies, rather than a single denomination or systematic theology…” so to that extent it is rather broad. What I am referring to mostly, however, is the politicization of Fundamentalist Christianity starting with Reagan and the moral majority. At that point Christian fundamentalism took on a new direction and that is what is often referred to as the Fundamentalist Christianity we are looking at today. However, this politicization didn’t just pop up overnight as it had been brewing for decades which I have noted previously. Now, the discussion among Fundamental Christians is often not the virgin birth or Biblical inerrancy but anti-abortion, pro-life, charter schools, anti-gay etc. which has indirectly been related to the more recent posts you and awareness have discussed.

Thus, today, religious leaders and policy organizations are urging Americans to vote with their "Biblical values", and to be a Fundamentalist Christian now means to support one or, at most, a small handful of policy positions. When religion is thus reduced to political policy decisions and support for a political party, it is at the very least a distraction from the basics of the Christian message. This abuse of religion for political purposes has impacted American politics as well as problematic for discussion of Biblical thought. Record numbers of Americans are now reporting that they have no particular religious affiliation and this has been born out by the latest Pew reports which show a decline in US Christian churches and you can go to faithcommunitiestoday.org and see the same trends. I hope this clears up somewhat where I have been coming from in regards to fundamental Christianity.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

Of course, we could simply go back to decide what version of "Fundamentalism" we are going to talk about here.

Because I grew up in the Southern Baptist, and have an ax to grind, I like to point out that the Southern Baptist started in support of slavery.

The truth is, the Southern Baptist broke off from the Baptists, because the Baptists took an official position against slavery.

So here we have, we could say, two fundamentalist groups of Christians, one for and one against slavery.

So Mike is right to ask which fundamentalism we are talking about.

Unless, of course, we don't consider the Baptist abolitionist's as fundamentalists.

Then we have a new contribution to this thread toward defining fundamentalism: A fundamentalist must be a supporter of holding slaves ... cuz the Bible treats slavery as a social fact ... and the one thing a fundamentalist is, is a follower of the Bible.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Dave

What I am referring to mostly, however, is the politicization of Fundamentalist Christianity starting with Reagan and the moral majority. At that point Christian fundamentalism took on a new direction and that is what is often referred to as the Fundamentalist Christianity we are looking at today. However, this politicization didn’t just pop up overnight as it had been brewing for decades which I have noted previously. Now, the discussion among Fundamental Christians is often not the virgin birth or Biblical inerrancy but anti-abortion, pro-life, charter schools, anti-gay etc. which has indirectly been related to the more recent posts you and awareness have discussed.

And I would argue that this is focusing on the non-Christian activities of those who would otherwise be part of the Christian group that we call fundamentalist.

And therein we find the divide. There are, in effect, two overlapping groups that are labeled as fundamentalist Christians — those that seek to maintain standards from the Bible (even if sometimes errantly) and those who seek to push personal convictions (called moral convictions, but sometimes somewhat immoral in the way it is undertaken) and want to wrap the Bible around it. And while they are at it, wrap the flag around it.

And I admit that the two groups overlap. And it may be that the political group is entirely found inside of the Christian group, although that may be at least partly because of identification through heritage and social values rather than true identification with Christ.

And there is one of the real problems in the whole equations. Many identify with the goals and positions of the social Christianity that they see, but do not truly identify with Christ other than as the alleged focus for their claim to the "right" (v wrong, not v left).

This discussion would be more tenable if we didn't simply start with fundamentalism under one way of thinking, then constantly bounce back and forth between the group that stood for the fundamentals of the Bible in the earlier 20th century (in intra-Christian effort) and the fanatics that use the church as a political block to force their version of Christian morality on everyone via the sword of the government (outside of the true Christian mission). It makes the discussion about homosexuality so difficult because anything that doesn't simply allow it, even in the church, is wrapped in the cloak of the political arm of the Moral Majority and its successors.

I believe that the church does have to make stands, but only within its ranks, not external to them. Our position to the world is without judgment in the sense that our love should not be withheld. Period. But within our ranks, there is cause for judgment and discipline.

And in this sense, we should live a life that appears divided with itself. We should be able to be righteous and loving toward everyone, even those who sin in ways that we cannot simply ignore as being sin. Yet we should also be strong with ourselves to refrain from sin, and to seek to turn away from the sin that remains in us. And that is for us, not for the world. If we can truly learn this lesson, we can come to understand what it really means to love everyone, yet hate sin. Even the sin in the sinners that you love.

It is great theory/theology. And I seek to make it part of my life. Am I always successful? No. And I never will fully be so. But that is what I strive toward.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

Because I grew up in the Southern Baptist, and have an ax to grind, I like to point out that the Southern Baptist started in support of slavery.

The truth is, the Southern Baptist broke off from the Baptists, because the Baptists took an official position against slavery.

So here we have, we could say, two fundamentalist groups of Christians, one for and one against slavery.

So Mike is right to ask which fundamentalism we are talking about.

Unless, of course, we don't consider the Baptist abolitionist's as fundamentalists.

Then we have a new contribution to this thread toward defining fundamentalism: A fundamentalist must be a supporter of holding slaves ... cuz the Bible treats slavery as a social fact ... and the one thing a fundamentalist is, is a follower of the Bible.

And this is one more reason that the label "fundamentalist" is too broad. It is subject to application in ways that make segments of application at odds with each other. In its full spectrum of application, the term is so broad as to be as much misunderstood as the word cult.

Say "cult" meaning that someone follows a particular pastor or minister too closely, and some immediately presume suicide cult. The term legitimately applies to both, but not equally.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I'll respond to this in the next day or two. But first let me say that I have watched "full-timers" go a long way in helping to "persuade" a few young people that they are, or might be, gay. The fact that we all knew who each other's adolescent crushes were, and that they just so happened to be church kids of the opposite gender, didn't seem to make much difference to these full-timers. And the fact that church elders had poured cold water all over their desire to take the object of their opposite-gender infatuation out for ice cream, didn't seem to make much difference to them, either.

I've seen young people being ostracized from within their "locality" so many times. And insinuating that a young person was "gay," "asexual," or otherwise sexually "different," was often just one bullet point on a list of things that were being whispered around town. The other things being said were often of a spiritual nature, and sometimes race or nationality was even an issue for these people.

To put it a different way, zeek, do you think there's some kind of firewall between culture and biology?

No, ray. The interaction of nature and nurture begins in the womb.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

A fundamentalist must be a supporter of holding slaves ... cuz the Bible treats slavery as a social fact ... and the one thing a fundamentalist is, is a follower of the Bible.

No, a fundamentalist (whatever that is) does not have to be a supporter of holding slaves anymore than he has to be a supporter of crucifying people for their beliefs. No, the Bible does NOT treat slavery as a social fact, at least not in the way you are implying. Fallen humans, even ones that claim to follow the Bible, will do what fallen humans have always done since the Fall, and this includes enslaving their fellow human beings. Harold, you're a funny man...you're a biblical literalist when it suits your purposes (to discredit and denigrate), then in the next breath you will claim the Bible is myth and fairy tells. Kind of frustrating but at the same time entertaining.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by zeek

No, ray. The interaction of nature and nurture begins in the womb.

Ya don't say.

Btw, Socrates, did you ever watch The Village?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by OBW

And I would argue that this is focusing on the non-Christian activities of those who would otherwise be part of the Christian group that we call fundamentalist.

And therein we find the divide. There are, in effect, two overlapping groups that are labeled as fundamentalist Christians — those that seek to maintain standards from the Bible (even if sometimes errantly) and those who seek to push personal convictions (called moral convictions, but sometimes somewhat immoral in the way it is undertaken) and want to wrap the Bible around it. And while they are at it, wrap the flag around it.

Unfortunately I have had too much direct contact with my relatives (uncles, aunts, many cousins and others many of which I brought into the LC) who are currently active Fundamentalists in the real world and there is not a separation as you propose. There is no such thing as “non-Christian activities” regarding their Biblical/Political point of view. Some of these individuals are very well off or middle class or just hanging on – doesn’t matter. They are mostly AOG but either way they do not distinguish between these activities. I have also spoken with them about this and they are adamant that these issues are one in the same. How much contact have you had with these Christians?

Originally Posted by OBW

And I admit that the two groups overlap. And it may be that the political group is entirely found inside of the Christian group, although that may be at least partly because of identification through heritage and social values rather than true identification with Christ.

You are backtracking a little but that is understandable. There appears to be a real disconnect and dissonance between what the Bible teaches as well as the history of the Christian Church compared to Fundamental Christians as I have described based on what they promote and believe. Those who self-identify as religious Christians in the United States tend to be exactly the opposite of their British counterparts when it comes to politics. As the Pew Research Center discovered in 2012, “Most people who agree with the religious right also support the Tea Party and its ultra-conservative economic agenda which favors freewheeling, deregulated union busting, minimal taxes, especially for wealthy investors, and boosting capitalism as the ideal earthly schemes as well as its social conservative agenda”. Capitalism in many respects is the new Christianity in the US. Maybe it has been for years but it has taken on a life of its own in Fundamentalist Christianity along with conservative social issues.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Dave

Unfortunately I have had too much direct contact with my relatives (uncles, aunts, many cousins and others many of which I brought into the LC) who are currently active Fundamentalists in the real world and there is not a separation as you propose. There is no such thing as “non-Christian activities” regarding their Biblical/Political point of view. Some of these individuals are very well off or middle class or just hanging on – doesn’t matter. They are mostly AOG but either way they do not distinguish between these activities. I have also spoken with them about this and they are adamant that these issues are one in the same. How much contact have you had with these Christians?

You are backtracking a little but that is understandable. There appears to be a real disconnect and dissonance between what the Bible teaches as well as the history of the Christian Church compared to Fundamental Christians as I have described based on what they promote and believe. Those who self-identify as religious Christians in the United States tend to be exactly the opposite of their British counterparts when it comes to politics. As the Pew Research Center discovered in 2012, “Most people who agree with the religious right also support the Tea Party and its ultra-conservative economic agenda which favors freewheeling, deregulated union busting, minimal taxes, especially for wealthy investors, and boosting capitalism as the ideal earthly schemes as well as its social conservative agenda”. Capitalism in many respects is the new Christianity in the US. Maybe it has been for years but it has taken on a life of its own in Fundamentalist Christianity along with conservative social issues.

I could respond to some specific points you made, but I will simply state that I have been observing some changes over the past few years in more than one assembly that is taking the politics out of their teaching. Partly because they realize that their base is not simply of one mind politically. But also because they are coming to understand that the political issues are not the issues of the church, at least not in the same way.

One assembly stopped directly encouraging its members with respect to the anti-abortion marches and activities, but did support abortion recovery ministries for those affected by it. And they stopped making any statements concerning any political issue, position, or candidate. And they got some heated words from a few.

But it was a few — out of close to 4,000.

Another is not as far down the path as the first, but is getting there. They do not recommend on political campaigns other than to suggest that you should vote.

In both there is a growing realization that those things are not the message of the church, or of the cross.

But if you poll the participants, in both cases you will find some number of people who are determined that Jesus would be a Republican and picket any government or court that allowed for gay marriage.

And my complaint would be that taking that position is not an excommunicable offense. Therefore the taint of bigotry of some (whether many or just a few) will be felt by those who do not hold to such things, and by the group even where they are actively changing their official positions contrary to such bigotry.

I am not proposing a push to make bigotry an excommunicable offense. But I am beginning to refrain from just being silent when the standard old socially conservative claptrap is spoken as if gospel truth. They should at least be confronted with the idea that everyone that is not a "liberal" Christian does not agree with them. And while there are not that many who are vocal, I am discovering that there are some who are at least grappling with the issues and not just going with the old ways of thinking.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Ya don't say.

Btw, Socrates, did you ever watch The Village?

Not yet. But, it's in my Netflix queue. Are the villagers fundamentalists? Wait, no spoilers!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

No, a fundamentalist (whatever that is) does not have to be a supporter of holding slaves anymore than he has to be a supporter of crucifying people for their beliefs. No, the Bible does NOT treat slavery as a social fact, at least not in the way you are implying. Fallen humans, even ones that claim to follow the Bible, will do what fallen humans have always done since the Fall, and this includes enslaving their fellow human beings. Harold, you're a funny man...you're a biblical literalist when it suits your purposes (to discredit and denigrate), then in the next breath you will claim the Bible is myth and fairy tells. Kind of frustrating but at the same time entertaining.

I won't bog this thread with Bible references about slavery, and how it is accepted and regulated. You can do that as well as I and prolly better.

And you're not the only one frustrated with my literalism. It drives bro Zeek completely crazy. That's cuz fundamentalism sloshes all around in me. It is the given reference point I grew up with.

But I'm glad I entertain you.

And I have to remark. Maybe we haven't nailed down just what fundamentalism is but one thing seems obvious: The Bible accepts slavery and rejects homosexuality.

But does it really:http://www.academia.edu/2507704/_An_...5_2010_723-729

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Not yet. But, it's in my Netflix queue. Are the villagers fundamentalists? Wait, no spoilers!

I won't spoil it but Joaquin Phoenix is great in it.

And bro Ray, you nailed it. Socrates is a great name for bro zeek

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

Capitalism in many respects is the new Christianity in the US. Maybe it has been for years but it has taken on a life of its own in Fundamentalist Christianity along with conservative social issues.

The Fellowship: A Secret Christian Fundamentalist Organization:
"The Fellowship is anti-labor, anti-gay, and pro-life. It is also anti-communist, but not necessarily a firm believer in democracy. Rather, it favors a totalitarianism for Christ, a sort of Christian theocracy. In foreign policy, it promotes a “soft” U.S. expansionism.

Is the Fellowship a cult, cabal, or a right-wing conspiracy? Whatever it is, we should be concerned that a secretive, privately funded group — without public scrutiny — is profoundly influencing U.S. domestic and foreign policy.

At the heart of the Fellowship’s spiritual advice for its proxies in Congress is the conviction that the market’s invisible hand represents the guidance of God."
http://www.fogcityjournal.com/wordpr...-organization/

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I won't spoil it but Joaquin Phoenix is great in it.

And bro Ray, you nailed it. Socrates is a great name for bro zeek

I think, perhaps, ray was speaking ironically. I don't call anyone a fundamentalist except one who says s/he believes the five fundamentals or says s/he is a fundamentalist. I do see the family resemblance of Christian fundamentalists to so-called Islamic Fundamentalists. But, I'm perfectly happy to call them something else. I don't call anyone a Christian except those who call themselves that. The statement "so-and-so seems like a Christian" is ambiguous. The word means so many different things to different people in different contexts that by itself it means nothing.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

I think, perhaps, ray was speaking ironically. I don't call anyone a fundamentalist except one who says s/he believes the five fundamentals or says s/he is a fundamentalist. I do see the family resemblance of Christian fundamentalists to so-called Islamic Fundamentalists. But, I'm perfectly happy to call them something else. I don't call anyone a Christian except those who call themselves that. The statement "so-and-so seems like a Christian" is ambiguous. The word means so many different things to different people in different contexts that by itself it means nothing.

This reminds me of a quote from the most prominent Unitarian theologian of the 20th century, James Luther Adams, in describing God----"...God is active or is in the process of self-fulfillment in nature and history. To be sure, the word 'God' is so heavily laden with unacceptable connotations that it is for many people scarcely usable without confusion....Indeed, the word 'God' may in the present context be replaced by the phrase 'that which ultimately concerns humanity' or 'that in which we should place our confidence.' On Being Human Religiously In any case zeek you can define it any way you want, I guess but apparently the word "Christian" ..."has been abused and has so many unacceptable connotations that it is scarcely usable without confusion" and needs clarification.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by zeek

I think, perhaps, ray was speaking ironically. I don't call anyone a fundamentalist except one who says s/he believes the five fundamentals or says s/he is a fundamentalist. I do see the family resemblance of Christian fundamentalists to so-called Islamic Fundamentalists. But, I'm perfectly happy to call them something else. I don't call anyone a Christian except those who call themselves that. The statement "so-and-so seems like a Christian" is ambiguous. The word means so many different things to different people in different contexts that by itself it means nothing.

By this definition, I wonder how likely Recovery members are to be "fundamentalists" (especially the more die-hard members)?

That question is a bit ironic, no?

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by zeek

I usually think of dualism as a kind of metaphysical position which doesn't seem to be what you mean. Please clarify.

I simply meant an either/or proposition where there is, for all intents and purposes, one basic explanation that is deemed acceptable. And then there is the other side, and that is where hate, bigotry, and creepy-crawlies live.

Bro Lee employed this kind of thinking all the time. Either be part of "the recovery," or go back to the dark side which is "degradation." Maybe we could call it a false choice.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

By this definition, I wonder how likely Recovery members are to be "fundamentalists" (especially the more die-hard members)?

That question is a bit ironic, no?

I think all in the Recovery embrace the Five Fundamentals.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

This reminds me of a quote from the most prominent Unitarian theologian of the 20th century, James Luther Adams, in describing God----"...God is active or is in the process of self-fulfillment in nature and history. To be sure, the word 'God' is so heavily laden with unacceptable connotations that it is for many people scarcely usable without confusion....Indeed, the word 'God' may in the present context be replaced by the phrase 'that which ultimately concerns humanity' or 'that in which we should place our confidence.' On Being Human Religiously In any case zeek you can define it any way you want, I guess but apparently the word "Christian" ..."has been abused and has so many unacceptable connotations that it is scarcely usable without confusion" and needs clarification.

Right. I understand that it slows conversation down, but it seems like we need to keep defining what we mean by our concepts as we go because things are not as simple as they seem especially where religion is concerned. Socially constructed definitions have the most power and clarity when people self-identify with them. So I'm just playing it safe by sticking with what people say about themselves. We want to generalize because it makes us feel like we have knowledge about a larger swaths of humanity then our limited experience grants us. Having said that, let me throw another theory into the mix to see if it throws light or confusion on the subject. Are you familiar with George Lakoff's theory of conceptual metaphors? According to Lakoff our politics are organized around two opposite and idealized models of the family: the strict father and nurturant parent models. Conservatives hold the first and progressives the second model with most people falling somewhere in the middle, of course.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

By this definition, I wonder how likely Recovery members are to be "fundamentalists" (especially the more die-hard members)?

That question is a bit ironic, no?

Well Lee specifically identified his Recovery with fundamentalism easy so he made the job easy. Of course, it was a relatively spiritualized, inner life kind of fundamentalism. So, I think it's pretty safe to say that most LC members are fundamentalists although in that particular Local Church way.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I simply meant an either/or proposition where there is, for all intents and purposes, one basic explanation that is deemed acceptable. And then there is the other side, and that is where hate, bigotry, and creepy-crawlies live.

Bro Lee employed this kind of thinking all the time. Either be part of "the recovery," or go back to the dark side which is "degradation." Maybe we could call it a false choice.

Yes it's a problem when we start generalizing. Most of our "either/ors are more or less and it's convenient to forget that. Lee's thinking often oversimplified issues in black and white terms which made it easy for us to avoid the hard task of thinking for ourselves.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I think all in the Recovery embrace the Five Fundamentals.

Lee embraced them and he was calling the shots.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Right. I understand that it slows conversation down, but it seems like we need to keep defining what we mean by our concepts as we go because things are not as simple as they seem especially where religion is concerned. Socially constructed definitions have the most power and clarity when people self-identify with them. So I'm just playing it safe by sticking with what people say about themselves. We want to generalize because it makes us feel like we have knowledge about a larger swaths of humanity then our limited experience grants us. Having said that, let me throw another theory into the mix to see if it throws light or confusion on the subject. Are you familiar with George Lakoff's theory of conceptual metaphors? According to Lakoff our politics are organized around two opposite and idealized models of the family: the strict father and nurturant parent models. Conservatives hold the first and progressives the second model with most people falling somewhere in the middle, of course.

I'm the opposite of the Oedipus complex. I killed my mother and married my father. My ex was like my Dad, it turned out. But I'm not a Republican (conservative) ... nor a Democrat (progressive). Politically I killed both my parents. Neither am I fundamentalist. Have I lost dualism?

Turns out I'm like the neutral angels, that didn't take sides with God or Satan.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm the opposite of the Oedipus complex. I killed my mother and married my father. My ex was like my Dad, it turned out. But I'm not a Republican (conservative) ... nor a Democrat (progressive). Politically I killed both my parents. Neither am I fundamentalist. Have I lost dualism?

Turns out I'm like the neutral angels, that didn't take sides with God or Satan.

Well here are descriptions of the two models. You can find your own place on them. Like I said most people are somewhere in the middle.

The nurturant parent family assumes that the world, despite its dangers and difficulties, is basically good, can be made better, and that it is one’s responsibility to work toward that. Accordingly, children are born good and parents can make them better. Both parents share responsibility for raising the children. Their job is to nurture their children and raise their children to be nurturers. Nurturing has two aspects: empathy (feeling and caring how others feel) and responsibility (for taking care of oneself and others for whom we are responsible). These two aspects of nurturance imply family values that we can recognize as progressive political values: from empathy, we want for others protection from harm, fulfillment in life, fairness, freedom (consistent with responsibility), and open two-way communication. From responsibility follow competence, trust, commitment, community building, and so on.

Lakoff, George (2011-08-08). Don't Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate (pp. 39-40). Chelsea Green Publishing. Kindle Edition.

The conservative worldview is shaped by very different family values. The strict father model assumes that the world is and always will be dangerous and difficult, and that children are born bad and must be made good. The strict father is the moral authority who has to support and defend the family, tell his wife what to do, and teach his kids right from wrong. The only way to do that is through painful punishment—physical discipline that by adulthood will develop into internal discipline. Morality and survival jointly arise from such discipline—discipline to follow moral precepts and discipline to pursue your self-interest to become self-reliant. The good people are the disciplined people. Once grown, the self-reliant, disciplined children are on their own, and the father is not to meddle in their lives. Those children who remain dependent (who were spoiled, overly willful, or recalcitrant) should be forced to undergo further discipline or should be cut free with no support to face the discipline of the outside

Lakoff, George (2011-08-08). Don't Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate (pp. 40-41). Chelsea Green Publishing. Kindle Edition.

I think you can see how what we have been calling fundamentalist clearly falls within the strict father model. And, in either case, according to the theory, a person's politics flows from the conceptual model they subscribe to.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

Right. I understand that it slows conversation down, but it seems like we need to keep defining what we mean by our concepts as we go because things are not as simple as they seem especially where religion is concerned. Socially constructed definitions have the most power and clarity when people self-identify with them. So I'm just playing it safe by sticking with what people say about themselves. We want to generalize because it makes us feel like we have knowledge about a larger swaths of humanity then our limited experience grants us. Having said that, let me throw another theory into the mix to see if it throws light or confusion on the subject. Are you familiar with George Lakoff's theory of conceptual metaphors? According to Lakoff our politics are organized around two opposite and idealized models of the family: the strict father and nurturant parent models. Conservatives hold the first and progressives the second model with most people falling somewhere in the middle, of course.

I have read his modeling ideas previously but it has been some time. Using Lakoff’s definition of metaphors I am not a right winger probably since I didn’t have a “strict father model” nor a totally “nururant parent model” so while I am socially liberal I am fiscally conservative. My mother was religious and my father wasn’t. Speaking of metaphors several graduate students wrote an analysis of the metaphors of one of Rush Limbaugh’s books which I thought at the time I read it was rather revealing as to why people caught on to his ideas through his metaphors and how his views regarding people in general is unfortunate: https://www.dropbox.com/s/evb5qzjc4b...phors.pdf?dl=0 It shows how metaphors can determine the political, social and religious landscape of our lives if we accept them. That was written in 2002. After 9/11 happened I actually listened to him for a period of time and he was entertaining. However, it seemed like I heard the same drumbeat every day and I became tired of him calling people whose ideas he didn’t like or just their ideas “wacko” which was his way of summarily dismissing ideas different from his.

One thing about the Bible which I find interesting is that it is full of metaphors (of course WL's teaching were based on metaphors):
"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me" John 10:27
"I am the good shepherd, . . . and I lay down my life for the sheep" John 10:14-15
"Ye are the salt of the earth: . . . Ye are the light of the world" Matthew 5:13-14
"I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in Him, the same bringeth forth much fruit" John 15:5.
The husbandman that laboreth must be first partaker of the fruits" (II Timothy 2:3,5,6).
"…wise as serpents, and harmless as doves" Matthew 10:16
"…as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house…a royal priesthood" (I Peter 2:5,9) to offer up spiritual sacrifices.

Jesus was also referred to as food, water, and air. Was it metaphor when he was described as “Messiah” or “Savior of the world”? Was the virgin birth a metaphor? Crucifixion, Resurrection, Ascension? Maybe some of them were intended as metaphors but are taken literally. Are there political metaphors in the NT?

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by awareness

I think all in the Recovery embrace the Five Fundamentals.

Ah, now this is an interesting question. And a sticky one. Recovery-ites love not being able to be pinned down. And sometimes they love it when "Christianity" misunderstands their beliefs. Provides them w/some kind of validation, perhaps.

It was in the Recovery that I heard that the story of creation, Adam and Eve, and who knows what else in the Old Testament, might not be what "literally" happened. It was in the Recovery that I learned that "microevolution" might be perfectly compatible with the Christian faith, even if not "macroevolution."

But then, it was also in the Recovery that I learned that James and the Psalms aren't really a part of the Bible the way other books are. It was in the Recovery that I heard all kinds of hyper-subjectivized and mystical notions.

And that's enough to make some "fundamentalist" Christians wonder how "fundamental" the Recovery is.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by zeek

Well Lee specifically identified his Recovery with fundamentalism easy so he made the job easy. Of course, it was a relatively spiritualized, inner life kind of fundamentalism. So, I think it's pretty safe to say that most LC members are fundamentalists although in that particular Local Church way.

Interesting. Care to be more specific as to when/how Lee did this?

My sense is that in the Recovery worldview, "fundamentalism" and "evangelicalism" are just considered as more of big, bad, "degraded Christianity."

[zeek]

Here's a quiz designed to answer the question : What kind of Christian are you?
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Chri...n-Are-You.aspx Disclaimer: I am not vouching for the validity of this quiz.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Interesting. Care to be more specific as to when/how Lee did this?

My sense is that in the Recovery worldview, "fundamentalism" and "evangelicalism" are just considered as more of big, bad, "degraded Christianity."

Well, that's true. Lee did call fundamentalism "incomplete." But, i think he was on board with the five fundamentals. They just weren't enough. He had gone waaaaaaaaaaay beyond them.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

Here's a quiz designed to answer the question : What kind of Christian are you?
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Chri...n-Are-You.aspx Disclaimer: I am not vouching for the validity of this quiz.

Here is the kind of Christian I am as a result of answering the questions on this survey which has its pluses and minuses (I don't think there are any surprises):
You are A Bishop John Shelby Spong Christian

image: http://www.beliefnet.com/~/media/FD1...2FDFBA420.ashx

A.k.a. a Marcus Borg, Karen Armstrong Christian. Your Christian history begins with the Gospel of Thomas, or at least you'd like to include any and all ancient reports on Jesus in your understanding of the Christian savior. Some people call you a "mainline" Christian, which is an odd moniker since "mainline" is simply shorthand for historic denominational Christianity in America. But for several decades, mainliners like you have not identified with evangelical Christianity and have incorporated liberal theological concepts into the practice of the faith.

Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Chri...m7hwRzKFqPJ.99
So, zeek, what kind of Christian are you?

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by zeek

Well, that's true. Lee did call fundamentalism "incomplete." But, i think he was on board with the five fundamentals. They just weren't enough. He had gone waaaaaaaaaaay beyond them.

Perhaps, and for the most part. I'm not sure whether we can hold Lee to this one of the five fundamentals, "Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture as a result of this."

And even putting that aside, we're talking about a group where the leadership talks about what they will "say" to Witness Lee, when they "see him again" (after he was deceased). I think for a lot of self-avowed "fundamentalists," attitudes/beliefs like that would call into serious question how much they really "believe" the other five points.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

Here is the kind of Christian I am as a result of answering the questions on this survey which has its pluses and minuses (I don't think there are any surprises):
You are A Bishop John Shelby Spong Christian

image: http://www.beliefnet.com/~/media/FD1...2FDFBA420.ashx

A.k.a. a Marcus Borg, Karen Armstrong Christian. Your Christian history begins with the Gospel of Thomas, or at least you'd like to include any and all ancient reports on Jesus in your understanding of the Christian savior. Some people call you a "mainline" Christian, which is an odd moniker since "mainline" is simply shorthand for historic denominational Christianity in America. But for several decades, mainliners like you have not identified with evangelical Christianity and have incorporated liberal theological concepts into the practice of the faith.

Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Chri...m7hwRzKFqPJ.99
So, zeek, what kind of Christian are you?

Spong also, but I gotta say there were quite a few items where none of the choices represented what I thought.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Spong also, but I gotta say there were quite a few items where none of the choices represented what I thought.

Me too ... on both accounts.

And bro Ray, perhaps Recoverites aren't fundamentalists ... but worse.

[zeek]

Did Darwin kill God? BBC documentary proposes that both the Ultra-Darwinists and the Creationists get it wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7hjomphSTg

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

Did Darwin kill God? BBC documentary proposes that both the Ultra-Darwinists and the Creationists get it wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7hjomphSTg

I'll have to watch at least part of this later. But on the surface I think that the BBC may be onto something. (At least based on the general position stated in those few words.)

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

I'll have to watch at least part of this later. But on the surface I think that the BBC may be onto something. (At least based on the general position stated in those few words.)

He is on to something as you will see if you watch the rest of the film. It lasts an hour. After that the material started repeating itself like a bad splice job. The documentary is also available in smaller segments on youtube if you prefer.

[Dave]

I was interested in determining the differences between fundamentalists and evangelicals, if any? I came across this article which surprised me in some ways. It is a couple years (April 2012) old but it delves into issues surrounding these differences and it talks about the new fundamentalism emerging out of evangelicalism. It’s an article by Roger E. Olson: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereo...undamentalist/

This forum (LCD) is and probably intentionally so difficult to determine who is who (as far as beliefs or doctrines) because there is not a lot of clarity as to how members distinguish themselves other than a few basic doctrines. I am beginning to wonder if some have dropped the WL stuff only to pick similar dogmatic positions which amount to the same thing. Of course, forget practices (i.e. do they attend church at all, listen to the 900 Club 3 times a day, or to clarify this issue---live out their lives in the way they preach). There are only a couple people who have clarified their practices let alone their doctrines. Of course, it’s not necessary to know this other than trying to understand “fundamentalism” which we have been trying to do on this thread. Anyway, here are some excerpts from this article:

“The new evangelicalism was to be a broad tent that included everyone from conservative Presbyterians to Pentecostals to Advent Christians to Nazarenes to (recently) the Worldwide Church of God. Fundamentalists were invited to join but declined….

As an heir of and scholar working within the new evangelicalism movement I have found it necessary to warn fellow new evangelicals about a neo-fundamentalism taking shape and growing among us. Its adherents are not exactly like the older fundamentalists, so it’s not easy to identify them. For one thing, they don’t call themselves fundamentalists. They call themselves conservative evangelicals and attempt to style themselves as mainstream evangelicals, even “confessional evangelicals” and so forth. (Using positive-sounding labels that imply THEY are the “real” evangelical heirs of the postfundamentalist evangelical movement.)

The problem is that these new fundamentalists, who are, admittedly, evangelicals too, are not easy to identify. They pass themselves off as mainstream evangelicals, the heirs of Carl Henry, for example. Henry, however, denied that inerrancy was a litmus test of authentic evangelical faith. And, as strongly opinionated as he was about many matters, he attempted to keep the evangelical “tent” broad and inclusive…

Something truly awful is stirring within evangelicalism. It’s directly analogous to what has happened in the Republican Party. I call on moderate evangelical leaders to stand up and speak out against it. So far most have not. None dare call it fundamentalism…”

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

I was interested in determining the differences between fundamentalists and evangelicals, if any? I came across this article which surprised me in some ways. It is a couple years (April 2012) old but it delves into issues surrounding these differences and it talks about the new fundamentalism emerging out of evangelicalism. It’s an article by Roger E. Olson: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereo...undamentalist/

This forum (LCD) is and probably intentionally so difficult to determine who is who (as far as beliefs or doctrines) because there is not a lot of clarity as to how members distinguish themselves other than a few basic doctrines. I am beginning to wonder if some have dropped the WL stuff only to pick similar dogmatic positions which amount to the same thing. Of course, forget practices (i.e. do they attend church at all, listen to the 900 Club 3 times a day, or to clarify this issue---live out their lives in the way they preach). There are only a couple people who have clarified their practices let alone their doctrines. O://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/f course, it’s not necessary to know this other than trying to understand “fundamentalism” which we have been trying to do on this thread.

Olsen is obviously far more involved with evangelicalism and fundamentalism than I am. For me, a clue to the problem is when he uses the word "identify" as in "I identify the new fundamentalists by their ethos which I find to be similar in many ways to that of the older fundamentalists."

What is a matter of belief subjectively becomes a matter of identity objectively. Belief is a first person subjective "act". Identifying as a "Christian" or a "fundamentalist" or an "evangelical" or whatever is a social act that defines a person's relationship with others. It seems to me that holding dogmatic positions about anything is inescapably a social phenomenon. So, it immediately becomes complicated. Olsen's article illustrates the complications well.

A familiar thought experiment evokes the problem: Don't think of an elephant. There's no way to process that directive without thinking of an elephant. Both the thought and it's negation are posited in the mind.

Similarly, if one is commanded to believe in an inerrant Bible, or a virgin birth or whatever, both the affirmation and its negation are implied and understood. So, when an individual identifies with a group that demands that one affirm a thesis and deny it's antithesis, a kind of self-denial takes place. That self-denial involves presenting a false persona to the world because it denies the subjective process that must take place to get to that position. Henceforth, the believer presents only the believing side to the world and stuffs the rest. A truly effective believer [what Hoffer called a "true-believer"] even ceases to be aware of the process that got her to this state.

Or, so it seems to me at the moment, such may be the case. Because, once one allows oneself the freedom to think, one no longer is obliged to adhere to a dogma or to force a conclusion. Think about it.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

Olsen is obviously far more involved with evangelicalism and fundamentalism than I am. For me, a clue to the problem is when he uses the word "identify" as in "I identify the new fundamentalists by their ethos which I find to be similar in many ways to that of the older fundamentalists."

What is a matter of belief subjectively becomes a matter of identity objectively. Belief is a first person subjective "act". Identifying as a "Christian" or a "fundamentalist" or an "evangelical" or whatever is a social act that defines a person's relationship with others. It seems to me that holding dogmatic positions about anything is inescapably a social phenomenon. So, it immediately becomes complicated. Olsen's article illustrates the complications well.

A familiar thought experiment evokes the problem: Don't think of an elephant. There's no way to process that directive without thinking of an elephant. Both the thought and it's negation are posited in the mind.

Similarly, if one is commanded to believe in an inerrant Bible, or a virgin birth or whatever, both the affirmation and its negation are implied and understood. So, when an individual identifies with a group that demands that one affirm a thesis and deny it's antithesis, a kind of self-denial takes place. That self-denial involves presenting a false persona to the world because it denies the subjective process that must take place to get to that position. Henceforth, the believer presents only the believing side to the world and stuffs the rest. A truly effective believer [what Hoffer called a "true-believer"] even ceases to be aware of the process that got her to this state.

Or, so it seems to me at the moment, such may be the case. Because, once one allows oneself the freedom to think, one no longer is obliged to adhere to a dogma or to force a conclusion. Think about it.

I agree. To put it in WL terms it wasn't just the dogma but the practice that was problematic. The same is true in what Olsen wrote about in his article. It isn't just the neo-fundamentalist belief system which he has problems with but the practices of neo-fundamentalism e.g. exclusion for example which he outlines. The question remains---what falls into this category. I agree with the process you outline which leaves the true believer not recognizing what brought them to a state of unawareness as a result of eliminating the process of antithesis.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

I agree. To put it in WL terms it wasn't just the dogma but the practice that was problematic. The same is true in what Olsen wrote about in his article. It isn't just the neo-fundamentalist belief system which he has problems with but the practices of neo-fundamentalism e.g. exclusion for example which he outlines. The question remains---what falls into this category. I agree with the process you outline which leaves the true believer not recognizing what brought them to a state of unawareness as a result of eliminating the process of antithesis.

It's true what Olsen says about practices. But, how much more do we need to know, except for academic purposes? Neo-fundamentalism like old school fundamentalism excludes me based on no more than what I confessed in my previous post. Thus, if I remain true to myself, I am outside the fundamentalist fellowship. That's why I can't state my true position on the open forums of this website. So, it's simple. "Fundamentalism is as fundamentalism does" as Forrest Gump might say.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

It's true what Olsen says about practices. But, how much more do we need to know, except for academic purposes? Neo-fundamentalism like old school fundamentalism excludes me based on no more than what I confessed in my previous post. Thus, if I remain true to myself, I am outside the fundamentalist fellowship. That's why I can't state my true position on the open forums of this website. So, it's simple. "Fundamentalism is as fundamentalism does" as Forrest Gump might say.

Pretty true.

I read Olsen's blog as well. Pretty consistent with some others I have been reading lately. It has been fairly obvious from way back that Christian fundamentalism, whether strictly on religious issues, or social, has been a subset of what should be evangelicalism. But their hard stand on certain issues tended to make them not want to be part of evangelicalism. It was the labeling of terrorists with the same term that changed their minds. Now they want to be evangelicals. But not just any evangelicals. They mean "conservative evangelicals." While it may be that there has always been a theological similarity between the two groups, it was that fundamentalists tended to add-in more things to the core and then to hold to them all more strongly than any of the rest of us hold to the true core of the faith.

Oh, we hold to it quite well. But mostly with respect to ourselves. We try not to be fighting over the stuff unless there is sufficient reason to believe that there is no true common ground. But the fundamentalists insist that it is all core and must be adhered to by all. And while they are at it, they are going to push the non-believing world into living under it as well. Therefore the Moral Majority, the Christian Coalition, and the follow-ons and offshoots.

I would be much happier to be understood as someone who had theological differences with many within evangelicalism, and yet could generally get along with all of them, plus most of the others (including the RCC in general).

That does not mean that I can always sit quietly when serious theological error, or a propensity for following truly errant teachers is in play. But even there, I am not dismissing them all to (at minimum) 1,000 years in a dark closet.

Reminds me of an article I read back in 2009 ago in which it was declared that if you are tolerant of something, it means that you are intolerant of it. The premise was that if you didn't simply agree, then you were intolerant.

And this was coming from a postmodernist "no absolute truth" source. It turns out that there are no absolute truths as long as whatever truths you hold to do not seem to make me out to be wrong. Then you cannot disagree with me.

Sounds a lot like absolute truth. My way or the highway. Or have no opinion on it at all. Either position is a mockery of human existence and of the postmodernism it was allegedly coming from. We will always have differing opinions. The only problem is in what we do about them.

[OBW]

Now, to moderate my statements on evangelicalism, one problem with a lot on the inside of evangelicalism is that the rank and file are too often more zealous for their positions than their leaders. It seems funny to me that they seem to miss when the preacher tells them that how they live is much more important than what doctrines they hold to. Yet for many, it is easier to argue about doctrines, and there is still a propensity for declaring obedience as a form of works which has been abolished.

So there is probably no completely non-fundamentalist group of evangelicals because there are fundamentalists buried within them. And this is where it would be so much better to care less for the doctrines, let the theologians hash it out with other theologians (they tend to be a little nicer to each other) and just obey. But that puts a lot of us back into the place where there are no works and we can't be there. We don't listen when we are told otherwise. And we would simply go elsewhere if it were made too clear that we got it wrong. (Note that I say "we" because no matter how much I see this as wrong, I am probably still part of the problem at times.)

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

It has been fairly obvious from way back that Christian fundamentalism, whether strictly on religious issues, or social, has been a subset of what should be evangelicalism.

"Should be", why?

While it may be that there has always been a theological similarity between the two groups, it was that fundamentalists tended to add-in more things to the core and then to hold to them all more strongly than any of the rest of us hold to the true core of the faith.

"Things?" What "things"?

And while they are at it, they are going to push the non-believing world into living under it as well.

Yes, that kind of fundamentalism has been called "Dominionism."

And this was coming from a postmodernist "no absolute truth" source. It turns out that there are no absolute truths as long as whatever truths you hold to do not seem to make me out to be wrong. Then you cannot disagree with me. Sounds a lot like absolute truth. My way or the highway. Or have no opinion on it at all. Either position is a mockery of human existence and of the postmodernism it was allegedly coming from. We will always have differing opinions. The only problem is in what we do about them.

The proposition that there is no absolute truth is a self-defeating tautology.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

"Should be", why?

"Why" is irrelevant. I am speaking of evangelicalism as it is properly understood rather than how is is fractured, such as into "new evangelicalism" which is just fundamentalism renamed.

If you are questioning why there is an evangelicalism, that is a rather broad topic. I would think that it is a way of approach to the Christian life and theology that is broad in inclusion, narrow in exclusion, but is not of the liberal camp of Christianity. Pretty vague.

Originally Posted by zeek

"Things?" What "things"?

Things like those that you and others came up with as the "fundamentals" in the early stages of this thread. The list that went at least into the 20s if not beyond.

Originally Posted by zeek

The proposition that there is no absolute truth is a self-defeating tautology.

Probably so. But when someone doesn't believe that something is true, it matters not whether anyone thinks it is or is not absolute. And the same can be said of what he believes.

While this stands somewhat in contradiction to the very kind of belief of Christianity, I have to believe in Christ for it to be meaningful to me. The fact that He is what/who he is, and that all he said is true (and absolutely so) may be a fact, but it is of little use to convincing someone who doesn't believe. They have to see it for themselves. At that point they believe.

Sometimes it is easier to realize that declaring something to be absolutely true is a barrier to getting people to consider it. We all like to think that there is a reason that something is true, and we should be smart enough to figure it out. If you just want to shove it down my throat, then many will simply resist, no matter how absolutely true it is.

So while I absolutely agree with absolute truth, it really does little for the conversation to declare it to be so. Sort of like declaring the Bible to be inerrant. Depends on what you mean by inerrant. And what aspects are inerrant. And how it is that it is inerrant. And so on.

[OBW]

Further on the absolute truth discussion above.

I note that if we are right and the Bible is right and God will effectively level a lot of the earth as we know it. And if some of the people will be destined for an eternity in a place we call Hell, then it is absolutely true whether anyone believes it or not.

But how we arrive at this is not through evidence of the absolute truth of it, but through faith. Therefore it is not an observable (at this point in time) fact, like observations in a science experiment. So the absoluteness of the truth, while very real, is not something that everyone agrees is absolute — or even true. That doesn't make it not true. Or not absolutely so. But it does no one any good to dwell on it that way.

Yes, a completely self-identified truth that does not have to be true for anyone else is a kind of farce and somewhat of a slippery slope into a worse form of "everyone did what was right in his own eyes." It is an invitation to anarchy. But we are living in a time when even the scientific "truths" that the average person thinks of as "laws" of physics are being overturned rapidly. Someone got hit on the head with an apple and we thought we knew something. Someone measured the acceleration of falling things and we knew more. Then someone hypothesized a situation in which two people could have time move at different speeds (all at the same time). And that gave us the way to create unimaginable power with very little matter. But that was not the end of it. And some of that was proved to be only partly true. And on we go.

So scientific "fact" starts to lose its certainty. And people despair that there is anything that is simply true. And that is because they do not see beyond the latest declaration of what is true. And the problem with that declaration is that it typically overreaches its power to explain. Not because of bad intent, but bad use of evidence. Or incomplete information.

So, yes, declaring there is no absolute truth is foolish. Yet if we cannot find it, then it is not observably true. For some, that is the reason to throw up their hands in despair. A lot like getting burned in one of many Christian cults and then deconstructing everything about it, including the Christianity that it claimed not to be a part of. As if the fact of an error means no truth. (oversimplified)

Postmodernism is not really about declaring no absolute truth. They are just skeptical of claims of what it is. They have seen even science being discarded (or at least redefined at the edges) and refuse to let anyone tell them that they have found "it." "It" may be something important, but how are you so sure that it is "it" and there is no more? That it is the whole story?

There surely is a truth. The question is whether they/we have found it. Or just something that is relatively true today.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

"Why" is irrelevant. I am speaking of evangelicalism as it is properly understood rather than how is is fractured, such as into "new evangelicalism" which is just fundamentalism renamed.

My question "why" was directed at your proposition that fundamentalism is a subset of what "should be" evangelicalism. By "should be" you seemed to be stating your approval of the situation be for some reason. To that proposition the question 'why" is not irrelevant.

Probably so.

No. The proposition that there is no absolute truth is definitely a self-defeating tautology based on logic not on probability. Absolutes are all or nothing. Relatives are more or less. There can be no "relative absolute" or "absolute relative". Those are oxymorons.

While this stands somewhat in contradiction to the very kind of belief of Christianity...

What kind of belief is that?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

It's true what Olsen says about practices. But, how much more do we need to know, except for academic purposes? Neo-fundamentalism like old school fundamentalism excludes me based on no more than what I confessed in my previous post. Thus, if I remain true to myself, I am outside the fundamentalist fellowship. That's why I can't state my true position on the open forums of this website. So, it's simple. "Fundamentalism is as fundamentalism does" as Forrest Gump might say.

The problem with the open forum is that they are all over the map from fragile Christians, newer Christians, fundamentalists, Evangelicals, practices are varied etc. In addition, you have people still in the LC, people who have left but are still trying to straighten the LC out or get back in. Practices are for the most part unknown e.g. the recent member "Matt" attends 4 different churches but we really don't know other than a couple other people if they attend church on a regular basis or their involvement in their church if they belong to one. Of course, most portray themselves as either fundamentalists or Evangelicals who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible etc. What that means exactly is unclear, however. We are the exceptions but yet because of our experience with the LC and our continued efforts at seeking truth in the Christian context the alternative views forum is much more conducive to our points of view.

[awareness]

I'm way behind. But since this lists all those UntoHim has said isn't allowed on his forum I had to paste this:

Christian fundamentalists create 'Bigotry Map' of people intolerant of their faith:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...al-agenda.html

Fundamentalists playing the victim ... very funny. It's not the gays, atheists, and humanists that are their problem. It's the scientific revolution, education, and facts.

[UntoHim]

Harold my friend, I have never said any such thing (and you know this but you just wanted to see if I was paying attention)

ANY member of the forum is allowed to view and participate on Alternative Views and this has been the case since the beginning.

Just so you fellows know, ONLY ONE PERSON has asked for the password and they have not participated as far as I know. ALL, every single one, of the regular forum participants have the password already. From looking at the "views" column, a number of people are looking, but are apparently not interested in mixing it up with you guys. As I suspected, not as many people seem to be interested in the kind of discussions that are taking place here as you guys would have thought.

But no worries, the playground will stay open, but if you guys would spend less time bellyaching about people having to take a few seconds and request a password, you might find yourself with more time and energy to post something interesting and/or applicable enough for others to react/engage in.

Carry on!

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

The problem with the open forum is that they are all over the map from fragile Christians, newer Christians, fundamentalists, Evangelicals, practices are varied etc. In addition, you have people still in the LC, people who have left but are still trying to straighten the LC out or get back in. Practices are for the most part unknown e.g. the recent member "Matt" attends 4 different churches but we really don't know other than a couple other people if they attend church on a regular basis or their involvement in their church if they belong to one. Of course, most portray themselves as either fundamentalists or Evangelicals who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible etc. What that means exactly is unclear, however. We are the exceptions but yet because of our experience with the LC and our continued efforts at seeking truth in the Christian context the alternative views forum is much more conducive to our points of view.

True that. Love Alternative Views. It's a gift that keeps on giving. UntoHim, you were saying?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm way behind. But since this lists all those UntoHim has said isn't allowed on his forum I had to paste this:

Christian fundamentalists create 'Bigotry Map' of people intolerant of their faith:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...al-agenda.html

Fundamentalists playing the victim ... very funny. It's not the gays, atheists, and humanists that are their problem. It's the scientific revolution, education, and facts.

I don't know. I think I'm seeing growing hostility against Christian Fundamentalism on the web. Just because fundamentalists tend to be paranoid doesn't mean they haven't evoked an hostile public reaction that could bubble over into aggression. Am I wrong?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Dave

The problem with the open forum is that they are all over the map from fragile Christians, newer Christians, fundamentalists, Evangelicals, practices are varied etc.

This is not a problem at all, and in fact it's one of the reasons the forum exists! The common denominator is not that we are Christians who are in the exact same place, but rather that we are Christians who have come out of the same dysfunctional, unhealthy movement. The answer for all of us is not to abandon the Christian faith, but to rediscover "the faith that was once delivered to the saints". So "all over the map" is no problem whatsoever...in fact it's what keeps it so interesting.

In addition, you have people still in the LC, people who have left but are still trying to straighten the LC out or get back in.

Again, no problem! At least these people can draw from some of our experiences. Most of us had to go it alone, and that was no fun at all. And again, getting to know the true God, the God of the Bible, and the glorious Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ is the way back to spiritual health for anybody caught in false religion (Christian or not), so for Local Churchers, I can't think of any better place for them then this forum.

We are the exceptions but yet because of our experience with the LC and our continued efforts at seeking truth in the Christian context the alternative views forum is much more conducive to our points of view.

Hey, we could rename this forum "The Exceptions" if you want...I kind of like it!. Seriously, I must tell you that I'm happy that you are seeking the truth, but I also must tell you that I don't see how that your seeking is "in the Christian context"...at least not in anything that has been traditionally known as an "historical Christian" context. I look at you and zeek as really more in the line of deism more than Christian. Harold...I'm not sure what to put Harold in.

But this is all ok here in Alternative Views. At first I didn't really see it as "alternative" as it's turned out to be, but again, NO PROBLEMO!

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

But this is all ok here in Alternative Views. At first I didn't really see it as "alternative" as it's turned out to be, but again, NO PROBLEMO!

I'm glad your following the discourse. I've been called a deist before and worse things many times. I don't usually think in terms of deism although I enjoyed reading Thomas Paine very much and would highly recommend him. Deism was an important religious response to Newton's mechanical world. Science has outstripped that world view. So, no I'm not a deist. Insofar as I have faith I am a fideist. My faith comes out of mystical experiences I had including during the time I was in the Local churches. Why do you think I stuck around for 13 years? But, I don't have a fixed dogmatic way of explaining those experiences to myself. And no one is in a better position to explain them then me. So I keep seeking answers. Strange after all these years to still be a learner and a seeker, right? Yet I think God is beyond explanation. So, the most I seem to be able to know of God in this life is through the spirit I am. As Soren Kierkegaard said "Subjectivity is truth."

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

I note that if we are right and the Bible is right and God will effectively level a lot of the earth as we know it. And if some of the people will be destined for an eternity in a place we call Hell, then it is absolutely true whether anyone believes it or not.

That is the case for any phenomena that is not strictly mind-dependent. But the only publicly verifiable or falsifiable can be reality tested. On that criteria hell is no more than an untestable hypothesis.

But how we arrive at this is not through evidence of the absolute truth of it, but through faith. Therefore it is not an observable (at this point in time) fact, like observations in a science experiment. So the absoluteness of the truth, while very real, is not something that everyone agrees is absolute — or even true. That doesn't make it not true. Or not absolutely so. But it does no one any good to dwell on it that way.

Oh, I don't know. People seem to wish to avoid confessing how little they know. Aware of his own ignorance, Socrates made a profession of exposing the ignorance of people who claimed to know things. For that crime he was sentenced to death. I don't think he would be very popular today. Contrary to Proverbs, the beginning of wisdom may be knowing what you don't know. For instance, God. People actually think they know what they are talking about when they talk about God. But when you analyze the content of their concepts, they are incoherent. Even systematically consistent theologies often either make God out to be either an object among objects or an abstraction devoid of real-world content.

So scientific "fact" starts to lose its certainty. And people despair that there is anything that is simply true. And that is because they do not see beyond the latest declaration of what is true. And the problem with that declaration is that it typically overreaches its power to explain. Not because of bad intent, but bad use of evidence. Or incomplete information.

Scientific facts are more or less probable. They are not absolute. If they are understood for being what they are; its not a problem.

So, yes, declaring there is no absolute truth is foolish. Yet if we cannot find it, then it is not observably true. For some, that is the reason to throw up their hands in despair. A lot like getting burned in one of many Christian cults and then deconstructing everything about it, including the Christianity that it claimed not to be a part of. As if the fact of an error means no truth. (oversimplified)

Whereas the wise thing to do is to recognize that even a fraudulent religion by being false points to the possibility of a religion that is true. If only we can find it [or them].

Postmodernism is not really about declaring no absolute truth. They are just skeptical of claims of what it is. They have seen even science being discarded (or at least redefined at the edges) and refuse to let anyone tell them that they have found "it." "It" may be something important, but how are you so sure that it is "it" and there is no more? That it is the whole story? There surely is a truth. The question is whether they/we have found it. Or just something that is relatively true today.

Neopragmatism does deny absolute truth. In neopragmatism, scientific and philosophical methods form merely a set of contingent "vocabularies" which people abandon or adopt over time according to social conventions and usefulness. I don't go that far. I simply acknowledge that ultimate reality is most likely unknowable. The best science can do is to construct models with ever higher degrees enough predictive reliability and ever lower margins of error. But, they are often good enough to be trusted. Have you ever driven across a bridge? But, are they good enough to decide where you are going to spend eternity? Enter Jack T. Chick with a Gospel Cartoon tract.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

This is not a problem at all, and in fact it's one of the reasons the forum exists! The common denominator is not that we are Christians who are in the exact same place, but rather that we are Christians who have come out of the same dysfunctional, unhealthy movement. The answer for all of us is not to abandon the Christian faith, but to rediscover "the faith that was once delivered to the saints". So "all over the map" is no problem whatsoever...in fact it's what keeps it so interesting.

The reason I listed those various individuals or viewpoints as problems was because I was responding to zeek's statement:

That's why I can't state my true position on the open forums of this website.

He made an honest statement which I agreed with and I rarely venture out into the open forum but part of it is also because it is not all that interesting to me. When we were discussing Kahn it was interesting because my cousin seems to be involved with this way of thinking...so I had questions and I did some research etc. Also, I don't want to state a point of view inconsistent with the moderator of this forum to a new or fragile fundamental Christian or someone just coming out of the LC because I am not interested in dissuading someone to change from their fundamentalist Christian faith even though my point of view from my perspective is consistent with the Christian message but it is not fundamentalist. I am more interested in discussing issues regarding the Bible or fundamentalism with someone who has some background in these areas but also has an open mind to this type of discussion.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Again, no problem! At least these people can draw from some of our experiences. Most of us had to go it alone, and that was no fun at all. And again, getting to know the true God, the God of the Bible, and the glorious Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ is the way back to spiritual health for anybody caught in false religion (Christian or not), so for Local Churchers, I can't think of any better place for them then this forum.

This is where I completely agree with you which I have stated elsewhere. When you are coming out of the LC it is great to find others who have gone through the journey already. You don't have to feel as though you are going through it alone but you can touch base with others who have been there and done that. Like you said, it would have been nice to have had something like this when we left the LC.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Hey, we could rename this forum "The Exceptions" if you want...I kind of like it!. Seriously, I must tell you that I'm happy that you are seeking the truth, but I also must tell you that I don't see how that your seeking is "in the Christian context"...at least not in anything that has been traditionally known as an "historical Christian" context. I look at you and zeek as really more in the line of deism more than Christian. Harold...I'm not sure what to put Harold in.

But this is all ok here in Alternative Views. At first I didn't really see it as "alternative" as it's turned out to be, but again, NO PROBLEMO!

I am sure it is easy to peg me as a Deist since I have presented myself as a Unitarian Christian and noted that I attend and have attended for many years the Unitarian church. Christianity is part of the history of the Unitarians but so were 3 of the first 6 Presidents of this country. In fact they have a remarkable history in this country--Channing, Thoreau, Emerson, Susan B Anthony, Louise May Alcott etc. The emphasis throughout the centuries among Unitarians has been not on what you believe but how you live your life. From my standpoint that is consistent with the Christian message.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

I simply acknowledge that ultimate reality is most likely unknowable. The best science can do is to construct models with ever higher degrees enough predictive reliability and ever lower margins of error. But, they are often good enough to be trusted. Have you ever driven across a bridge? But, are they good enough to decide where you are going to spend eternity? Enter Jack T. Chick with a Gospel Cartoon tract.

True. And in science it is fairly easy see that we are learning more rather that fully rejecting much of the past (though some does turn out to be less than useful on a go-forward basis).

But in religion, the problem is filtering out the noise that wants to take you where the things you already see would not. Or deciding to change your mind on something. And here we are, somewhat people of The Book because there is a book that we don't fully understand that provides much of the basis of our faith. And part of the problem is deciding what to do about issues like those Dave seems so stuck on from the OT.

And there are too many on the inside who are busy focusing on the extremes and parading it as the main thing. Like Jack T. Chick. Just what I need. Another person claiming to speak for my religious/spiritual beliefs — and getting it all wrong. Or at least emphasizing the things that are not my beliefs.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by OBW

Further on the absolute truth discussion.
I note that if we are right and the Bible is right and God will effectively level a lot of the earth as we know it. And if some of the people will be destined for an eternity in a place we call Hell, then it is absolutely true whether anyone believes it or not. But how we arrive at this is not through evidence of the absolute truth of it, but through faith. Therefore it is not an observable (at this point in time) fact, like observations in a science experiment. So the absoluteness of the truth, while very real, is not something that everyone agrees is absolute — or even true. That doesn't make it not true. Or not absolutely so. But it does no one any good to dwell on it that way.

The World Factbook gives the population as 7,095,217,980 (July 2013 est.) and the distribution of religions as Christian 31.50% (of which Roman Catholic 16.85%, Protestant 6.15%, Orthodox 3.96%, Anglican 1.26%), Muslim 23.20% (of which Sunni 75-90%, Shia 10-20%, Ahmadi 1%), Hindu 13.8%, Buddhist 6.77%, Sikh 0.35%, Jewish 0.22%, Baha'i 0.11%, other religions 10.95%, non-religious 9.66%, atheists 2.01% (2010 est.). ---- While Christians make up 31.5% of the world's population most of those are RCC. The number of Evangelical believers is miniscule in comparison to the overall population. This means that if the Bible is right we will not only have a scorched earth there will be in excess of 7 billion fatalities at this point. Yes, it won't matter what we believe if the Bible is right...most of everything is going up in smoke. Rev. 7:3 notes, "...Do not damage the earth or the sea or the trees, until we have marked the servants of our God with a seal on their foreheads." In the context of this "if the Bible is right" ... we must add "IF it has been interpreted right by Evangelicals" because for all we know the Mormons/JWs/Christian Jews etc might start receiving a "seal on their foreheads" and not necessarily those who think they will receive the seal. People summarily tagged as heretics might be receiving the seal. There are lots of ifs. You just hope you hit it right if the Bible is right about its predictions but like you said there is no sense dwelling on it because if you have faith in it then just go with it and forget the science etc. if you dare (on the other hand, don't you have this sense...curve ball ahead)

Originally Posted by OBW

Yes, a completely self-identified truth that does not have to be true for anyone else is a kind of farce and somewhat of a slippery slope into a worse form of "everyone did what was right in his own eyes." It is an invitation to anarchy. But we are living in a time when even the scientific "truths" that the average person thinks of as "laws" of physics are being overturned rapidly. Someone got hit on the head with an apple and we thought we knew something. Someone measured the acceleration of falling things and we knew more. Then someone hypothesized a situation in which two people could have time move at different speeds (all at the same time). And that gave us the way to create unimaginable power with very little matter. But that was not the end of it. And some of that was proved to be only partly true. And on we go.
So scientific "fact" starts to lose its certainty. And people despair that there is anything that is simply true. And that is because they do not see beyond the latest declaration of what is true. And the problem with that declaration is that it typically overreaches its power to explain. Not because of bad intent, but bad use of evidence. Or incomplete information.

I am not sure what truths you are referencing. Gravity is still holding true from that guy who dropped the apple. You might want to read, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn which was considered to be one of "The Hundred Most Influential Books since WWII" by Times magazine. We are undergoing scientific revolutions at warp speed with the advent of the internet among other things. If you reflect back with the advent of the printing press there was a revolution in science as well (see Elizabeth Eisenstein's book, The Printing Revolution in Early Modern Europe...especially Chapter 7---Printing and the Rise of Modern Science). We are in the middle of it watching it unfold seemingly without boundaries. The spread of and sharing of scientific information is pushing this revolution like a tidal wave.

Originally Posted by OBW

So, yes, declaring there is no absolute truth is foolish. Yet if we cannot find it, then it is not observably true. For some, that is the reason to throw up their hands in despair. A lot like getting burned in one of many Christian cults and then deconstructing everything about it, including the Christianity that it claimed not to be a part of. As if the fact of an error means no truth. (oversimplified)
Postmodernism is not really about declaring no absolute truth. They are just skeptical of claims of what it is. They have seen even science being discarded (or at least redefined at the edges) and refuse to let anyone tell them that they have found "it." "It" may be something important, but how are you so sure that it is "it" and there is no more? That it is the whole story?
There surely is a truth. The question is whether they/we have found it. Or just something that is relatively true today.

Quoting from Kuhn's Scientific Revolutions' book noted above, "...We may, to be more precise, have to relinquish the notion, explicit or implicit, that changes of paradigm carry scientists and those who learn from them closer and closer to the truth." This is also true for the paradigms of religious belief.

[zeek]

The reason I listed those various individuals or viewpoints as problems was because I was responding to zeek's statement:

He made an honest statement which I agreed with and I rarely venture out into the open forum but part of it is also because it is not all that interesting to me.

Thanks for that clarification, Dave. That, and not Alternative Views is the basic problem I have with this website. And that is its similarity with Witness Lee's Local Churches where every viewpoint but Lee's was suppressed.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

And its similarity with Witness Lee's Local Churches where every viewpoint but Lee's was suppressed.

That is a good point I should have added on to "it's not all that interesting to me" but then again that is why it is not all that interesting to me.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

True. And in science it is fairly easy see that we are learning more rather that fully rejecting much of the past (though some does turn out to be less than useful on a go-forward basis).

Good point. In that respect, science is cumulative and progressive in a way that neither revealed religion nor philosophy are.

But in religion, the problem is filtering out the noise that wants to take you where the things you already see would not. Or deciding to change your mind on something. And here we are, somewhat people of The Book because there is a book that we don't fully understand that provides much of the basis of our faith. And part of the problem is deciding what to do about issues like those Dave seems so stuck on from the OT.

The subject decides what is noise, what to see and what not, how to view the Bible and whether to view it at all. I have known more than a few fundamentalists who in order to keep believing the fundamentals avoid actually reading the Bible because that would mess up their fundamentalist faith. Dave may be "stuck on" issues from the OT, but, that is less problematic to me than the professing Bible believers who cherry pick the Bible stories they affirm. The ethical problems presented by the genocidal commandments of Joshua and the Holiness code of Leviticus are serious problems for me that demand a hypothetical explanation. So, I suppose I'm stuck too.

And there are too many on the inside who are busy focusing on the extremes and parading it as the main thing. Like Jack T. Chick. Just what I need. Another person claiming to speak for my religious/spiritual beliefs — and getting it all wrong. Or at least emphasizing the things that are not my beliefs.

Is Chick focusing on an extreme? I don't know. I still find his tracts equally banal and powerful. They present an image world where literal Christian fundamentalist metaphysics battles for space, time and your soul with the vividness of Satanism or Isis or the colorful Hindu pantheon. Although, I do still observe that I am, even at this late date in pluralist Florida where I live, more likely to see a Chick tract on the towel dispenser in the Walmart men's room than a Isis or a Hindu tract.

[zeek]

Could the fanatical biblicism of contemporary Christian Fundamentalism be a rearguard reaction to the failure of the historical institutional church to safeguard the faith against modernity?

Safeguarding the faith was thus the first priority in any question of philosophical or religious dialogue; hence that dialogue was often curtailed altogether lest the devil of doubt or unorthodoxy gain a foothold in the vulnerable minds of the faithful. The more intellectually esoteric and doctrinally unconstrained forms of early Christianity, such as the widespread Gnostic movements, were condemned and eventually suppressed with as much intense antagonism as was shown to paganism. It was especially the antihierarchical Gnostics who pressed the orthodox Church to a firm definition of Christian doctrine in the second and third centuries. For to protect what was perceived by the postapostolic Church as the unique and, in a sense, fragile essence of the Christian revelation— the simultaneous humanity and divinity of Christ, the simultaneous unity and trinity of God, the original goodness of the Creation yet its need for redemption, the New Testament as the dialectical fulfillment of the Old— against a growing number of conflicting sects and doctrines, leading early Christians concluded that the beliefs of the faithful must be established , disseminated , and sustained by an authoritative Church structure. Thus the institutional Church, as the living embodiment of the Christian dispensation, became the official guardian of the final truth and the highest court of appeal in any matters of ambiguity— indeed, not only the court , but also the prosecuting and punitive arm of the religious law.

The shadow side of the Christian religion’s claim to universality was its intolerance. The Church’s view of Christian conversion as a private religious experience fully contingent on individual freedom and spontaneous faith stood in stark counterpoint to a not infrequent policy of forcibly imposed religious conformity. With the final ascendance of Christianity at the end of the classical era, the pagan temples were systematically demolished and the philosophical academies officially closed. 9 Just as the strict ethical puritanism that Christianity had inherited from Judaism opposed the unrestrained sensuality and immorality it perceived in pagan culture , so too with equal stringency did Christianity develop a theological puritanism that posited itself against the teachings of pagan philosophy and any unorthodox conceptions of Christian truth. There were not many true paths, nor many gods and goddesses, differing from one place to the next and from one person to the next. There was but one God and one Providence, one true religion, one plan of salvation for the entire world. All mankind deserved to know and have this one saving faith. And so it was that the pluralism of classical culture, with its multiplicity of philosophies, its diversity of polytheistic mythologies, and its plethora of mystery religions, gave way to an emphatically monolithic system— one God, one Church, one Truth.

Tarnas, Richard (2011-10-19). Passion of the Western Mind (Kindle Locations 2272-2274). Random House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

Could the fanatical biblicism of contemporary Christian Fundamentalism be a rearguard reaction to the failure of the historical institutional church to safeguard the faith against modernity?

There is also a fanatical political component to contemporary Christian Fundamentalism in the U.S. and I don't know if you separate the two. There is a strong Christian movement in China but they stand in stark contrast to Christian Fundamentalism in the U.S. While the Chinese Christians associate Christianity in the west with democracy and freedom the Fundamentalists in the U.S. appear to be more interested in the suppression of both freedom and democracy by their insistence on only one belief system in their faith and their politics. In any case, from my standpoint they are both reacting to what they consider to be liberal thought resulting in their decline.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

Could the fanatical biblicism of contemporary Christian Fundamentalism be a rearguard reaction to the failure of the historical institutional church to safeguard the faith against modernity?

That might be a short version, although they will fight you on it because of things that get tossed in because of the simple definition.

At the same time, I find it interesting that most of fundamentalism is busy using the tools of modernity — pseudo-scientific reasoning and arguments of logic — to fight the effects of those very things on what they understand as the faith.

And there is the big problem with that approach. Using science and logic to defend something that is by faith will never be successful in the long run. You either meet Jesus and believe, or you don't and therefore don't. It is not the result of a scientific experiment in which you can prove both God in general, and the Christian faith in specific.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Dave

There is also a fanatical political component to contemporary Christian Fundamentalism in the U.S. and I don't know if you separate the two. There is a strong Christian movement in China but they stand in stark contrast to Christian Fundamentalism in the U.S. While the Chinese Christians associate Christianity in the west with democracy and freedom the Fundamentalists in the U.S. appear to be more interested in the suppression of both freedom and democracy by their insistence on only one belief system in their faith and their politics. In any case, from my standpoint they are both reacting to what they consider to be liberal thought resulting in their decline.

I would not say that these are facets of US Christian fundamentalism as a whole. But the subdivisions in which this is really engaged are the ones making the noise.

And coupled with that, there is this tendency within so many of those on both extremes, both politically and spiritually, to have a need to appear in agreement on everything. While only the most extreme groups will expel someone for simply questioning something (like the LCM), people are often somewhat cowed into going along with the more extremes because they fear rejection.

So while it may not be a truly unified a group as many think, it comes across that way because few will take contrary positions, or even admit to uncertainty on things. Their identity is in the group and they cannot allow themselves to be booted.

And being booted might be the best thing that ever happened to them.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by OBW

That might be a short version, although they will fight you on it because of things that get tossed in because of the simple definition.

At the same time, I find it interesting that most of fundamentalism is busy using the tools of modernity — pseudo-scientific reasoning and arguments of logic — to fight the effects of those very things on what they understand as the faith.

And there is the big problem with that approach. Using science and logic to defend something that is by faith will never be successful in the long run. You either meet Jesus and believe, or you don't and therefore don't. It is not the result of a scientific experiment in which you can prove both God in general, and the Christian faith in specific.

I agree because science and faith often don't mix well. Unfortunately the Bible is not conducive to retaining that separation or at least believers today may have lost their perspective in part by believing in inerrancy. In a remarkable scholarly book, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity by Larry Hurtado who admits he is a believer, writes (p 9),
"I do not think it is necessary for Jesus to have thought and spoken of himself in the same terms that his followers thought and spoke of him in the decades subsequent to his crucifixion in order for the convictions of these followers to be treated as valid by Christians today."

It also seems to me that today's fundamentalist Christianity is represented (earned or not) by charlatans whether it is Jim Bakker or Mark Driscoll. They have mega churches with several large screens, the best music, the best speakers who give moving messages and they seem to predominate the landscape of Christianity today with a political bias. I am sure there are many others who are represented by well meaning Christian ministers.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Tarnas

Safeguarding the faith was thus the first priority in any question of philosophical or religious dialogue; hence that dialogue was often curtailed altogether lest the devil of doubt or unorthodoxy gain a foothold in the vulnerable minds of the faithful. The more intellectually esoteric and doctrinally unconstrained forms of early Christianity, such as the widespread Gnostic movements, were condemned and eventually suppressed with as much intense antagonism as was shown to paganism.

Apparently the truth was unable to stand on its own merit, and so required the stamping out of all other voices. Both the early proto-orthodox as well as the early orthodox church fathers are known for the burning of their opponents writings and teachings. Whole libraries were destroyed. Why are many ancient writings lost to us? Because Christians burned them. Why? Because their truth wasn't robust enough to stand on its own.

All of Christendom is intoxicated by SAINT Athanasius of Alexandria, the "father of the canon." Yet he resorted to violence and murder to suppress dissent. To him all that disagreed with him were Arians, even if they weren't followers of Arius. Witness Lee was like Athanasius, but was fortunately held back by modern secularism, from Athanasius' extremes.

Originally Posted by Tarnas

The shadow side of the Christian religion’s claim to universality was its intolerance.

From what I understand from its inception monotheism has not been tolerant. Why? Because the one and only true God requires the destruction of all others. Nowhere is this more exemplified than in the Bible.

And that was the end result of The Five Fundamentals; intolerance of liberalism, modernity, & science. We see this intolerance in all the monotheist religions. ISIS is a prime and current example.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

From what I understand from its inception monotheism has not been tolerant. Why? Because the one and only true God requires the destruction of all others. Nowhere is this more exemplified than in the Bible.

I will start by dismissing the comments about fundamentalism's view of science. Not because I think their view is OK, but because it should not even make a difference to the Christian. Science is not religion (although there are some who clearly have a religion in science). Modernity is an era, not a religion. It is haltingly giving way to a different era in post-modernity. Yet Christ and his people should exist within either without problem or compromise.

But while it is easy to point to the OT and declare that the children of Israel were all about wiping out other gods in favor of their own, other than the claiming of the land that they came to call "the good land," their efforts were not aimed at destroying all other gods, but at weeding out other gods from their own worship. And they weren't very good at that until they spent 70+ yeas in exile. The world around them continued in their ways with their own gods.

Since that time, we have seen other monotheistic religions go through periods in which they sought to destroy all others. Certain sects within Islam are set on that at this time. And Christians have been the same way at other times. And maybe some are that way now, at least with respect to Islam.

Here in the thread on fundamentalism, we are looking at a collection of beliefs that includes those people. And among them are some who are believers. But in what? And in who? I would say in their horses and chariots. In their ability to move a secular government to do their will. Much like some of the early fathers of our faith who burned the writings of their opponents and even had the government imprison them.

The call to faithfulness to God is to me, not to me to force upon others. They have to come to their own faith. And having a bunch of bullies pushing it and even making aspects of it into law does not help.

[OBW]

A favorite blog of mine occasionally posts links to short videos of spoofs on doctrinal and religious issues created by a group that goes by the title "TheLutheranSatire." The fist one is on the Westboro Baptist Church.

Be sure to keep watching when the credits roll because it is not over.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEIqEYP_ZvM

This next one is a hoot and talks about the doctrine of the trinity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

There is also a fanatical political component to contemporary Christian Fundamentalism in the U.S. and I don't know if you separate the two. There is a strong Christian movement in China but they stand in stark contrast to Christian Fundamentalism in the U.S. While the Chinese Christians associate Christianity in the west with democracy and freedom the Fundamentalists in the U.S. appear to be more interested in the suppression of both freedom and democracy by their insistence on only one belief system in their faith and their politics. In any case, from my standpoint they are both reacting to what they consider to be liberal thought resulting in their decline.

Yes, well, I observe that the pundits and professors usually associate Christian Fundamentalism with the rubric "conservativism." Conservatives are supposed to be those believe in traditional values at least to the point they are willing to take political action for them or, short of that, how they respond to a survey. So, for example, one could investigate how often religion tenets correlate with with nationalism or, as it has come to be called of late "exceptionalism" in a population.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Apparently the truth was unable to stand on its own merit, and so required the stamping out of all other voices.

How would "the truth" do that? The truth has to be held by someone or it is not "the truth". At least that is so according to the correspondence theory of the truth which is close to the common sense view of it.

Both the early proto-orthodox as well as the early orthodox church fathers are known for the burning of their opponents writings and teachings. Whole libraries were destroyed. Why are many ancient writings lost to us? Because Christians burned them.

Another sad fact of history.

All of Christendom is intoxicated by SAINT Athanasius of Alexandria, the "father of the canon." Yet he resorted to violence and murder to suppress dissent. To him all that disagreed with him were Arians, even if they weren't followers of Arius. Witness Lee was like Athanasius, but was fortunately held back by modern secularism, from Athanasius' extremes. From what I understand from its inception monotheism has not been tolerant. Why? Because the one and only true God requires the destruction of all others. Nowhere is this more exemplified than in the Bible. And that was the end result of The Five Fundamentals; intolerance of liberalism, modernity, & science. We see this intolerance in all the monotheist religions. ISIS is a prime and current example.

The western tradition of tolerance including the USA itself was born in response to the intolerance of the state churches of Europe. Unfortunately, that "age of Enlightenment" trend didn't fully penetrate the predominantly Middle Eastern nations until recently, and ISIS is part the social reaction that larger trend is producing. Of course, the positive aspects of secularism like tolerance are bollixed up with the negative aspects of Imperial American colonialism. So, hideous violence is part of the picture. But, the culture wars right here in the good old USA show that the conflict is still being played out here as well. "World without end" as we used to sing in the Presbyterian Church when I was a kid and the phrase engendered a hopeful feeling in my naive heart. Now it seems to mean "conflict without end" or without end as long as there are humans on the planet. Biological evolution is seldom peaceful and neither is the cultural kind. The song our leaders have been singing to us throughout our lifetime could be entitled "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace."

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

Yes, well, I observe that the pundits and professors usually associate Christian Fundamentalism with the rubric "conservativism." Conservatives are supposed to be those believe in traditional values at least to the point they are willing to take political action for them or, short of that, how they respond to a survey. So, for example, one could investigate how often religion tenets correlate with with nationalism or, as it has come to be called of late "exceptionalism" in a population.

Certainly the US has long considered itself "exceptional" attributing it often to their Christian heritage. Other countries would say "yankee go home" because of the arrogance this exceptionalist perception created.

I think the spread of Christianity in China or South America is great because of the association with democracy and freedom but in both areas/countries their politics do not reflect the politics of the conservatives in the US who flood fundamentalist Christian churches.

Gandhi promoted political action (i.e. liberal political action) but Jesus did not (he did promote peace, love, fairness etc) so I don't see the correlation that Christians attribute to scriptures that give them the impetus for political action for their views. The only "political" aspect of the early Christian church was their unwillingness to accept the pagan gods because of their unified belief in Christ. Anyone who would not believe in the pagan gods would be persecuted but there was no persecution for those who believed in Christ unless they would not accept other gods.

Of course, in the OT God authorized and was involved in supporting the extinction of anyone to include their children who did not believe in the God of Israel or adhere to the laws of Israel. Paul zealously went after those who did not believe in the narrow view he had of Christ and God to include urging believers to turn these "unbelievers in Paul's way" over to Satan (i.e. they thought they were believers but not in the way Paul promoted). However, these were individuals in the churches and not the Gentiles in general to whom he preached the gospel. Today, the political social conservative activism which is promoted in Christian churches does not appear to be supported in either the words or actions of the early church.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Dave

Today, the political social conservative activism which is promoted in Christian churches does not appear to be supported in either the words or actions of the early church.

Excellent observation! Of course outside of the Bible Belt (which I have never lived in, but have closely followed the history of the American Church for decades) it seems to me that evangelical/orthodox Christians have a much more biblical view of what their "words or actions" should be in regards to "political social activism" then say, just 25 years ago. Of course there are exceptions inside and outside of the Bible Belt.

I PERSONALLY don't see any problem with Christians having just as much influence in politics as any other American citizen. Of course by influence I absolutely don't mean the establishment of a theocracy, anymore than influence of non-Christians/agnostics/atheists would necessarily mean the establishment of a Socialist/Marxist/Leninist Utopian paradise.

The bottom line is that, for all it's faults, our system of representative government works pretty well. In general, Christians have nothing to fear of non-Christians and vice versa. It's only the wackos on the extremes of either side that cause all the concern for the 80-90% who are relatively centrist.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I PERSONALLY don't see any problem with Christians having just as much influence in politics as any other American citizen.

Individual Christians should have the liberty to enter the political arena, but i dont like to see ministers use their podium for political agenda. Unfortunately both sides do this.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I PERSONALLY don't see any problem with Christians having just as much influence in politics as any other American citizen. Of course by influence I absolutely don't mean the establishment of a theocracy, anymore than influence of non-Christians/agnostics/atheists would necessarily mean the establishment of a Socialist/Marxist/Leninist Utopian paradise.

Influence in politics is different from the kind of railing rhetoric that so many of the political arms of fundamentalism and evangelicalism display.

I agree that since we have been given the right to have a voice, we should take advantage of that voice. But it needs to be in sync with the underlying principles of our faith. Since we are talking about the secular government, we should be willing to discuss any issue, but somehow it needs to look more like Jesus discussing with the Romans and the non-Jewish citizens of the areas he visited.

Oh, that's right, he essentially did not do any of that. He avoided virtually anything to do with the Roman government. The little he did was to acknowledge that the money was provided by the Romans, so you pay their taxes.

I realize that theirs was not a representative democracy. But the times when Jesus got heated about things was when he was talking with the insiders about their living (and even doctrines on a couple of occasions). We need to understand a different approach to "standing as Christians" in the secular government. It can be done. And it will be as representing the positions we think are right. But it cannot be as if we deal with the government and the non-Christian citizens as if they are required to accept our morals and standards or be cursed at.

It stands as completely opposite of "love your neighbor as yourself."

Get involved. Vote. Go to your precinct meetings. Select your candidates wisely. But remember, when the government actually does very little on the hot-button topics, selecting the "my choice" candidate on those issues at the cost of all the others they may get "wrong" is like signing a pact with the devil to live a few extra years. They tax the $*$&%%@ out of you but they stand against abortion (for example) — something they may never have any say on.

I propose that we debate the issues sanely. We use "evidence" that the world will actually listen to. We let the chips fall where they will. If we are right on the issue, it is not ours to judge others outside the faith on. That is God's job and he does not seem to be doing that right now. Those who want to condemn everyone, even the unbelievers, right now are failing miserably at the great commandment. Just like those Westboro chipmunks in the little satire I linked to in an earlier post.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

I will start by dismissing the comments about fundamentalism's view of science.

Maybe it's the fundamentalist just in this area, or just those I've engaged, I don't know. We certainly can't sweep with a wide brush when referring to fundamentalists. There's thousands, at least, if not more, types of fundamentalists. But the ones I know express skepticism and shadowy attitudes toward scientists ... who they take to be attacking the credibility of the Bible ; the Big Bang v. Genesis ; evolution v. creation ... those sorts of things.

Originally Posted by OBW

Not because I think their view is OK, but because it should not even make a difference to the Christian. Science is not religion (although there are some who clearly have a religion in science). Modernity is an era, not a religion. It is haltingly giving way to a different era in post-modernity. Yet Christ and his people should exist within either without problem or compromise.

These are profound thoughts bro OBW. But doesn't it require 'his people' to live in a bubble? one similar to the local church ... different maybe, but still mind trapping like the LC? Wasn't that the very purpose of The Five Fundamentals? to draw the fundamental barriers and to frame in the mind of the Bible believer?

Originally Posted by OBW

But while it is easy to point to the OT and declare that the children of Israel were all about wiping out other gods in favor of their own, other than the claiming of the land that they came to call "the good land," their efforts were not aimed at destroying all other gods, . . .

Ya know OBW, this verse has always confused me concerning the matter of the gods in the Bible:

"Exo 22:28 Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people."

At first, long ago, I let it go, as just one more among the many matters in the Bible that aren't understandable.

Eventually I looked into it. The above quote is from the KJV, that I understand is a great translation because the translators King James used were alcoholics that had no dog in any theological fights, and so just did their job of translating as best they could. Other translations translate it as:

(ASV) Thou shalt not revile God, nor curse a ruler of thy people.

But Strong's says:

[Snippet]
'ĕlôhı̂ym
el-o-heem'
Plural of H433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:
[End Snippet]

So maybe the author didn't intend it but he wrote "gods," and some translators thought he, the author, meant to say "God."

But if we take it as the very word of God then God is saying "don't revile the gods."

Which is confusing when we consider all the reviling God does toward the gods in all of the rest of the Bible.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I PERSONALLYI don't see any problem with Christians having just as much influence in politics as any other American citizen.

Just to clarify, when you say "Christians" do you mean to include those professing Christians who may not unequivocally subscribe to the 5 fundamentals such as, for example, the so-called mainline Protestants? Or do you limit the appellation "Christian" and thus limit your above statement to apply strictly to Fundamentalists? I read that about half of mainline Protestants describe themselves as liberal and that mainline Christian groups are often more accepting of other beliefs and faiths, affirm the ordination of women, and have become increasingly affirming of gay ordination. Do you see any problem with mainline Christians having just as much influence in politics as any other American citizen?

[OBW]

First, let me start out by saying that I inadvertently deleted pary of the quote from your prior post that included a bit of what I was responding to.

Originally Posted by awareness

Maybe it's the fundamentalist just in this area, or just those I've engaged, I don't know. We certainly can't sweep with a wide brush when referring to fundamentalists. There's thousands, at least, if not more, types of fundamentalists. But the ones I know express skepticism and shadowy attitudes toward scientists ... who they take to be attacking the credibility of the Bible ; the Big Bang v. Genesis ; evolution v. creation ... those sorts of things.

That is one of the reasons that I have a hard time talking about fundamentalists in general when there are so many ways to differentiate. We have mentioned some of those ways here. Part of it is the difference between what was originally self-defined as fundamentalism close to 100 years ago v what it is today. Then it was about standing within the Christian faith for some core beliefs (although I am not sure that even all of those few should be considered core). Now it is about so many things. And the list is variable.

And like the moderate, peaceful Moslems that do not seem willing to stand up against the radicals, those within Christian fundamentalism scarcely will stand up against the radicals in our own midst. The result is that a lot of fundamentalists actually turn away from broader evangelicalism just to be disassociated from fundamentalism.

And I'm not sure I blame them.

Originally Posted by awareness

These are profound thoughts bro OBW. But doesn't it require 'his people' to live in a bubble? one similar to the local church ... different maybe, but still mind trapping like the LC? Wasn't that the very purpose of The Five Fundamentals? to draw the fundamental barriers and to frame in the mind of the Bible believer?

That may have been their goal. But they missed their calling in it. We are called to be in the world, just not of it. That means I am not in a bubble. That is to refrain from being in the world.

For myself, I have positions that are formed by my understanding of God's command. Generally what we understand from the Bible. That means that within the church there is a position concerning the sinfulness of homosexual activity. But I am not asked to condemn unbelievers who don't see it that way. I do not have to refrain from working with them, or even having them as friends. But I cannot partake of those activities. And the church will (should) not tolerate open sin of that type within its fellowship. But that is not the same as condemning the unbelievers who are violating God's laws (not our job).

To me they are sin. Assuming that our God is The God, it is ultimately sin to everyone. But the judgment for that sin is not mine to exert. Instead, I have been called to live among all my neighbors just as Jesus did. And he only gave the religious grief for their wrongdoing. In this life, judgement generally does not come. It is in the next that God will do whatever it is that he actually does.

Originally Posted by awareness

Ya know OBW, this verse has always confused me concerning the matter of the gods in the Bible:

"Exo 22:28 Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people."

At first, long ago, I let it go, as just one more among the many matters in the Bible that aren't understandable.

Eventually I looked into it. The above quote is from the KJV, that I understand is a great translation because the translators King James used were alcoholics that had no dog in any theological fights, and so just did their job of translating as best they could. Other translations translate it as:

(ASV) Thou shalt not revile God, nor curse a ruler of thy people.

But Strong's says:

[Snippet]
'ĕlôhı̂ym
el-o-heem'
Plural of H433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:
[End Snippet]

So maybe the author didn't intend it but he wrote "gods," and some translators thought he, the author, meant to say "God."

But if we take it as the very word of God then God is saying "don't revile the gods."

Which is confusing when we consider all the reviling God does toward the gods in all of the rest of the Bible.

Don't forget that judgment on any other so-called gods is not ours to dole out. It is God's. So the fact that he says anything about them in any way that he desires is not a problem. But depending on how you read that verse, it may be that it is not our place to do it on God's behalf.

I note that Paul generally did not condemn the other gods when he spoke to the unbelievers. Only when speaking to the believers do we hear about their falsity. That is the way it should be. We should root them out of our midst. But that does not mean out of the world. Just out of our worship.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

Just to clarify, when you say "Christians" do you mean to include those professing Christians who may not unequivocally subscribe to the 5 fundamentals such as, for example, the so-called mainline Protestants? Or do you limit the appellation "Christian" and thus limit your above statement to apply strictly to Fundamentalists? I read that about half of mainline Protestants describe themselves as liberal and that mainline Christian groups are often more accepting of other beliefs and faiths, affirm the ordination of women, and have become increasingly affirming of gay ordination. Do you see any problem with mainline Christians having just as much influence in politics as any other American citizen?

You do realize that there are groups deep within fundamentalism (in the broad spectrum) that do ordain women, or at least allow them as regular preachers (ordained or not). I have been a part of a Bible church that allows it. (And they got a lot of grief from other Bible churches for it.) I am elsewhere now, but that was not an issue. Actually, there is no issue for me. We are just elsewhere now.

I would have a problem with ordination of an openly professing gay person.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

Certainly the US has long considered itself "exceptional" attributing it often to their Christian heritage. Other countries would say "yankee go home" because of the arrogance this exceptionalist perception created.

I think the spread of Christianity in China or South America is great because of the association with democracy and freedom but in both areas/countries their politics do not reflect the politics of the conservatives in the US who flood fundamentalist Christian churches.

Gandhi promoted political action (i.e. liberal political action) but Jesus did not (he did promote peace, love, fairness etc) so I don't see the correlation that Christians attribute to scriptures that give them the impetus for political action for their views. The only "political" aspect of the early Christian church was their unwillingness to accept the pagan gods because of their unified belief in Christ. Anyone who would not believe in the pagan gods would be persecuted but there was no persecution for those who believed in Christ unless they would not accept other gods.

Of course, in the OT God authorized and was involved in supporting the extinction of anyone to include their children who did not believe in the God of Israel or adhere to the laws of Israel. Paul zealously went after those who did not believe in the narrow view he had of Christ and God to include urging believers to turn these "unbelievers in Paul's way" over to Satan (i.e. they thought they were believers but not in the way Paul promoted). However, these were individuals in the churches and not the Gentiles in general to whom he preached the gospel. Today, the political social conservative activism which is promoted in Christian churches does not appear to be supported in either the words or actions of the early church.

There's a lot of truth in that Dave; but, if you're open to different views on Paul, check out "God and Empire: Jesus Against Rome, Then and Now" by John Dominic Crossan for a starter.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Individual Christians should have the liberty to enter the political arena, but i dont like to see ministers use their podium for political agenda. Unfortunately both sides do this.

Dispositonally I might agree with you, but, even doing nothing has political implications since it is, in effect, a tacit approval of the status quo.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

You do realize that there are groups deep within fundamentalism (in the broad spectrum) that do ordain women, or at least allow them as regular preachers (ordained or not). I have been a part of a Bible church that allows it. (And they got a lot of grief from other Bible churches for it.) I am elsewhere now, but that was not an issue. Actually, there is no issue for me. We are just elsewhere now.

I would have a problem with ordination of an openly professing gay person.

Got it. But, my question to UntoHim is who he accepts as Christian and how he views those he doesn't include under that rubric. I grew up going to a non-evangelical Presbyterian Church. After my "born-again" experience, I began fellowshipping with people who didn't consider those "mainline Protestants" to be true Christians and adopted the same view myself when I was active in the evangelical movement. I may be wrong, but given the way UntoHim patrols this website, I wouldn't be surprised if he views "liberal" Christians as unsaved. What about you?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

"it seems to me that evangelical/orthodox Christians have a much more biblical view of what their "words or actions" should be in regards to "political social activism" then say, just 25 years ago. Of course there are exceptions inside and outside of the Bible Belt. "
The bottom line is that, for all it's faults, our system of representative government works pretty well. In general, Christians have nothing to fear of non-Christians and vice versa. It's only the wackos on the extremes of either side that cause all the concern for the 80-90% who are relatively centrist.

I ran across a 2013 article on gun control from Nigel Tomes on the Church of Toronto's blog which brings out the fact (based on surveys) that the White U.S. Evangelicals are out of step not only with the US population but with mainline Christians as well as Evangelical Christians in other parts of the world (e.g. Canada). Here is Nigel's conclusion:
Despite Scripture’s clear teaching, US White Evangelical Protestants are more likely to have a gun than the US population as a whole. We ask: “what are they trusting for their protection—God or Guns?” What has greater influence on their life—the 2nd Amendment “right to bear arms” or the 2nd great commandment—“love your neighbor as yourself”?

He provides clear scripture to base his argument. Actually, based on his article non-Christians have more to fear than Christians. Over the decades the NRA push with Evangelical strong backing has made us the most violent country in the developed world even more than China and countries like Yemen. Overall, developed countries have less per capita homicides, shootings, and people in prisons than the U.S.

Nigel goes on to say,
"Evangelicals point to God & ethics as the best single preventative measure....Americans in general favor gun controls and mental health measures, while evangelicals favor God and morality. Perhaps we should ask: who’s being more practical?"

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I PERSONALLY don't see any problem with Christians having just as much influence in politics as any other American citizen. Of course by influence I absolutely don't mean the establishment of a theocracy, anymore than influence of non-Christians/agnostics/atheists would necessarily mean the establishment of a Socialist/Marxist/Leninist Utopian paradise.

In Romans 1:20 it states.... "Ever since the creation of the world his (God) eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made." When you consider that U.S. Evangelicals look to the Bible and hide their heads in the sand when it comes to God's creation...the things he has made...they have this idea that He could return any day now so why care about the environment.

It appears that the U.S. Evangelical Christians use the Bible as the excuse to oppose gun control (we don't need it since we have God), environmental measures (we don't need to do anything about it since we have God), helping the poor through targeted programs such as healthcare (we don't need it because we have God) as well as anything that they don't like often labeling them as "socialism".

I agree there are the extremes but it seems like that is where the U.S. Evangelicals stand - at the extreme end of these issues. This is not true for Christians in other countries since many oppose gun control, work towards improving the environment, and support providing healthcare to their population. This is not just the perception as OBW attempted to point out. My wife and I have more than 30 relatives scattered throughout the U.S. who claim to be Evangelical Christians some of which came out of the LC. I have been in contact with them and they are in lockstep with the majority of the U.S. Evangelicals who espouse these positions.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

I would have a problem with ordination of an openly professing gay person.

I don't think gay ministers could be any worse than what I've seen of hetero ministers. Both could be celibate ... or not.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't think gay ministers could be any worse than what I've seen of hetero ministers. Both could be celibate ... or not.

You are misunderstanding me. I am not referring to the celibate. That would be the same for anyone with any kind of sexual addiction that causes a drive for illicit sex. With restraint and abstinence from that, anyone is potentially reformed.

I do not know where I fall on the nature v learned behavior v choice spectrum on things like homosexuality. I suspect that it is complicated and that anecdotally we can support a lot of different positions. But no matter how you got there (or got to a point of habitual sex with anyone, or no care for the property and person of others, etc.), Christ does change lives. That may not always mean that there is no more desires. Or no more failure. But there can be a will and a way to refrain because there is a higher power. Whether such a person should be considered for a pastorate is at least somewhat up to those who are to accept such a one as pastor.

The question that is problematic is whether there is a blind eye turned to the idea that homosexuality is simply OK as far as the church is concerned, or whether abstinence will be required as a matter of "policy" knowing that people are people and we still sin. The differentiator is a pattern of willful sin v a pattern of abstaining with occasional failure.

And even that would not be sufficient for some. It is problematic. It probably is the big issue of the era. And it won't simply be like slavery or women's equality. It will likely reflect the fairly clear command against the practice coupled with continued love for all neighbors, both inside and outside the household of faith.

[OBW]

Gun control may seem to be an irrelevant issue for some, but I think that it is quite enlightening about so many in the fundamentalist, and even evangelical camps. While I can not say that I think that there should be serious gun control, or little gun control, as a constitutional debate (which is all it should be), it is not a matter of God-given rights. As conservative as I am on so much, I still understand that the words written were not in a vacuum and context-less. The right provided in the constitution is granted within the context of having a rapidly available and mobile militia. And in the days when rapid was in months and days rather than hours and minutes, some form of personal protection was generally imperative.

Let's just say that I have no problem with defining down the kinds of weapons a private individual can maintain in their possession. And some limit on the number of such weapons. Outside of the ridiculous images from those movies where the hero carries a duffel bag with 500 pounds of guns and ammo, throwing it around like a sleeping bag, and firing endlessly on every magazine clip, at most you can only deal with one or two. What is an arsenal of 20 - 30 for?

But more than that, I find that the idea that there is something God-given about it to be the most disturbing. And people who are instructed to pray for their leaders, whoever they are (Bush, Obama, Putin, etc.), that we may live a peaceable life just seems to run contrary to a need to be anxious to fight. Even if you are not opposed to military action or being called to war, hankering to be ready for it, or even push for it seems to run contrary to the call of the Christian.

I begin to think that self-determination, self-help, and self-preservation are our real gods. I am not saying we should not care about our preservation. Neither should we not care about where our next meal comes from. But to always worry about what could go wrong on either account (or many others) suggests little to no faith in God. Replaced by faith in our personal ability to shoot a lot of bullets in a short amount of time.

And there are way too many that make this into a religious matter. Generally those in the conservative fundamentalist movements.

Some trust in charriotts, and some in assault rifles . . . .

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Dispositionally I might agree with you, but, even doing nothing has political implications since it is, in effect, a tacit approval of the status quo.

Sounds like you got them both ways -- damned if they do, and damned for tacit approval if they don't.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

Dispositonally I might agree with you, but, even doing nothing has political implications since it is, in effect, a tacit approval of the status quo.

But when they are equally silent under either extreme of regimes, then what is the approval for? The will of those who actually vote?

I watched a preacher change from somewhat activist to completely hands-off over 20+ years. Some tried to get him to take positions and his answer was that his congregation was sufficiently divided on political issues for valid reasons and that taking sides where it is not the purpose of the church is to alienate a portion of that congregation for reasons having nothing to do with Christ and the gospel.

Encourage everyone to make informed decisions and vote. Or even get involved if they are inclined to go further. But where and how they do that is not a matter of Christian imperative.

That is not any kind of approval of the status quo. Besides, if we are to pray for the government, then that includes the one that is headed by Obama just as much as the previous one headed by Bush. And it would have included the one that could have been headed by a Mormon. Or a Hindu, Moslem, or atheist (thinking somewhat globally now, not just US-centric). There are cheers and jeers on all sides. And it may be the political preference of the individual. But it is not the way of the church.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

I ran across a 2013 article on gun control from Nigel Tomes on the Church of Toronto's blog which brings out the fact (based on surveys) that the White U.S. Evangelicals are out of step not only with the US population but with mainline Christians as well as Evangelical Christians in other parts of the world (e.g. Canada). Here is Nigel's conclusion:

Despite Scripture’s clear teaching, US White Evangelical Protestants are more likely to have a gun than the US population as a whole. We ask: “what are they trusting for their protection—God or Guns?” What has greater influence on their life—the 2nd Amendment “right to bear arms” or the 2nd great commandment—“love your neighbor as yourself”?

I read Tomes' article a while ago and disagreed with it. Let me rephrase Tomes' question -- show me people, who have been stripped of the right to bear arms, who now trust in God?

On the other hand, those who can protect themselves are much less fearful, and often more willing to befriend a stranger -- kind of like Southern hospitality. Tomes' question is completely bogus to me. Living in a multicultural, megapolis like Toronto he has no way to relate with rural America.

Loving God and loving your neighbor have nothing to do with outdoor sports. like hunting or fishing. Nearly every country Christian I know has hunting weapons. It's a way of life which liberal big city slickers will never understand. Neither will they ever understand the brotherly love one will find among these brothers and sisters.

And what "clear scriptural teaching" is Tomes referring to anyways?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

I begin to think that self-determination, self-help, and self-preservation are our real gods. I am not saying we should not care about our preservation. Neither should we not care about where our next meal comes from. But to always worry about what could go wrong on either account (or many others) suggests little to no faith in God. Replaced by faith in our personal ability to shoot a lot of bullets in a short amount of time.

It's interesting how those who support 2nd Amendment rights automatically get linked with right wing prepper militias. Main stream media at work no doubt.

It has been said that we all have a line drawn on the ground. Ones like Tomes can all claim to be peace-loving, supporters of gun-control, until their "line" is crossed. Then let me see who calmly sits still when 911 fails and the thugs outside decide they want to "play" with your wife and daughters.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It's interesting how those who support 2nd Amendment rights automatically get linked with right wing prepper militias. Main stream media at work no doubt.

It has been said that we all have a line drawn on the ground. Ones like Tomes can all claim to be peace-loving, supporters of gun-control, until their "line" is crossed. Then let me see who calmly sits still when 911 fails and the thugs outside decide they want to "play" with your wife and daughters.

I have guns but don't believe in them. To me it's like a bar scene, where everyone has their guns drawn. All have to put them down before any of them will put their gun down. As far as I'm concerned the whole world should put their guns down ... everyone ... even police and military. Obviously that's never gonna happen. I'll put mine down when and if that happens.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I have guns but don't believe in them. To me it's like a bar scene, where everyone has their guns drawn. All have to put them down before any of them will put their gun down. As far as I'm concerned the whole world should put their guns down ... everyone ... even police and military. Obviously that's never gonna happen. I'll put mine down when and if that happens.

During the 20th century alone, more than 150 million people died at the hands of their own government. People should be concerned about their own safety. Many have a false sense of security, thinking we are a nation of laws. Do you have any idea what laws immediately take effect once our Prez declares martial law?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sounds like you got them both ways -- damned if they do, and damned for tacit approval if they don't.

Politics is a category of human activity. So both political action and inaction have political consequences. Inaction may be due to complacency or a sense of powerlessness as well as approval but, whatever it is due to, it has political consequences and it serves those in power.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

Got it. But, my question to UntoHim is who he accepts as Christian and how he views those he doesn't include under that rubric. I grew up going to a non-evangelical Presbyterian Church. After my "born-again" experience, I began fellowshipping with people who didn't consider those "mainline Protestants" to be true Christians and adopted the same view myself when I was active in the evangelical movement. I may be wrong, but given the way UntoHim patrols this website, I wouldn't be surprised if he views "liberal" Christians as unsaved. What about you?

My dear friend zeek, who I accept as a Christian is absolutely and totally irrelevant to our discussions on this forum. But if you must insist, I accept all those whom Christ accepts. Now, whether you are one of those whom he accepts is between you and Christ. His Word describing whom he accepts is before us all, in vivid and living color. Of course if you reject this word then we can go back and forth, at least on Alternative Views we can!

As to your last statement, you are wrong as much as anybody can be wrong. But then again, I don't know how a relativist like you views who is a genuine Christian, and somebody who just says they are a Christian. What is your standard for who qualifies as "a Christian"? You know mine. THE BIBLE. But given the way that you post here on this website, I am wouldn't be surprised if you view a Zen Buddhist as a Christian...that is if he says he is a Christian.

"unsaved Christian".....do you really believe there is such a thing? Wow. Welcome to the la la land of Alt Views!

Just sayin.....

[Dave]

Agreeing or disagreeing about gun control only takes us down the rabbit hole. Nigel's point was that the US White Evangelicals are driving this in the US even though it is not supported by the majority of the US citizens or the mainline Christians. It just wasn't his opinion, he was quoting a survey that showed this outcome and he was reacting to it. He is speaking as an elder at the Church in Toronto. There is nothing to support the right to bear arms in the Bible. Can you imagine Paul saying in his letter to the Romans, "each of you gather a sword for your households in case the emperor decides to kill you and fight them to the death."? At the time they were being martyred and not resisting death once they were headed to that end. In other words, God was enough. It was an honor to be martyred not that he was recommending it. It would be helpful to read the letters from Polycarp or Paul for that matter since many of his letters were written while he was in custody of the Romans.

In the article Tomes states, "Personally, I feel that the Bible is clear on the issue of guns. Jesus told Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” (John 18:36). Jesus prohibited his disciples from fighting, even defensively. He told Peter, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.” (Matt. 26:52) This principle ought to be extended from “swords” to other weapons—handguns, semi-automatic guns, etc. Jesus’ disciples were told to “turn the other cheek” (Matt. 5:39) and flee, rather than fight, in the face of persecution—“When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next…” (Matt. 10:23) This latter principle was practiced by the Apostle Paul (2 Cor. 11:33).

The US Evangelicals are driving this anti-gun control in their support of the NRA. Even though we try to strengthen laws to identify people who are problems from obtaining guns there are so many gun shows and gun stores to include Walmart that there is no way of stopping this. If someone thinks that loading up on military weapons agains the US military will stop them they are just kidding themselves. You will need anti-tank weapons, anti-drone missiles, etc. It's crazy thinking and it has just led this country down a dark chapter. I used to be a hunter when I was younger but haven't owned a gun in decades but I don't see the need.

In any case, the constitution's 2nd amendment was not written with the idea that after we established a democracy there would be this proliferation of weapons in the US but again debating this issue leads us down the rabbit hole. The problem as Nigel stated it is with the US White Evangelicals and their fervor for guns but as I indicated this was just an example of one issue. The US Evangelicals are politically and socially trying to manipulate numerous issues which contrast with the majority of the Evangelicals in the rest of the developed world. There is a common denominator, Jesus and the inerrancy of the Bible, but beyond this the US White Evangelicals roam in their own world.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

Agreeing or disagreeing about gun control only takes us down the rabbit hole. Nigel's point was that the US White Evangelicals are driving this in the US even though it is not supported by the majority of the US citizens or the mainline Christians. It just wasn't his opinion, he was quoting a survey that showed this outcome and he was reacting to it. He is speaking as an elder at the Church in Toronto. There is nothing to support the right to bear arms in the Bible. Can you imagine Paul saying in his letter to the Romans, "each of you gather a sword for your households in case the emperor decides to kill you and fight them to the death."? At the time they were being martyred and not resisting death once they were headed to that end. In other words, God was enough. It was an honor to be martyred not that he was recommending it. It would be helpful to read the letters from Polycarp or Paul for that matter since many of his letters were written while he was in custody of the Romans.

In the article Tomes states, "Personally, I feel that the Bible is clear on the issue of guns. Jesus told Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” (John 18:36). Jesus prohibited his disciples from fighting, even defensively. He told Peter, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.” (Matt. 26:52) This principle ought to be extended from “swords” to other weapons—handguns, semi-automatic guns, etc. Jesus’ disciples were told to “turn the other cheek” (Matt. 5:39) and flee, rather than fight, in the face of persecution—“When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next…” (Matt. 10:23) This latter principle was practiced by the Apostle Paul (2 Cor. 11:33).

The US Evangelicals are driving this anti-gun control in their support of the NRA. Even though we try to strengthen laws to identify people who are problems from obtaining guns there are so many gun shows and gun stores to include Walmart that there is no way of stopping this. If someone thinks that loading up on military weapons agains the US military will stop them they are just kidding themselves. You will need anti-tank weapons, anti-drone missiles, etc. It's crazy thinking and it has just led this country down a dark chapter. I used to be a hunter when I was younger but haven't owned a gun in decades but I don't see the need.

In any case, the constitution's 2nd amendment was not written with the idea that after we established a democracy there would be this proliferation of weapons in the US but again debating this issue leads us down the rabbit hole. The problem as Nigel stated it is with the US White Evangelicals and their fervor for guns but as I indicated this was just an example of one issue. The US Evangelicals are politically and socially trying to manipulate numerous issues which contrast with the majority of the Evangelicals in the rest of the developed world. There is a common denominator, Jesus and the inerrancy of the Bible, but beyond this the US White Evangelicals roam in their own world.

A Rabbit Hole? All the discussions in Alternative Views could thus be classified.

US White Evangelicals? You sound both racist, bigoted, and prejudiced.

I just love the way you can find verses to support your UU positions, while at the same time rejecting the heart of God's word.

[OBW]

Let me start by saying that while I actually agree with a lot of what you are saying about these things, you come across like the liberal version of foam-at-the-mouth that the fundamentalist whackos are. Not equal, but somewhat.

Originally Posted by Dave

There is a common denominator, Jesus and the inerrancy of the Bible, but beyond this the US White Evangelicals roam in their own world.

What are you doing throwing Jesus into that sentence? The appearance is that you think the problem is Jesus. Or he is at least one of the problems.

Sorry, but you got some splaining to do.

Jesus is not the problem. He is one of the flags that they wrap themselves in. But it is his restraint from immediate judgment that the error does not cost them their lives. It is a form of blasphemy to say that Jesus is for their actions. Both by them and by you.

Jesus is not part of it. Fallen man, probably influenced by the cares of the world and even its lord, Satan, is all there is in the thing.

I can buy into the inerrant Bible as a problem. Not because I think there is error in the Bible, but because of what inerrancy means to so many. And what it means has nothing to do with the truth in the Bible, but in a false assertion that whatever man is doing and saying about the Bible is correct (no matter how wrong they may be).

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

A Rabbit Hole? All the discussions in Alternative Views could thus be classified.

US White Evangelicals? You sound both racist, bigoted, and prejudiced.

I just love the way you can find verses to support your UU positions, while at the same time rejecting the heart of God's word.

You're probably right about all of the discussions on Alternative views.

US White Evangelicals. This was a term Nigel Tomes used in his article I quoted: http://churchintoronto.blogspot.com/...uns-glory.html I was only quoting him. Honestly, he does not seem racist, bigoted or prejudiced and I don't think he was using the term in that sense since he was quoting a survey which used that terminology.

The verses I quoted were from Nigel Tomes' article (see above link). I never received the impression that he was UU nor that he was rejecting the heart of God. You're seeing something that I just don't see in his article.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by OBW

Let me start by saying that while I actually agree with a lot of what you are saying about these things, you come across like the liberal version of foam-at-the-mouth that the fundamentalist whackos are. Not equal, but somewhat.

I would refer you to Nigel Tomes article:http://churchintoronto.blogspot.com/...uns-glory.html I was primarily quoting him and he doesn't seem to be a foam at the mouth liberal at all. I do believe he is reflective of how Christians in other developed countries may view the positions of the more radical US Evangelical Christians.

Originally Posted by OBW

What are you doing throwing Jesus into that sentence? The appearance is that you think the problem is Jesus. Or he is at least one of the problems.

Sorry, but you got some splaining to do.

Jesus is not the problem. He is one of the flags that they wrap themselves in. But it is his restraint from immediate judgment that the error does not cost them their lives. It is a form of blasphemy to say that Jesus is for their actions. Both by them and by you.

Jesus is not part of it. Fallen man, probably influenced by the cares of the world and even its lord, Satan, is all there is in the thing.

I can buy into the inerrant Bible as a problem. Not because I think there is error in the Bible, but because of what inerrancy means to so many. And what it means has nothing to do with the truth in the Bible, but in a false assertion that whatever man is doing and saying about the Bible is correct (no matter how wrong they may be).

I was not merely throwing Jesus into the equation. Just the opposite. My point was that there is a common denominator between the Christians in the US and around the world (Jesus and the inerrancy of the Bible). I wasn't saying that it was a problem but I was making a distinction between Christians around the world and US White Evangelicals which is the point that Nigel was making. I can understand why Nigel used the survey which made a distinction between US White Evangelicals and others because US Black Evangelicals for the most part do not subscribe to the issues of US White Evangelicals e.g. anti-gun control. Of course, when it comes to Jesus and the inerrancy of the Bible they are in agreement. Read my last paragraph again in context of what I just said and maybe it will be clearer.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

My dear friend zeek, who I accept as a Christian is absolutely and totally irrelevant to our discussions on this forum.

The topic of this discussion is "Fundamentalism." As I understand it, fundamentalists have a narrow view of who is a Christian that includes only those who accept the five fundamentals. What any participant in the discussion thinks about that position is relevant to this discussion.

But if you must insist, I accept all those whom Christ accepts.

According to the parable of the wheat and the tares, who Christ accepts won't be revealed until the day of judgment. So, it seems we don't know who to accept. Of course, we are taught to know them by their fruit, but that is basically a practical judgment call rather than anything definitive.

His Word describing whom he accepts is before us all, in vivid and living color.

Apparently "His Word" is ambiguous, because among those who call themselves Christians there is vast disagreement about whom He accepts and why.

Of course if you reject this word then we can go back and forth, at least on Alternative Views we can!

If I rejected it, I wouldn't still be trying to understand it.

As to your last statement, you are wrong as much as anybody can be wrong. But then again, I don't know how a relativist like you views who is a genuine Christian, and somebody who just says they are a Christian. What is your standard for who qualifies as "a Christian"? You know mine. THE BIBLE. But given the way that you post here on this website, I am wouldn't be surprised if you view a Zen Buddhist as a Christian...that is if he says he is a Christian.

Concerning those who call themselves Christians, I follow the advise of the owner in the parable of the wheat and tares to "Let both grow together until the harvest."

"unsaved Christian".....do you really believe there is such a thing? Wow. Welcome to the la la land of Alt Views! Just sayin.....

I didn't say that, so it seems you're quoting yourself there. I was taught, that not all who profess to be Christians are "saved." That understanding was expressed often in the Evangelical Christian groups in which I took part including the Local Church. Has that really changed or are you just being evasive again?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

Agreeing or disagreeing about gun control only takes us down the rabbit hole. Nigel's point was that the US White Evangelicals are driving this in the US even though it is not supported by the majority of the US citizens or the mainline Christians. It just wasn't his opinion, he was quoting a survey that showed this outcome and he was reacting to it. He is speaking as an elder at the Church in Toronto. There is nothing to support the right to bear arms in the Bible. Can you imagine Paul saying in his letter to the Romans, "each of you gather a sword for your households in case the emperor decides to kill you and fight them to the death."? At the time they were being martyred and not resisting death once they were headed to that end. In other words, God was enough. It was an honor to be martyred not that he was recommending it. It would be helpful to read the letters from Polycarp or Paul for that matter since many of his letters were written while he was in custody of the Romans.

Good argument. Gun advocacy is unchristian and anti-faith.

In the article Tomes states, "Personally, I feel that the Bible is clear on the issue of guns. Jesus told Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” (John 18:36). Jesus prohibited his disciples from fighting, even defensively. He told Peter, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.” (Matt. 26:52) This principle ought to be extended from “swords” to other weapons—handguns, semi-automatic guns, etc. Jesus’ disciples were told to “turn the other cheek” (Matt. 5:39) and flee, rather than fight, in the face of persecution—“When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next…” (Matt. 10:23) This latter principle was practiced by the Apostle Paul (2 Cor. 11:33).

I agree with Tomes.

The US Evangelicals are driving this anti-gun control in their support of the NRA. Even though we try to strengthen laws to identify people who are problems from obtaining guns there are so many gun shows and gun stores to include Walmart that there is no way of stopping this. If someone thinks that loading up on military weapons against the US military will stop them they are just kidding themselves. You will need anti-tank weapons, anti-drone missiles, etc. It's crazy thinking and it has just led this country down a dark chapter. I used to be a hunter when I was younger but haven't owned a gun in decades but I don't see the need.

True enough. I've never owned a gun. Miraculously I have survived to age 65. God be praised!

In any case, the constitution's 2nd amendment was not written with the idea that after we established a democracy there would be this proliferation of weapons in the US but again debating this issue leads us down the rabbit hole. The problem as Nigel stated it is with the US White Evangelicals and their fervor for guns but as I indicated this was just an example of one issue. The US Evangelicals are politically and socially trying to manipulate numerous issues which contrast with the majority of the Evangelicals in the rest of the developed world. There is a common denominator, Jesus and the inerrancy of the Bible, but beyond this the US White Evangelicals roam in their own world.

Thanks for pointing that out. You would probably be censured for saying that on this website anywhere but in Alternative Views.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

. . . who I accept as a Christian is absolutely and totally irrelevant to our discussions on this forum. But if you must insist, I accept all those whom Christ accepts.

And that's why it's so hard to determine who are Christians. Jesus has his arms open to everyone, even Zen Buddhists. I suppose that's why Thich Nhat Hanh wrote Living Buddha, Living Christ (a great book for lovers of Jesus -- maybe not so much for Bible Thumpers). Obviously Jesus loves Thich.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

What is your standard for who qualifies as "a Christian"? You know mine. THE BIBLE.

So it's not those who accept Jesus as their savior, but those that accept the Bible as their savior that are Christian? For once, an honest "Christian" (how would I know?). That's what I like about you UntoHim. You're more honest than those I've known, that call themselves Christians. Better, goes without sayin, than Lee.

Welcome to the la la land of Alt Views!

Yeah, here we put the Bible right up there with Jesus ...

Got that bro Zeek?

For God so loved the world, that he gave it the Bible, that whosoever believeth in it should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Just for the record. If being a Christian means turning the Bible into an idol then I'm not a Christian.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

In the article Tomes states, "Personally, I feel that the Bible is clear on the issue of guns. Jesus told Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” (John 18:36). Jesus prohibited his disciples from fighting, even defensively. He told Peter, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.” (Matt. 26:52) This principle ought to be extended from “swords” to other weapons—handguns, semi-automatic guns, etc. Jesus’ disciples were told to “turn the other cheek” (Matt. 5:39) and flee, rather than fight, in the face of persecution—“When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next…” (Matt. 10:23) This latter principle was practiced by the Apostle Paul (2 Cor. 11:33).

Concerning this topic, I could say the same thing about kitchen knives. I hope you don't happen to use some of those dangerous things. There was a kid who stabbed 21 people in our High School with his kitchen knives. There was another guy at the local Target Store who went ballistic with his knives. I would like to see Congress finally take up this serious issue of knife control. The world would definitely be a safer place without these dangerous things. Swords are bad, but kitchen knives are worse!

Neither do I think the Bible is "so clear" on this hotbed topic of guns. In the "Recovery" book of Nehemiah, the returning Israelites were instructed to "work with one hand and a sword (weapon) in the other." When the Lord was crucified, of course He instructed the disciples not to resist. He was then the Lamb of God, "He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth."

But this is all beside the point. Where oh where do we see these terrible and fundamental evangelistics advocating the use of guns to start a war? You are as guilty as Tomes and all the other liberal pundits of creating this straw man. Coinciding with this is connecting peace-loving, law-abiding, patriotic, fundamental Christians with the right-wing skin-head militia types. Liberal media loves to do this. When that Fort Hood Mooslim army Psychiatrist went on a rampage yelling "Allah is great," they actually called it "work place violence." Just imagine if some Baptist Preacher had done the same thing.

Nigel Tomes went off on his blogger tirade after the Sandy Hook school shooting. In one fell swoop he bashed Americans, evangelical Christians, sportsmen, Republicans, and conservatives. The shooter Adam Lanza was a nut case who lived on a diet of video game violence in his darkened basement. His mother, being none of the above except a naive American, filled the house with guns and ammo and taught her son how to use them. Bad idea. Please Nigel get your facts straight. I know you can do it.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Dave

I was not merely throwing Jesus into the equation. Just the opposite. My point was that there is a common denominator between the Christians in the US and around the world (Jesus and the inerrancy of the Bible). I wasn't saying that it was a problem but I was making a distinction between Christians around the world and US White Evangelicals which is the point that Nigel was making. I can understand why Nigel used the survey which made a distinction between US White Evangelicals and others because US Black Evangelicals for the most part do not subscribe to the issues of US White Evangelicals e.g. anti-gun control. Of course, when it comes to Jesus and the inerrancy of the Bible they are in agreement. Read my last paragraph again in context of what I just said and maybe it will be clearer.

Thanks for the clarification. We may not agree on everything, but that was not what I expected to hear from you.

Yes, Jesus is a link. But not the link that makes it all go wrong.

When I think of where fundamentalists, US White Evangelicals, US Black Evangelicals, and others go wrong, it is in propping up a form of Jesus, along with their version of the Bible (as interpreted and viewed as inerrant), and make it dance for them. We/they want God and the Bible to support our insistence on:

capitalism
manifest destiny
supremacy
most god-favored nation status
the 2nd amendment

And so on.

But allow God and the Bible to rule us and convert us into obedient lovers of our neighbors (including the gay, Moslem, Hindu, atheist, etc.)? Never!!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

But allow God and the Bible to rule us and convert us into obedient lovers of our neighbors (including the gay, Moslem, Hindu, atheist, etc.)? Never!!

Speak for yourself.

I got a few stories I could tell about loving my neighbors here in CrazyTown, USA.

Just the other day, my neighbor stopped by to apologize to me. His life spun out of control with drugs and he landed in prison. It was hard for him to come to our door all humbled and say he's sorry and hopes to repay us one day. We hugged and thanked him, blessing him with the Lord.

It takes the love of God to love our neighbors. Some have robbed us. One stole our guest's dog. One accuses me of being a slave owner. We have been attacked repeatedly by their dogs. One called the police for having Christian meetings.

But don't accuse me of not loving them. Or their kids.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Concerning this topic, I could say the same thing about kitchen knives. I hope you don't happen to use some of those dangerous things. There was a kid who stabbed 21 people in our High School with his kitchen knives. There was another guy at the local Target Store who went ballistic with his knives. I would like to see Congress finally take up this serious issue of knife control. The world would definitely be a safer place without these dangerous things. Swords are bad, but kitchen knives are worse!

Neither do I think the Bible is "so clear" on this hotbed topic of guns. In the "Recovery" book of Nehemiah, the returning Israelites were instructed to "work with one hand and a sword (weapon) in the other." When the Lord was crucified, of course He instructed the disciples not to resist. He was then the Lamb of God, "He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth."

But this is all beside the point. Where oh where do we see these terrible and fundamental evangelistics advocating the use of guns to start a war? You are as guilty as Tomes and all the other liberal pundits of creating this straw man. Coinciding with this is connecting peace-loving, law-abiding, patriotic, fundamental Christians with the right-wing skin-head militia types. Liberal media loves to do this. When that Fort Hood Mooslim army Psychiatrist went on a rampage yelling "Allah is great," they actually called it "work place violence." Just imagine if some Baptist Preacher had done the same thing.

Nigel Tomes went off on his blogger tirade after the Sandy Hook school shooting. In one fell swoop he bashed Americans, evangelical Christians, sportsmen, Republicans, and conservatives. The shooter Adam Lanza was a nut case who lived on a diet of video game violence in his darkened basement. His mother, being none of the above except a naive American, filled the house with guns and ammo and taught her son how to use them. Bad idea. Please Nigel get your facts straight. I know you can do it.

Yeah Dr. Tomes. Here in Kentucky the white evangelicals would know right off that Nigel's article, linked by Dave, entitled, ‘God, Guns & Glory’ is wrong.

Here in Kentucky the three "G's" aren't God, Guns, and Glory, but rather, God, Guns and Gays. That's their big concerns, and why Kentucky voted for McCain and Palin (cuz the democrats want to take our guns ... and they support gay marriage). And just to also add, I've been told by some Christian Kentuckians: "I don't want no nigger as my president."

And I don't think these Kentucky evangelicals are fringe fundamentalists. God, Guns, and Gays ... seems to be their core concerns politically ... with some adding the double "g" - as in n*gg*r. Those are the 5-G white evangelicals.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

Just to clarify, when you say "Christians" do you mean to include those professing Christians who may not unequivocally subscribe to the 5 fundamentals as for example the so-called mainline Protestants? Or do you limit the appellation "Christian" and thus limit your above statement to apply strictly to Fundamentalists? I read that about half of mainline Protestants describe themselves as liberal and that mainline Christian groups are often more accepting of other beliefs and faiths, affirm the ordination of women, and have become increasingly affirming of gay ordination. Do you see any problem with mainline Christians having just as much influence in politics as any other American citizen?

I am using the term "Christian" in the most generic way, in other words anyone who identifies themselves as a Christian. To delve into theological differences among Christians is to get away the the whole point that religious people have just as much right to have influence in the political arena as non-religious people. Furthermore, it should be painfully obvious to anyone that a "liberal" Christian's vote is just as good as a "conservative" or "fundamental" Christian's vote. Same goes for Protestant or Catholic, Reformed or Charismatic, and on and on. One vote is one vote. As far as "as much influence in politics", well, aside from your one vote, anything more is up to the individual person.

Nothing influences the corporate morality (moral atmosphere) of a secular country or society than the political/legal system. In my opinion, "Separation of Church and State" works both ways - there should be no establishment of a State Church (ie The Church of England) but neither should any religious person be discouraged (much less banned) from exercising their rights, from simply voting for the candidate/issue of their choice, all the way to entering the political arena.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Speak for yourself.

I got a few stories I could tell about loving my neighbors here in CrazyTown, USA.

Just the other day, my neighbor stopped by to apologize to me. His life spun out of control with drugs and he landed in prison. It was hard for him to come to our door all humbled and say he's sorry and hopes to repay us one day. We hugged and thanked him, blessing him with the Lord.

It takes the love of God to love our neighbors. Some have robbed us. One stole our guest's dog. One accuses me of being a slave owner. We have been attacked repeatedly by their dogs. One called the police for having Christian meetings.

But don't accuse me of not loving them. Or their kids.

I don't think I accused you of anything in particular. You weren't on my radar when I was writing earlier.

Or at least I had no reason to think you were.

I was busy making comments on people who are wrapped in a faux theology of American economics, privilege, and a God-given constitution which we need to preach as a gospel to the world. I would be surprised to find you among those.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yeah Dr. Tomes. Here in Kentucky the white evangelicals would know right off that Nigel's article, linked by Dave, entitled, ‘God, Guns & Glory’ is wrong.

Here in Kentucky the three "G's" aren't God, Guns, and Glory, but rather, God, Guns and Gays. That's their big concerns, and why Kentucky voted for McCain and Palin (cuz the democrats want to take our guns ... and they support gay marriage). And just to also add, I've been told by some Christian Kentuckians: "I don't want no nigger as my president."

And I don't think these Kentucky evangelicals are fringe fundamentalists. God, Guns, and Gays ... seems to be their core concerns politically ... with some adding the double "g" - as in n*gg*r. Those are the 5-G white evangelicals.

I tolerate a lot that I am not in sync with. But the 5-Gs . . . if they were too prominent, I would be moving on down the street. and if I had to go to the Lutheran church to get away from them, I just might do it.

[awareness]

I couldn't let this post just pass by without remarking.

Originally Posted by OBW

Thanks for the clarification. We may not agree on everything, but that was not what I expected to hear from you.

Yes, Jesus is a link. But not the link that makes it all go wrong.

When I think of where fundamentalists, US White Evangelicals, US Black Evangelicals, and others go wrong, it is in propping up a form of Jesus, along with their version of the Bible (as interpreted and viewed as inerrant), and make it dance for them. We/they want God and the Bible to support our insistence on:

capitalism
manifest destiny
supremacy
most god-favored nation status
the 2nd amendment

And so on.

But allow God and the Bible to rule us and convert us into obedient lovers of our neighbors (including the gay, Moslem, Hindu, atheist, etc.)? Never!!

Sometimes bro OBW you just blow my mind. You have a way of expressing my thinking way better than I ever could.

Great post. Way to drive a critical point home.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

The topic of this discussion is "Fundamentalism." As I understand it, fundamentalists have a narrow view of who is a Christian that includes only those who accept the five fundamentals. What any participant in the discussion thinks about that position is relevant to this discussion.

Yet another language problem. NO PERSON, NOT ONE, I have ever met or even heard of, has this understanding of who is a Christian...it is only from people like you who want to stir the pot on public forums who would even think of such a thing. Again, the Gospels, most specifically Jesus Christ (you know, that fellow for whom Christians are supposedly named) clearly and plainly delineates who is and who is not a Christian. This delineation was not changed in any way, shape or form by the scripture writing apostles, nor by any of the very earliest disciples. It was only as the wolves in sheep's clothing - those who turned away from the clearly and plainly delineated teachings of Jesus Christ - came among the flock to deceive and devour, that such basic ideas of who is a Christian got muddled. Of course things has just gotten worse over the next 2,000 years.

According to the parable of the wheat and the tares, who Christ accepts won't be revealed until the day of judgment. So, it seems we don't know who to accept. Of course, we are taught to know them by their fruit, but that is basically a practical judgment call rather than anything definitive.

Well, if somebody gets in me face and tells me by their words and/or actions that they are a tare, well I'm not waiting for the day of judgment, I am going to do what Jesus told me to do...love them, pray for them and speak the glorious Gospel to them.

Apparently "His Word" is ambiguous, because among those who call themselves Christians there is vast disagreement about whom He accepts and why.

So you blame God for being ambiguous and causing disagreement among mere men? zeek, you never cease to amaze me the way you look at things! Again, you don't see the Bible as "His Word" so we're just spinnin our wheels anyway. But that's ok on Alt Views!

If I rejected it, I wouldn't still be trying to understand it.

Well you'd understand it a whole lot more, my friend, if you would listen more to men and women who actually believe the Bible is indeed the Word of God, and less to people who think it's mostly myths and fairy tales.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

"unsaved Christian".....do you really believe there is such a thing?

I was taught, that not all who profess to be Christians are "saved." That understanding was expressed often in the Evangelical Christian groups in which I took part including the Local Church. Has that really changed or are you just being evasive again?

zeek, you won't know when I'm being evasive, cause even I don't know. Seriously, though, it seems that we are at an impasse here with language again. A "Christian" is who and what Jesus Christ described in the Gospels. All other man-made definitions are just that - man-made. Again, you can call a wooden chess bishop a "Christian" if you want, but that wouldn't be a biblical definition, only a man-made one.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Yet another language problem. NO PERSON, NOT ONE, I have ever met or even heard of, has this understanding of who is a Christian...it is only from people like you who want to stir the pot on public forums who would even think of such a thing. Again, the Gospels, most specifically Jesus Christ (you know, that fellow for whom Christians are supposedly named) clearly and plainly delineates who is and who is not a Christian. This delineation was not changed in any way, shape or form by the scripture writing apostles, nor by any of the very earliest disciples. It was only as the wolves in sheep's clothing - those who turned away from the clearly and plainly delineated teachings of Jesus Christ - came among the flock to deceive and devour, that such basic ideas of who is a Christian got muddled. Of course things has just gotten worse over the next 2,000 years.

A couple questions? Can someone be a Christian and not believe that the Bible is inerrant and God-inspired from your perspective?

Can someone who was truly saved (e.g. in their history they had a born again experience, brought many people to Christ, devoted to the Bible etc) get unsaved from your perspective?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Yet another language problem. NO PERSON, NOT ONE, I have ever met or even heard of, has this understanding of who is a Christian...it is only from people like you who want to stir the pot on public forums who would even think of such a thing. Again, the Gospels, most specifically Jesus Christ (you know, that fellow for whom Christians are supposedly named) clearly and plainly delineates who is and who is not a Christian. This delineation was not changed in any way, shape or form by the scripture writing apostles, nor by any of the very earliest disciples. It was only as the wolves in sheep's clothing - those who turned away from the clearly and plainly delineated teachings of Jesus Christ - came among the flock to deceive and devour, that such basic ideas of who is a Christian got muddled. Of course things has just gotten worse over the next 2,000 years.

Thanks for clearing that up. So, to you, the five fundamentals are not a litmus test for determining who is a genuine Christian. What are they for then?

Since you state that the Gospels clearly and plainly delineate who is and who is not a Christian, you must know who is and who is not. So, would you please stop beating around the bush and clearly and plainly state it here.

So you blame God for being ambiguous and causing disagreement among mere men? zeek, you never cease to amaze me the way you look at things! Again, you don't see the Bible as "His Word" so we're just spinnin our wheels anyway. But that's ok on Alt Views!

How readily you leap to accusation. There numerous possibilities. If the Bible is not "His Word" then "He" is not to "blame" for its ambiguity. If it is His Word, people may willfully misunderstand it, depraved as they may be. Much depends on the assumptions we bring to the proposition. The Bible never explicitly claims about itself that it is "His Word". Where did you get the idea?

Well you'd understand it a whole lot more, my friend, if you would listen more to men and women who actually believe the Bible is indeed the Word of God, and less to people who think it's mostly myths and fairy tales.

I'm "listening" to you. Please educate me.

zeek, you won't know when I'm being evasive, cause even I don't know. Seriously, though, it seems that we are at an impasse here with language again. A "Christian" is who and what Jesus Christ described in the Gospels. All other man-made definitions are just that - man-made. Again, you can call a wooden chess bishop a "Christian" if you want, but that wouldn't be a biblical definition, only a man-made one.

What exactly did Jesus describe a Christian to be?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Thanks for clearing that up. So, to you, the five fundamentals are not a litmus test for determining who is a genuine Christian. What are they for then?

Since you state that the Gospels clearly and plainly delineate who is and who is not a Christian, you must know who is and who is not. So, would you please stop beating around the bush and clearly and plainly state it here.

How readily you leap to accusation. There numerous possibilities. If the Bible is not "His Word" then "He" is not to "blame" for its ambiguity. If it is His Word, people may willfully misunderstand it, depraved as they may be. Much depends on the assumptions we bring to the proposition. The Bible never explicitly claims about itself that it is "His Word". Where did you get the idea?

What exactly did Jesus describe a Christian to be?

Why is it you are so hell-bent on finding flaws and exceptions?

Define exactly what a human being is, and then we can discuss what exactly a Christian is ...

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Dave

Can someone be a Christian and not believe that the Bible is inerrant and God-inspired from your perspective?

So let me get this straight, I read that "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned" (Mark 16:16), but since Bart Ehrman says since there are two different versions of how Judas Iscariot committed suicide, we can't trust anything in the Gospels, and therefore any firm declaration, such as we see in Mark 16:16 is just bunk, and fodder for the weak-minded?

I already answered zeek about this. Of course you guys don't like the answer so the little game of cat and mouse continues. You can call your pet hamster a "Christian" if you want. Knock yourself out! But your furry little friend won't qualify as a Christian ACCORDING TO THE CLEAR AND PLAIN DECLARATIONS OF JESUS CHRIST, and HIS definition is the only one that should count.

You are seeking a "flesh and blood" definition from me... sorry to disappoint you Dave, but you are not going to get one from me for the simple reason I couldn't care less about such definitions - I don't have the time or interest to haggle over such things, and most importantly they are irrelevant to the issues surrounding the teachings and practices of the Local Church of Witness Lee.

What you are missing is the fact that being a Christian, a genuine follower of Jesus Christ, involves more than just faith and belief in his Word (although these are crucial) it also involves revelation. Simon Peter was not thinking about whether the words of Jesus Christ were inerrant or even God-inspired, per se, when he proclaimed "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God!" Jesus Christ's reaction is the key to my point though: Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.(John 16:17) Notice how the revelation was not based on believing in the virgin birth, or that Jesus Christ descended from the line of David, or even that Jesus Christ was going to lead the Tea Party to a grand victory over those terrible Romans - No, the revelation was that He was the Son of the living God, and it was that very living God, the One and Only True God of Heaven and Earth, that revealed this wonderful and life-changing revelation to Peter.

Although we don't have Jesus Christ here in flesh and blood to ask every man that all important, all crucial question "But who do you say that I am?" We have the His Word, and it is plain and it is clear - ""for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins"(John 8:24) Now you can call into question whether or not Jesus Christ really said this, or that maybe the writers of the Gospels fudged on the wording, or that Jesus Christ was a figment of their imaginations...it all won't really matter because you have short-circuited any chance of receiving the revelation that He is the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Can someone who was truly saved (e.g. in their history they had a born again experience, brought many people to Christ, devoted to the Bible etc) get unsaved from your perspective?

Ah, "Perseverance of the saints", "once saved - always saved". Interesting and important question that I can't give you the response it deserves right now. Stayed tuned.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Why is it you are so hell-bent on finding flaws and exceptions?

Define exactly what a human being is, and then we can discuss what exactly a Christian is ...

What makes you think I'm looking for flaws or exceptions? UntoHim stated that what a Christian is is clearly and plainly delineated. If so, it should be no problem for him to clearly and plainly delineate it without flaw or exception. Apparently you don't think it's that easy. If so, I'm inclined to agree with you. Nevertheless, lets give UntoHim a chance. Maybe he has the clear, plain and final answer.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Why is it you are so hell-bent on finding flaws and exceptions?

Define exactly what a human being is, and then we can discuss what exactly a Christian is ...

Right bro Ohio, both are conundrums. But UntoHim claims to know what a Christian is. He hasn't claimed to know what a human being is. Maybe on Alt V. if so inclined he can start a thread on what human beings are? And instead of jumping down the "what is a Christian" rabbit hole, we can jump down the "humanist" rabbit hole.

Right now we're following UntoHim down his rabbit hole, and so far it seems all he's shown us is the Mad Hatter, but not what makes a Christian a real Christian. And I know UntoHim is better than this.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

So let me get this straight, I read that "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned" (Mark 16:16), but since Bart Ehrman says since there are two different versions of how Judas Iscariot committed suicide, we can't trust anything in the Gospels, and therefore any firm declaration, such as we see in Mark 16:16 is just bunk, and fodder for the weak-minded?

I already answered zeek about this. Of course you guys don't like the answer so the little game of cat and mouse continues. You can call your pet hamster a "Christian" if you want. Knock yourself out! But your furry little friend won't qualify as a Christian ACCORDING TO THE CLEAR AND PLAIN DECLARATIONS OF JESUS CHRIST, and HIS definition is the only one that should count.

You are seeking a "flesh and blood" definition from me... sorry to disappoint you Dave, but you are not going to get one from me for the simple reason I couldn't care less about such definitions - I don't have the time or interest to haggle over such things, and most importantly they are irrelevant to the issues surrounding the teachings and practices of the Local Church of Witness Lee.

What you are missing is the fact that being a Christian, a genuine follower of Jesus Christ, involves more than just faith and belief in his Word (although these are crucial) it also involves revelation. Simon Peter was not thinking about whether the words of Jesus Christ were inerrant or even God-inspired, per se, when he proclaimed "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God!" Jesus Christ's reaction is the key to my point though: Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.(John 16:17) Notice how the revelation was not based on believing in the virgin birth, or that Jesus Christ descended from the line of David, or even that Jesus Christ was going to lead the Tea Party to a grand victory over those terrible Romans - No, the revelation was that He was the Son of the living God, and it was that very living God, the One and Only True God of Heaven and Earth, that revealed this wonderful and life-changing revelation to Peter.

Although we don't have Jesus Christ here in flesh and blood to ask every man that all important, all crucial question "But who do you say that I am?" We have the His Word, and it is plain and it is clear - ""for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins"(John 8:24) Now you can call into question whether or not Jesus Christ really said this, or that maybe the writers of the Gospels fudged on the wording, or that Jesus Christ was a figment of their imaginations...it all won't really matter because you have short-circuited any chance of receiving the revelation that He is the Christ, the Son of the living God.

I would like to say that I absolutely believe that a person can be a Christian and not believe that the Bible (i.e. KJV, NKJV, ASV, ESV, GW, NLT, NAS, NLT, CSB, JUB, NRS, NIV, NET, RSV, NRSV, CEB, CSV, LEB, MSG---take your pick) is the inerrant and inspired word of God. Of course, you might believe that the original Greek translation is inerrant and inspired but even that translation is not from the original documents. Despite some clear discrepancies which some Biblical versions have changed, overall there is a high probability that most of it is accurate other than thousands of minor scribe errors.

1. I only heard of Ehrman about 3-4 months ago from one of my cohorts who is not named zeek but while I found his works very interesting he has not changed my overall perspective at all. Ehrman's breakthrough 1993 text-critical scholarly study, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, has been heralded by Evangelical Christian scholars world-wide as illuminating and revelatory even though they may disagree with the direction he has taken in his personal life. He wrote the popular version of this book in Misquoting Jesus which has created a great deal of chagrin in the Christian world. I wish it was as simple as two versions of the suicide of Judas.

2. I wasn't looking for a definition but simply a statement of yes or no with a simple explanation or detailed definition if you like. I thought your hamster example was funny even though irrelevant unless you want to start a "hamster Christian" thread. Humor is important in this discussion.

3. Based on what you said about John 16:17 why do you make a big deal about the Trinity, the inerrancy of the Bible etc. Why not just have the revelation which Peter had as the litmus test for a Christian and that is the end? It seems like many of us have had that "revelation" but still had more expectations which gets us to WL for ongoing revelation and training. After leaving WL...we continue to seek "revelation" which is apparently why you are where you are presently.

4. You recommended that others check out their local Acts 29 church on the internet as a possibility after their experience in the LC in a 7/2011 post you made so I am glad that you have found something that works for you. I presume you subscribe to their belief regarding the inerrancy of the Bible or do they promote each person to exercise their own beliefs in this regard?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

A couple questions? Can someone be a Christian and not believe that the Bible is inerrant and God-inspired from your perspective?

Can someone who was truly saved (e.g. in their history they had a born again experience, brought many people to Christ, devoted to the Bible etc) get unsaved from your perspective?

Look at the thief on the cross. Initially he taunted the Lord with insults like the others at the cross. (Matt 27.44) Apparently his own sad plight got the best of him, and he then feared God and His judgment following death would be just. (Luke 23.40-43) He only asked Jesus to remember him as he entered into His kingdom.

Was the thief a Christian? Was the thief saved? Did the thief believe the Bible was inerrant? Did the thief believe the Bible was God-inspired? Could he be saved without quoting the five tenets of fundamentalism? How could he be saved as a convicted criminal, "cursed by hanging on a tree." (Deut 21.23) How could he be saved having never been baptized? Did he have the correct theology of the Trinity?

So many questions! Who can answer them all!

What if things were reversed for the thief. What if Luke 23.40-43 had occurred before Matt 27.44? Was our poor thief then unsaved? Was he truly born again in the first place? Will he still go to paradise or heaven? What if he brought the other thief to the Lord first, and then backslid before he died by renouncing the Lord? (Matt 18.20) Can an unsaved thief still be with Jesus in paradise? What if he wasn't in paradise, did Jesus then lie? Perhaps Jesus misspoke about paradise? Was that the good side of paradise with Abraham, (Luke 16) or the thirsty side with the rich man?

So many questions! Who can answer them all!

Brother UntoHim can you help me?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Look at the thief on the cross. Initially he taunted the Lord with insults like the others at the cross. (Matt 27.44) Apparently his own sad plight got the best of him, and he then feared God and His judgment following death would be just. (Luke 23.40-43) He only asked Jesus to remember him as he entered into His kingdom.

Was the thief a Christian? Was the thief saved? Did the thief believe the Bible was inerrant? Did the thief believe the Bible was God-inspired? Could he be saved without quoting the five tenets of fundamentalism? How could he be saved as a convicted criminal, "cursed by hanging on a tree." (Deut 21.23) How could he be saved having never been baptized? Did he have the correct theology of the Trinity?

So many questions! Who can answer them all!

What if things were reversed for the thief. What if Luke 23.40-43 had occurred before Matt 27.44? Was our poor thief then unsaved? Was he truly born again in the first place? Will he still go to paradise or heaven? What if he brought the other thief to the Lord first, and then backslid before he died? (Matt 18.20) Can an unsaved thief still be with Jesus in paradise? What if he wasn't in paradise, did Jesus then lie? Perhaps Jesus misspoke about paradise? Was that the good side of paradise with Abraham, (Luke 16) or the thirsty side with the rich man?

So many questions! Who can answer them all!

Brother UntoHim can you help me?

And we don't even know what paradise Jesus was speaking about. If "today you will be with me" meant where Jesus went between death and resurrection then was Hades that paradise?, or was paradise were Jesus preached unto the spirits in prison? 1 Pet. 3:19.

We know so little. Where did that thief go? Was he Jesus' sidekick thru Hades? I don't think he resurrected with Jesus. And what is paradise?

In the end bro UntoHim can't say and can't know who are or are not Christians. Only those that know the hearts can know such things. So best not be pointing fingers at those we think are Christian in name only.

That's so Witness Lee like. We'll pray for our bro UntoHim, that he'll soon get over his Witness Lee infection.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

In the end bro UntoHim can't say and can't know who are or are not Christians. Only those that know the hearts can know such things. So best not be pointing fingers at those we think are Christian in name only.

Of course UntoHim can't know who are all the Christians. Is he God?

But we can know concerning ourself. And we must know. And we can know. I John makes that clear.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Dave

Despite some clear discrepancies which some Biblical versions have changed, overall there is a high probability that most of it is accurate other than thousands of minor scribe errors.

Cool, so you do believe that Jesus Christ did give a plain and clear definition of who is and who is not a Christian. So now all that left is for you to admit that you don't believe that Jesus Christ is who he said he was - the Only Begotten Son of the One and Only True God of Heaven and Earth, and that he died and rose again and ascended to his Father and sits at the right hand of God as we speak! It's not that hard, Dave. This is not advanced grad course theology stuff. It's vacation Bible school stuff. And don't hesitate to give the stock "I don't know and neither do you, it's all a matter of faith" cop out. That's an acceptable answer here in la la land!

1.I wish it was as simple as two versions of the suicide of Judas.

It is for Ehrman, he mentiones this in his opening argument on almost EVERY speech/debate he gives. This and along with who or who did not run back to the disciples from the empty grave, and a few other mundane discrepancies. Then, of course, he always sheepishly admits that not one, NOT ONE, of the thousands upon thousands of variances have even the slightest affect on whether Jesus Christ was the One and Only Son of the One and Only True God of Heaven and Earth, the promised Messiah, that he died and rose from the dead as he said he would, and that he is now seated at the right hand of the Father, and that this is what the Christian faith is based upon, and that a few scribes falling asleep at the pen as it were, does not change what the Christian faith is based upon.

2. I wasn't looking for a definition but simply a statement of yes or no with a simple explanation or detailed definition if you like. I thought your hamster example was funny even though irrelevant unless you want to start a "hamster Christian" thread. Humor is important in this discussion.

Yes or no what? That some scribal errors of omission and commission negate that Jesus Christ is who he said he was, that he was the promised Messiah, and that he died and rose from the dead, and that he is seated at the Father's right hand? The answer to that is no. But then again, this is not what you are concerned with. What you want is to tag me as a Bible thumping, Westboro Baptist church, Harold Camping nut job. I've seen how you roll, my man. You have no middle gear. But that's ok here on Alt Views. Full blast is ok! And so is humor too!

3. Based on what you said about John 16:17 why do you make a big deal about the Trinity, the inerrancy of the Bible etc. Why not just have the revelation which Peter had as the litmus test for a Christian and that is the end? It seems like many of us have had that "revelation" but still had more expectations which gets us to WL for ongoing revelation and training. After leaving WL...we continue to seek "revelation" which is apparently why you are where you are presently.

Big deal about the Trinity? Where have I stated that belief the Trinity is a requirement for salvation, or even to consider oneself a Christian? I just covered your faulty view of biblical inerrancy, so I won't bore the few left that have made it this far. Glad you had that most important of revelations at one time (it seems to me you have major reservations and or/doubt about the genuineness of that revelation now), but I must tell you that any further revelation that we have that is estranged or detached from that original revelation, is not a revelation from the One and Only true God, his Son Jesus Christ or the Spirit of Truth whom they have sent. Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. (1st John 4:1)

4. You recommended that others check out their local Acts 29 church on the internet as a possibility after their experience in the LC in a 7/2011 post you made so I am glad that you have found something that works for you. I presume you subscribe to their belief regarding the inerrancy of the Bible or do they promote each person to exercise their own beliefs in this regard?

I have recommended Acts 29 twice in 5 years, and only for people who don't already have a sound, evangelical place to worship and hear the Word of God. In the 5 plus years I have attended I've never heard it brought up. Maybe this weekend! You may be interested to know our main speaking/teaching pastor at my church is a pretty liberal Democrat, and at one time was involved at the state level in his home state. (I don't think he is involved at this point but even if he was I wouldn't care).

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

I wish it was as simple as two versions of the suicide of Judas.

Bart Ehrman gave up his faith over the death of Judas?

Read the accounts again. They are not contradictory. I always understood it as Judas hung himself, and when he fell down his guts spilled out. Since the chief priests used his 30 pieces of silver to buy the potter's field in Matt 27.5-10, Acts 1.18-20 indicates that Judas paid for it with the wages of unrighteousness, and thus fulfilled the prophecy in Psalms 69.25.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Bart Ehrman gave up his faith over the death of Judas?

Read the accounts again. They are not contradictory. I always understood it as Judas hung himself, and when he fell down his guts spilled out. Since the chief priests used his 30 pieces of silver to buy the potter's field in Matt 27.5-10, Acts 1.18-20 indicates that Judas paid for it with the wages of unrighteousness, and thus fulfilled the prophecy in Psalms 69.25.

Ehrman left the faith as a result of God and suffering which he wrote about in his book, God's Problem. I only mentioned Judas' suicide in response to UntoHim since it was not because of Judas' suicide.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Cool, so you do believe that Jesus Christ did give a plain and clear definition of who is and who is not a Christian. So now all that left is for you to admit that you don't believe that Jesus Christ is who he said he was - the Only Begotten Son of the One and Only True God of Heaven and Earth, and that he died and rose again and ascended to his Father and sits at the right hand of God as we speak! It's not that hard, Dave. This is not advanced grad course theology stuff. It's vacation Bible school stuff. And don't hesitate to give the stock "I don't know and neither do you, it's all a matter of faith" cop out. That's an acceptable answer here in la la land!

Jesus never wrote a recorded word in the Bible or anywhere else. The Bible is mostly hearsay reported by at best second hand authors having listened to various stories of the events of prophets or those who indicated they knew Jesus. In addition most scholars agree that there was another document which they have labelled as Q which was used in writing their inspired gospels as well as many more letters from Paul which have been lost as well. Here is where your "inerrancy" and "God inspired" come into play and why you have to believe in the inerrancy and God inspired word of God. Otherwise, maybe it won't hold up on its own so there is a desire to make it inerrant and God inspired. In that way it doesn't matter if it doesn't make sense since it is God's way, mysterious. Just believe---it is inspired by God...end of story.

I am not trying to dodge your question but just as you are trying to explain who a Christian is from your perspective I am trying to explain why I am not a Christian based on your definition. In the first place even if I believed that the Bible was inerrant and God inspired why do I have to adhere to the way you have interpreted it. Aren't I afforded the opportunity to have my own revelation of what the Bible says of Jesus, God etc or must I review my revelation in relation to what you have determined it to be? If that is the case then how can anyone have any revelation and isn't that the problem we all had with Witness Lee. I don't believe there is a standard definition of a Christian. From my perspective the definition of a Christian is not wrapped up in a neat little package.

I can hear your response now...."Okay Dave, since you don't believe in my definition or shall I say the standard Christian Evangelical definition what is your definition if I can be so bold to ask for the umpteenth time?" Here is my response: A Christian is someone who experiences Christ, subscribes to the values of that experience but the experience is not based on belief in any dogma or doctrine.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

It is for Ehrman, he mentiones this in his opening argument on almost EVERY speech/debate he gives. This and along with who or who did not run back to the disciples from the empty grave, and a few other mundane discrepancies. Then, of course, he always sheepishly admits that not one, NOT ONE, of the thousands upon thousands of variances have even the slightest affect on whether Jesus Christ was the One and Only Son of the One and Only True God of Heaven and Earth, the promised Messiah, that he died and rose from the dead as he said he would, and that he is now seated at the right hand of the Father, and that this is what the Christian faith is based upon, and that a few scribes falling asleep at the pen as it were, does not change what the Christian faith is based upon.

I have listened to some youtube debates or discussions by Ehrman and quite frankly I have never heard him open with the Judas issue you mentioned nor bring it up but then again I don't know what talk you are specifically referencing. On the other hand he is only pointing out some of the discrepancies reported between the gospels. I don't see the problem pointing out the various differences in the variances and while 98% don't matter there are some significant ones which do matter to some extent. Of course, I am still asking from your perspective which Bible among the list I mentioned are truly inerrant and God inspired.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

But then again, this is not what you are concerned with. What you want is to tag me as a Bible thumping, Westboro Baptist church, Harold Camping nut job. I've seen how you roll, my man. You have no middle gear. But that's ok here on Alt Views. Full blast is ok! And so is humor too!

It's okay to be a Bible thumper or devoted to Jesus and you have good intentions, otherwise why would you put us over in the dungeon in case we might pollute the devoted. The major problem for me comes in the form of politics over devotion in today's US Evangelical movement which I consider an aberration from devoted followers of Jesus based on the Bible or history of the Christian movement. Interestingly enough I don't remember US politics entering the framework of the LC. Maybe I was just too busy trying to bring people to Jesus or to the LC to notice that kind of stuff going on.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Glad you had that most important of revelations at one time (it seems to me you have major reservations and or/doubt about the genuineness of that revelation now), but I must tell you that any further revelation that we have that is estranged or detached from that original revelation, is not a revelation from the One and Only true God, his Son Jesus Christ or the Spirit of Truth whom they have sent. Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. (1st John 4:1)

As I have explained earlier in my venture onto this forum I left the faith as you describe it based on the fact that in Revelation Jesus says that he would prefer that you were hot or cold than lukewarm because if you are lukewarm He will spew you out of his mouth. I decided to go cold since I was burning out going hot even with support, faith, prayer etc and just didn't want to continue. I focused on my family and work and I don't have any regrets. Based on Revelation... being cold = hot so I am sure that the God of Revelation appreciates my honesty. The initial revelation I had in 1964 is what it is as well as all of the other Christian experiences.

I would appreciate you testing the spirits of all of those so called US Evangelical Christians mentioned by Tomes--- You may well find a considerable number of wolves in sheep clothing but then again, what do I know. Of course, I am sure there are sincere Christians among this group as well.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I have recommended Acts 29 twice in 5 years, and only for people who don't already have a sound, evangelical place to worship and hear the Word of God. In the 5 plus years I have attended I've never heard it brought up. Maybe this weekend! You may be interested to know our main speaking/teaching pastor at my church is a pretty liberal Democrat, and at one time was involved at the state level in his home state. (I don't think he is involved at this point but even if he was I wouldn't care).

I looked at one of the Acts 29 churches on their website which is located not far from us. Looks good. Of course I am already a member of a Unitarian Church but maybe I"ll attend some time and I'll bring some other Unitarians along. We are a welcoming congregation. We have had a Christian share his experience to our congregation in the past and some of us have attended other Christian churches. It is good exposure to be open to other faiths. You might find this talk by Marin Lavanhar in Tulsa, OK interesting (or not) and reflective of this thought (Our Evangelical Neighbors): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jPEYJjeu8o

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

[COLOR="Navy"]So let me get this straight, I read that "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned" (Mark 16:16), but since Bart Ehrman says since there are two different versions of how Judas Iscariot committed suicide, we can't trust anything in the Gospels, and therefore any firm declaration, such as we see in Mark 16:16 is just bunk, and fodder for the weak-minded?

For this I nominate you as the clown of la la land. You know the last 12 verses of Mark was added to later editions of the NT manuscripts (by some perfidious scribe). Yet you clown around and treat it as if it is the very Word of God.

If we're gonna call the mistakes and additions to the manuscripts inspired words of God then when we locked the NT by canonizing it we are quenching the Spirit from further inspiration in continuing to write scripture, thru those that wish to add more inspiration to the inspired words of God. So canonizing the NT has stopped God from continuing to speak to us, thru additional mistakes and modifications -- stopping Him in the middle of His work -- and who knows what He wants to speak to us today? We'll never know.

So all we end up with is a rough draft of the NT, that God wanted to change, and did thru the ages, and now we're not letting Him complete His rough draft, started 2000 yrs ago. Thanks Gutenberg. The printing press killed the living Words of God. Christians condemned Nietzsche for doing that. But not a peep about Gutenberg.

It looks to me that: All of Christendom is la la land. (and don't make me drag out the Holy Foreskin, to prove my point).

If I were God I'd set my Kingdom up on the moon, or in some other galaxy. We're a lost cause. Our only hope is that, for no damn good reason, that I can make heads or tails of, God so loved the world. He must see something I don't see ... or has a blind spot ... and prolly wants to, needs to, write more scripture.

We frustrate our own real and actual survival. The Bible, as it exists -- unfinished -- is gonna be the death of us.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Of course UntoHim can't know who are all the Christians. Is he God?

But we can know concerning ourself. And we must know. And we can know. I John makes that clear.

Really? How do we go about doing that? How is the problem of salvation not basically a matter of faith?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

And don't hesitate to give the stock "I don't know and neither do you, it's all a matter of faith" cop out. That's an acceptable answer here in la la land!

Call it a cop out if you will. Nevertheless, you haven't shown how it is more than that or other than that. In fact, the verses you have cited in your reply to Dave show that salvation is primarily a matter of faith:

"Whoever believes..." (Mark 16:16),

"for unless you believe..."(John 8:24)

Why do you have a problem acknowledging that faith not knowledge is the foundation of Christianity?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Really? How do we go about doing that? How is the problem of salvation not basically a matter of faith?

Somehow you got the impression that faith means blind ignorance. The Bible is not that way. You should try reading it instead of guys like Bart Ehrman.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

I wish it was as simple as two versions of the suicide of Judas.

Really? I've never noticed that. Show me even one speech/debate that Professor Bart Ehrman opens with the contradictions concerning Judas. Since you say he opens every speech with it it should be no problem for you. I'm just itchin to watch the whole video ... and learn everything you disagree with. I'm hoping that since you don't come out in plain words I can learn your position by a process of elimination.

Click on image to view the world's foremost top Biblical Scholar that knows more than anyone else ... but has a fixation on the contradictions of Judas' death:

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Somehow you got the impression that faith means blind ignorance. The Bible is not that way. You should try reading it instead of guys like Bart Ehrman.

Somehow you got the impression that I got the impression that faith means blind ignorance. It isn't anything that I ever stated. Somehow you also got the impression that I read Bart Ehrman and not the Bible even though I cited the Bible and not Bart Ehrman in my previous post. You asked me why it is that I am hell-bent on finding flaws and exceptions, and yet it seems that where I am concerned it is you who is hell bent on doing that.

It seems to me, that Christianity is primarily a matter of faith not knowledge. Of course, much depends upon what one means by faith and knowledge. To me, faith is subjective. By knowledge, I'm referring to objective knowledge. If by knowledge one means subjective experience, then faith can be considered a kind of knowledge as well.

Now out of faith, a person can live a life that can be observed and measured objectively in terms of its fruit or works. Thus, Christianity can become the object of knowledge too. But, faith is primary.

Obviously you may agree or disagree with my assessment. But, I am presenting my understanding to you in a straight forward manner for your consideration.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Click on image to view the world's foremost top Biblical Scholar that knows more than anyone else ... but has a fixation on the contradictions of Judas' death:

Foremost Biblical Scholar? This guy is atheist, humanistic, and agnostic, which means he is not even sure if God even exists. Hear what God has to say to old Bart Ehrman who has made lots and lots of money from "discrediting" Jesus and His word ...

"For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will set aside. Where is the wise? Where is the scholar? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made the wisdom of this world into nonsense? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world by its wisdom has not known God, it was God's good pleasure through the foolishness of the preaching, to save them that believe."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Foremost Biblical Scholar? This guy is atheist, humanistic, and agnostic, which means he is not even sure if God even exists. Hear what God has to say to old Bart Ehrman who has made lots and lots of money from "discrediting" Jesus and His word ...

"For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will set aside. Where is the wise? Where is the scholar? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made the wisdom of this world into nonsense? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world by its wisdom has not known God, it was God's good pleasure through the foolishness of the preaching, to save them that believe."

Bro Ohio, you've got me rolling on the floor.

Great verse tho ... a reference to Isaiah 29:14.

And I think it drives home Zeek's point. That it's all by faith ... and can't be logically explained.

Is that a cop-out, like UntoHim claims? Of course not.

When I look back over my life it appears to me that all along the way God pulled the rug out from under everything I thought I knew over and over again, until, I have nothing else to place my faith in but God. Isn't that the point from the get-go? Isn't that where we began with God?

Why is faith considered a cop out? I don't get it.

I can't depend on "the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever." What's left? If I can't depend on faith I have nothing at all to depend upon.

I was raised in fundamentalism. And as far back as I can remember it's always been about faith.

That's a fact you can take to the bank.

Bro O, you asked me why I don't defend the faith. Well, I just did.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

When I look back over my life it appears to me that all along the way God pulled the rug out from under everything I thought I knew over and over again, until, I have nothing else to place my faith in but God. Isn't that the point from the get-go? Isn't that where we began with God?

I sympathize with your plight Harold, I really do. But I must tell you that I doubt it was God that pulled the rug out, (but even if He did it would have been for your own good) it's more likely that it has to do with the broken world we live in. We are all broken creatures in a broken world. And this is one of the most damaging things about false religion, including the false religion of "fundamentalism," - it tries to fix something broken with the wrong tools and with the wrong method. Some false religions have the right tools (the Word of God) but the wrong method (by human reasoning and works), some have a seemingly righteous method (love your neighbor, take care of the poor, act justly, etc) but reject the righteousness which comes by faith in God and his Word. Rarely do false religions here in the West lack for both, else they would not attract very many people.

I would never doubt your sincerity in attempting to place your faith in God, but without belief in and faith in Jesus Christ and God's Word, I'm afraid you are short-circuiting any way to come to the One and Only true God. Jesus said "no one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6) This declaration is very straight-forward, not requiring any interpretation...what it does require is faith and obedience. For one to say that they have faith in God but reject His only begotten Son is a non-sequitur, and a dangerous one for your spiritual health.

Why is faith considered a cop out? I don't get it.

Faith in what? Faith in who? Where is the description of what you are to have faith in? This gets back to negative theology. And you know what? There were a number of practitioners of negative theology back in Jesus' day. The Son of God was right there among them. He did all sorts of miracles and even rose from the dead, (just like he said he would) but most people still didn't believe. Something (or someone) was blinding them to what was happening right before their very eyes. Today, it's the same, except in place of Jesus in the flesh we have the Word of God and the Spirit of Truth to guide us into all truth. We also have our Lord Jesus Christ as our Advocate pleading our case before the Father. The only missing element is on our side of the equation - Faith, faith in the One and Only true God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, His Only begotten Son, Jesus Christ who died for our sins and rose from the dead and faith that God's Spirit will transform us into the likeness of Christ and eventually glorify even our mortal bodies.

[zeek]

Congratulations UntoHim. That's pure faith. There isn't an objective verifiable or falsifiable fact in that entire post.

[UntoHim]

Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (John 20:29)

So zeek, my dear friend. Do you believe? (Watch this my Alt View fellows!)

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I sympathize with your plight Harold, I really do. But I must tell you that I doubt it was God that pulled the rug out, (but even if He did it would have been for your own good) it's more likely that it has to do with the broken world we live in. We are all broken creatures in a broken world. And this is one of the most damaging things about false religion, including the false religion of "fundamentalism," - it tries to fix something broken with the wrong tools and with the wrong method. Some false religions have the right tools (the Word of God) but the wrong method (by human reasoning and works), some have a seemingly righteous method (love your neighbor, take care of the poor, act justly, etc) but reject the righteousness which comes by faith in God and his Word. Rarely do false religions here in the West lack for both, else they would not attract very many people.

I would never doubt your sincerity in attempting to place your faith in God, but without belief in and faith in Jesus Christ and God's Word, I'm afraid you are short-circuiting any way to come to the One and Only true God. Jesus said "no one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6) This declaration is very straight-forward, not requiring any interpretation...what it does require is faith and obedience. For one to say that they have faith in God but reject His only begotten Son is a non-sequitur, and a dangerous one for your spiritual health.

Faith in what? Faith in who? Where is the description of what you are to have faith in? This gets back to negative theology. And you know what? There were a number of practitioners of negative theology back in Jesus' day. The Son of God was right there among them. He did all sorts of miracles and even rose from the dead, (just like he said he would) but most people still didn't believe. Something (or someone) was blinding them to what was happening right before their very eyes. Today, it's the same, except in place of Jesus in the flesh we have the Word of God and the Spirit of Truth to guide us into all truth. We also have our Lord Jesus Christ as our Advocate pleading our case before the Father. The only missing element is on our side of the equation - Faith, faith in the One and Only true God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, His Only begotten Son, Jesus Christ who died for our sins and rose from the dead and faith that God's Spirit will transform us into the likeness of Christ and eventually glorify even our mortal bodies.

Oh I've heard this sort of stuff before. Not just growing up. In the near past I was told if you're baptized it only matters to God if you believe it's for remission of sins. And in the recent past, by the same preacher, when I said that I talk to God during the day, I was told that, God doesn't listen unless the prayer is in the name of Jesus. I asked if it had to be said before and after speaking to God, and was told "Yes."

I guess we all have our funny ways about God ; our funny requirements, sticklers, fetishes, and proclivities ; that we think God requires.

And yes, such things require the requisite faith to match those determinants. The more we pile on the more faith we have to work up.

UntoHim asks: "Where is the description of what you are to have faith in?"

I thought I plainly said "faith in God." Is that not a description? Isn't that enough? I guess not enough for UntoHim. He requires "faith in Jesus Christ and God's Word," both equally. And more, "faith in the One and Only true God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, His Only begotten Son, Jesus Christ who died for our sins and rose from the dead and faith that God's Spirit will transform us into the likeness of Christ ..."

Gosh! All the mechanics. That's a lot to keep up with; seems very cumbersome. If I'm gonna put faith in all that, I may as well simplify it, and believe in, once saved always saved, and I'll save myself a lot of work.

I may have been able to jump thru all those loops and hoops when I was young -- oh yeah, I did that in the local church -- but I'm too old for all that now.

I'd rather these days to just rock my soul in the bosom of Abraham.

If that's not enough for God then He's just way too demanding.

UntoHim just seems to be hung up on a demanding Father figure ... that requires that we jump thru all kinds of loops and hoops ... like trained seals.

To each his, or her, own ... I guess.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (John 20:29)

So zeek, my dear friend. Do you believe? (Watch this my Alt View fellows!)

Yes. Watch what?

[awareness]

I'm still watching. Did I miss it?

[zeek]

It reminds me of the old "watch this space" joke. Perhaps UntoHim is playing games. Ethically, our primary responsibility is to treat each other well. How are we doing? The question, "What would Jesus do?" assumes that Jesus is an absolutely righteous person. So the question could be rephrased, "What would a perfectly good and ethical person do in this situation? Thus, it is, categorically, an absolute ethical imperative. In the sphere of discussion, it demands that we treat everyone as a "thou"--a potential if not actual "son of God". That would entail at least treating others with respect, wouldn't you think? I don't feel I'm getting much of that here. How am I doing?

[zeek]

Here's an article about the dominionist variety of fundamentalism:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Nelson/kelleigh235.htm

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

Congratulations UntoHim. That's pure faith. There isn't an objective verifiable or falsifiable fact in that entire post.

Are you sure you're on the right forum? The main subject of this forum (even in Alt Views) is The teachings, practices and history of the Local Church movement and the ministries of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. Last I checked this is all within the general realm of the Christian FAITH. Not Christian Science, not rocket science, not any science. Faith by definition does not involve objective verifiable facts. Sorry if that upsets you or rubs you the wrong way zeek, but THEM are the facts around here.

You keep harping on this "faith is not knowledge" deal. Please point me to where anyone has said such a thing. There is such a thing as "the knowledge of God", but this is knowledge as in knowing a person. Although we do obtain objective knowledge (from the Bible) about God, his nature, character, ways and purposes, it is the subjective, intimate knowledge of God the leads to full salvation. And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.(John 17:3)

Your post I quoted above is condescending and in a mocking tone. Is this your "alternative view" of civil discussion?

You can have the last word on faith verses knowledge if you want.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

Oh I've heard this sort of stuff before. Not just growing up. In the near past I was told if you're baptized it only matters to God if you believe it's for remission of sins. And in the recent past, by the same preacher, when I said that I talk to God during the day, I was told that, God doesn't listen unless the prayer is in the name of Jesus. I asked if it had to be said before and after speaking to God, and was told "Yes."

Harold, do you actually read what I write? You instantly went off talking about things I never said or even implied. You could have easily refuted your preacher friend with something as simple as "the Lord's Prayer", which opens "Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name". Nowhere anything about "in the name of Jesus". Next time text me when you're in such a pickle, I'll help ya out bro! I love to straighten out people who say stupid things like that.

UntoHim asks: "Where is the description of what you are to have faith in?"
I thought I plainly said "faith in God." Is that not a description? Isn't that enough?

What god Harold? I'm just seeking a just a teeny, tiny bit more information to satisfy my wild curiosity.
I have to assume it's not the God of the Bible, you've made that crystal clear over the years. So if it's not the God of the Bible, then what god are you saying you have faith in? And don't worry about being off topic, you know that you have a lifetime get-out-of-jail card...that is if you haven't lost the darn thing!

I guess not enough for UntoHim. He requires "faith in Jesus Christ and God's Word," both equally. And more, "faith in the One and Only true God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, His Only begotten Son, Jesus Christ who died for our sins and rose from the dead and faith that God's Spirit will transform us into the likeness of Christ ..."

Not my requirement, it's God's requirement. "This is my Beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased"(John 3:17) This was right at the introduction of Jesus at the start of his ministry on earth, and I believe the only time God spoke from heaven during New Testament times...must of been pretty important! And all the ramblings of false religions and religionists, sheep in wolf's clothing, false prophet's, shysters, crooks, and even well meaning but misinformed people like your pastor friend, will never nullify God's requirement to accept his Beloved Son.

Gosh! All the mechanics. That's a lot to keep up with; seems very cumbersome. If I'm gonna put faith in all that, I may as well simplify it, and believe in, once saved always saved, and I'll save myself a lot of work.

No worries my friend, God already did all the work! "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. You've got it made in the shade, my man! All ya gotta do is BELIEVE. God doesn't want your works anyway.

UntoHim just seems to be hung up on a demanding Father figure ... that requires that we jump thru all kinds of loops and hoops ... like trained seals.

No loops and hoops, just accept his Beloved Son. Hey, and guess what, if you do you get a big Brother and a Comforter thrown in with the demanding Father! But wait! There's more! Eternal life! You will be resurrected one day with a new body and spend eternity with this Beloved Son, Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father and Prince of Peace! What a deal!

[Dave]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

No loops and hoops, just accept his Beloved Son. Hey, and guess what, if you do you get a big Brother and a Comforter thrown in with the demanding Father! But wait! There's more! Eternal life! You will be resurrected one day with a new body and spend eternity with this Beloved Son, Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father and Prince of Peace! What a deal!

I have to admit, that is awesome. Hey did I ever tell you about this piece of land I have for sale in the middle of the Florida everglades? I'll make a great deal for you. A little work and it will be your little paradise. Of course, you have to believe in it but if you do just let me know and it will be yours.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

I have to admit, that is awesome. Hey did I ever tell you about this piece of land I have for sale in the middle of the Florida everglades? I'll make a great deal for you. A little work and it will be your little paradise. Of course, you have to believe in it but if you do just let me know and it will be yours.

Is this what a "shipwrecked" faith looks like?

"Keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith. Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan, so that they will be taught not to blaspheme."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Harold, do you actually read what I write? You instantly went off talking about things I never said or even implied.

You had waxed so poetic I didn't feel to profane it by parse it out.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

You could have easily refuted your preacher friend with something as simple as "the Lord's Prayer", which opens "Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name". Nowhere anything about "in the name of Jesus".

Oh I just smiled. He was too absurd to warrant a response. Sometimes it's best to let others remain in their delusions ; if they believe the earth is flat then okay the earth is flat. Disconfirmation doesn't depend upon us. Reality disconfirms false beliefs on its own. It is faithful (pun intended). Thank God.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Next time text me when you're in such a pickle, I'll help ya out bro! I love to straighten out people who say stupid things like that.

You are so kind and thoughtful. If only the cell # I have for you is current.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

What god Harold? I'm just seeking a just a teeny, tiny bit more information to satisfy my wild curiosity.

Why the only God there is. The one and only true God. The flying spaghetti monster.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I have to assume it's not the God of the Bible, you've made that crystal clear over the years.

That depends on which part of the Bible. I don't cotton much to the OT God. I much prefer the NT God; the one Jesus spoke of.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

So if it's not the God of the Bible, then what god are you saying you have faith in?

Like everybody else the God I have faith in is of my imagination, just like yours.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

]Not my requirement, it's God's requirement. "This is my Beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased"(John 3:17) This was right at the introduction of Jesus at the start of his ministry on earth

I think you mean Matthew 3:17. John has the ministry of Jesus starting at the beginning of time ... not at his baptism.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

And all the ramblings of false religions and religionists, sheep in wolf's clothing, false prophet's, shysters, crooks, and even well meaning but misinformed people like your pastor friend, will never nullify God's requirement to accept his Beloved Son.

What you speak of is the tradition I was raised in. And yes it still has that good ol' down home comfort and appeal. I even find myself at times missing a good old fashion fire and brimstone sermon. I read sometime ago that acid head before he passed on, went back to his Roman Catholic church ... because it brought him down home comfort.

[awareness]

Dup post - fell asleep and finished it while sleeping ... must have been the spirit moving ... er sompin ...

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Is this what a "shipwrecked" faith looks like?

"Keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith. Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan, so that they will be taught not to blaspheme."

Therefore, you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others, for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because, you, the judge are doing the very same things. You say, "We know that God's judgment on those who do such things is in accordance with the truth." Do you imagine, whoever you are, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgement of God? Rom. 2:1-3.

And to the angel of the church in Sardis....I know your works; you have a name of being alive, but you are dead...
And to the angel of the church in Laodicea....I know your works; you are neither cold nor hot. I wish that you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spit you out of my mouth. For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing. You do not realize you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked...Rev. 3:1-2, 14-17

Neither on this forum nor in person do I pretend to be something I am not.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

[COLOR="Navy"]Are you sure you're on the right forum? The main subject of this forum (even in Alt Views) is The teachings, practices and history of the Local Church movement and the ministries of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. Last I checked this is all within the general realm of the Christian FAITH. Not Christian Science, not rocket science, not any science. Faith by definition does not involve objective verifiable facts. Sorry if that upsets you or rubs you the wrong way zeek, but THEM are the facts around here.

Quite the contrary, that's what I have been saying all along. For some reason unknown to me you have opposed me on it.

You keep harping on this "faith is not knowledge" deal. Please point me to where anyone has said such a thing.

Originally Posted by Ohio But we can know concerning ourself. And we must know. And we can know. I John makes that clear.

There is such a thing as "the knowledge of God", but this is knowledge as in knowing a person.

I would argue that such knowledge is based on faith rather then the other way around.

Although we do obtain objective knowledge (from the Bible) about God, his nature, character, ways and purposes, it is the subjective, intimate knowledge of God the leads to full salvation.

So we agree.

And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.(John 17:3)

If I believe that, it is based on faith not "sight" i.e. not observation. Thus, it is basically subjective not objective.

Your post I quoted above is condescending and in a mocking tone. Is this your "alternative view" of civil discussion?

I did congratulate you which was a bit cheeky as the Brits like to say. But, for the most part, I have been direct whereas you have been derisive and derogatory. For thorough condescension and mocking tone, read your own posts and those of Ohio who takes potshots and does not reply to substantive arguments.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

But, for the most part, I have been direct whereas you have been derisive and derogatory. For thorough condescension and mocking tone, read your own posts and those of Ohio who takes potshots and does not reply to substantive arguments.

This is exactly how I view many of the responses here. No one responds to actual comments, and when they do its this condescending know-it-all attitude that kills the discussion. I can relate to all of UntoHim's posts and replies. He goes out of his way to provide thoughtful and scriptural responses that just get ridiculed. The truths of the Bible get mocked, and renowned atheists like Ehrman get recommended. What can be more "substantive" than God's own word, properly applied to the current situation?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is exactly how I view many of the responses here. No one responds to actual comments, and when they do its this condescending know-it-all attitude that kills the discussion. I can relate to all of UntoHim's posts and replies. He goes out of his way to provide thoughtful and scriptural responses that just get ridiculed. The truths of the Bible get mocked, and renowned atheists like Ehrman get recommended. What can be more "substantive" than God's own word, properly applied to the current situation?

You are speaking in a general way so I can't tell if you are referring to me or someone else. I don't think I have been condescending, know-it-all, or ridiculing. I haven't mocked the Bible. That the Bible is the "Word of God" is a matter of opinion and therefore disputable. It must be an extra-Biblical claim, since the Bible was compiled after the books were written. Whether or not claims made for the the Bible are substantive or not depends on what is being claimed about it. If it is divinely inspired that doesn't prevent people from making unfounded claims about it.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

I haven't mocked the Bible. That the Bible is the "Word of God" is a matter of opinion and therefore disputable. It must be an extra-Biblical claim, since the Bible was compiled after the books were written. Whether or not claims made for the the Bible are substantive or not depends on what is being claimed about it. If it is divinely inspired that doesn't prevent people from making unfounded claims about it.

I am fully on board with the Bible as the Word of God despite it being assembled as such after the words which are in it were written, therefore unable to make any such claim for itself. And I believe a lot about the Bible, yet agree fully with zeek. Especially about the unfounded claims made about the Bible.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Here's an article about the dominionist variety of fundamentalism:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Nelson/kelleigh235.htm

I couldn't let this reference to Christian dominionism just pass unnoticed.

We're talking fundamentalism here. And Christian dominionism is fundamentalism on steroids.

Dominionism is the Taliban of fundamentalism. They literally want America to be a theocracy, with OT type laws (stoning and such).

And they are not without sway and power. Sen. Ted Cruz recently announced his run for president, at the fundamentalist Liberty University.

I certainly don't wish to drag this forum, or this thread, into the mud and dirt of politics. But Cruz is a Christian Dominionist, that's put his hat into the ring for president.

Now I doubt Cruz has a chance in Palin of becoming president. It's just an example of how extreme Christian fundamentalism is embedded in our nation and culture ... and that's scary.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I couldn't let this reference to Christian dominionism just pass unnoticed.

We're talking fundamentalism here. And Christian dominionism is fundamentalism on steroids.

Dominionism is the Taliban of fundamentalism. They literally want America to be a theocracy, with OT type laws (stoning and such).

And they are not without sway and power. Sen. Ted Cruz recently announced his run for president, at the fundamentalist Liberty University.

I certainly don't wish to drag this forum, or this thread, into the mud and dirt of politics. But Cruz is a Christian Dominionist, that's put his hat into the ring for president.

Now I doubt Cruz has a chance in Palin of becoming president. It's just an example of how extreme Christian fundamentalism is embedded in our nation and culture ... and that's scary.

Not as scary as having a Mooslim for president!

Why is it that some of the posters are morbidly afraid of anything fundamental, yet see Mooslims as a pleasant change. Several times when mentioning the religion of the white house to my liberal friends, I get a comment like, "Oh I have a Mooslem friend, she is so nice and loving, the sweetest girl I ever met, and she doesn't judge anyone for their beliefs." Why is it that the posters here don't say the same thing? "Oh I have a fundamental Christian friend, she is so nice and loving, the sweetest girl I ever met, and she doesn't judge anyone for their beliefs."

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Not as scary as having a Mooslim for president!

Why is it that some of the posters are morbidly afraid of anything fundamental, yet see Mooslims as a pleasant change. Several times when mentioning the religion of the white house to my liberal friends, I get a comment like, "Oh I have a Mooslem friend, she is so nice and loving, the sweetest girl I ever met, and she doesn't judge anyone for their beliefs." Why is it that the posters here don't say the same thing? "Oh I have a fundamental Christian friend, she is so nice and loving, the sweetest girl I ever met, and she doesn't judge anyone for their beliefs."

The reason is that when we talk about Fundamentalists, we typically don't talk about those that are "soft" fundamentalists — those who stand within Christianity for what they see as the fundamentals of the faith. We are instead talking about those who greatly expand the number of fundamentals and go out to force the world to live by them without Christ.

So comments about Moslems in general is like talking about the first group of fundamentalists, or even avoid fundamentalists and talking about evangelicals that are not within the "fundamentalist" camp. But there are Moslems that are seriously fundamentalist. Just like there are Christians in the same kinds of camps. Just many fewer who want to strap on bomb vests and other off-the-wall extremist things. They (the Christian kind) have a different kind of extremism since they like the idea of just turning the Middle-East sand to glass through military action. I can't go for that although I am not some pacifist calling for the nation to simply turn the other cheek.

Within Christianity, when talking about the fundamentalists, the phrase "a fundamental Christian friend" and "who doesn't judge anyone for their beliefs" almost don't belong in the same sentence. That is because we are not talking about the original fundamentalists, but the current ones that are active in the latest version of the Moral Majority.

Of course, within the softer side of fundamentalism, it is still difficult to find those who do not "judge anyone for their beliefs." That is the whole purpose. To stand for something you think everyone else is missing. And make sure they know what it is that separates you.

The only way you get the two thoughts into the same sentence, or even into the thinking of the same person, is when they hold to the "fundamentals" for themselves but understand that not everyone sees it the way they do and believe that the only true issue is faith in Christ.

Not very fundamentalist when you get down to it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

The reason is that when we talk about Fundamentalists, we typically don't talk about those that are "soft" fundamentalists — those who stand within Christianity for what they see as the fundamentals of the faith. We are instead talking about those who greatly expand the number of fundamentals and go out to force the world to live by them without Christ.

Not where I come from.

If I hear the word "fundamental," it is in a positive connotation, and usually indicates that person focuses on the important items of the faith, rather than getting preoccupied with meany items.

It is only in the media where I hear about "fundamentalists," which likes to paint Christians into the same corner as Mooslem jihadists.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

I am fully on board with the Bible as the Word of God despite it being assembled as such after the words which are in it were written, therefore unable to make any such claim for itself. And I believe a lot about the Bible, yet agree fully with zeek. Especially about the unfounded claims made about the Bible.

I respect your position which I regard as based on faith. Personally I view the Bible as the "Word of God" as a metaphor. Word in this context is itself a figurative not literal since obviously the Bible is composed by numerous words written by numerous authors.

In this context Word seems to mean "expression". The article the signifies that the expression is unique. So, the Bible is considered to be the unique written expression of God. It is, most Christians would agree a sacred and foundational document. It is, none-the-less a human document that bears the historical, cultural and scientific marks of its time.

If we suppose that God is present and somehow working in the world, then we don't we consider that He has continued to reveal Himself through historical events and through persons. So that, just as the concept of God evolved from the beginning to the end of the Bible, so has the concept of God continued to evolve since then?

Thus, the conception of God evolved from the time the last book of the New Testament was written until the time of the Nicene Councils. And it has evolved since. Most recently has been the globalization of the great world religions cannot help but transform the human understanding of God in ways that the Bible writers could not possibly have conceived.

During Biblical times, the tribal and national ethics under the prophets, and later under the nations who conquered them, most significantly of all under the Romans when governance of the diverse ethnic groups of the Mediterranean, Asia and African. During those times when Christianity arose the consciousness of a possible universal ethics arose and took hold of a wider population resulting in both syncretism and emerging Christian and Jewish orthodoxies. How much more, during this information age can we expect the conceptions of the divine and ethics to change?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Not where I come from.

If I hear the word "fundamental," it is in a positive connotation, and usually indicates that person focuses on the important items of the faith, rather than getting preoccupied with meany items.

It is only in the media where I hear about "fundamentalists," which likes to paint Christians into the same corner as Mooslem jihadists.

The definition of Christian Foondamentalism has changed as a result of extremists....From Dale Robbins book, What People Ask About the Church, "In the broad sense, fundamentalism may be used to describe Christians who are uncompromising, conservative and who take their beliefs to the maximum — exactly how every believer should live. But because of recent, increased activism by those identified as fundamentalists, who have promoted unethical actions such as bringing violence against abortion clinics, doctors etc., some academic circles believe that fundamentalism has been redefined by our society. They believe that the philosophy of fundamentalism (at least in the world's eyes) has evolved into a legitimate form of extremism, with views too radical for the balanced, evangelical Christian. For this reason,fundamentalism may no longer be a term which accurately conveys what orthodox Christians really believe.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It is only in the media where I hear about "fundamentalists," which likes to paint Christians into the same corner as Mooslem jihadists.

There are only a few Christian parallels to Muslim jihadist's that I can think of.

1) The Christians that blow up abortion clinics, or kill the doctors.

2) The Christian Identity, that Tim McVeigh was a member of, that, blew up the Oklahoma Federal building, back in 1995.

3) And Christians that go to Israel to blow up the temple mount, or are infected with the Jerusalem Syndrome to the point of supporting such efforts (like John Hagee).

There may be more, I don't know -- and none of these, but maybe Hagee, could be considered fundamentalists.

Still to be fair, Christian fundamentalists are not renown for blowing themselves up to kill innocents, or for cutting off heads. That crown, at present, goes only to one of the monotheist world religions: the Muslim fundamentalists. They take that cake.

But Christian fundamentalists can proudly count one extremest in their camp: Erik Prince, multi-millionaire founder of the infamous Blackwater; that could be considered America's Christian crusader, killing with impunity for the Christian version of God.

Fortunately fundamentalism in all forms don't represent the main of any of the religions they are considered to be a part of. Fundamentalism is I think by nature a fringe group of all religions. Thank God for that.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW
I am fully on board with the Bible as the Word of God despite it being assembled as such after the words which are in it were written, therefore unable to make any such claim for itself. And I believe a lot about the Bible, yet agree fully with zeek. Especially about the unfounded claims made about the Bible.

I respect your position which I regard as based on faith. To me the Bible as the "Word of God" is a metaphor. Word in this context is itself figurative not literal since obviously the Bible is composed by numerous words written by numerous authors.

In this context Word seems to mean "expression". The article the signifies that the expression is unique. So, the Bible is considered to be the unique written expression of God. It is, most Christians would agree, a sacred and foundational document. It is, none-the-less a human document that bears the historical, cultural and scientific marks of its time.

If we believe that God is present and working in the world, then we don't suppose that He has discontinued revealing Himself through historical events and persons when the Bible was compiled. So that, just as the concept of God evolved from the beginning to the end of the Bible, so does the concept of God continue to evolve as God reveals Himself though history.

Thus, the conception of God evolved from the time the last book of the New Testament was written until the time of the Nicene Councils. And it has continued to evolve since. Most recently the globalization of the great world religions cannot help but transform the human understanding of God in ways that the Bible writers could not possibly have conceived.

During Biblical times, the tribal and national ethics were transformed by the prophets, and later the nations who conquered Israel. Most significant of all was the social, ethical and political effects of the Romans on the diverse ethnic groups of the Mediterranean, Asia and Africa. During late antiquity the consciousness of a possible universal ethics arose and took hold of a wider population resulting in both syncretistic mystery cults and emerging Christian and Jewish orthodoxies. How much more, during this information age can we expect the conceptions of the divine and ethics to change?

[corrected for grammar]

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

There are only a few Christian parallels to Muslim jihadist's that I can think of.

1) The Christians that blow up abortion clinics, or kill the doctors.

I can see no parallel here whatsoever. Jihadists select random sites, attempting to kill or maim the maximum number of innocents, especially public shopping marts, predominantly filled with women and their children, in order to enjoy 72 virgins and hashish in their afterlife.

Those who target abortion clinics or their butchers have something entirely different in mind. Their goal is to protect the most defenseless members of society, the unborn, who have no way to defend themselves. It was the rotten Roe ruling which legitimized this slaughter. Take a look at that law and you will see all the corruption, lies, false science, and deceit that went into it.

What if one day our court system approved the extermination of "obese" people under social ObamaCare for the betterment of society as a whole. Where would you side on this matter? It would then be criminal to fight back or defend these obese "burdens" on a healthy society. Surely many Christians would rise up in protest, while other more liberal Christians would condemn them for getting involved with politics in the first place. Would you just go along with a law that simply justifies the murder of innocents? What if you happened to be overweight?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I can see no parallel here whatsoever. Jihadists select random sites, attempting to kill or maim the maximum number of innocents, especially public shopping marts, predominantly filled with women and their children, in order to enjoy 72 virgins and hashish in their afterlife.

Those who target abortion clinics or their butchers have something entirely different in mind. Their goal is to protect the most defenseless members of society, the unborn, who have no way to defend themselves. It was the rotten Roe ruling which legitimized this slaughter. Take a look at that law and you will see all the corruption, lies, false science, and deceit that went into it.

What if one day our court system approved the extermination of "obese" people under social ObamaCare for the betterment of society as a whole. Where would you side on this matter? It would then be criminal to fight back or defend these obese "burdens" on a healthy society. Surely many Christians would rise up in protest, while other more liberal Christians would condemn them for getting involved with politics in the first place. Would you just go along with a law that simply justifies the murder of innocents? What if you happened to be overweight?

WOW bro Ohio, this post is flamin'. Glad we're on Alt Vs.

I get your distinction between jihadists & abortion clinic bombers. Abortion bombers don't get virgins, heavenly wine, and hashish. They get a boring heaven, with only harps, wings, and halos.

Just kidding, of course.

Killing (for any reason) is not among either the original five fundamentals, nor even in our expended list of 20 fundamentals.

But since the first fundamental is the inerrant Bible, maybe it should be ; not of just fat people, but of men, women, children, babies, and even fetuses, if God commands it, which He did in Biblical times.

And the right defenders of the unborn should be the parents, not some psycho Bible crazed killing stranger.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

And the right defenders of the unborn should be the parents, not some psycho Bible crazed killing stranger.

Should be!?!

In our promiscuous society teen girls are regularly "counseled" to abort the "unwanted" while the father of the child and her parents have little or no say about it.

Why do you label those who protest abortions as "some psycho Bible crazed killing stranger." Why can't they be characterized as upstanding citizens who care for the indefensible unborn? There was a time in man's history, up until 1973 in fact, when this was exactly the case. 7 liberals on the SCOTUS changed all that for us. What if these "upstanding citizens" decided that the old laws of the land were better? We have been convinced that unwanted children are disposable just as Hitler convinced his people that Jews, Gays, and Gypsies were. What will you do when the future SCOTUS decides Christians are disposable, as has happened in numerous countries?

Recently the US celebrated some Boston Tea Party event. But think about it, these rebels broke laws, they killed people, they destroyed property, and they were condemned as criminals, but today we call them heroes of our young nation. Just depends on whether you were British or not.

I'm not advocating any action here, but for once try to get another point of view. Try to understand what is happening without marginalizing them with liberal generalities and stereotypes starting with "Bible crazed." Why is it that you always characterize Christians in the worst possible light? Have you anything nice to say about God's people?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Should be!?!

In our promiscuous society teen girls are regularly "counseled" to abort the "unwanted" while the father of the child and her parents have little or no say about it.

Why do you label those who protest abortions as "some psycho Bible crazed killing stranger." Why can't they be characterized as upstanding citizens who care for the indefensible unborn?

The problem here is that society does not entirely agree with us that the unborn are humans who are killed. But the unilateral and unsanctioned killing of someone because we think they are killing someone else is no better. It is murder, especially when the attack happens at a time then there are no actual abortions going on. The laws of society are caried out by society. acting against it is unlawful. Giving examples of some slippery slope possibility under the guise of Obamacare does not make bombing abortion clinics or shooting such doctors outside their houses righteous.

We have a different view of where the line is drawn concerning what we can do righteously. If we had lived in the 1st century surronding the Mediterranean Sea, there was a lot that was allowable and practiced that would make abortions misdemenors. (I'm having to skip my spell check, so it might not read right). Under this modern kind of thinking, the church should have been spearing all kinds of people (including non-Christians).

That kind of justice is God's to mete out.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Should be!?!

In our promiscuous society teen girls are regularly "counseled" to abort the "unwanted" while the father of the child and her parents have little or no say about it.

I've never known this to be going on. In my sons middle school they had a nursery for the babies ... and I doubt that the law allows any of the school staff to counsel the young girls to abort. My son knocked up his 16yr old girl friend ... and no one told her to abort, and she didn't. You must be acquainted with different situations.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Why do you label those who protest abortions as "some psycho Bible crazed killing stranger."

I didn't. I label the abortion clinic bombers, and killers, "psycho Bible crazed killing stranger."

Originally Posted by Ohio

Why can't they be characterized as upstanding citizens who care for the indefensible unborn?

They can, and are.

Originally Posted by Ohio

There was a time in man's history, up until 1973 in fact, when this was exactly the case. 7 liberals on the SCOTUS changed all that for us. What if these "upstanding citizens" decided that the old laws of the land were better? We have been convinced that unwanted children are disposable just as Hitler convinced his people that Jews, Gays, and Gypsies were. What will you do when the future SCOTUS decides Christians are disposable, as has happened in numerous countries?

Well don't we need that to happen for Jesus to come back, or something like it?

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm not advocating any action here, but for once try to get another point of view. Try to understand what is happening without marginalizing them with liberal generalities and stereotypes starting with "Bible crazed." Why is it that you always characterize Christians in the worst possible light? Have you anything nice to say about God's people?

Yes I do. I know lots of nice Christians, even of the fundamentalist sort.

And for the record I've always been against abortion. That's my personal view. But when I've been personally involved ultimately it wasn't my body, and I was told I couldn't tell her what to do with it. You know how women can be.

[Dave]

CHILLING PARALLELS BETWEEN CHRISTIAN AND MUSLIM FUNDAMENTALISTS
by Nick Gier, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, University of Idaho
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/parallels.htm

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

CHILLING PARALLELS BETWEEN CHRISTIAN AND MUSLIM FUNDAMENTALISTS
by Nick Gier, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, University of Idaho
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/parallels.htm

Every time I leave my house to go to work or church or shopping, I am in morbid fear that some fundamental Christian extremist wearing bombs under his trench coat will stand up, trigger in hand, and shout to all "Jesus is Lord, Praise God, unto Him be all the glory."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Every time I leave my house to go to work or church or shopping, I am in morbid fear that some fundamental Christian extremist wearing bombs under his trench coat will stand up, trigger in hand, and shout to all "Jesus is Lord, Praise God, unto Him be all the glory."

Scary!!! I wouldn't stand a chance here is this area. There'd be more bombers than places of business.

I'm not advocating abortion but I do have to point out that there's plenty of babies being born. Our species is thriving. Do we ever hear pro-lifer's shouting appreciation for that fact?

Seems the one commandment of God we all -- believers, atheists, and all in between -- like to keep is, "be fruitful and multiply."

Just google "baby farms" and see for yourself.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Every time I leave my house to go to work or church or shopping, I am in morbid fear that some fundamental Christian extremist wearing bombs under his trench coat will stand up, trigger in hand, and shout to all "Jesus is Lord, Praise God, unto Him be all the glory."

This statement is trying to compare apples to oranges. Why do Muslims blow themselves up in an effort to kill Israelis or others---because that is one of their only weapons--people? The west has unparalleled weaponry to include thousands of nuclear weapons, drones, war ships roaming around the world, war planes stationed around the world and the west (especially the US) has armed the Israelis to the teeth--the Israelis are in the top 10 of those with the most nuclear weapons at 80. Outside of Pakistan there is no other Muslim country with nuclear weapons and even in Turkey the US has kept 60-70 US nuclear warheads stationed on one of our bases. However, Turkey does not possess nuclear weapons of its own. What we can say for nuclear weapons we can also say for other weapons of mass destruction that we have available. Of course, we acquired most of these weapons in our defense over the years against Communist Russia. Our latest weapons--drones -- we use against Muslim countries as a defense against their terrorism.

Christians don't need to walk in a store and blow themselves up because we can sit back sipping a cup of coffee while still in the US and watch while we use our drones to slaughter people thousands of miles away. In some cases this is justified but we also kill innocents despite our best efforts to the contrary.

I'm certainly not justifying terrorist attacks against the US or Israel but Muslims (mostly poor Muslims) blowing themselves up is simply one of the few weapons they can use in Western countries without access to drones or long range missiles. In any case, the article was not about the use of weapons it was about the similarities in belief between radical Muslim and Christian fundamentalism which has resulted in violence.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

This statement is trying to compare apples to oranges. Why do Muslims blow themselves up in an effort to kill Israelis or others---because that is one of their only weapons--people? The west has unparalleled weaponry to include thousands of nuclear weapons, drones, war ships roaming around the world, war planes stationed around the world and the west (especially the US) has armed the Israelis to the teeth--the Israelis are in the top 10 of those with the most nuclear weapons at 80. Outside of Pakistan there is no other Muslim country with nuclear weapons and even in Turkey the US has kept 60-70 US nuclear warheads stationed on one of our bases. However, Turkey does not possess nuclear weapons of its own. What we can say for nuclear weapons we can also say for other weapons of mass destruction that we have available. Of course, we acquired most of these weapons in our defense over the years against Communist Russia. Our latest weapons--drones -- we use against Muslim countries as a defense against their terrorism.

Christians don't need to walk in a store and blow themselves up because we can sit back sipping a cup of coffee while still in the US and watch while we use our drones to slaughter people thousands of miles away. In some cases this is justified but we also kill innocents despite our best efforts to the contrary.

I'm certainly not justifying terrorist attacks against the US or Israel but Muslims (mostly poor Muslims) blowing themselves up is simply one of the few weapons they can use in Western countries without access to drones or long range missiles. In any case, the article was not about the use of weapons it was about the similarities in belief between radical Muslim and Christian fundamentalism which has resulted in violence.

Thanks for this highly informative post!

Finally I understand the justification for suicide bombers. I used to think it was Islam's false promises in a pleasurable after life and payoffs for surviving family members. Now I have discovered that they have no other recourse in life but to blow themselves up in crowded market places. Had they drones, however, they would be out of a job.

And shame on all those rotten fundamentalist American Christians sipping lattes at Starbucks while drones are launched at innocent, peaceful, and defenseless Mooslims.

Oh the "chilling parallels!" I get chills running up and down my spine just thinking about them.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Thanks for this highly informative post!

Finally I understand the justification for suicide bombers. I used to think it was Islam's false promises in a pleasurable after life and payoffs for surviving family members. Now I have discovered that they have no other recourse in life but to blow themselves up in crowded market places. Had they drones, however, they would be out of a job.

And shame on all those rotten fundamentalist American Christians sipping lattes at Starbucks while drones are launched at innocent, peaceful, and defenseless Mooslims.

Oh the "chilling parallels!" I get chills running up and down my spine just thinking about them.

I'm glad that I brought some clarity to this issue for you. In fact they have been studying what motivates Muslims to commit such horrible acts of terror for years: http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/w...cide-bombers-0

This article notes, "The evidence from the database largely discredits the common wisdom that the personality of suicide bombers and their religion are the principal cause. It shows that though religion can play a vital role in recruiting and motivating potential future suicide bombers, the driving force is not religion but a cocktail of motivations including politics, humiliation, revenge, retaliation and altruism."

BTW--we are not sitting at Starbucks drinking our lattes but we are drinking our lattes while sitting at a desk with a monitor and joy stick, guiding the drones and firing missiles at targets just like a video game. Of course, we are using our best intelligence but it is thousands of miles removed from the killing fields. The US has determined that the risk/reward is worth it so it will continue. I am not opposed to using drones in some situations but we do have some fallout from its use.

Anyway, as I said in my last post suicide bombers and fundamentalist bombers are not an issue in the article I mentioned earlier.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

This article notes, "The evidence from the database largely discredits the common wisdom that the personality of suicide bombers and their religion are the principal cause. It shows that though religion can play a vital role in recruiting and motivating potential future suicide bombers, the driving force is not religion but a cocktail of motivations including politics, humiliation, revenge, retaliation and altruism."

BTW--we are not sitting at Starbucks drinking our lattes but we are drinking our lattes while sitting at a desk with a monitor and joy stick, guiding the drones and firing missiles at targets just like a video game. Of course, we are using our best intelligence but it is thousands of miles removed from the killing fields. The US has determined that the risk/reward is worth it so it will continue. I am not opposed to using drones in some situations but we do have some fallout from its use.

Anyway, as I said in my last post suicide bombers and fundamentalist bombers are not an issue in the article I mentioned earlier.

Who is this "we" guiding drones and firing missiles? Do you work for the military? Are you implying this "we" are fundamental Christians? Just what are you saying?

There are numerous reasons to motivate suicide bombers. But if the reasons you cited were real reasons then every religion would have them. Obviously that is not the case.

That army psychiatrist who went on a rampage made it clear at the end what he was doing and why when he shouted "Allah is great," but guys like you would rather believe it was "workplace violence."

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Who is this "we" guiding drones and firing missiles? Do you work for the military? Are you implying this "we" are fundamental Christians? Just what are you saying?

There are numerous reasons to motivate suicide bombers. But if the reasons you cited were real reasons then every religion would have them. Obviously that is not the case.

That army psychiatrist who went on a rampage made it clear at the end what he was doing and why when he shouted "Allah is great," but guys like you would rather believe it was "workplace violence."

You better recheck your posts because you put every Muslim in the same box, that they are all suicide bombers just waiting to happen.

India and the Kashmir conflict---every heard of that? Between Pakistan and India...why do you think they both have nukes? Those are Hindus vs Muslims. The number of Muslims in the world is 1.6 billion, about one quarter of the world's population. What about the various religions in africa which have been fighting each other for eons.... there are just too many to enumerate? Here is a list if you are really interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...icts_in_Africa Did you ever hear about the Ireland conflict -- Protestants against the Catholics----terrorists were involved and they weren't Muslim. Buddhists---you better believe there have been armed conflicts with Buddhists and they have been called terrorists...from other religions. For the sake of time I'll stop here but I really wonder where you get your history from anyway? Fox News? or the 900 Club?

All you have to do is read the OT to know the terror and massacres that Israel brought to anyone who didn't agree with them in the name of the Lord. The Crusades, the Inquisition etc. and so on. Revelation is full of war. Religion has been the cause of wars ever since the beginning of the first bowed head.

Who are the we? We are the people in this country and I can tell you that you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that there are not very many Muslims manning those drones. And they aren't mostly atheists or agnostics either? There are 2.16 billion Christians in the world and 83% of the US population calls themselves Christians. And by the way, fundamentalist Christians often advocate military service...they generally are not pacifists. You already said you didn't favor gun control. In any case, my guess is a large number of Christians are manning those drones and a good percentage of fundamentalist Christians. However, I already said that drones service a purpose but because of some of the collateral damage they are creating problems for us and others among the Muslims in those countries.

We have been fortunate that our country has evolved into a democracy. If you recall the Pilgrims sought religious freedom because of persecution and that is why they came to the US. I would like to keep it that way.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

You better recheck your posts because you put every Muslim in the same box, that they are all suicide bombers just waiting to happen.

India and the Kashmir conflict---every heard of that? Between Pakistan and India...why do you think they both have nukes? Those are Hindus vs Muslims. The number of Muslims in the world is 1.6 billion, about one quarter of the world's population. What about the various religions in africa which have been fighting each other for eons.... there are just too many to enumerate? Here is a list if you are really interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...icts_in_Africa Did you ever hear about the Ireland conflict -- Protestants against the Catholics----terrorists were involved and they weren't Muslim. Buddhists---you better believe there have been armed conflicts with Buddhists and they have been called terrorists...from other religions. For the sake of time I'll stop here but I really wonder where you get your history from anyway? Fox News? or the 900 Club?

All you have to do is read the OT to know the terror and massacres that Israel brought to anyone who didn't agree with them in the name of the Lord. The Crusades, the Inquisition etc. and so on. Revelation is full of war. Religion has been the cause of wars ever since the beginning of the first bowed head.

Who are the we? We are the people in this country and I can tell you that you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that there are not very many Muslims manning those drones. And they aren't mostly atheists or agnostics either? There are 2.16 billion Christians in the world and 83% of the US population calls themselves Christians. And by the way, fundamentalist Christians often advocate military service...they generally are not pacifists. You already said you didn't favor gun control. In any case, my guess is a large number of Christians are manning those drones and a good percentage of fundamentalist Christians. However, I already said that drones service a purpose but because of some of the collateral damage they are creating problems for us and others among the Muslims in those countries.

We have been fortunate that our country has evolved into a democracy. If you recall the Pilgrims sought religious freedom because of persecution and that is why they came to the US. I would like to keep it that way.

And then they, the Pilgrims, started the Salem witch trials ... bringing that awful religion over here (Where the First Nation Peoples had only peaceful religions ... Ha).

When will it ever end? (Answer: when the primate becomes extinct, religiously speaking ... but critters will still kill critters to live - unless God sets up His Kingdom))

I think this is Ohio's concern, that, liberal leaders here in America will conclude that religion is causing all the problems in the world, will relate fundamentalist Christians to it, and will round them all up and put them all in FEMA camps ... that they've already got set up and ready (LBL here in Ky one of them -- which is funny, because, every fundamentalist in Ky can't fit into LBL - We'd have to have another Trail of Tears, but of fundamentalists Christians this time -- not of dirt lovers, the Injuns, those devil worshipers -- and drive them up to Ohio (pun intended)..

But Bible believing Christians don't want to be painted with the "all religion is bad brush." That's why they are eating up David Barton (a revisionist), of Wallbuilders fame, that is making fundamentalists rounds, with, interviews (like on the 900 club), teachings, videos, books, and sermons, on how America is great because ... wait for it ... it was founded by Christians and on Christian principles.

And that's why we (the fundamentalists 'we') have to blame bad religion on the MOOOOOsilms.

What's funny is at one time Christians (the royal 'we' Christians of yore) rounded up the Injuns and put them on reservations, and now, we (same 'we') want to round up the MOOOOOsilms, and put them on reservations around the world ... which will prolly be on all the deserts.

When will it ever end? Primates, it turns out, are the worst animals on the earth. God better'd love us. We have no other hope ... lit'al ol' methinks ... and, BTW God, where's that Kingdom? What's the hold up?

Beam me up Lord. There's no sign of intelligence down here.

[zeek]

Here's a new book of some relevance to this thread for those who are interested:

We’re often told that the United States is, was, and always has been a Christian nation. But in One Nation Under God, historian Kevin M. Kruse reveals that the idea of “Christian America” is an invention—and a relatively recent one at that.

As Kruse argues, the belief that America is fundamentally and formally a Christian nation originated in the 1930s when businessmen enlisted religious activists in their fight against FDR’s New Deal. Corporations from General Motors to Hilton Hotels bankrolled conservative clergymen, encouraging them to attack the New Deal as a program of “pagan statism” that perverted the central principle of Christianity: the sanctity and salvation of the individual. Their campaign for “freedom under God” culminated in the election of their close ally Dwight Eisenhower in 1952.

But this apparent triumph had an ironic twist. In Eisenhower’s hands, a religious movement born in opposition to the government was transformed into one that fused faith and the federal government as never before. During the 1950s, Eisenhower revolutionized the role of religion in American political culture, inventing new traditions from inaugural prayers to the National Prayer Breakfast. Meanwhile, Congress added the phrase “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance and made “In God We Trust” the country’s first official motto. With private groups joining in, church membership soared to an all-time high of 69%. For the first time, Americans began to think of their country as an officially Christian nation.

During this moment, virtually all Americans—across the religious and political spectrum—believed that their country was “one nation under God.” But as Americans moved from broad generalities to the details of issues such as school prayer, cracks began to appear. Religious leaders rejected this “lowest common denomination” public religion, leaving conservative political activists to champion it alone. In Richard Nixon’s hands, a politics that conflated piety and patriotism became sole property of the right.

Provocative and authoritative, One Nation Under God reveals how the unholy alliance of money, religion, and politics created a false origin story that continues to define and divide American politics to this day.

http://www.amazon.com/One-Nation-Und...istian+america

[zeek]

The Biblical inerrantist seeks objective certainty in the Bible that simply cannot be supported by evidence or logic. Such supposed knowledge is antithetical to faith. As Soren Kierkegaard said:

"If I am able to apprehend God objectively, I do not have faith; but because I cannot do this, I must have faith. If I want to keep myself in faith, I must continually see to it that I hold fast the objective uncertainty, see to it that in the objective uncertainty I am “out on 70,000 fathoms of water” and still have faith."

[zeek]

Paranoia strikes deep:

https://stream.org/gay-totalitariani...on-christians/

[zeek]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/0...?detail=email#

"As Disciples, we are particularly sensitive to the values of the One we follow – one who sat at table with people from all walks of life, and loved them all." Good for them, I say.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

Paranoia strikes deep:

I'm not as prone to fear over the direction of politics, culture, etc., as some, but this on quote was well pointed:

It’s stunning how quickly the demands of gay activists went from libertarian (“Don’t arrest us for sodomy”) to totalitarian (“Take part in our weddings or we’ll destroy your livelihoods.”)

I have fairly consistently argued against the same kind of rhetoric from the other side which is trying to impose Christian morality on the unsaved public. But they are not alone. The other side is just as determined. And the way the pendulum seems to be swinging, things are in their favor.

We now have what would appear to be a standoff on the hierarchy of laws. Does the free exercise of my religion end if I actually have to engage in commerce? It is one thing to disagree with my moral/religious convictions, but another to try to outlaw me for them.

But at some level we have brought it on ourselves. Rather than holding our moral convictions for ourselves, we (a generic we that does not necessarily include all of us, but is viewed by the outside as such) have been busy trying to hold our moral convictions on behalf of everyone else. And forcing them on those others.

I do understand the position of someone speaking for the unborn and powerless. But the way it has been done often does not speak well of our claim to love our neighbor as ourselves. In fact, it seems more like we really don't give a hoot about our neighbor unless they are violating one of our favorite moral laws. Then we love only the "righteous" and not the sinner. It is entirely proper to advocate for those who cannot do so for themselves. But advocating does not equal preemptive strikes with deadly force, or the hurling of insults. I have a hard time finding that as a proper activity for a Christian who is actually trying to love their neighbor as they do themselves.

I think we need to do two things. And do them at the same time. One is to point out the hypocrisy of insisting that we think like someone else does without even consideration that maybe they should think the way we do. An honest person would realize that this can only be solved when both sides can be truly tolerant of the other without agreeing. The other point is that we need to be truly tolerant of others and their views and morality no matter how they react to us. We can claim that they can't really believe homosexuality or abortions are moral. But we have no basis to say that. So failure to be tolerant on our part is likely one of the reasons that they are turning to be intollerant of us.

It is not right. But not unexpected.

So we see a fundamentalist right being attacked by a fundamentalist left, which was at least partly created in reaction to attacks by the fundamentalist right. Don't claim that I am just blamiing the Christians or the right. It is circular. And as long as we (either side) think that our way must be respected and followed, then fight to make it so, it will continue. It might continue anyway. And if those dire predictions come true, we might have some actual basis for complaint of religious persecution.

And maybe in our humbled state we can rediscover what it is to be a Christian and once again have the kind of testimony that was prayed for by Christ.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by OBW

I'm not as prone to fear over the direction of politics, culture, etc., as some, but this on quote was well pointed:

I have fairly consistently argued against the same kind of rhetoric from the other side which is trying to impose Christian morality on the unsaved public. But they are not alone. The other side is just as determined. And the way the pendulum seems to be swinging, things are in their favor.

We now have what would appear to be a standoff on the hierarchy of laws. Does the free exercise of my religion end if I actually have to engage in commerce? It is one thing to disagree with my moral/religious convictions, but another to try to outlaw me for them.

But at some level we have brought it on ourselves. Rather than holding our moral convictions for ourselves, we (a generic we that does not necessarily include all of us, but is viewed by the outside as such) have been busy trying to hold our moral convictions on behalf of everyone else. And forcing them on those others.

I do understand the position of someone speaking for the unborn and powerless. But the way it has been done often does not speak well of our claim to love our neighbor as ourselves. In fact, it seems more like we really don't give a hoot about our neighbor unless they are violating one of our favorite moral laws. Then we love only the "righteous" and not the sinner. It is entirely proper to advocate for those who cannot do so for themselves. But advocating does not equal preemptive strikes with deadly force, or the hurling of insults. I have a hard time finding that as a proper activity for a Christian who is actually trying to love their neighbor as they do themselves.

I think we need to do two things. And do them at the same time. One is to point out the hypocrisy of insisting that we think like someone else does without even consideration that maybe they should think the way we do. An honest person would realize that this can only be solved when both sides can be truly tolerant of the other without agreeing. The other point is that we need to be truly tolerant of others and their views and morality no matter how they react to us. We can claim that they can't really believe homosexuality or abortions are moral. But we have no basis to say that. So failure to be tolerant on our part is likely one of the reasons that they are turning to be intollerant of us.

It is not right. But not unexpected.

So we see a fundamentalist right being attacked by a fundamentalist left, which was at least partly created in reaction to attacks by the fundamentalist right. Don't claim that I am just blamiing the Christians or the right. It is circular. And as long as we (either side) think that our way must be respected and followed, then fight to make it so, it will continue. It might continue anyway. And if those dire predictions come true, we might have some actual basis for complaint of religious persecution.

And maybe in our humbled state we can rediscover what it is to be a Christian and once again have the kind of testimony that was prayed for by Christ.

From my standpoint I think you have partially missed the point of the article which zeek provided. The article is from a conservative Christian website...but I think that the author is trying to say to Christians in terror, "The Gays are coming....The Gays are coming...." to stir up the radical right..." It's not that there is a real threat at all but paranoia created by the article attempts to stir Christians up to think there is a real threat. It is not circular. Gays, blacks and other minorities are the minority and have to fight every step of the way. Just look at how Congress is made up. The civil rights bill of 1964 was supposed to resolve these issues but it hasn't. I would agree that politically liberal vs conservative changes over time but that is not the intent of the article.

Why don't these Christians follow the NT and just preach the gospel? Paul's letters when you consider the 1st chapter of Romans relates to Christians and their practices and not unbelievers.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

I'm not as prone to fear over the direction of politics, culture, etc., as some, but this on quote was well pointed:

I have fairly consistently argued against the same kind of rhetoric from the other side which is trying to impose Christian morality on the unsaved public. But they are not alone. The other side is just as determined. And the way the pendulum seems to be swinging, things are in their favor.

We now have what would appear to be a standoff on the hierarchy of laws. Does the free exercise of my religion end if I actually have to engage in commerce? It is one thing to disagree with my moral/religious convictions, but another to try to outlaw me for them.

But at some level we have brought it on ourselves. Rather than holding our moral convictions for ourselves, we (a generic we that does not necessarily include all of us, but is viewed by the outside as such) have been busy trying to hold our moral convictions on behalf of everyone else. And forcing them on those others.

I do understand the position of someone speaking for the unborn and powerless. But the way it has been done often does not speak well of our claim to love our neighbor as ourselves. In fact, it seems more like we really don't give a hoot about our neighbor unless they are violating one of our favorite moral laws. Then we love only the "righteous" and not the sinner. It is entirely proper to advocate for those who cannot do so for themselves. But advocating does not equal preemptive strikes with deadly force, or the hurling of insults. I have a hard time finding that as a proper activity for a Christian who is actually trying to love their neighbor as they do themselves.

I think we need to do two things. And do them at the same time. One is to point out the hypocrisy of insisting that we think like someone else does without even consideration that maybe they should think the way we do. An honest person would realize that this can only be solved when both sides can be truly tolerant of the other without agreeing. The other point is that we need to be truly tolerant of others and their views and morality no matter how they react to us. We can claim that they can't really believe homosexuality or abortions are moral. But we have no basis to say that. So failure to be tolerant on our part is likely one of the reasons that they are turning to be intollerant of us.

It is not right. But not unexpected.

So we see a fundamentalist right being attacked by a fundamentalist left, which was at least partly created in reaction to attacks by the fundamentalist right. Don't claim that I am just blamiing the Christians or the right. It is circular. And as long as we (either side) think that our way must be respected and followed, then fight to make it so, it will continue. It might continue anyway. And if those dire predictions come true, we might have some actual basis for complaint of religious persecution.

And maybe in our humbled state we can rediscover what it is to be a Christian and once again have the kind of testimony that was prayed for by Christ.

Bro OBW can you possibly be any more level headed?

I was struck by this statement:

". . . where gay militants shouted down the celebrant, and demanded Holy Communion — only to throw it down and stomp on the body of Christ."

Statements like that are self defeating for the Catholics. It rings back to the church killing whole towns of Jews for, 'driving a nail thru the Eucharist and, killing Jesus all over again.'

That sort of statement, from the Catholic apologist Zmirak, makes the church look to be irrational to the point of absurdity, and INVITES mockery. So the gays win because the church is defeating itself by making what is to the average rational person unbelievable claims.

Besides, if Zmirak is concerned about homosexuality let him look to his own ranks. And busy himself with exposing ex-Pope Ratzinger for using Vatican sovereignty to protect crimes committed by pedophile priests.

All this fuss over the Indiana Religious-Freedom Act. Why? The congressmen responsible, after all the twitter flames, and media reaction, said something like: "Discrimination? What discrimination?"

Discrimination was easy when it was against the blacks. Their color gave them away. So this law forces gays back into the closet. That way they won't give themselves away.

And this is suppression of the right to be who we are. Indiana's Religious Freedom act is a direct unabashed attack on gays. It should be called Religious Persecution act. Religious Freedom act is a sneaky insidious euphemism, actually hiding discrimination by the religious, and is not designed to protect religious freedom. The law was obviously written by some religious right-wing-nut jobs ... standing with a Biblical morality, that's against homosexuality. They're just using the law to force their morality on others.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by zeek

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/0...?detail=email#

"As Disciples, we are particularly sensitive to the values of the One we follow – one who sat at table with people from all walks of life, and loved them all." Good for them, I say.

On another positive note, kudos to the Disciples of Christ for acting like disciples of Christ.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Dave

From my standpoint I think you have partially missed the point of the article which zeek provided.

Oh, I got the article. And there may be something to it.

But it is also the same kind of alarmism that I keep hearing in certain of my older relatives.

And I would rather speak to what I believe to be at least reasonably right than just harping on the whackos. And both sides have whackos.

They say that as you get older you either shift toward the extremes or you shift toward the middle. I am finding myself somewhere toward the middle.

The article is plausible. But it would require a judiciary that is willing to take subsequent rule of law over constitution. So far, that has mostly not been the case. And the few that arguably have seem to be of limited scope. If that changes, then we have something to talk about.

But the article demonstrates that the characteristics that we label "fundamentalism," meaning extremism with no ability to see beyond their position, fall on both sides of virtually every position. We scream how the gays want to outlaw us for insisting they be moral. But "we" were out there arguing that they be put in jail for being what they wanted to be. "We" didn't get what we wanted, and now, despite our claim to be the majority, are sure that they will get what they want. I see their rhetoric and it is as bad or worse than "ours" was. But that does not mean they will get what they want.

That article reminded me of those links from Yahoo and Google to some "article" or video where someone goes on and on saying nothing in particular but promising to eventually get to the "truth" that everyone needs to hear. Or the stock everyone needs to buy. Or the . . . . In other words, it is a collection of the worst views on a particular subject put together for the purpose of inciting a riot of response.

And they didn't get me. That does not mean I have no concerns. But I have a different view. I am a sojourner here. My country is not this one, though I enjoy its protection and freedoms. Better than virtually anywhere else on earth. Enjoy them while you can. The evil in the hearts of man would corrupt it. Whether it corrupts it in a way that is pleasing or unpleasing is not really important. But both before and after, it is not the kingdom of God. Never was and never will be.

But we should be.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

". . . where gay militants shouted down the celebrant, and demanded Holy Communion — only to throw it down and stomp on the body of Christ."

Statements like that are self defeating for the Catholics. It rings back to the church killing whole towns of Jews for, 'driving a nail thru the Eucharist and, killing Jesus all over again.'

. . . .

Discrimination was easy when it was against the blacks. Their color gave them away. So this law forces gays back into the closet. That way they won't give themselves away.

. . . .

And this is suppression of the right to be who we are. Indiana's Religious Freedom act is a direct unabashed attack on gays. It should be called Religious Persecution act. Religious Freedom act is a sneaky insidious euphemism, actually hiding discrimination by the religious, and is not designed to protect religious freedom. The law was obviously written by some religious right-wing-nut jobs ... standing with a Biblical morality, that's against homosexuality. They're just using the law to force their morality on others.

There ya go again.

Digging up every possible error by anyone connected with Christianity in any way and vilifying the whole for it. Truth is, both religious and non-religious persons have done both good and evil things with and without invoking any kind of god. Isolate the ones where a god is in any way involved and it makes no particular case other than man tends toward evil and will use anything available to justify it.

Using Catholic dogma concerning the Eucharist does not make them wrong enough to justify the actions of those who would force their immorality on anyone who does not agree with them. And while I think this religious freedom act is highly misguided, I think that we should be able to speak back to them that using the laws of the land to force anyone to act against what they understand to be their religious beliefs is not only un-American, it is unconstitutional. I am willing to accept that if you want to open for business, you have to serve anyone that is legally allowed to ask to be served. But to force a façade of acceptance is ridiculous.

For those who protest the likely demise of Indiana's act, while I think that the forcing of its termination by law would be unconstitutional, if it is merely a bow to the pressures of the populace, then I have little to say, except maybe to begin the debate on the merits of the rule.

Yet there is something a little unsettling about Christians arguing that they need a law that allows them to shun sinners. To refuse to eat with them or do business with them.

Wow!! In other words, to be exact what Jesus was NOT!!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

There ya go again.

Digging up every possible error by anyone connected with Christianity in any way and vilifying the whole for it. Truth is, both religious and non-religious persons have done both good and evil things with and without invoking any kind of god. Isolate the ones where a god is in any way involved and it makes no particular case other than man tends toward evil and will use anything available to justify it.

Using Catholic dogma concerning the Eucharist does not make them wrong enough to justify the actions of those who would force their immorality on anyone who does not agree with them. And while I think this religious freedom act is highly misguided, I think that we should be able to speak back to them that using the laws of the land to force anyone to act against what they understand to be their religious beliefs is not only un-American, it is unconstitutional. I am willing to accept that if you want to open for business, you have to serve anyone that is legally allowed to ask to be served. But to force a façade of acceptance is ridiculous.

For those who protest the likely demise of Indiana's act, while I think that the forcing of its termination by law would be unconstitutional, if it is merely a bow to the pressures of the populace, then I have little to say, except maybe to begin the debate on the merits of the rule.

Yet there is something a little unsettling about Christians arguing that they need a law that allows them to shun sinners. To refuse to eat with them or do business with them.

Wow!! In other words, to be exact what Jesus was NOT!!

There ya go again.

Digging up every possible error by anyone connected with Christianity in any way and vilifying the whole for it.

[zeek]

Here a theologian analyzes how the problem that pervades Fundamentalism and the so-called Lord's Recovery produces revolt:

//The God of theological theism deprives me of my subjectivity because he is all-powerful and all-knowing. I revolt and make him into an object, but the revolt fails and becomes desperate. God appears as the invincible tyrant, the being in contrast with whom all other beings are without freedom and subjectivity. He is equated with the recent tyrants who with the help of terror try to transform everything into a mere object, a thing among things, a cog in a machine they control. He becomes the model of everything against which Existentialism revolted. This is the God Nietzsche said had to be killed because nobody can tolerate being made into a mere object of absolute knowledge and absolute control. This is the deepest root of atheism. It is an atheism which is justified as the reaction against theological theism and its disturbing implications.//
Paul Tillich, Courage To Be, p 185.

[OBW]

And this is the reason that we find people either crazed into rabidly needing to find God in everything, or refusing to accept God in anything.

I am beginning to think there is an alternative that remains consistent with the book we say is God's Word. It is God's Word, but not in the "I ordered every word and every action in it" kind of way. It is man's record of interaction with the true God, therefore it reveals God. But it is also man's attempt to sprinkle God onto everything that happens. So so much of the decrees to wipe people out may not have been as often truly sourced to God. (I admit that there are a couple that seem to be exactly that.) And those final chapters of Judges — where the guy cuts his concubine into pieces after she is brutally raped by the men of a town all night long — that is not a record of what God did, but how far the Israelites had degraded.

God is found throughout the Bible. But unlike most sacred books, it is not entirely some dictated tome of pontifications. Instead it is interspersed with the writers' recording of history — theirs — and at some points including actions of God, or at least attributing them to God whether or not deserved.

But all of that is linked to a different view of God and sovereignty. While God is sovereign, I believe that he does not act in such a manner that nothing is outside his detailed sovereignty. Surely if my thought is true, then even the allowances of others to do what the will is at least a matter of sovereign restraint, therefore still a matter of sovereignty. But not in the sense of orchestrating everything.

So whether I may this woman or that may not be something that has been preordained (other than someone standing outside of time would know the outcome, but that is not the same as dictating how it will be). That He comes and works in me through the time that I am married to person X is a given. But what happens that he gets to use is not necessarily dictated and ordained.

Otherwise the whole premise of free will is a farce. If that is true, then preaching the gospel to others is pointless. They will or won't get saved. Of course I will have no choice about preaching the gospel, since it is preordained. But I have no need to worry about it because I have no control.

And I believe that is balderdash. Instead, I believe that God wants people who choose Him and choose to live in the manner that He has directed. While he now provides tools and assistance, without our active participation, it does not occur. It doesn't even move toward occurring. We just become religious still-borns due to failure to thrive. Yeah we have joyous experiences — or at least things that make us feel all warm and fuzzy inside. But we fail to go out and live righteously, loving our neighbor as ourselves.

Instead we want the freedom to shun gays in all circumstances. We want the government to allow us to do what God would not allow. A bunch of people will holler at me now. "He thinks we should even love the gays!" "He wants us to walk according to the Spirit before we have gotten enough dispensing!"

And so we mock those who do not have some outward evidence that they are ready to jump and shout and therefore declare them to be dead and lifeless. I'm not sure that what we declare to be life is strings on a puppet. Dead wood being carried wherever the puppeteer wants us to go as we declare those who actually live their own lives to be dead.

Despite the length, this is not a complete thought. I haven't answered the mystery of the ages. But I believe I am on to something. Funny thing is that I like evangelism's theology, but not their orthopraxy. Great words coupled with lousy practice in too many cases. Yet too often better practice is tied to questionable theology. So I probably still need to rethink something here.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by OBW

Oh, I got the article. And there may be something to it.

But it is also the same kind of alarmism that I keep hearing in certain of my older relatives.

White Fundamentalist Christians have fought against slavery, the rights of minorities, women, gays, etc over the years. People who have fought for the rights of people such as Abe Lincoln, Susan B. Anthony, Martin Luther King, have been disdained by Fundamentalist Christians. Of course it appears that what you are saying is that people like Susan Anthony and Martin Luther King are wackos because they go against the grain of fundamental Christians. They were fighting for human rights and the pressure they brought, for example, to have the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed was their attempts at seeking fairness in our society. The fundamentalists who fought against slavery used the Bible as their crutch. Even during the hayday of the KKK they had a tremendous number of Fundamentalist Christians who sympathized with their position. When Susan B. Anthony fought for the vote and the rights of women she was considered an extremist by White Christian Fundamentalists.

This is why I don't think you get what is going on and why the article is misrepresenting Gays and others who support their rights. It tries to show that the Gays are wacko when they are not...they are simply fighting for their rights to be served equally in a restaurant as we saw in Indiana this past week. I lived in the South long enough to see black and white bathrooms but those who fought for equality were considered extreme. Marching, protesting and voicing their opinion is not extreme although at the time it appears to be.

Let's just say we each have a different take on the article although we may be closer than you think.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

White Fundamentalist Christians have fought against slavery, the rights of minorities, women, gays, etc over the years. People who have fought for the rights of people such as Abe Lincoln, Susan B. Anthony, Martin Luther King, have been disdained by Fundamentalist Christians. Of course it appears that what you are saying is that people like Susan Anthony and Martin Luther King are wackos because they go against the grain of fundamental Christians. They were fighting for human rights and the pressure they brought, for example, to have the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed was their attempts at seeking fairness in our society. The fundamentalists who fought against slavery used the Bible as their crutch. Even during the hayday of the KKK they had a tremendous number of Fundamentalist Christians who sympathized with their position. When Susan B. Anthony fought for the vote and the rights of women she was considered an extremist by White Christian Fundamentalists.

This is why I don't think you get what is going on and why the article is misrepresenting Gays and others who support their rights. It tries to show that the Gays are wacko when they are not...they are simply fighting for their rights to be served equally in a restaurant as we saw in Indiana this past week. I lived in the South long enough to see black and white bathrooms but those who fought for equality were considered extreme. Marching, protesting and voicing their opinion is not extreme although at the time it appears to be.

Let's just say we each have a different take on the article although we may be closer than you think.

I think you meant to say that white fundamentalist Christians fought against abolitionism. Otherwise I think your post is pretty well founded. In OBW I think I see a person who's perspective is evolving rather than dogmatically stuck. As I see it, everything we have learned in the past can become a kind of prejudice that we bring to the present moment. If that's all we go by we become stuck cognitively. It is by being open to receive new information in the present that we grow spiritually. My hope is that everyone here is doing that.

[zeek]

Franklin Graham weighs in with another appeal to fear:http://www.charismanews.com/us/48888...ir-end-is-near

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

Franklin Graham weighs in with another appeal to fear:http://www.charismanews.com/us/48888...ir-end-is-near

I can't see any benefit for this kind of rhetoric for Christians. It certainly illustrates the White Evangelical Christian perspective noted by Tomes. It is a surprising statement considering the conservative Congress---of course, maybe they are the reason why the end is near. It makes about as much sense. Graham just shows the marriage between White Evangelical Christianity and conservative republicanism. If he stopped watching Fox News he might have a more hopeful perspective. Pretty soon he will start preaching that Obama is the Great Dragon.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Dave

White Fundamentalist Christians have fought against slavery, the rights of minorities, women, gays, etc over the years. People who have fought for the rights of people such as Abe Lincoln, Susan B. Anthony, Martin Luther King, have been disdained by Fundamentalist Christians. Of course it appears that what you are saying is that people like Susan Anthony and Martin Luther King are wackos because they go against the grain of fundamental Christians. They were fighting for human rights and the pressure they brought, for example, to have the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed was their attempts at seeking fairness in our society. The fundamentalists who fought against slavery used the Bible as their crutch. Even during the hayday of the KKK they had a tremendous number of Fundamentalist Christians who sympathized with their position. When Susan B. Anthony fought for the vote and the rights of women she was considered an extremist by White Christian Fundamentalists.

This is why I don't think you get what is going on and why the article is misrepresenting Gays and others who support their rights. It tries to show that the Gays are wacko when they are not...they are simply fighting for their rights to be served equally in a restaurant as we saw in Indiana this past week. I lived in the South long enough to see black and white bathrooms but those who fought for equality were considered extreme. Marching, protesting and voicing their opinion is not extreme although at the time it appears to be.

Let's just say we each have a different take on the article although we may be closer than you think.

Don't start joining the party of those that claim I am saying something I am not. I would not declare Abraham Lincoln or Susan B. Anthony to be a bunch of whackos. I actually do not think that the gays who fought to be allowed "out of the closet" are whackos. But those who demand that we like their choice or face economic assault are.

This is where the idea of tolerance comes to play. We have been asked to be tolerant of the gay "lifestyle." I will be the first to say that "we" have not done very well at that. But assuming we can manage that, it is only reasonable that they likewise be tolerant of the fact that it is in contradiction of our religious moral codes and therefore will not simply be accepted as normal or right by us. Otherwise the whole idea of tolerance is a joke. Either there is something that I/we do not agree with that we tolerate, or we have to change our mind to think like they do. If the latter is the requirement, then why not have it go the other way? And the war resumes.

My post was not in agreement with, or entirely a critique of the article. I read it. I understood it. It was about the Christian right falling all over themselves worried that they might lose some of the God-given American rights. Like the right to be bigots with impunity. What no one has analyzed is what Jesus thought about the sins of those he ate with. He ate with them. And he spent time with them. And that really irked the "religious right" of their day. But he did not simply say that continuing in their sin was OK. Whenever he spoke to the ones who came to him, he dealt with their needs and sent them on their way to "sin no more."

The problem with modern fundamentalism is that we have it all backward. We want them to sin no more. Then and only then will we talk to them about anything else. And it is creating a social problem for those who are not interested in listening to the moral demands of the Christians. (And the problem really ours, not theirs.)

The article is from the position of fear mongers who want the Christians to fight even harder to demand their religious rights. And there is some constitutional basis for that. But it is not necessarily a Christian response, only a legal one. Legal is not bad. But it is not necessarily loving of your neighbor.

The problem is that there are some who have been exactly as dogmatic that everyone has to accept them (as the article claims) and like it or else. But that is not a majority position. But that is what the fear mongers will latch onto.

So I get the article. I do not agree with it as presented, but I get it. But not agreeing with that is not the same as agreeing with the positions that are simply opposite of the article (or alternately in agreement with the positions the article claims are the positions of the "other" side). Rather than railing against the left, or railing against the right, I see a different place that is somewhere in between. It does not require that Christians simply accept homosexuality in all of its forms as part of the community of faith, but does require that Christians be tolerant and learn how to love those who do not agree on our moral positions. It does not require that homosexuals be vilified at will by Christians, but does require that they accept that we live by a moral code that is not entirely dictated by the positions of society. We live by it. They do not. We have a requirement with respect to ourselves, not with respect to them. And until we get that, we are as much the problem as anybody.

And spending a lot of time ranting about what's wrong with the people who write the alarmist stuff like that article isn't doing anything either. We have to fix ourselves. We need a solution, not just identification of the surface problem. We need to understand where the problem really lies. It is not in whether our morality is consistent with the Bible (although some would argue for that one), but that our approach to the whole issue is misdirected.

So if you just want someone to point at and say "they're wrong" then we should really dump on the mentality that wrote that article. I think that showing where we should be is more important than just pointing out that they are wrong (although they ultimately need to understand that).

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

I can't see any benefit for this kind of rhetoric for Christians. It certainly illustrates the White Evangelical Christian perspective noted by Tomes. It is a surprising statement considering the conservative Congress---of course, maybe they are the reason why the end is near. It makes about as much sense. Graham just shows the marriage between White Evangelical Christianity and conservative republicanism. If he stopped watching Fox News he might have a more hopeful perspective. Pretty soon he will start preaching that Obama is the Great Dragon.

It's no more or less than one conservative Christian speculating. Does he have a statically significant metric that shows this is how it works? No. Does fear influence public opinion --yes it does. So, why scare the people? What's the pay-off for Graham?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by OBW

Don't start joining the party of those that claim I am saying something I am not. I would not declare Abraham Lincoln or Susan B. Anthony to be a bunch of whackos. I actually do not think that the gays who fought to be allowed "out of the closet" are whackos. But those who demand that we like their choice or face economic assault are.

The article is from the position of fear mongers who want the Christians to fight even harder to demand their religious rights. And there is some constitutional basis for that. But it is not necessarily a Christian response, only a legal one. Legal is not bad. But it is not necessarily loving of your neighbor.

If we were living in the days of Abe or Susan Anthony I would think the White Evangelicals would consider them wackos even though we might not.

A real twist on this article is the Metropolitan Community Church (MCC) http://mccchurch.org/ which my wife and I attended once a couple years ago (one of their affiliated churches). It was lively, warm, mostly white and very Christian and Christ and Bible focused. However, it is also very open to the LGBT lifestyle and probably most of the members are of that persuasion. The minister who is gay is one of the interfaith leaders in the community. If any of them were on this forum they would be shouting Hallelujah and defending the faith, etc.... They are having a large celebration of the Resurrection of Christ this weekend. I would think they have to be an embarrassment to the White Fundamentalist Evangelicals who rail against the gay lifestyle.

In any case, I thought your response was reasonable.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

It's no more or less than one conservative Christian speculating. Does he have a statically significant metric that shows this is how it works? No. Does fear influence public opinion --yes it does. So, why scare the people? What's the pay-off for Graham?

Apparently on a prior proclamation made by Franklin Graham he received a response from a group of pastors including some significant pastors who said "...Graham has sinned against the Christian community at large. 'You have sinned against us, fellow members of the body of Christ. ... Your words hurt and influenced thousands. Therefore, we must respond publicly so that those you hurt might know you have received a reply and the hundreds of thousands you influenced might know that following your lead on this issue will break the body of Christ further,' they write.

Graham has simply dusted off a message that the end is near for the U.S. because of the sins of America that has been preached for eons. It's really nothing new but I guess he believes he is the prophet of the age (POTA). Sound familiar?

[zeek]

Here's a Progressive Christian take on Easter:

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/...stians/6367512

[zeek]

Here's some Christian groups that make Lee's Local Church look very good indeed: http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-pol...ver-hear-about

[UntoHim]

It just goes to show you that any group of nutjobs can call themselves "Christians". Of course the real danger to people of the 21st century are the various radical Islamic groups, and I'm sure the vast majority of conservative Muslims are looking upon these violent cowards with the same horror that the vast majority of conservative, evangelical Christians are looking upon the groups cited in this article.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Here's a Progressive Christian take on Easter:

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/...stians/6367512

But was Borg saved?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

It just goes to show you that any group of nutjobs can call themselves "Christians".

The Lord told me you would say something like this.

But the Lord sees it differently. The Lord loves everyone that comes to Him in any way. He's not near as narrow, or dogmatic, as you are bro UntoHim.

From the very beginning of Christianity there's been all kinds of Christians. But the move became corrupted from it's wondrous multifariousness by Emperor Constantine who made it just one thing.

And seems that the Protestants, even, carry that tradition on ; howbeit maybe a different version.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Of course the real danger to people of the 21st century are the various radical Islamic groups, and I'm sure the vast majority of conservative Muslims are looking upon these violent cowards with the same horror that the vast majority of conservative, evangelical Christians are looking upon the groups cited in this article

What? Can you please read word this? I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

There's all kinds of Christians, bro UntoHim, not just your kind.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

But was Borg saved?

Was anyone?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

The Lord told me you would say something like this.

But the Lord sees it differently. The Lord loves everyone that comes to Him in any way. He's not near as narrow, or dogmatic, as you are bro UntoHim.

From the very beginning of Christianity there's been all kinds of Christians. But the move became corrupted from it's wondrous multifariousness by Emperor Constantine who made it just one thing.

And seems that the Protestants, even, carry that tradition on ; howbeit maybe a different version.


What? Can you please read word this? I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

There's all kinds of Christians, bro UntoHim, not just your kind.

I think UntoHim may be referring to this article: http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-pol...ver-hear-about

and you may be referring to this one: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/...stians/6367512

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

The Lord told me you would say something like this.

"The Lord"? What L(l)ord, Harold? It can't possibly be the Lord Jesus Christ because you don't believe that he was raised from the dead, so he's still dead and can't possibly be telling you anything, right?

But the Lord sees it differently. The Lord loves everyone that comes to Him in any way. He's not near as narrow, or dogmatic, as you are bro UntoHim.

Yes the Lord loves everyone, in fact he proved his love by doing the will of his Father, and even made the ultimate sacrifice by going to the cross, "and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead"(Rom 1:4), a precious and glorious event which we celebrated just yesterday.

But this sacrifice came at a price, a very high price. And this high price was paid in order that sinful man can indeed "come to the Father" ....but there is something on our part as well - it is faith, but not just any faith, it is the faith that saves us. Your "comes to Him in any way" is very generous Harold, and touching as well....but the problem is that you are not God, and you did not send your very own precious, sinless Son to die on a Roman cross, so God's accepting of anyone coming to him is based upon a standard of faith that God himself has set "I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins" (John 8:24) The "I am he" part is what the Gospels are all about.

Actually you can thank God that I'm not as narrow or dogmatic as God...he probably wouldn't have created this "dungeon" as you guys dub it. But then again, the stakes aren't nearly as high here....

From the very beginning of Christianity there's been all kinds of Christians. But the move became corrupted from it's wondrous multifariousness by Emperor Constantine who made it just one thing.

Why are you diggin so far back Harold...we're old, but not THAT old. Like I said before, anybody can call themselves a Christian...and in this fair land, even those who express the most vile and hateful attitude towards those who would proclaim the Name of Christ or his Gospel, get thrown into the mix. So be it. There are even Internet forums out there for such haters to spew their anti-God, anti-Christ, anti Bible and anti-Judeo/Christian worldview venom...but this forum will NEVER, EVER EVER find a place for such hellish garbage..not as long as I'm behind the on/off switch.

What? Can you please read word this? I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

Please read word the article, read what I wrote and get back to me.

There's all kinds of Christians, bro UntoHim, not just your kind.

My kind of Christians are the kind described in the New Testament - the believers and followers of Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of the One and Only True God of Heaven and Earth...but then again you already knew that.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Actually you can thank God that I'm not as narrow or dogmatic as God...he probably wouldn't have created this "dungeon" as you guys dub it. But then again, the stakes aren't nearly as high here....

You judge God harshly, and place yourself above Him! Whatever are you thinking, Brother UntoHim?

[UntoHim]

Wow, zeek, that whole masterpiece of a post and that's all ya got?

What say you Harold? Cat got your tongue?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

. . . . but there is something on our part as well - it is faith, but not just any faith, it is the faith that saves us. Your "comes to Him in any way" is very generous . . . .

Might be worthy of taking to a different thread, but here has been a question that I have been asking myself for some time. What is the faith that saves us? What does it look like? How do we come by it? How is it known?

Kinda looks like 4 questions but really they are tied together. I ask this because I (I think like you) have spent virtually all of my life in religious environments (including the LCM) in which after the fact you say that things were working on you (the HS was working on you) and one day someone presented the gospel, whether the first time you heard it or the umpteenth, and suddenly there is a "that's it" inside, you pray a certain kind of prayer, and you cross a line in the sand and are forever saved.

No matter what.

And you had nothing to do with it at all. You didn't even have the will power to decide to believe, but it was given to you. And according to some, you never have anything that is not given to you.

Let's start with the last part. I am clear that the thing that saves me is strictly Christ's sacrifice applied to me. But despite the typical Calvinist notion that I can't even believe in it on my own so that it will be applied, I think this might be a construct that is not supportable. As I see it, I can believe, but I still cannot save myself. No matter how hard or strongly I believe, it is only the application of the sacrifice of Jesus to my sin that saves me. I have no part in that. It is fully by grace. So the "saved by grace" mantra still stands. My belief does not save me (although in at least one place I thing Jesus said something like "your faith has made you whole"). It is still what Jesus did that does the work. But we have to believe in it. So we are not without a part in the process, but we still do not "work" to "save ourselves."

The other main part in my question has to do with what it means to believe. Is "think it for a short time" sufficient? Like for a moment as the personal crisis looms big and the idea of something bigger than your crisis is appealing, but fades quickly and virtually disappears once the crisis fades? Are we too focused on some act or line-in-the-sand rather than on a life of belief? Do we urge people to hear Billy Graham or other evangelist so that they cross the line or sign on the dotted line (regardless of whether they are ready to rescind the contract before the 3 business days opt-out ends? (Not saying anything about Billy Graham, but rather what we think we get from it.)

Should something like "coming forward" at a Billy Graham crusade, or in response to a Southern Baptist altar call be the point at which we are saved? Or are we becoming fooled into failing to realize that it is only the first step in the process of being saved? That maybe there is a reason that the word "saved" is also used for what we call sanctification. And that is that we are not necessarily "saved" until we arrive at our end having belief in Christ. Not just having believed at a point in time.

Even the famous John 3:16 does not say "whoever believed in me" but "believes in me." Right now, eternal life is tied to belief. If we can only say that we believed, can we assert that we believe? I know this sounds somewhat Arminian, but maybe in this one aspect they are not entirely wrong.

But I can assure you that the people who sit in the best Calvinist churches are convinced that they have nothing to do. That their one time faith is it. And that grace is everything. They don't really care about anything else unless they think they have gotten the call to be a preacher or a missionary. They don't have to do good works or really act like righteous (or at least becoming righteous) Christians. They don't have to love their neighbor. In fact, if their neighbor is homosexual, they can open shun them. And they can openly shun even those poor Christians (if they really are Christians) in so many other groups.

No. You can point to exceptions. And I know of some.

But there is something disconcerting in this evangelical line-in-the-sand salvation that is bothering me. And it is not that I think the event is necessarily false. But rather what we think it means is wrong. It is not the point of salvation, but only the beginning. Therefore it cannot be pointed to as the sole reason for salvation. Just the beginning of salvation. And it is therefore unnecessary to have such an event as long as you come to believe, and continue to believe.

And then there is the question of what is belief?

Agreement with evidence and facts? Or living as if it is true?

I honestly believe that those who understand salvation in a way that is not this popular line-in-the-sand version tend not to be among the fundamentalists that we are talking about. They see their faith and the way that leads them to life differently from those who have achieved salvation because of a point in time. The others believe that the point in time gives them grace to ignore their neighbor and just take grace for it. And that is true. But it is not right. Just a provision. But "we" live as if that is the way Christ intended. And I believe that it is not.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Wow, zeek, that whole masterpiece of a post and that's all ya got?

What say you Harold? Cat got your tongue?

You answered my question with a question that is no answer at all. Apparently you have no argument to support your proposition.

Your statement "I'm not as narrow or dogmatic as God..." reminds me of the servant in Jesus' parable who says to his master, "I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.’ He judges God harshly, lives his life niggardly and is rewarded accordingly. Who wants to be that guy?

As it is you state that God loves everyone in one breath and that He is narrow and more dogmatic than you in another. That's what is known as a contradiction. It is illogical on the face. I thought you might wish to enlarge on the statement to show that it is reasonable somehow.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I think UntoHim may be referring to this article: http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-pol...ver-hear-about

and you may be referring to this one: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/...stians/6367512

I think you are right. I completely missed the first link. And it looks to be a great article on domestic terrorism.

If that's not enough ignorance, that I missed that link, I can't even spell "re-word."

Thanks...

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Was anyone?

At the time of posting that I was on the phone with my old friend that's a Pentecostal Preacher now. He was telling me that my Christian friend, that's been seeking to follow the Spirit for over 3 decades, is not following the Holy Spirit (or it would always result in wonderful blessings, which it hasn't for her) and that she's deceived and following the devil and is, probably not even saved.

He said he knows she's not saved because she doesn't attend a full gospel church.

There's all kinds of Christians, and even all kinds of fundamentalists. Even JWs are fundamentalists. They too hold to the five fundamentals.

[UntoHim]

You answered my question with a question that is no answer at all. Apparently you have no argument to support your proposition.

My "proposition", as you can see in my post, is just the plain words of Jesus Christ. His words are plain and clear: "I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he". One does not need a PHD in systematic theology to understand these words. As I stated, the "I am he" is fully explained in the Gospels, and in fact it is the main subject and content of the Gospel.

As it is you state that God loves everyone in one breath and that He is narrow and more dogmatic than you in another. That's what is known as a contradiction. It is illogical on the face. I thought you might wish to enlarge on the statement to show that it is reasonable somehow.

My friend you are confused. You are confusing God's grand act of love towards man with his simple requirement to accept and believe in the Person and work of his Son. If we reject his Son, we are rejecting his love and his act of love in giving us his only begotten Son. We all stand under condemnation because of man's rejection of God and his word, but about two thousand years ago he did something to bring us out from under the condemnation: "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him".(John 3:17) Now let's look at the all too familiar verse preceding this one: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life"."For God so loved the world"...there is the love part, and it is to "the world", indicating everyone. What's next? "that whoever believes". Wait a minute, what happened to the love? Oh, the love is still there, but it does need to be reciprocated with belief on our part. I think our friend awareness calls this narrow and dogmatic, and I was just playing off his words. I understand that you may think this is illogical, but I'm not sure what to tell you accept that God's ways are higher than ours: "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts" (Isaiah 55:9)

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

My "proposition", as you can see in my post, is just the plain words of Jesus Christ.

Your proposition that I was referring to was that God is narrower and more dogmatic than you. That was your statement.

I think our friend awareness calls this narrow and dogmatic, and I was just playing off his words.

I don't recall Awareness stating that only you.

I understand that you may think this is illogical, but I'm not sure what to tell you accept that God's ways are higher than ours: "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts" (Isaiah 55:9)

I agree that God's ways and thoughts are higher than ours. That's a foundational fideist position for me. I still disagree that God is narrower and more dogmatic than you and I don't accept your attempt to blame responsibility for making the statement on Awareness.

[OBW]

For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts (Isaiah 55:9)

I like and fully believe this statement (not just because it is in the Bible and I believe all of the Bible).

But I think that our propensity is to pull it out to support positions that we take that might seem beyond what would be popular to accept. But in that case, we have figured out his ways and thoughts and are declaring them as ours (and suggesting that "you" are deficient for not agreeing).

A little like declaring a particular position to be "biblical" or saying this is what the Bible says and the Bible is inerrant. We are not necessarily sure that it really is the final word on what God or the Bible says about anything, but declaring it biblical or inerrant makes it the gold standard without reconsideration.

"God's ways are not our ways" is not the answer to the apparent contradiction pointed out between the statements "God loves everyone" and "He is narrow and more dogmatic." While it is true that His ways are not ours, it is not the reason that the two can or cannot coexist. It is no more contradictory than saying "I love Tex-Mex" and "I am trying to lose weight" (both true statements for me). What is wrong with my statements or those of zeek is not that they are irreconcilable, but neither can be taken as absolute and all-encompassing since to do so would be to negate the other. But they coexist as long as each has its function and role. God's love taken to absolutes would negate righteousness and justice. But love must have bounds if there is to be righteousness or justice. Same for righteousness and justice. Same goes for my favorite food and my desire to be a little less rotund.

The interesting thing about the verse provided is that it has a context. In its context, the statement does not appear to be saying that God's mind is out of our reach. Instead, it is saying that we should forsake our thoughts and take on His. We are fallen and naturally go the wrong way. Forsake our ways and take on His. The only way we can do this is to actually see them and take them as ours. That verse is not saying "you don't get it and can't get it." It is saying that we naturally go the wrong way and think the wrong things, so turn to a different way and thought because to follow God you have to change your mind and your will.

It doesn't explain why the God that is love also doles out justice. It invites us into a new way of living.

I think that the way this verse was brought out is demonstrative of the problem with so much theology. Everything is overanalyzed at the micro stage and less at the macro stage with the result that "change your ways" becomes "you just can't figure it out." More thought is given to what we can and can't get our minds around and less and less about what we should be doing with it (which is living it).

[UntoHim]

OBW,

I wasn't answering to an apparent contradiction because there isn't one. God's love and his requirement for believe and faith in the Person and work of Jesus Christ are not antithetical or contradictory in the slightest, and I think John 3:16, one of the most quoted NT verses, illustrates this rather nicely. I try to just use the plain words of the Bible whenever possible because, well, it's always better to use God's words rather than are own, and if I try to use my words I just screw it up every time. Apparently it's happened again on this very thread.

I quoted Isaiah 55:9 as an answer to zeek's statement

That's what is known as a contradiction. It is illogical on the face. I thought you might wish to enlarge on the statement to show that it is reasonable somehow.

That was my feeble attempt to "enlarge on the statement", and I guess it fell flat with you, but it was to zeek anyhow, so no harm no foul I guess.

Originally Posted by zeek

Your proposition that I was referring to was that God is narrower and more dogmatic than you. That was your statement.

Sorry, I haven't the time nor interest spending so much time getting into the minutia of all the semantics. You can go ahead and declare yourself the winner of that battle without any dispute from me.

I don't recall Awareness stating that only you.

Originally Posted by awareness

But the Lord sees it differently. The Lord loves everyone that comes to Him in any way. He's not near as narrow, or dogmatic, as you are bro UntoHim.

Like I said, I was only just playing off of awarneness' own words. He has made it very clear over the years that he has some major issues with the exclusiveness of the claims of Christ and of the Gospel. We have been going back and forth over this for years. I'm sure he can answer for himself and probably will in his own good time.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Sorry, I haven't the time nor in interest spending so much time getting into the minutia of all the semantics. You can go ahead and declare yourself the winner of that battle without any dispute from me.

Not really trying to win any battles. I have just been in a mode to take a closer look at phrases that are often used in a clichéd manner. And you have to admit that Isaiah 55:9 is in that category. And my gut reaction is that it is mostly not used in a way that is consistent with the actual text and context. I'm always curious whether it is just me or anyone else sees it too. I fear that our propensity is to quote things as meaning something that we have never personally considered and that might not actually mean what we think it does. But it is the way we have heard it used all of our lives so we tend to continue with that usage without another thought.

I may not always be right, but I'm determined to at least think about it. And see if it strikes anyone else differently.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Like I said, I was only just playing off of awarneness' own words. He has made it very clear over the years that he has some major issues with the exclusiveness of the claims of Christ and of the Gospel.

When I think back over the years he has been engaged here, I come to a different assessment than you seem to. I agree that he too often seems controversial just to be controversial. But I do not get the sense that it is entirely about the exclusiveness of the claims of Christ, but rather the way those claims are woven into our religious fabric does not ring true in some way, thereby raising the question as to whether it is just another religion. Yet periodically he comments on things stating that he is essentially on board with almost everything we hold dear. You may be right, but I see it as more of a struggle to find the real Christ and the real Christian life in the middle of a lot of stuff that would appear to not be it.

Yeah, he often seems to go on and on about stuff that we can't figure out how it is worth answering. But too often, somewhere near the beginning is a legitimate question or comment that we lose in the sea of what follows. Maybe rather than latching onto the stuff that follows, we could listen to the beginning because I find there to be something worthy of at least grappling with rather than tossing aside without consideration. Maybe we legitimately dismiss the rest, but at least look for something worthy of comment rather than mere dismissal or chastisement for failure to just buck-up and get with the program. (This is not just you. It has been me and others at times.)

And despite all of the very theologically sound things that underpinned the beginnings of the Christian fundamentalism of the past century, there is now too much of it that does not fit. And even though those true fundamentals are still in there, they are not what most of the bantering of the group is about. And even when it is, there is an ingredient missing that should be among the core of the fundamentals. And that is love. "We" are more interested in being "fundamentally" correct concerning things that are not the fundamentals, and failing to love those who disagree. Or who even just disagree on how to agree.

After the garbage version of the LCM that Harold endured (much worse than I ever saw), I'm not sure that I could see past the nonsense of the rest to see the true core of faith, orthodoxy, and orthopraxy. And when it comes to orthodoxy, I think that there is much less to be orthodox about than there is to put into practice, but the arguments are almost all about thinking and not about doing.

Maybe his way is not helpful to the discussion. But just maybe it is sometimes there to make us reassess what is important and what is the stuff that we should not worry about.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

"The Lord"? What L(l)ord, Harold? It can't possibly be the Lord Jesus Christ because you don't believe that he was raised from the dead, so he's still dead and can't possibly be telling you anything, right?

Can't tell you what Lord. "He's" too ethereal, empyreal, preternatural, numinous, and inscrutable. When we "hear" the Lord how do we know it's THE LORD?

It could just as easily be a trickster spirit, for all we know.

But it's all we got. Maybe the only way we can be certain is to say "In the name of Jesus" while "hearing" THE LORD. And in that sense we're using the Cargo Cult method of obtaining God's cargo we call "hearing." Everything has got to be just right, or the result might turn out to be the opposite of God's clear speaking.

And to be real certain, that we're in touch with THE REAL LORD, I guess, whatever "speaking" we "hear" had bettered quote the Bible word for word. Then, and only then, could we be certain that the lord we are "hearing" is THE LORD. That means that we're just being idiots for even bothering God with "speakings" and "hearings," cuz He already said it in the Bible. Why do we need to make HIM repeat it? We're just being a pest.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Yes the Lord loves everyone, in fact he proved his love by doing the will of his Father, and even made the ultimate sacrifice by going to the cross, "and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead"(Rom 1:4), a precious and glorious event which we celebrated just yesterday.

You mean the Easter Bunny and the Easter Egg? Funny that we put the date of the resurrection right when spring is bringing forth new life. I'll be darn that that matches up so well. Had to be God that done it to make it match up that well.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

But this sacrifice came at a price, a very high price. And this high price was paid in order that sinful man can indeed "come to the Father" ....but there is something on our part as well - it is faith, but not just any faith, it is the faith that saves us. Your "comes to Him in any way" is very generous Harold, and touching as well....but the problem is that you are not God, and you did not send your very own precious, sinless Son to die on a Roman cross, so God's accepting of anyone coming to him is based upon a standard of faith that God himself has set "I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins" (John 8:24) The "I am he" part is what the Gospels are all about.

So God's standard is just one: accept His Son and you will be saved ... don't accept him and you are lost to God for ever? Really!?! Is that the way God is?

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Actually you can thank God that I'm not as narrow or dogmatic as God...he probably wouldn't have created this "dungeon" as you guys dub it. But then again, the stakes aren't nearly as high here....

Well God created hell didn't He?

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Why are you diggin so far back Harold...we're old, but not THAT old. Like I said before, anybody can call themselves a Christian...and in this fair land, even those who express the most vile and hateful attitude towards those who would proclaim the Name of Christ or his Gospel, get thrown into the mix. So be it. There are even Internet forums out there for such haters to spew their anti-God, anti-Christ, anti Bible and anti-Judeo/Christian worldview venom...but this forum will NEVER, EVER EVER find a place for such hellish garbage..not as long as I'm behind the on/off switch.

So questioning is spewing venom? WoW! You're a great guy bro UntoHim, but sometimes I worry about you.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

My kind of Christians are the kind described in the New Testament - the believers and followers of Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of the One and Only True God of Heaven and Earth...but then again you already knew that.

Yes. The Lord told me you'd say something like that. "He" can read minds.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

My "proposition", as you can see in my post, is just the plain words of Jesus Christ. His words are plain and clear

The difference between you and I is that you have certainties that I can't muster. Seems you have not only the inspired Word, but ALSO the one and only inspired interpretation. I can't claim that. My bad.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

My friend you are confused. You are confusing God's grand act of love towards man with his simple requirement to accept and believe in the Person and work of his Son. If we reject his Son, we are rejecting his love and his act of love in giving us his only begotten Son. We all stand under condemnation because of man's rejection of God and his word, but about two thousand years ago he did something to bring us out from under the condemnation: "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him".(John 3:17) Now let's look at the all too familiar verse preceding this one: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life"."For God so loved the world"...there is the love part, and it is to "the world", indicating everyone. What's next? "that whoever believes". Wait a minute, what happened to the love? Oh, the love is still there, but it does need to be reciprocated with belief on our part. I think our friend awareness calls this narrow and dogmatic, and I was just playing off his words. I understand that you may think this is illogical, but I'm not sure what to tell you accept that God's ways are higher than ours: "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts" (Isaiah 55:9)

God's ways are higher than our ways and thoughts. Our ways are narrow and dogmatic. God's ways are beyond this.

So how can you know and be so certain about a God whose ways and thoughts are beyond you/us? You claim verses to know these ways and thoughts that are clearly way beyond us. But God's ways and thoughts are still way beyond us.

If your gonna be dogmatic at least be dogmatic about not knowing God's ways and thoughts.

Of course that doesn't lend itself to ministries. Ministers, like Lee, have to sound like they know God's ways and thoughts ... or they'll be out of business.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Like I said, I was only just playing off of awarneness' own words. He has made it very clear over the years that he has some major issues with the exclusiveness of the claims of Christ and of the Gospel. We have been going back and forth over this for years. I'm sure he can answer for himself and probably will in his own good time.

Oh I don't know about that. I have a response to OBW that's been at least fours days standing, and picked on as much as the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. It's so old that it's stale by now. But I do wish to honor OBW's thoughts and contributions. I feel honored to be exposed to them. So since this is AltVs, and sloppy doesn't really matter I might just drop it out here unfinished ... just for the heck of it.

And yes UntoHim, we've been going around and around for years now. Boy how time flies ... when yer having fun. It's hard to believe! Years!?!

At a little restaurant in town, on Easter morning, I was talking with a couple of believers. We carried the whole restaurant, sitting around at our different tables. At one point Rob, a long standing Church of Christ faithful said, "You always have something opposite to say, and I'm always wrong." I responded with, "You're wrong about that." The whole restaurant busted out laughing. He fell back in his seat and rolled his eyes, with a look of exasperation on his face. I love Rob. And he loves to hate me. That's our bond.

That's UntoHim and me ... methinks ... perchance ... possibly ... after some similarity.

I love UntoHim. God loves UntoHim. God overlooks our silly religious ways. Thank God ... or we'd all be lost.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

Can't tell you what Lord. "He's" too ethereal, empyreal, preternatural, numinous, and inscrutable. When we "hear" the Lord how do we know it's THE LORD?

Now Harold, are you trying to win a spelling bee or have some reasonable dialog?
How do we know it's THE LORD? Because the THE LORD inspired about 40 men over a period of about 2,000 years to record his Word - So now we can compare those little voices in our head with the inspired Word. So when we feel like stealing something that doesn't belong to us, and we think a little voice in our head says "it's alright", we can be sure that the little voice is wrong because God has already told us in his Word "Thou shalt not steal". Of course now in this age we also have the Holy Spirit, but we can be assured that the Holy Spirit would never lead us to disobey the Word of God. So no need for all $5 words, my friend. "How firm a foundation ye saints of the Lord, has been laid for our faith in his excellent Word!".

It could just as easily be a trickster spirit, for all we know.

Ah, but we do know...see above.

And to be real certain, that we're in touch with THE REAL LORD, I guess, whatever "speaking" we "hear" had bettered quote the Bible word for word. Then, and only then, could we be certain that the lord we are "hearing" is THE LORD. That means that we're just being idiots for even bothering God with "speakings" and "hearings," cuz He already said it in the Bible. Why do we need to make HIM repeat it? We're just being a pest.

Not necessarily word for word, but what we speak should not contradict what is in the Bible. You see THE LORD is not like Witness Lee - He actually wants to see his children grow and mature as individual creatures, who will eventually express and glorify him in their own way. We are but children now, but eventually we will be mature, in this age or the next. One thing we know for sure, we will eventually look like him. Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is.(1.John 3:2)

So God's standard is just one: accept His Son and you will be saved ... don't accept him and you are lost to God for ever? Really!?! Is that the way God is?

Yes.

Well God created hell didn't He?

From the mouth of the Lord Jesus: Then he will say to those on his left, Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. (Matt 25:41) Rob Bell needs to brush up on his Greek - the same word "eternal" used here is the exact same word used over and over again in the term "eternal life". There is a "second death" and it is just as eternal at the as the promise of eternal life for those who believe.

So questioning is spewing venom? WoW! You're a great guy bro UntoHim, but sometimes I worry about you.

Where did I ever say questioning is spewing venom? Or are you talking about the kind of questioning that you often do...like "when did you stop beating your wife?".

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

I like and fully believe this statement (not just because it is in the Bible and I believe all of the Bible).

But I think that our propensity is to pull it out to support positions that we take that might seem beyond what would be popular to accept. But in that case, we have figured out his ways and thoughts and are declaring them as ours (and suggesting that "you" are deficient for not agreeing).

A little like declaring a particular position to be "biblical" or saying this is what the Bible says and the Bible is inerrant. We are not necessarily sure that it really is the final word on what God or the Bible says about anything, but declaring it biblical or inerrant makes it the gold standard without reconsideration.

"God's ways are not our ways" is not the answer to the apparent contradiction pointed out between the statements "God loves everyone" and "He is narrow and more dogmatic." While it is true that His ways are not ours, it is not the reason that the two can or cannot coexist. It is no more contradictory than saying "I love Tex-Mex" and "I am trying to lose weight" (both true statements for me). What is wrong with my statements or those of zeek is not that they are irreconcilable, but neither can be taken as absolute and all-encompassing since to do so would be to negate the other. But they coexist as long as each has its function and role. God's love taken to absolutes would negate righteousness and justice. But love must have bounds if there is to be righteousness or justice. Same for righteousness and justice. Same goes for my favorite food and my desire to be a little less rotund.

The interesting thing about the verse provided is that it has a context. In its context, the statement does not appear to be saying that God's mind is out of our reach. Instead, it is saying that we should forsake our thoughts and take on His. We are fallen and naturally go the wrong way. Forsake our ways and take on His. The only way we can do this is to actually see them and take them as ours. That verse is not saying "you don't get it and can't get it." It is saying that we naturally go the wrong way and think the wrong things, so turn to a different way and thought because to follow God you have to change your mind and your will.

It doesn't explain why the God that is love also doles out justice. It invites us into a new way of living.

I think that the way this verse was brought out is demonstrative of the problem with so much theology. Everything is overanalyzed at the micro stage and less at the macro stage with the result that "change your ways" becomes "you just can't figure it out." More thought is given to what we can and can't get our minds around and less and less about what we should be doing with it (which is living it).

That's a reasonable analysis OBW. But, even if Isaiah thought he could understand God and his way, I don't think I can. He probably had a simpler, smaller view of the universe than the one we have today [See, for example http://www.newscientist.com/article/...#.VSSj6fzF-Sq] and hence a smaller simpler view of the creator. No doubt I should continually be changing my ways to conform to my ideal self whom as a Christian I identify with Christ. But, I shouldn't assume that my ideal conforms with some absolutely perfect ethical norm since I can do no better than what my limited power of reasoning enables me to. UntoHim seems to mistake his limited conception of what the Bible means with the "pure Word". He claims "Ah, but we do know...see above." which I read to be a claim that he knows. If that's the case, that's the same mistake Witness Lee made with what were for me unhappy results.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

UntoHim seems to mistake his limited conception of what the Bible means with the "pure Word". That's the same mistake Witness Lee made with what were for me unhappy results.

So I'm assuming this is your way of saying you too have major issues with the exclusiveness of the claims of Christ and of the Gospel? This was Witness Lee's biggest mistake - he perverted and added to the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ, and now a sizable lot of some of the most sincere Christians have been lead astray, and they are one of the main reasons this forum exists.

The fact that the Bible doesn't give us detailed scientific information regarding the Big Bang, the exact age of the earth, the danger of asteroids and comets, the mystery of the cambrian explosion, the coming and going of dinosaurs, how DNA, the most involved "program" in the universe just came out of nothing and programs itself, why the duck-billed platypus lays eggs and whether or not Old Faithful has always been faithful...mean NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, in the grand scheme of God's salvation for you and me. And the parts of the Bible that give us the wonderful story of this salvation are the focus of my attention, and I'll haggle over all the other stuff when I have time and feel like it.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

So I'm assuming this is your way of saying you too have major issues with the exclusiveness of the claims of Christ and of the Gospel? This was Witness Lee's biggest mistake - he perverted and added to the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ, and now a sizable lot of some of the most sincere Christians have been lead astray, and they are one of the main reasons this forum exists.

The fact that the Bible doesn't give us detailed scientific information regarding the Big Bang, the exact age of the earth, the danger of asteroids and comets, the mystery of the cambrian explosion, the coming and going of dinosaurs, how DNA, the most involved "program" in the universe just came out of nothing and programs itself, why the duck-billed platypus lays eggs and whether or not Old Faithful has always been faithful...mean NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, in the grand scheme of God's salvation for you and me. And the parts of the Bible that give us the wonderful story of this salvation are the focus of my attention, and I'll haggle over all the other stuff when I have time and feel like it.

I have an issue with your claim to knowledge where what it appears to me is that what you have is faith in a particular interpretation of the Bible. You seem to presume that your interpretation is fact and from that conclude that you have knowledge. So, for example, you believe that the Bible is the "Word of God" and you believe you know what that means. This is a presupposition that you bring again and again to your reading of the Bible. I'm not making an issue of the particular claims that you are making. Rather, it is the claim that this is knowledge. Believe whatever you want. I support the principle of freedom of belief. I just think you are confusing belief with knowledge. That's a mistake you're free to make too. I am merely pointing out that is how it looks to me. And I think that was a mistake Witness Lee made too. Now he took it further and insisted that he was the MOTA and so forth. But, the seed was planted when he confused what he believed with knowledge. Or, so it seems to me.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

But, I shouldn't assume that my ideal conforms with some absolutely perfect ethical norm since I can do no better than what my limited power of reasoning enables me to.

And while there is an argument that God's ways and thoughts are far beyond what we could ever imagine or devise, the verse in particular was probably more rightly to be understood as directing us to deal with the ways and thoughts that have been laid before us to follow and obey. Not the ones we just can't fathom. So the amount that your (and my) limited power of reasoning enables you/me to do is what he is asking. He was telling them to change their ways. Not to ways they couldn't figure out, but to the ones laid before them that they could figure out. Those may not have been spelled-out in the immediate vicinity, but the passage was to people who had plenty put before them as the way to think and live. Yet they were too often not doing that, but something else. This was a call to return.

So "my ways" were not something unattainable, but very attainable. Surely the absolutely perfect ethical norm is beyond us because even when we observe the workings of God, we cannot devise the blend of love, righteousness, mercy, grace, justice, etc., that becomes that norm.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

And while there is an argument that God's ways and thoughts are far beyond what we could ever imagine or devise, the verse in particular was probably more rightly to be understood as directing us to deal with the ways and thoughts that have been laid before us to follow and obey. Not the ones we just can't fathom. So the amount that your (and my) limited power of reasoning enables you/me to do is what he is asking. He was telling them to change their ways. Not to ways they couldn't figure out, but to the ones laid before them that they could figure out. Those may not have been spelled-out in the immediate vicinity, but the passage was to people who had plenty put before them as the way to think and live. Yet they were too often not doing that, but something else. This was a call to return.

So "my ways" were not something unattainable, but very attainable. Surely the absolutely perfect ethical norm is beyond us because even when we observe the workings of God, we cannot devise the blend of love, righteousness, mercy, grace, justice, etc., that becomes that norm.

I conceptualize ethics differently. But, even the way you have stated it, it seems as though you expect only failure. Whereas mystical participation in paradoxical nature of Jesus as the Christ who saves us and transforms us thought the principle of incarnation seems at least more aesthetically pleasing if nothing else. The scientist-philosopher Einstein agreed in principle with the poet Keats that truth is beauty and beauty truth. Shouldn't we look to the same principle of the identity of beauty and truth in ethics as we do in math and music? Plato thought so. And John and Paul and St. Augustine. As Christians we should exercise our inner Greek with our inner Hebrew. God demands the ultimate, the categorical imperative Kant called it. And if we're too sorry to give the utmost for his highest even though we really don't know what it is with any certainty, then how can we say we are worthy? We are to quest after the categorical imperative like the fool knight in the Arthurian tales. But, the world is going to hell all around us like the shire in Tolkien. The compass is spinning like its demon possessed. Wisdom now must include a calm and conscious spirit to divine the Absolute in the faith that it can be done.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

I conceptualize ethics differently. But, even the way you have stated it, it seems as though you expect only failure. Whereas mystical participation in paradoxical nature of Jesus as the Christ who saves us and transforms us thought the principle of incarnation seems at least more aesthetically pleasing if nothing else. The scientist-philosopher Einstein agreed in principle with the poet Keats that truth is beauty and beauty truth. Shouldn't we look to the same principle of the identity of beauty and truth in ethics as we do in math and music? Plato thought so. And John and Paul and St. Augustine. As Christians we should exercise our inner Greek with our inner Hebrew. God demands the ultimate, the categorical imperative Kant called it. And if we're too sorry to give the utmost for his highest even though we really don't know what it is with any certainty, then how can we say we are worthy? We are to quest after the categorical imperative like the fool knight in the Arthurian tales. But, the world is going to hell all around us like the shire in Tolkien. The compass is spinning like its demon possessed. Wisdom now must include a calm and conscious spirit to divine the Absolute in the faith that it can be done.

While I do admit to a cycle of failure as we are brought toward what Paul essentially called maturity, the answer is somewhere between "we can't do it," and "we have to achieve perfection."

Lee's formula was to not bother until there was some magical ability to succeed right out of the box. Unless the issue was something that they wanted to make some point about and then you had to be spot on able to do exactly what they wanted or you might as well just leave. His version of taking grace was for the obvious sin that was going to be occurring as you don't actually stop your sin until it just falls on you to stop your sin. Anything else is "works" and is said to be contrary to God's grace or something like that. We weren't supposed to try to not sin — just take grace for sinning. And you don't actually have to repent for the sin. Just take the grace for it. It almost seems that they are flaunting the sin so that grace may abound. Exactly what Paul warned against.

At some level the Evangelical side of Christianity does a somewhat less extreme version of the same thing.

Oddly, the more old-school churches that incorporate a liturgy of regular repentance seem to get this part more right. We may not like how much they have made belief in certain things like miracles optional, but they seem to understand their state of being better than the rest of us.

The problem for many of us is that God doesn't always point to every one of our shortcomings at the same time. He gives us time to grow on some then adds some more. But when we seem to just ignore a lot of it, he doesn't always just wait on the rest. Instead we see our shortcomings begin to pile up. Or alternately we are good at figuring out our shortcomings, but unwilling to take on some of it if we can't take on all of it.

And all of it just might be overwhelming. At my age, I would think I had grown more than I have. But I am where I am. What I need is to face my shortcomings, my sin, and repent. Not just "take grace" for it and move on. And make some kind of effort to actually walk according to the Spirit. That requires me to set my mind each day. Some days I do it better than others. It doesn't just fall on me. If it did, I should be in much better shape now.

It took centuries for the people of Israel to completely get rid of their idols. It was the one of the core problems of their continued fall from God's blessing on them. We don't have to deal with it as a nation, but as people who only have one lifetime. The key seems to be movement, not perfection. Waiting is not moving. And faking is not moving. We will not be perfect, so if that is what we think the goal is, we will become paralyzed. But neither is the goal to be babes in Christ just drinking the milk of grace as we don't even try to overcome our failures.

I need to face my failure and sin each day. "Have mercy on me, Oh God, according to your steadfast love. . . ." But not just stop there. Take grace as the means, the ingredient, to begin to live in a manner that ends the need for that prayer with respect to yesterday's failure. There will forever be more to repent about. Just deal with today.

Our ways are not His ways and our thoughts are not His thoughts. But he calls us to recognize the difference and exchange ours for His.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Where did I ever say questioning is spewing venom? Or are you talking about the kind of questioning that you often do...like "when did you stop beating your wife?".

When have I ever asked, "when did you stop beating your wife."

When you call Ehrman's work drivel isn't that branding him with spewing venom? Yet Ehrman after being born again didn't go to Moody, Wheaton, and Princeton, to learn drivel. He went to be more devoted to Jesus & the Bible.

But questioning led him to become an agnostic (that big question that even you can't answer : the problem of evil and suffering, and how God, who has the power to stop it, doesn't.).

Maybe I should give you the benefit of the doubt. So I'll ask outright. Just one example will do. Are the scholars and fellows of the Jesus Seminar spewing venom? Their actual purpose it to ask questions about the historical Jesus.

If you're not familiar pick up a copy of The Five Gospels by Robert Funk. It's a great book, containing your favorite books (plus Thomas (is it venom?)), with lots of questions about about them.

You are right. You've never said questioning is spewing venom (thank God). So tell me, are the questions of the Jesus Seminar venom or not? Are the questions Professor Ehrman raises about all the differences in the Greek NT manuscripts venom?

Yes there's lots of atheists on the web. But not all of them spew venom. Richard Dawkins seems very intelligent. Still, you have stated that as long as you are at the on/off switch you will not allow "such venom" on this forum. So please clarify what you consider venom. And don't answer with something like, "atheism and humanism, et al," your standard go-to. Spell it out so we will know. Cuz we're all tire of suddenly discovering one of your new rules, after unwittingly violating them.

List them. Like, "anything that questions that the Bible is the Word of God is venom," or "questioning the virgin birth is venom," or "questioning the resurrection is venom."

Do it for the forum. State YOUR "five fundamentals."

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

While I do admit to a cycle of failure as we are brought toward what Paul essentially called maturity, the answer is somewhere between "we can't do it," and "we have to achieve perfection."

Yes, and that problem opens an infinitely wide gap between the actual and the ideal.

Lee's formula was to not bother until there was some magical ability to succeed right out of the box. Unless the issue was something that they wanted to make some point about and then you had to be spot on able to do exactly what they wanted or you might as well just leave. His version of taking grace was for the obvious sin that was going to be occurring as you don't actually stop your sin until it just falls on you to stop your sin. Anything else is "works" and is said to be contrary to God's grace or something like that. We weren't supposed to try to not sin — just take grace for sinning. And you don't actually have to repent for the sin. Just take the grace for it. It almost seems that they are flaunting the sin so that grace may abound. Exactly what Paul warned against.

The gap was between what was supposedly possible "in the spirit" and what we were actually doing.

At some level the Evangelical side of Christianity does a somewhat less extreme version of the same thing.

Claiming the Bible while simultaneous living some variety of a possible human primate life?

Oddly, the more old-school churches that incorporate a liturgy of regular repentance seem to get this part more right. We may not like how much they have made belief in certain things like miracles optional, but they seem to understand their state of being better than the rest of us.

What we in the LC called "religion" i.e. a human tradition. But, as you admit, a way of closing the gap between the ideal and the actual.

The problem for many of us is that God doesn't always point to every one of our shortcomings at the same time. He gives us time to grow on some then adds some more. But when we seem to just ignore a lot of it, he doesn't always just wait on the rest. Instead we see our shortcomings begin to pile up. Or alternately we are good at figuring out our shortcomings, but unwilling to take on some of it if we can't take on all of it.

That God is perhaps infinitely forbearing. He forebears even Auschwitz and the murder of millions.

And all of it just might be overwhelming. At my age, I would think I had grown more than I have. But I am where I am. What I need is to face my shortcomings, my sin, and repent. Not just "take grace" for it and move on. And make some kind of effort to actually walk according to the Spirit. That requires me to set my mind each day. Some days I do it better than others. It doesn't just fall on me. If it did, I should be in much better shape now.

Enter some kind of ethical, moral realism including attempting to face ones actual situation and making human efforts to deal with it and make the best of it. Effort, that is, to walk according to "the Spirit" in the sense of values which hold you in the sense of meaning and commitment.

I need to face my failure and sin each day. "Have mercy on me, Oh God, according to your steadfast love. . . ." But not just stop there. Take grace as the means, the ingredient, to begin to live in a manner that ends the need for that prayer with respect to yesterday's failure. There will forever be more to repent about. Just deal with today.

God does that by giving you time to live.

Our ways are not His ways and our thoughts are not His thoughts. But he calls us to recognize the difference and exchange ours for His.

Which seems to be a quest of faith in the face of uncertainty.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

Yes, and that problem opens an infinitely wide gap between the actual and the ideal.

Potentially so. I do not think that analyzing the gap is the goal.

Originally Posted by zeek

The gap was between what was supposedly possible "in the spirit" and what we were actually doing.

True. But "in the spirit" was what could be done when there was enough dispensing in "my spirit." And if I concluded that there was not, I was directed to quit trying. And I find that to be inconsistent with how I read the document (the Bible) that Lee was supposedly basing his teaching on.

Originally Posted by zeek

Claiming the Bible while simultaneous living some variety of a possible human primate life?

Seems a non sequitur.

Originally Posted by zeek

What we in the LC called "religion" i.e. a human tradition. But, as you admit, a way of closing the gap between the ideal and the actual.

The LCM called anything done regularly a tradition or religion unless it was their regular thing. I generally dismiss indiscriminate use of "tradition" or "religion" to simply mean bad, impure, or pathetic human attempts to please God. That was Lee's ruse to make us feel superior. But we just had a different religion.

Originally Posted by zeek

That God is perhaps infinitely forbearing. He forebears even Auschwitz and the murder of millions.

I see a difference between his patience with the growth of his followers and his forbearance relative to the sinful state of the world in general which he has said will be judged. But then there are followers who kind of take advantage of his patience to do more than just fail at following in righteousness and instead join those who are willful in disobedience.

And then we probably all find ourselves there on occasion.

- - - -

I responded to more of the separate thoughts than I originally intended. I know that my posts are often long, but even when I seem to ramble, I am generally trying to discuss around a single topic. Sometimes facing one small part is good for discovering where logic breaks down. But otherwise, it seems that it is easy to effectively understand a lot of pieces and miss the whole.

Somewhere between remaining babes in Christ, and having an ever-increasing list of fundamentals/rules to live by so that we display some kind of fanatical perfection is what I see the Bible painting a picture toward. Fragmenting that view into a bunch of one-liners seems to break the picture into pixels to be examined independently and thereby change the focus to something else. Not that where you went in each question or comment is not valid in itself. But I felt at times like some of the comments, and mine in return, were about something else. Like somewhat equating God's patience with our growth with the fact that he does not always just step in and stop heinous immorality. They are similar in a sense, but in another, they are not. Mostly because it makes our growth somehow tied to the German gas chambers and that is simply not the case. It is a kind of inflammatory and contrived connection. That is my opinion on it.

If I were God, I might do things differently. But even there I would need to weigh the options of refusing the people I had created the right to be horribly sinful with the ultimate result that no one actually qualifies to live, therefore just destroy it all and either start over or forget it.

No. I am willing to let God's decision on leaving the system of the world in place, including the natural calamities that can even kill me, so that there remains the option for me (any everyone else) to choose to believe in Christ and follow. Given the forces that would simply destroy us, that we have a chance for a different life is actually amazing.

And if we are all wrong and it is simply be born, live, and die, getting upset with the therefore non-existent God doesn't change anything. So I choose to awaken each day and step out to do what I understand to be walking by the Spirit. Or at least trying to do that. It makes the life I am living better. Even if I am fooling myself into it. And I will enjoy that life more than anyone who is determined to be mad at someone else about why it isn't going well.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

And if we are all wrong and it is simply be born, live, and die, getting upset with the therefore non-existent God doesn't change anything.

Atheists angry at a non-existent God is oxymoronic, and they are at least as silly as they think theists are, with a similar blind spot in kind.

Originally Posted by OBW

So I choose to awaken each day and step out to do what I understand to be walking by the Spirit. Or at least trying to do that. It makes the life I am living better. Even if I am fooling myself into it.

I feel the same way. We have no choice but to live by faith. I can't live the next minute, hour, day, week, month, year, etc. that God allows, without faith.

Seems God has led me to the land of uncertainty so that all I have to fall back on is faith. And I have faith in infinite possibilities. Did a virgin birth happen two thousand years ago? It's within possibilities. Same with the death and resurrection ... and that the Bible is the Word of God. It surely is within possibilities. Those can't be "known" but by faith.

Faith is a knowledge within the heart, beyond the reach of proof.
- Khalil Gibran

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

The LCM called anything done regularly a tradition or religion unless it was their regular thing. I generally dismiss indiscriminate use of "tradition" or "religion" to simply mean bad, impure, or pathetic human attempts to please God. That was Lee's ruse to make us feel superior. But we just had a different religion.

I agree and that implies that religion is a human product. Dialectically it may be seen as a human response to the divine. To acknowledge that does not deny divine reality as fundamentalists suppose.

I see a difference between his patience with the growth of his followers and his forbearance relative to the sinful state of the world in general which he has said will be judged.

I see that position as problematic. I am repulsed by the notion that Nazi genocide was an instance of God's judgment. I find the very notion of separate ethical standards for Christians versus non-Christians unacceptable. That was a problem in the LC.

Somewhere between remaining babes in Christ, and having an ever-increasing list of fundamentals/rules to live by so that we display some kind of fanatical perfection is what I see the Bible painting a picture toward. Fragmenting that view into a bunch of one-liners seems to break the picture into pixels to be examined independently and thereby change the focus to something else. Not that where you went in each question or comment is not valid in itself. But I felt at times like some of the comments, and mine in return, were about something else. Like somewhat equating God's patience with our growth with the fact that he does not always just step in and stop heinous immorality. They are similar in a sense, but in another, they are not. Mostly because it makes our growth somehow tied to the German gas chambers and that is simply not the case. It is a kind of inflammatory and contrived connection. That is my opinion on it.

It's a real subjective ethical problem for me which I was already bumping into all the way back in my years in the church. I found it to be unavoidable and I still do. A spirituality which is focused on one's spiritual growth while ignoring the suffering of others was repugnant to Jesus and so must it be to the spirit of Jesus if that is what we are experiencing.

If I were God, I might do things differently. But even there I would need to weigh the options of refusing the people I had created the right to be horribly sinful with the ultimate result that no one actually qualifies to live, therefore just destroy it all and either start over or forget it.

Trying to see things from God's point of view is an exercise in futility.

No. I am willing to let God's decision on leaving the system of the world in place, including the natural calamities that can even kill me, so that there remains the option for me (any everyone else) to choose to believe in Christ and follow. Given the forces that would simply destroy us, that we have a chance for a different life is actually amazing.

True.

And if we are all wrong and it is simply be born, live, and die, getting upset with the therefore non-existent God doesn't change anything. So I choose to awaken each day and step out to do what I understand to be walking by the Spirit. Or at least trying to do that. It makes the life I am living better. Even if I am fooling myself into it. And I will enjoy that life more than anyone who is determined to be mad at someone else about why it isn't going well.

Sounds reasonable and based on faith which is as it should be to be authentically Christian, I suppose. Of course, I must ask what "walking in the Spirit" means to you.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

I see that position as problematic. I am repulsed by the notion that Nazi genocide was an instance of God's judgment. I find the very notion of separate ethical standards for Christians versus non-Christians unacceptable. That was a problem in the LC.

Actually, I think you are misunderstanding what I said. There is judgment for us all.

Nazi Genocide was not an instance of God's judgment. It was part of the ongoing march of time toward judgment. That the judgment did not come immediately upon such heinous behavior is part of the reason that we all have the opportunity to repent of our sins rather than just be swallowed-up upon the first commission of sin — typically long before the ability to propagate the species, therefore ending the existence of mankind long before our generation.

And there remains judgment for us all. The penalty for sin was dictated as death. God provided a way for that judgment to be set aside through a combination of repentance for sin committed and the death of an animal. That was followed by the replacement of the animal by the death of the Son of God — a death that would be available for all sin, but only for those who believe that it is effective for that sin.

Judgment is still to come. Those who orchestrated and carried out the Nazi genocide will be judged. As will we for our sin. We would like to declare that the result of the judgment is based on our perception of the severity of our sin. But we are not the writer of the laws. Neither are we the judge or jury. We can dislike the laws all we want. I don't necessarily disagree that I would make laws differently. And administer them closer to the time of infraction.

And this is where the verses concerning His ways and our ways come into play. It is so dissatisfying to be disgruntled with the way things are and will be. Much better to go along with the laws than to fight them. If there really is a God, there isn't much use to fight Him.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

Actually, I think you are misunderstanding what I said. There is judgment for us all.

Nazi Genocide was not an instance of God's judgment. It was part of the ongoing march of time toward judgment. That the judgment did not come immediately upon such heinous behavior is part of the reason that we all have the opportunity to repent of our sins rather than just be swallowed-up upon the first commission of sin — typically long before the ability to propagate the species, therefore ending the existence of mankind long before our generation.

And there remains judgment for us all. The penalty for sin was dictated as death. God provided a way for that judgment to be set aside through a combination of repentance for sin committed and the death of an animal. That was followed by the replacement of the animal by the death of the Son of God — a death that would be available for all sin, but only for those who believe that it is effective for that sin.

Judgment is still to come. Those who orchestrated and carried out the Nazi genocide will be judged. As will we for our sin. We would like to declare that the result of the judgment is based on our perception of the severity of our sin. But we are not the writer of the laws. Neither are we the judge or jury. We can dislike the laws all we want. I don't necessarily disagree that I would make laws differently. And administer them closer to the time of infraction.

And this is where the verses concerning His ways and our ways come into play. It is so dissatisfying to be disgruntled with the way things are and will be. Much better to go along with the laws than to fight them. If there really is a God, there isn't much use to fight Him.

That seems to me that is nothing more or less than your religious appraisal of existence. It is a markedly legalistic one. It seems to presuppose a 1:1 correspondence between human laws [as codified in the Bible?] and the law of God which, whatever the case may be I would argue cannot be known with anything approximating certainty. It is my growing skepticism of the possibility of that correspondence that prevents me from getting on board completely with any religion I am aware of.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

That seems to me that is nothing more or less than your religious appraisal of existence. It is a markedly legalistic one. It seems to presuppose a 1:1 correspondence between human laws [as codified in the Bible?] and the law of God which, whatever the case may be I would argue cannot be known with anything approximating certainty. It is my growing skepticism of the possibility of that correspondence that prevents me from getting on board completely with any religion I am aware of.

Somehow I just cannot arrive at your conclusions. Rather than simply having to know God's laws (although surely some of them are known but not preferred by us), we are brought into knowing them over time. There was one rather profound thing that someone said the car I was riding in back to Dallas after a conference in OKC in the late (ish) 70s. Something like the realization that it was not that we had to arrive at the end before our own end, but that we needed to be in the process rather than on the sidelines or back at the starting gate.

I cannot agree that my version of all of this is so markedly legalistic when I generally reject so much of the legalism that is the topic of this thread and instead embrace a Christianity that is comfortable with a broad spectrum of faith and practice/tradition and thinks that the average Christian in the pew is a plenty good Christian who does not need to display a nearly charismatic kind of joy to be considered more than a mooing cow (not something you have said).

I find the only thing that is legalistic is to be loving and to be righteous. And these are not simple. And it is somewhat outside of our nature to be like that, especially all the time. So we do need to be striving toward it rather than shrinking back.

And I can't get discouraged because Lee called it religion (and disparagingly) or that you seem to be somewhat doing the same now.

For starters, I cannot find anything in what I have said that presupposes a 1:1 correspondence between the laws of man and the laws of God. That is what the "America is a Christian Nation" people are trying to do. But they will fail because it is not so. And the laws they seem to want do not reflect what I believe that God provides for us as the laws we are to live by. Mostly because the core of his laws for us is rooted in love. That puts a significant requirement on me, but not you (as far as I am concerned). That does not mean that among Christians there are not some aspects of God's righteousness that must be dealt with, such as a kind of church discipline. But it does not equate to forcing the morality of Christianity upon those who do not embrace our God.

But that is not even the issue. The way you state your objection (if that is what it really is) seems to insist that I must know God's laws and absolutely adhere to them from now on or be cursed. I do not see that command. At least not in that way. Surely there is the command to do as taught. But it is not a stick to flog us, but a goal to attain. And part of the reason that it is a goal is that we cannot even see it all. We see darkly. Surely the light can increase. But we do not arrive at perfection. We do not arrive at the place where our conduct or even intent is 100%.

In any case, I am not going to be dissuaded just because I can't figure it all out. God's ways aren't my ways. I will always think some aspect of mine are better or I would agree to give them up. But somehow I know that His are better. I just have some way to go to fully give up mine for His. A little like the drunk who realizes he just has to stop drinking as he orders the next double.

[OBW]

zeek,

In my continued replies, I do seek to convince you of my way or thoughts. But I want to be understood the way I am trying to speak whether you are on board with it or not. That is sufficient.

But if you want to go back and forth trying to see how our ideas bump up against each other, differ, or even agree, that is OK too. We may help each other in ways neither is expecting.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

Somehow I just cannot arrive at your conclusions. Rather than simply having to know God's laws (although surely some of them are known but not preferred by us), we are brought into knowing them over time. There was one rather profound thing that someone said the car I was riding in back to Dallas after a conference in OKC in the late (ish) 70s. Something like the realization that it was not that we had to arrive at the end before our own end, but that we needed to be in the process rather than on the sidelines or back at the starting gate.

I cannot agree that my version of all of this is so markedly legalistic when I generally reject so much of the legalism that is the topic of this thread and instead embrace a Christianity that is comfortable with a broad spectrum of faith and practice/tradition and thinks that the average Christian in the pew is a plenty good Christian who does not need to display a nearly charismatic kind of joy to be considered more than a mooing cow (not something you have said).

I find the only thing that is legalistic is to be loving and to be righteous. And these are not simple. And it is somewhat outside of our nature to be like that, especially all the time. So we do need to be striving toward it rather than shrinking back.

And I can't get discouraged because Lee called it religion (and disparagingly) or that you seem to be somewhat doing the same now.

For starters, I cannot find anything in what I have said that presupposes a 1:1 correspondence between the laws of man and the laws of God. That is what the "America is a Christian Nation" people are trying to do. But they will fail because it is not so. And the laws they seem to want do not reflect what I believe that God provides for us as the laws we are to live by. Mostly because the core of his laws for us is rooted in love. That puts a significant requirement on me, but not you (as far as I am concerned). That does not mean that among Christians there are not some aspects of God's righteousness that must be dealt with, such as a kind of church discipline. But it does not equate to forcing the morality of Christianity upon those who do not embrace our God.

But that is not even the issue. The way you state your objection (if that is what it really is) seems to insist that I must know God's laws and absolutely adhere to them from now on or be cursed. I do not see that command. At least not in that way. Surely there is the command to do as taught. But it is not a stick to flog us, but a goal to attain. And part of the reason that it is a goal is that we cannot even see it all. We see darkly. Surely the light can increase. But we do not arrive at perfection. We do not arrive at the place where our conduct or even intent is 100%.

In any case, I am not going to be dissuaded just because I can't figure it all out. God's ways aren't my ways. I will always think some aspect of mine are better or I would agree to give them up. But somehow I know that His are better. I just have some way to go to fully give up mine for His. A little like the drunk who realizes he just has to stop drinking as he orders the next double.

I accept as your word that this is how you see it. I have been conceptualizing the situation differently for a while, but why should I suppose that my way is better than yours? I am working my way through my own difficult situation as best I can and I take it you are trying to do the same. So I affirm that you profess to be endeavoring to live an ethical life. I would affirm anyone else down here the makes the claim in the purgatorio of LCD absent evidence to the contrary.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by OBW

Actually, There is judgment for us all. And there remains judgment for us all. Judgment is still to come.

The only inevitable judgment for all of us which we all know for sure is coming is the death of our physical life. That is a certainty. The judgment which you are suggesting that the Bible purports beyond the physical death is a matter of faith. Whether your Biblical interpretation will hurl us into a judgment beyond our physical death is a matter of your faith.

We have been blessed with the ability to understand history and nature which are real. Whether you believe that God created all of the creatures or that they evolved we know for a fact that they exist. If you live in Florida it is inevitable that you will stumble upon a cockroach and whether God created the cockroach or it evolved is irrelevant. It exists and most everyone in Florida is making efforts to extinguish its existence from their habitat.

When I stood on the precipice of the Grand Canyon or hiked down into its bowels I could appreciate an incredible creation and whether it was God who created it or the laws of nature and time which created this magnificent beauty is irrelevant. It gives rise to wonder and self-reflection.

I am amazed at the history we have been able to compile whether it is from archaeological digs or from recorded history it is an incredible reflection on who we are today and how we arrived at this point in history. Whether you believe the Bible is the true recorded history is a matter of faith in a book with a finite history. Relying on historians and archaeologists is important because history continues to be recorded.

We are a sphere hurling through space and time which is a reality whether you believe that God created this earth and the heavens or that the naturals laws of the universe worked to create it. It is a fact which gives us a perspective not understood in history by those who lived during the days when the early church was developing.

The only judgment which we can take to the bank is that we will all face death and that is an inevitability which cannot be denied even though medical science is able to prolong that judgment day. Whatever judgment there is beyond death is simply a matter of faith. I would add that the judgment day as described by many Christians is interpretive based on one's Christian perspective of various verses in the Bible. There seems to be as many interpretations of the judgment day as there are Christian denominations.

Even Paul in Romans 2 talks about judging others in a contemporary setting. When you look at Rev. 17 it is rather obvious that it was referring to a judgment of Rome in that day and not some future 2000 years later. Rome is built on 7 hills as well as the 10 rulers at the time in the empire referenced but that does not deter those who want to hurl Revelation into our present day context. In this Biblical context we lose all sense of history and as long as it is understood that it is a matter of faith to actually believe it is relevant to today makes it only barely bearable.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Dave

The only inevitable judgment for all of us which we all know for sure is coming is the death of our physical life. That is a certainty. The judgment which you are suggesting that the Bible purports beyond the physical death is a matter of faith. Whether your Biblical interpretation will hurl us into a judgment beyond our physical death is a matter of your faith.

Can't argue with that. In fact, we assert that it is an accurate assessment on a regular basis. If it turns out we are right, then it is inevitably more than faith. Otherwise, it was something that someone dreamed-up centuries ago and that was popular for us.

Somehow it does manage to account for changes in people's lives despite the popular mantra that people do not change. Or it is at least given credit much of the time.

But when you mention that the Grand Canyon is such a sight to behold whether it was directly created, or formed over millions of years, I would agree. And also conclude that God can be behind either scenario. Somehow, the idea that it all started with a bang and nothing plus nothing suddenly produced something still requires faith in something that cannot be observed or studied. They may have reduced the role of something god-like to a smaller part of the equation, but they cannot avoid that part. It is not explained. Just believed. A form of faith. Faith in something they cannot explain and that is outside of the thing we call existence.

So whatever you call it, there is a god. Something that cannot be seen, studied, or known in full. It must be believed without evidence. Faith.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

The only judgment which we can take to the bank is that we will all face death and that is an inevitability which cannot be denied even though medical science is able to prolong that judgment day. Whatever judgment there is beyond death is simply a matter of faith. I would add that the judgment day as described by many Christians is interpretive based on one's Christian perspective of various verses in the Bible. There seems to be as many interpretations of the judgment day as there are Christian denominations.

Yes, evidently we are all sentenced to death not just those on Death Row. Meanwhile, we can ask, given that the Last Judgment is not the experience of anyone in this life, what does it symbolize? Paul Tillich gives a plausible ontological interpretation:

In the light of our understanding of the end of history as ever present and as the permanent elevation of history into eternity the symbol of ultimate judgment receives the following meaning: here and now, in the permanent transition of the temporal to the eternal , the negative is defeated in its claim to be positive, a claim it supports by using the positive and mixing ambiguously with it. In this way it produces the appearance of being positive itself (for example, illness, death, a lie, destructiveness, murder, and evil in general). The appearance of evil as positive vanishes in the face of the eternal. In this sense God in his eternal life is called a “burning fire,” burning that which pretends to be positive but is not. Nothing positive is being burned. No fire of judgment could do it, not even the fire of the divine wrath. For God cannot deny himself, and everything positive is an expression of being-itself. And since there is nothing merely negative (the negative lives from the positive it distorts), nothing that has being can be ultimately annihilated. Nothing that is, in so far as it is, can be excluded from eternity; but it can be excluded in so far as it is mixed with non-being and not yet liberated from it.

Tillich, Paul (2011-07-07). Systematic Theology, Volume 3 (Kindle Locations 7321-7326). University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.

[zeek]

Thanks to President Obama, the end is very near according to Former Rep. Michele Bachmann: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conten...e-thanks-obama

[zeek]

Thanks for turning me on to Lutheran Satire, UntoHim. Witty thought-provoking stuff. Here's one entitled " "Messing With Dispensationalists" that is relevant to this thread :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5MDqUAfPcI

[OBW]

I like this series from Lutheran Satire

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=Uh5nyR4y-eI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFX8...yer_detailpage

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=0Nx8QqiADyw

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Thanks to President Obama, the end is very near according to Former Rep. Michele Bachmann: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conten...e-thanks-obama

Bachmann's end of times would have punched a bigger wallop if she spoke it back in April 2011, not April 2015, back when Harold Camping was predicting the return of Jesus on May 21, 2011. Seems she's a day late and dollar short.

But she is lots of laughs.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFX8...yer_detailpage

That one is also relevant to this thread.

[zeek]

This kind of thinking was not welcome in the Local churches and they were worse for it: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/12/op...pgtype=article

[Dave]

I wrote this in 2001 as a summary of my experience in the LC but it rings true with our experience in the LC as I perceived it as I left in 1978:

"In the early 1970s Witness Lee gave a several day training in Anaheim on the kingdom of heaven, which I attended. He indicated that despite the
fact that we were saved Christians we still might not make the kingdom of heaven and we may well have to go through a kind of purgatory, for a period of time. Lee stated,

'…To participate in the local church requires only salvation through faith; but to participate in the kingdom of the heavens requires further seeking to overcome, submitting to heavenly authority and receiving heavenly control and training after experiencing salvation.'

Where was the heavenly authority and control? … in the center of the movement, from Witness Lee. While this may not have been the point of contention for others, it was for me. Although I still was involved and attended other trainings in Anaheim, I began to question the idea that we had to submit to Witness Lee’s authority or miss the kingdom of heaven, and eventually I decided that this was not what I wanted."

It's interesting having never heard of LCD, Bereans etc that I came to the same conclusion most everyone else has arrived at. The issue I am grappling with on this forum is how Christians who have left the LC can now become a part of the Christianity they disagreed with while in the LC. Didn't we become part of the LC BECAUSE we already disagreed with what was going on with Christian denominations and what was advertised as the Christian life? As far as I was concerned I gave it my all in the LC for 9 years which was the last resort to see if this all was real despite its problems. Before we became involved in the LC, reading WN offered more than we were experiencing in our denominations and the LC during different periods of time was exciting. In the end, it is just like other denominations reflective of the problems they experienced in the NT churches only today we just have different divisive issues.

Some of the attitudes on this forum seem to be "Christians" who come across as high and mighty. I thought we left that when we left the LC. No one is high and mighty anymore. Just goes to show you that you can take the person out of the LC but you can't take the LC out of the person.

[zeek]

Thank you for sharing your point of view Dave. As is probably clear to anyone who is paying attention to this thread by now, I am not a member of a religious organization of any kind. If committing my life to Christ at age 19 resulted in my membership and fellowship in a series of Christian churches from 1969 until 1996, my experience in the Local Church was a significant factor in my decision to discontinue participating in organized religion. But, the spiritual and ethical lessons I learned as a church member in various congregations have left an enduring imprint on my soul. The imprint is both positive and negative.

Eminent philosopher-psychologist William James in his seminal book The Varieties of Religious Experience spoke of two kinds of religion: the healthy and the sick. Sadly I find that much of the Lee experience and the influence of fundamentalism I find to be the sick kind. I friend of mine likes to say "You get what you accept." I refuse to accept that kind of negativity any more.

I'm reading how contemporary neuro-science theory shows that the brain most likely evolved a built-in negativity bias. The theory suggests that while this bias emerged in harsh settings very different from our own, it continues to operate inside us today. Our brains have a hair-trigger readiness to go negative to help us survive. As a result negative stimuli are perceived more rapidly and easily than positive stimuli. Religions that preach fear appeal to the negative bias built into our neural structure. Thus, the powerful hold that fundamentalism has on us. To be transformed by the renewing of our our minds requires attending to positive mental states, staying with them in our consciousness so that they become sources of strength laid down in the neural structure of the brain.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Dave

Some of the attitudes on this forum seem to be "Christians" who come across as high and mighty. I thought we left that when we left the LC. No one is high and mighty anymore. Just goes to show you that you can take the person out of the LC but you can't take the LC out of the person.

Originally Posted by zeek

As is probably clear to anyone who is paying attention to this thread by now, I am not a member of a religious organization of any kind. If committing my life to Christ at age 19 resulted in my membership and fellowship in a series of Christian churches from 1969 until 1996, my experience in the Local Church was a significant factor in my decision to discontinue participating in organized religion. But, the spiritual and ethical lessons I learned as a church member in various congregations have left an enduring imprint on my soul. The imprint is both positive and negative.

What surprises me more than anything is that you were able to hang in the LC until 1986. We all tried to get back into Christian denominations after we left but for some of us it wasn't to be. In essence, however, what it allowed us to do is to take 3 steps back and look at what had happened to us over the past 10-20 years while we ventured through the Christian life to include our adventure in the LC.

Of course, the rumors (some true but they were more related to issues of personal problems than anything specifically "Christian" related), the horror of those who left the LC and then the Christian faith and fell into alcoholic and drug related stupors (probably true for some)--rampant among them as the tale goes. That is the problem when a religion such as the LC or other religions is a prop for people---don't get me wrong this is a positive for a lot of people. Without the prop they are grasping with their hands and swinging their arms in the wind to grab hold onto something...anything...for support. It is comfortable to rest assured that you have all of the answers and they are all in one book. Wow, that is so great...all the answers for those looking for absolute truth to answer all of their questions.

I certainly would not be so bold as to say that I have the answers but I do have questions. I just have found that the answers are not the LC or fundamental inerrant Biblical Christianity. I can cross them off the list. Certainly Christianity has some helpful answers but they are not contained within the context of fundamental Christianity.

Originally Posted by zeek

Eminent philosopher-psychologist William James in his seminal book The Varieties of Religious Experience spoke of two kinds of religion: the healthy and the sick.

Religions that preach fear appeal to the negative bias built into our neural structure. Thus, the powerful hold that fundamentalism has on us. To be transformed by the renewing of our our minds requires attending to positive mental states, staying with them in our conscious so that they become sources of strength laid down in the neural structure of the brain.

I agree, fear is one of the worst ways of determining faith but it has been more successful than a positive message.

[zeek]

Here's a little dose of negative thinking in case you've forgotten what it's like: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conten...worship-nature

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

Here's a little dose of negative thinking in case you've forgotten what it's like: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conten...worship-nature

I guess for these guys everything is counter-intuitive. The more you attempt to reduce pollution (e.g. look for alternative methods of energy such as solar or wind) the more you actually increase harmful gases into the atmosphere and melt the polar caps etc. Apparently, all these "wacko" (in the words of Limbaugh) environmentalists are just increasing greenhouse gases. What a revelation! Why didn't I think of that? Of course they quote the Bible where God gave humans dominion over everything so why care about the other animals or the environment? They are all here for humans to enjoy and destroy.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Here's a little dose of negative thinking in case you've forgotten what it's like: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conten...worship-nature

If you follow links embedded in the page one of them takes you to Glenn Beck, stating that, the world today is worshiping Moloch and Baal.

This coming from a guy that's a Mormon, who believe there's a planet called Kolob, that's next to the throne of God, and where God likes to come and visit from time to time (or from timeless to timeless, I guess).

Can we really take these nutjobs serious?

I recently said on the main forum that I've been wrong so many times that I don't trust myself, and that's why I'm so evidence obsessed.

Well that goes for everyone else. I don't trust them either.

And UntoHim might delighted to learn that I don't trust Professor Bart Ehrman either. But because he's so versed in the Greek texts of the NT, and the manuscripts, and deeply informed on early Christianity, and all the early writings during the apostolic period, and shortly thereafter, I just use Ehrman to learn from ... like I do so many other scholars.

And there's something wrong with me. I've got OCD on Jesus, and the like, and enjoy learning all the opinions of these nutjob Christians. Sometimes, like this crazy Beck thing, and Zeek's link, they are more entertaining than Comedy Central.

The California drought is cause by pagan nature worship? That's very funny indeed. I'm surprised he didn't claim that the drought is caused by gay marriage, and all the gays in San Fran.

Ha ...

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

I guess for these guys everything is counter-intuitive. The more you attempt to reduce pollution (e.g. look for alternative methods of energy such as solar or wind) the more you actually increase harmful gases into the atmosphere and melt the polar caps etc. Apparently, all these "wacko" (in the words of Limbaugh) environmentalists are just increasing greenhouse gases. What a revelation! Why didn't I think of that? Of course they quote the Bible where God gave humans dominion over everything so why care about the other animals or the environment? They are all here for humans to enjoy and destroy.

I agree. The science warrants engaging climate change straightforwardly by all available means, including regulatory ones. For these media personalities to interject their fantastical theological speculations into a matter of serious global consequences is the height of irresponsibility.

[zeek]

An argument against the Bible as the Word of God for your consideration:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/emergen...t-christendom/

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

An argument against the Bible as the Word of God for your consideration:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/emergen...t-christendom/

I have mostly found the perspectives of the Emerging/Emergent to be refreshing in many ways. They ask questions that we should feel safe to ask.

And sometimes their conclusions (though the emerginng crown never liked to admit to any conclusions — not postmodern enough if you conclude) are not exactly what the old-school theologians cry out against.

While I'm sure that some would disagree, in this article I see a believer in what is in the Bible who does not elevate it above what it is. A source of testimony concerning God. And the Word of God is limited to the person of Jesus Christ. Seems a reasonable conclusion from a reading of the Bible.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

An argument against the Bible as the Word of God for your consideration:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/emergen...t-christendom/

I read the article and the quotes from some Lutherans who disagree. However, somehow this led me to this article about Religious Trauma Syndrome which certainly characterize many who have come out of the LC: http://valerietarico.com/2013/03/26/...me-is-it-real/ It seems like many on this forum have had some experience of RTS... It is interesting to me since the author came out of AOG...although I am sure awareness can relate based on his background.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

I read the article and the quotes from some Lutherans who disagree. However, somehow this led me to this article about Religious Trauma Syndrome which certainly characterize many who have come out of the LC: http://valerietarico.com/2013/03/26/...me-is-it-real/ It seems like many on this forum have had some experience of RTS... It is interesting to me since the author came out of AOG...although I am sure awareness can relate based on his background.

Psychologist Winell lists three problems associated with RTS that all ring true for the LC:

"Emotional and mental treatment in authoritarian religious groups also can be damaging because of 1) toxic teachings like eternal damnation or original sin 2) religious practices or mindset, such as punishment, black and white thinking, or sexual guilt, and 3) neglect that prevents a person from having the information or opportunities to develop normally."

and this:

Religious groups that are highly controlling, teach fear about the world, and keep members sheltered and ill-equipped to function in society are harder to leave easily. The difficulty seems to be greater if the person was born and raised in the religion rather than joining as an adult convert. This is because they have no frame of reference – no other “self” or way of “being in the world.” A common personality type is a person who is deeply emotional and thoughtful and who tends to throw themselves wholeheartedly into their endeavors. “True believers” who then lose their faith feel more anger and depression and grief than those who simply went to church on Sunday.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by HERn

Last night at our "one another group" the elderly brother that served with Wycliffe for the Chockabos said that when he was serving in South America one of the new brothers told his relatives that he could not participate in the worship of the "bird from above" because "his Lord inside" (Jesus) would not allow it. I think the Lord Jesus loves to save and rescue those in raw primitivism. This older brother gave his working years to bring the reality of God's Son Jesus Christ to a tribe that was not even on the radar screen of LSM. I'm throwing out the notion that only LSM sanctioned employees are serving the Lord.

I really have a problem with proselytizing various remote tribes for Christianity. Haven't we done enough damage? Having been in Peru and visiting with descendants of the Incas and having been in their homes the inhumanity we brought to these countries all in the name of Christ. While their people remain poor they all have exotic catholic churches in their squares brought there by the Spaniards who killed as many of those who wouldn't believe as they could, stole their gold and their land. This is the legacy of Christianity through the ages.

[zeek]

This article seems to corroborate my hypothesis that sick religion exacerbates negativity bias: http://www.salon.com/2014/11/01/the_..._mind_partner/

[OBW]

Troublesome article. I can agree that the observations noted happen. The thing that they did not attempt to establish is whether the link to religion was causal in some or all cases, or whether it is mere correlated. Or alternately that people who have certain ideas or preferences will find a way to make their religion support it.

And at least part of it comes from a scientific study. No, wait. It is an investigative journalist. If I was trying to discover whether OJ really killed Nicole and what’s his name, that is where I might turn. But to decide whether religion does things to you . . . really?

When a paragraph starts with a statement like “because the child’s mind is uniquely susceptible to religious ideas, religious indoctrination particularly targets vulnerable young children” what are we expected to think? The reference is to an article by someone who points to the fact that a group called Child Evangelism Fellowship has targeted children in different cities for summer missions. This does not lend support to the idea that a child’s mind is uniquely susceptible to religion which would seem to be the point the Salon article was trying to make. In fact, that claim is a bare assertion.

It might be true that a child’s mind is generally susceptible to all kinds of indoctrination rather than anything that could be labeled as “uniquely.” But that would remove the specific rant against religion and instead recommend against all interactions with children that attempt to sway their thinking about anything — religion, politics, communism, the leader of the country, the Great Satan America, or whatever. There is surely some of all of those things.

But that does not make all aspects of religion, politics, country leaders, or even communism something that can only harm young children. Like it or not, they will be influenced during this susceptible time by many things including their parents, environment, school, as well as religion.

Then it continues to assert certain things as being simply true. For example, the following paragraph:

One requirement for success as a sincere Christian is to find a way to believe that which would be unbelievable under normal rules of evidence and inquiry. Christianity contains concepts that help to safeguard belief, such as limiting outside information, practicing thought control, and self-denigration; but for some people the emotional numbing and intellectual suicide just isn’t enough. In other words, for a significant number of children in Christian families, the religion just doesn’t “take.” This can trigger guilt, conflict, and ultimately rejection or abandonment.

Much of the claims in this paragraph may apply to some groups. But Christianity as a general religion is not needing any of this. The statement that “ in other words . . . the religion just doesn’t take” does not necessarily follow.

This whole article seems to be based on the presumption that religion in general, and Christianity in specific, is simply a generic falsehood that only operates through tricking people, and most egregiously the young. It is demonstrably true that there are people within all kind of religions, as well as claiming no religion, that do go to lengths to prey on the vulnerable, and in some cases the not-so vulnerable, through all kinds of tricks. Like those links from Google and Yahoo searches that promise to tell you some secret that will make you wiser than those around you only to have to keep waiting through a streaming video/audio where the guy/gal keeps providing factoid after factoid about things you cannot research and — well, I can’t tolerate them enough to get to the place where they think they can finally tell whatever their secret is. Or try to sell it to you.

Want to talk about preying on the vulnerable children? How about teaching that homosexuality is just another normal, healthy, acceptable lifestyle and is a function of genetics. (BTW, if it is genetics, then why isn’t it self-limiting due to lack of procreation?) Or that they should be free to simply choose their sexuality because this is a free nation.

Or that they can be whatever they want to be — without limitation.

I’ll bite on the idea that there are a lot of Fundamentalist groups that come off just like this article says. But this is clearly a rant against Christianity in particular with nothing but what are effectively pages of unsupported statements that could be true somewhere, but are never established as true everywhere, if at all. Before I spend more time following the line of reasoning provided here, I need something that is more than claims that it is so. I spent way too long (even at only 14.5 years of my now 60 years of life) following Lee on the same kind of “because I said it” logic.

I sense more of a desire for a scorched-earth cleansing of the world, or at least America, of all vestiges of religion, or at least Christianity. They are so certain that Christianity is the real Great Satan that they are sure that the fact that swearing-in of government officials on a Bible is evidence of the indoctrination that the whole nation has undergone.

So rather than like this article as a general collection of truth (which it cannot claim to be), I would rather see real analysis of the specific problems in the specific groups that might actually be like what was written concerning. But washing it over the whole because there might be some truth in it with respect to particular cases just makes their premises not worthy of more than the dismissal I am giving them. Find a rational view rather than a “damn it all” view.

[awareness]

Clearly, both of the authors that wrote the Salon article have an ax to grind. From what I can gather Valerie is a former evangelical, and Merelene grew up with missionary parents and accepted Jesus into her heart when she was five years old.

Both are PHDs now. And both write books to help those struggling with growing up in religious homes, concerned most for those struggling with Christianity.

If people needing help find it in these authors I'm all for them.

As for religion making people crazy, or causing mental health issues, I don't know. I do wonder some times which came first, the chicken or the egg. But in this case, does religion make people crazy, or do people bring crazy to the religion.

I don't have the answer. But I'm gonna keep an eye on it, nonetheless. Alas, just that might drive me crazy. If keeping up with Christianity doesn't drive me there first.

Let's face it. People are crazy ... Christian or otherwise. PHDs are no exception.

We all need all the help we can get. Life is not easy.

[zeek]

The article's authors don't support their propositions with findings from peer reviewed scientific studies. But, since I witnessed many of these negative practices and outcomes first hand in relation to the Local Churches, their arguments resonated with me. The LCs use authoritarianism, separatism and fear. The article's point about the susceptibility of children to indoctrination is well supported by research in developmental psychology and neuroscience. And indoctrination of young children may have lasting deleterious effects. There is evidence that children with religious backgrounds are less able to discriminate the realistic from the fantastical. http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-28537149 These questions deserve further consideration and research.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

And indoctrination of young children may have lasting deleterious effects.

Case in point -- I think y'all will agree -- take a look at me.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

The article's authors don't support their propositions with findings from peer reviewed scientific studies. But, since I witnessed many of these negative practices and outcomes first hand in relation to the Local Churches, their arguments resonated with me. The LCs use authoritarianism, separatism and fear. The article's point about the susceptibility of children to indoctrination is well supported by research in developmental psychology and neuroscience. And indoctrination of young children may have lasting deleterious effects. There is evidence that children with religious backgrounds are less able to discriminate the realistic from the fantastical. http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-28537149 These questions deserve further consideration and research.

And I noted that there are clear examples where this happens. It does not make religion, and specifically Christianity, simply bad. But the article essentially takes that position. That makes its value as a rational analysis the actual problems limited because you have to decide where to terminate its desire to reach all and allow it to reach only where it legitimately goes. But who gets to make that call when there is no line drawn?

Yes, the young are impressionable. In virtually everything. They become fearful of the bomb. Or the shadows in the closet. Or they take the word of a teacher as simply true because they are a teacher. They easily become convinced that the cause of their (or their family's) plight is whatever the older ones tell them it is no matter how true or untrue that may be. Whether it is the evil intervention of the Western world, or the lack of intervention by the Western world. Or the fact of slavery long ago. Or bigotry. Or "those people."

Yes. Those People.

And every group has someone who qualifies as "those people." It is not exclusively a minority or third world thing. We all want to blame someone else. And the hard part is that there are always some examples where "those people" — or at least certain ones within that group — have actually done what is claimed as generally true. So the example becomes the general truth even when hardly applicable to most (on either side).

Yes, the kind of things we endured in the LCM were perfect examples for the article. The LCM is the perfect tempest in a teakettle to study for anomalies and problems. From that perspective, it is potentially useful. But when written as a general diatribe against religion in general simply because there is a religious group (or two or three) that fits nicely does not make its desire to wash the problems of those few across the whole legitimate. Therein lies the problem with the article for me. Its lack of true objectivity makes even some valid observations of specific things hard to take because the goal was not to deal with the specific problem, but to throw everything that had the word "religion" tied to it into the sea. It taints the message as overstated, and since not generally true as claimed, questions whether it is true at all. That is a shame because surely it is true at times.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

It taints the message as overstated, and since not generally true as claimed, questions whether it is true at all. That is a shame because surely it is true at times.

Bro Mike just consider the authors of the article are blowing a dog whistle. The authors are speaking at a personal frequency that speaks to like frequencies.

Truth is there are plenty that have the same problems and issues that the authors went thru with Christianity (as I too went thru).

All my life Christianity, of some sort or another, as been demonized ; the RCC in the Southern Baptist, and all of Christianity in Lee's LCM.

So an article that is critical of Christianity is nothing new to me. Perhaps that's why you are critical of the article. Could it be that you are tired of that worn out trope ... you heard enough of it outta Lee? (Those also not subject to objective peer review.)

The internet is like the evolutionary development of the eyeball. Suddenly we can see like never before. And all religions are suffering from it. As a result the young today are turning away from traditional religions. Church coffers are getting lean. The RCC is extremely concerned about that. So they got that lovy-dovy Pope Francis, hoping to save the day with his all inclusive acceptance ... of even gays and atheists ... they got wallets too.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

The internet is like the evolutionary development of the eyeball. Suddenly we can see like never before. . . .

The internet is also like the de-evolutionary dismantling of careful writing and publishing. Several years ago I had a blog (well, I still have it, but it has fallen into disuse). One of my first posts was titled "Digital Drivel" and spoke on this subject. It stemmed from a special live meeting at the church I was attending at the time hosted by our online discussion board (now defunct) and featuring a "guru" of digital trends. So comments related to an event (this meeting) and T&F (the online board — Table and Fire) may seem ambiguous, but I think that the primary content will not.

(The following is from almost 9 years ago.)

My only fear now is that I will fall into the pit that I first suggested was awaiting us all – instant publication of unedited drivel.

I proved my theory to myself within 48 hours when I found a somewhat glaring error in one of the T&F posts that immediately followed the live event. This came from one of the more technically proficient of the bunch, so I’m sure that my point was made.

The scariest thing to me is the tendency for many to attribute truth to anything read. “They couldn’t say it if it weren’t true.” Everyone with access to a computer and the internet, which is rapidly approaching everyone the US, and much of the rest of the world, can now publish. How will the volume of writings passed-off as “truth” increase in the next decade, year, or even month? The phrase of the day is "mind boggling." Can you say "mind boggling" boys and girls?

When the printed word was our source, we could take some comfort in the fact that someone besides the author generally approved the article, book, or whatever. It was then proofread by someone else who probably marked everything they both knew was wrong, or even suspected might be wrong, both in grammar and in content.

Then we moved to broadcast. The time between drafting and publishing diminished. (Newspapers always had a short turnaround, but they had been the exception.) We hoped that what we heard or saw was edited for accuracy, and accepted that some errors would get through. Then the CBS “memo gate” hit, and no matter what you thought about the content, the way they circled the wagons and deflected criticism of their procedural blunderings ... (I’m being nice.)

So how about the rest of us. We now can sit down at our computers, type some words onto a screen, click on the right button, and we have become writer, editor and publisher, all in a few minutes. Its not weeks or months from final to the book store, or a couple of hours from typewriter to typeset for the newspaper, or shorter from idea to the little screen. Its seconds from last word written to too late to recall, and no one in between to help us think it through.

A little long. But the problems with digital "publishing" is one of the reasons I tend to be a little long. It takes time to review anything. And I find that the shorter versions are simply too terse to really say what I mean. So it gets longer. And the review time gets longer. And with the advent of Windows 7 and the companion changes to MS Word, it is much more difficult to write offline and just copy/paste into the system. no matter what I try, it copies formatting garbage in and I am then unable to highlight much of anything. It treats the whole as if required to remain in unison.

But now we have people who more easily get whatever they manage to type out published on the internet. While the posts that go out on a well-known site like one of the newspaper's online editions, or something like the Huffington Post might be still good, I think that everyone has examples where every possible online source has published unadulterated drivel.

So when a post goes out that has nothing concrete behind it, and only plays to either the experiences of those who have been through the same (or relatively same) thing, or the fears or prejudices of those who are prone to agree, and you have a new fact for people to quote.

I am not diminishing the truth of experiences. But questioning the extent to which it is taken and the conclusions that are made. The problem in this particular case is that it is never actually established that religion in general, or Christianity in specific, is actually anything like what is portrayed. But since it (either religion or Christianity) was in the vicinity, it is stated as being the problem and cause rather than a tool used by the actual problem/cause. And religion is a popular tool because there is an aspect of adherence to religious tenets that is not because of logic or proof, but belief. And belief in something where faith (rather than scientific fact) is required means that you have to be willing to stand for it despite a lack of proof. And then someone comes along and shoehorns in something that you would not be willing to stand for if it weren't for the "fact" that you think it belongs within your belief/faith structure.

The problem is like numbers/figures. Figures don't lie, bu liars figure. With respect to the Christian religion, it does not condone the things that result in someone getting so upset about it that they write that kind of article. But it is too easy for the people who would undertake those things to convince some people of faith that their faith insists upon the allowance for such things. Not that directly. Usually indirectly, just like Nee and Lee did. Slowly turn up the heat until you don't realize you are boiling.

[OBW]

BTW. The error I mentioned was really unimportant. But it related to the guy standing in line at Starbucks behind another guy and his daughter. On the back of his tee shirt were three strings of 0s and 1s. Suddenly it hit him what it meant and he started laughing. It was the digital representation of the ASCII codes for DAD (or maybe dad, but I can't recall now). The problem was that he had listed the sequence of digits such that they actually spelled ADA. Reversed the codes and messed it up. But he had hit Enter, so it was too late.

The point was not that everything was simply wrong or buggy. But there are no checks and it is out there. And they now say it is forever.

And like that stupid insurance commercial, there are a bunch of people who actually think that if it is on the internet, it must be right. And if you say it with enough authority, more will believe it.

So I keep my skeptical hat on. (Sometimes it is hard being a Christian skeptic who thinks that apologetics is mainly answering the wrong questions with nothing of substance except the bravado that it is substantial. Especially one who still believes.)

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Case in point -- I think y'all will agree -- take a look at me.

Regarding the proposition that religious indoctrination of young children may have lasting deleterious effects; we will henceforth refer to you as Exhibit A.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

I am not diminishing the truth of experiences. But questioning the extent to which it is taken and the conclusions that are made. The problem in this particular case is that it is never actually established that religion in general, or Christianity in specific, is actually anything like what is portrayed. But since it (either religion or Christianity) was in the vicinity, it is stated as being the problem and cause rather than a tool used by the actual problem/cause. And religion is a popular tool because there is an aspect of adherence to religious tenets that is not because of logic or proof, but belief. And belief in something where faith (rather than scientific fact) is required means that you have to be willing to stand for it despite a lack of proof. And then someone comes along and shoehorns in something that you would not be willing to stand for if it weren't for the "fact" that you think it belongs within your belief/faith structure.

You are wise to doubt even yourself, yes.

The problem is like numbers/figures. Figures don't lie, but liars figure. With respect to the Christian religion, it does not condone the things that result in someone getting so upset about it that they write that kind of article.

But that lack of sanction does nothing to prevent such things from happening everyday as we can easily observe. We must admit that those uncondoned practices occur. We simply do not know how pervasive they are or how frequently they occur among those who claim the name of Christ. Those are conceivably measurable variables though. Ethical metrics. Is anybody trying to do that any more? It's the kind of thing 19th century utilitarians used to propose. Is there a detectable difference in the number or magnitude of sins between professing Christians and everyone else? Of course, no one's judgment on the matter will be final until the Son of Man weighs in. Meanwhile the choices of measurement are all subjective. How do you quantitate the degree to which someone " resists not evil" or "loves their enemy"?

But it is too easy for the people who would undertake those things to convince some people of faith that their faith insists upon the allowance for such things. Not that directly. Usually indirectly, just like Nee and Lee did. Slowly turn up the heat until you don't realize you are boiling.

Or perhaps their faith doesn't insist on allowing such things, but is merely powerless to prevent them. How is that better? Is there something redeemable about good intentions on a sinking Titanic?

[zeek]

Does supernaturalism have a legitimate place in American politics? http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...venant-moskoff

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Does supernaturalism have a legitimate place in American politics? http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...venant-moskoff

Hey hey, I'm all for finding the Ark. I'd like a slice of the manna in it, or at least a bite of it.

And then maybe Huckabee can find the Urim and Thummim too, will be able to use their powers of divination to see into the future, and then bring world peace, and prosperity, to all the world.

As I see it the only hope for mankind is either more evolution (much more) or supernatural intervention. And evolution is so slow I fear we'll do ourselves in before it ever gets us there, if ever. So therefore it's left up to God.

May disappointment in Huck the bee is that he's a Baptist (that's just me).

But as the acting MOTA here I've got to ask ... if politics should be accepted in AltVs? Politics is madness ... and extreme Kabuki theater ... and would make us all mad.

Please ... Let's not go there.

But finding the Ark of the Covenant, cuz it would validate the holy word of God, is acceptable here. It's fair game.

But is it important to fundamentalism?

[zeek]

Texas Takes Lead in Bible Belt


"In essence, Christian conservatives in Texas have successfully forced a false historical narrative into public school textbooks that portray Moses as an influence on the Constitution and the Old Testament as the root of democracy." - See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progres....RFtyNEp8.dpuf

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

Texas Takes Lead in Bible Belt


"In essence, Christian conservatives in Texas have successfully forced a false historical narrative into public school textbooks that portray Moses as an influence on the Constitution and the Old Testament as the root of democracy."

I find it interesting that those who get involved and therefore those who make the waves and eventually have power to make the rules are those at the fringes. On both sides. It is so seldom that someone significantly toward the middle — of the whole, or even just the "party" — rises to activate the rest to rise up.

So we are left with the Christian conservatives, the private militias, the radical liberals, the racists and the race-card carriers, etc., to suggest agendas and see them through. And since they are the ones rising to make their positions, anyone who even sort of looks like them is presumed to be party to it. Yet those small groups really do it all. If the over-the-top Christian right steps in to argue school textbook content and no one else shows up in significant numbers, they carry the day.

What is needed in this particular case is a larger voice from the Christians who do not agree with either the positions being pushed or the very claim that it is a Christian position.

But we find that those Christians are just as silent as the moderate, peace-loving Muslims.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

I find it interesting that those who get involved and therefore those who make the waves and eventually have power to make the rules are those at the fringes.

I don't know how true that holds but it certainly more than appears to be that way.

There are, I think, groups of evangelicals seeking to place evangelicals in every branch of government at every level. I say I think because some 10 yrs ago or so I remember reading about them.

And Texas textbooks appears to be an example of "fringe types" having sway. Texas is the 2nd largest buyer of textbooks, behind California.. It's expensive to produced textbooks so publishers like to make them nationally as uniform as possible. So Texas textbooks shape textbooks nationally.

Same for California textbooks. It's a textbook culture war. Texas on the far right and California on the far left. Moreover, California introduces laws to stop Texas textbooks from leaking into theirs, and Texas does its best to keep Cal. textbooks out of theirs. Both affect textbooks around the nation.

If we characterize Texas as controlled by a bunch of crazy "fringe" Christians how should we characterize those granola bar Californians?

Aren't they both just different types of fundamentalism? One religious fundamentalism and the other secular fundamentalism?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

Aren't they both just different types of fundamentalism? One religious fundamentalism and the other secular fundamentalism?

Probably so. The ones with the agendas speak up. The rest think that they system will balance everything out. But it doesn't. The ones that shape the discussion are the ones that provide the referendums that we, the sheeple, get to vote on.

I know. I'm borrowing from one or more of those right-wing talk show hosts. But they are busy trying to stir us up to be part of the extreme right. But if only the extreme right and the extreme left are setting the agenda, then that is all the rest have to consider. The only way it changes is for a significant faction that is on neither extreme joins the fray and takes on the hollow rhetoric of the extremists. Until that happens, only the far right and the far left are even represented in the process. And when it comes time to vote, only they have people and ideas on the ballot.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Same for California textbooks.

Really? What's the same about them. You haven't said.

It's a textbook culture war. Texas on the far right and California on the far left. Moreover, California introduces laws to stop Texas textbooks from leaking into theirs, and Texas does its best to keep Cal. textbooks out of theirs. Both affect textbooks around the nation.

California is far left? Their last governor was a Republican. Aren't you oversimplifying to make your case? If so, why?

If we characterize Texas as controlled by a bunch of crazy "fringe" Christians how should we characterize those granola bar Californians?
Aren't they both just different types of fundamentalism? One religious fundamentalism and the other secular fundamentalism?

What do the secularists have in common with religious fundamentalists that warrants calling them fundamentalists?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

Probably so. The ones with the agendas speak up. The rest think that they system will balance everything out. But it doesn't. The ones that shape the discussion are the ones that provide the referendums that we, the sheeple, get to vote on.

I know. I'm borrowing from one or more of those right-wing talk show hosts. But they are busy trying to stir us up to be part of the extreme right. But if only the extreme right and the extreme left are setting the agenda, then that is all the rest have to consider. The only way it changes is for a significant faction that is on neither extreme joins the fray and takes on the hollow rhetoric of the extremists. Until that happens, only the far right and the far left are even represented in the process. And when it comes time to vote, only they have people and ideas on the ballot.

Where have you seen the extreme Left setting the agenda? The extreme Right is battling with less extreme Republicans for control of the House. But, you haven't seen the extreme Left exercising much power. To characterize Bill Clinton or Obama as extreme Left is off. They were both mostly Centrist. Bernie Sanders is further Left, but what are his chances of "setting the agenda?" Hilary Clinton is appealing for support from the Left right now, but to get elected she will need the Big Money PACs and Lobbyists and will likely act much like the rest of them do. And who is really setting the agenda? Here's further evidence that it's not the candidates we elect:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/201...9sL/story.html

[Dave]

Originally Posted by awareness

Aren't they both just different types of fundamentalism? One religious fundamentalism and the other secular fundamentalism?

Awareness is drinking the kool-aid for him to even suggest that the "secularism" wing has any characteristics familiar to 'white fundamentalist Christian' (I use this phrase in conjunction with Tomes' quoted article) thoughts and practices.
WFC = suppressed science and regressed ideas
Secularism = encourages scientific discovery and renewed thoughts and ideas
WFC = biblical literalism in interpretation
Secularism = encourages fresh perspectives in Christian thought
WFC = nationalism
Secularism = pluralism
Etc

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Really? What's the same about them. You haven't said.

Texas #2 buyer of textbooks, Cal. #1

Originally Posted by zeek

California is far left? Their last governor was a Republican. Aren't you oversimplifying to make your case? If so, why?

The subject was textbooks. You're the one that introduced it.

Originally Posted by zeek

What do the secularists have in common with religious fundamentalists that warrants calling them fundamentalists?

Their control of textbook material.

Stay on subject bro ...

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

Awareness is drinking the kool-aid for him to even suggest that the "secularism" wing has any characteristics familiar to 'white fundamentalist Christian' (I use this phrase in conjunction with Tomes' quoted article) thoughts and practices.
WFC = suppressed science and regressed ideas
Secularism = encourages scientific discovery and renewed thoughts and ideas
WFC = biblical literalism in interpretation
Secularism = encourages fresh perspectives in Christian thought
WFC = nationalism
Secularism = pluralism
Etc

Great points bro Dave. I'm with 'em with ya.

But only if we look around here in America (maybe).

The threat is secular fundamentalism
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/op...5938.html?_r=0

[Dave]

Originally Posted by awareness

Great points bro Dave. I'm with 'em with ya.

But only if we look around here in America (maybe).

The threat is secular fundamentalism
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/op...5938.html?_r=0

you're trying in any stretch of the imagination to equate Turkish secularism to US secularism? Toleration and freedom of thought are the underlying basis of US democracy. Toleration and freedom of thought are not the underlying basis of Turkish democracy. You'll have to do better than that. Turkish secularism sounds more consistent with US white fundamentalism regarding the suppression of ideas but then again that was written in 2007.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

Where have you seen the extreme Left setting the agenda? The extreme Right is battling with less extreme Republicans for control of the House. But, you haven't seen the extreme Left exercising much power. To characterize Bill Clinton or Obama as extreme Left is off. They were both mostly Centrist. Bernie Sanders is further Left, but what are his chances of "setting the agenda?" Hilary Clinton is appealing for support from the Left right now, but to get elected she will need the Big Money PACs and Lobbyists and will likely act much like the rest of them do. And who is really setting the agenda? Here's further evidence that it's not the candidates we elect:

I agree on the Clintons. But not entirely on Obama. But as it is political opinion, I will not get into it here.

Besides, not all issues on the left are supported by all persons on the left. Just like all positions on the right are not supported by all persons on the right. The majority of us live somewhere toward the middle. But raise the right issue, and many of us start to move toward one extreme or the other. But not necessarily on the same issues. You can try to assert that the left doesn't do that, but it might just be blinders to their positions, or too much foaming at the mouth from the talk show hosts and their constant missteps.

But there is a difference between gay rights and insistence on gay marriage. Marriage has had a definition for longer than anyone has spoken any of the languages that we now speak in the Western world have existed. Way longer. But in America, there are automatic privileges that come with being married, some of which are never granted to anyone else (at least I think this is true). For the same privileges to be granted wholesale to those who want to have some kind of gay union would be possible without insisting on changing the very meaning of the word "marriage." Yet that is exactly what is happening. Do I care? Yes and no. "No" in that I am willing to tolerate equal legal status. And "No" in that I do not have the position of insisting on definitions. But "Yes" in that I believe that the intent of calling it marriage is more than granting equal legal status, but is designed to force not only tolerance, but outright acceptance as moral and just — so much so that it qualifies as "marriage."

And there I disagree. Just one example. And it is a left issue/position.

The whole idea that only those on the conservative side of things are willing to become dogmatic and try to insist that everyone do it their way or be labeled as criminals is hogwash. That is exactly what the extreme gay agenda is about. It is about criminalizing the fact that you don't simply think like they do and agree that they are right.

This does not exonerate the extreme right. But while we have labeled the right as the fundamentalists, the left can and does act in the exact same manner. And they have their fundamentals that they insist that everyone follow or be deemed morally deficient. And therefore potentially subject to the forfeiture of liberty and property. Hasn't come to life yet (that I am aware of).

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

You'll have to do better than that. Turkish secularism sounds more consistent with US white fundamentalism regarding the suppression of ideas but then again that was written in 2007.

Well I think I can do better, and maybe will.

For now I'm spotting in your response a resemblance between white Christian fundamentalism and Turkish secular fundamentalism, in attempts to control free thinking.

That's my point.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Texas #2 buyer of textbooks, Cal. #1


The subject was textbooks. You're the one that introduced it.


Their control of textbook material.

Stay on subject bro ...

First you jumped to the conclusion that Texas was "fundamentalist", then you reasoned illogically from that that since California buys more text books than Texas they are fundamentalist too. Get logical bro...

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

The whole idea that only those on the conservative side of things are willing to become dogmatic and try to insist that everyone do it their way or be labeled as criminals is hogwash.

Who's arguing that? Not me.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

First you jumped to the conclusion that Texas was "fundamentalist", then you reasoned illogically from that that since California buys more text books than Texas they are fundamentalist too. Get logical bro...

Face it ... life ... and especially religion ... is not logical. Sorry for that.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

Who's arguing that? Not me.

You did question where the left was setting any agendas. Hard to think it meant anything else. But maybe it was just an argument for argument's sake, therefore not really your argument.

Starting to sound a little like that acknowledgement of the person who was playing the player piano in The Music Man: "Thanks to [whoever], our fine player piano player, piano, player . . . piano . . . player . . . piano . . . ."

[OBW]

The following interchange went on between awareness and zeek:

awareness: Texas #2 buyer of textbooks, Cal. #1

Zeek: California is far left? Their last governor was a Republican. Aren't you oversimplifying to make your case? If so, why?

awareness: The subject was textbooks. You're the one that introduced it.

Zeek: What do the secularists have in common with religious fundamentalists that warrants calling them fundamentalists?

awareness: Their control of textbook material.

I really have no problem with either of them in their posts. They have points and missed points.

But for me, it is the generalization that all of either Texas or California is anything (probably more of awareness' position) that is annoying. Yes, California has had Republican governors. But their Republican governors couldn't likely get the religious fundamentalists behind them in a national election. (And that might be just alright by me.) Meanwhile, the religious Fundamentalists in Texas get their way on textbooks because they are the only ones raising their voice other than a lone voice in the wilderness here or there. From where I sit, I don't think the Fundamentalists are the majority of Texas. I would agree that most of Texas (ignoring the People's Republic of Austin) tends more conservative. And there may be a somewhat disproportionate amount that are survivalist, gay-bashing, John Birchers. But that might be because we look at it in terms of the amount of noise that the number of such people in one of the most populous states makes relative to the number in, say, Vermont or Rhode Island. Yeah. Bad examples for my comparison. The issue is that the comparison may be the number in one state v the number in another when that is not the relevant statistic. In any case, it wouldn't matter if either of those was 60% right-wing wackos because we wouldn't really notice because there are still so few of them.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Who's arguing that? Not me.

But you did say:

Texas Takes Lead in Bible Belt
"Christian conservatives in Texas have successfully forced a false historical narrative into public school textbooks."

When you plant a seed you can't expected it not to grow.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

You did question where the left was setting any agendas. Hard to think it meant anything else. But maybe it was just an argument for argument's sake, therefore not really your argument.

Starting to sound a little like that acknowledgement of the person who was playing the player piano in The Music Man: "Thanks to [whoever], our fine player piano player, piano, player . . . piano . . . player . . . piano . . . ."

Right. Just list all the successful left-wing laws, policies, actions, or rulings the Congressional, Executive or Judicial branches have enacted in the last fifteen years and I will consider myself informed.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

But you did say:

Texas Takes Lead in Bible Belt
"Christian conservatives in Texas have successfully forced a false historical narrative into public school textbooks."

When you plant a seed you can't expected it not to grow.

It in no way follows from that fact that there is a Fundamentalist Left.

[zeek]

About religion in the public sphere, philosopher Jurgen Habermas, had this to say in his book: "Between Naturalism and Religion: Philosophical Essays":

"In short, opinion- and will-formation within the democratic public arena can function only if a sufficiently large number of citizens fulfill specific expectations concerning civil conduct even across deep religious and ideological divides. However, this can be demanded of religiously minded citizens only on the assumption that they actually satisfy the requisite cognitive presuppositions. They must have learned to relate their religious convictions in reflexively coherent ways to the fact of religious and ideological pluralism. Moreover, they must have found a way to reconcile the epistemological privilege of the socially institutionalized sciences and the primacy of the secular state and universalistic social morality with their faith. Philosophy, which, in contrast to theology, is not linked with any particular confession, cannot influence this process. Here philosophy restricts itself to the role of an external observer who is not entitled to pass judgment on what can and cannot count as a justification within a particular religious teaching.
Philosophy first comes into play on the secular side. For nonreligious citizens can also satisfy the expectations concerning civic solidarity only on the condition that they adopt a particular cognitive attitude toward their religious fellow-citizens and toward the latters' utterances. When the two sides meet in the democratic confusion of voices of a pluralistic public arena and debate political questions, specific epistemic obligations follow from the demand that they must show one another suitable respect. Participants who express themselves in a religious language also have a claim to be taken seriously by their secular fellow-citizens. Thus the latter should not be allowed to reject out of hand the possibility that contributions formulated in religious language could have a rational content."

I think for Habermas "function" in the opening sentence means social action based on communicative rationality which refers primarily to the use of knowledge in language and action, rather than to a property of knowledge. The idea is that human rationality is a necessary outcome of successful communication. Just like here on LCD.

[zeek]

Consider the lilies?
"How Big Business Invented the Theology of 'Christian Libertarianism' and the Gospel of Free Markets
The inside history of how Evangelical preachers were used to infuse society with the economic dogma that plagues us today."

http://www.alternet.org/belief/salva...s-faith?src=fb

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

It in no way follows from that fact that there is a Fundamentalist Left.

I realize that no one -- no one -- likes to be branded a fundamentalist ... especially the secularists ... who likely made the word a derogatory slang.

But there are secularist extremists, that act just as dogmatic as those they denigrate.

Bro Dave thought my argument about secular fundamentalism in Turkey was weak.

Here's another:

Secular fundamentalists are the new totalitarians:
"There's an aspiring totalitarianism in Britain which is brilliantly disguised. It's disguised because the would-be dictators - and there are many of them - all pretend to be more tolerant than thou. They hide alongside the anti-racists, the anti-homophobes and anti-sexists. But what they are really against is something very different. They - call them secular fundamentalists - are anti-God, and what they really want is the eradication of religion, and all believers, from the face of the earth."
http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ment.religion1

[zeek]

What do you think about this proposition?

"Jesus didn’t care about being nice or tolerant, and neither should you."

https://theorthodoxlife.wordpress.co...er-should-you/

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

What do you think about this proposition?

"Jesus didn’t care about being nice or tolerant, and neither should you."

https://theorthodoxlife.wordpress.co...er-should-you/

My first reaction ... without reading a word yet:

[UntoHim]

This Matt Walsh fellow needs to stop worrying about others and hear "A Tender Word for Pharisees" to see what Jesus has to say to him. (only a little more than half an hour) Many Christian "fundamentalists" need to have their relationship with God healed and set right before they set about trying to adjust others.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by awareness

I realize that no one -- no one -- likes to be branded a fundamentalist ... especially the secularists ... who likely made the word a derogatory slang.

But there are secularist extremists, that act just as dogmatic as those they denigrate.

Bro Dave thought my argument about secular fundamentalism in Turkey was weak.

Here's another:

Secular fundamentalists are the new totalitarians:
"There's an aspiring totalitarianism in Britain which is brilliantly disguised. It's disguised because the would-be dictators - and there are many of them - all pretend to be more tolerant than thou. They hide alongside the anti-racists, the anti-homophobes and anti-sexists. But what they are really against is something very different. They - call them secular fundamentalists - are anti-God, and what they really want is the eradication of religion, and all believers, from the face of the earth."
http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ment.religion1

You keep referring to other countries and my point all along is that the US is built on liberalism-freedom of speech, the right to assemble etc...
Here are govt left and right which were extreme fundamentalist:
Soviet Union-Communism-Left fundamentalist
China-Communism-left fundamentalist
Germany-nazism-right fundamentalism
Italy-under Mussolini-right fundamentalism
Japan-WWII-right fundamentalism

There has been a rising white Christian fundamentalism that has been evolving in the U.S. politically in both houses of congress and in state houses. On issues such as equal rights regarding marriage and marijuana use liberal rights have shown some strength but not as a left or secular fundamentalist movement.

In any case, the U.S. has basic human rights as the pinnacle of its democracy and you can measure "fundamentalism" as those who wage intellectual/political war against those rights.

[zeek]

Theodicy: Pat Robertson to grieving mom: “Your dead baby could have grown up to be a Hitler or Stalin.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=96&v=nmeH0s3H68I

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

This Matt Walsh fellow needs to stop worrying about others and hear "A Tender Word for Pharisees" to see what Jesus has to say to him. (only a little more than half an hour) Many Christian "fundamentalists" need to have their relationship with God healed and set right before they set about trying to adjust others.

Great video Unto. The preacher is a breath of fresh air. First, he admitted he was preaching to himself. Then he even admitted to being a professional, like the scribes and Pharisees. What a real human preacher. He puts on no airs. So unlike Lee. Quoted loosely: "God does not want helpers. He is the helper. We need help."

And nothing against Matt Walsh but after reading his blog entry I came away thinking, wondering if, ol' Matt went to the Bible to make Jesus in his own image. Can't hold it against Matt. Piper does that too. If I hold it against them, methinks I'd have to hold it against everyone ... including myself.

Pretty much everyone does it. And those that don't -- make Jesus in their own image -- are suspect.

[awareness]

Okay back to fundamentalism. Secular fundamentalism in particular.

Secular fundamentalists like to look down on religions because of their fundamentalists. Liberals look at conservatives the same way. To them only conservatives have fundamentalists. Neither the secular's or the liberal's think they are afflicted with fundamentalism.

I posit that that is not so; that fundamentalism is a human condition ; a personality type, if you will.

Bro Dave shot down my Turkey secular fundamentalism. And my British example too ... claiming America is different and so can't suffer from secular fundamentalism.

I agree fundamentalism, of any sort, is hard to put our finger on. We've proven that on this thread. We've beat that horse, buried it, dug it up, and beat it again, and still didn't completely nail it down. It's the same for secular fundamentalism. It's hard to put our finger on.

But I'd say we do have examples of it here in America, at least evidence of the possibility of it. I'd say the atheists that are putting up billboards are likely examples of being secular fundamentalists. https://www.google.com/search?q=athe...FYwYrAodUqQADQ

We're also graced with Dan Barker. A evangelical Pentecostal preacher of 19 years turned atheist. He and his wife started The Freedom From Religion Foundation, that has brought many lawsuits against Christians invading government.

Barker also joined hands with Richard Dawkins to start The Clergy Project (British secular fundamentalism exported to America?)

So I think we do have examples of secular fundamentalism here in America.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Okay back to fundamentalism. Secular fundamentalism in particular.

Secular fundamentalists like to look down on religions because of their fundamentalists. Liberals look at conservatives the same way. To them only conservatives have fundamentalists. Neither the secular's or the liberal's think they are afflicted with fundamentalism.

You are so right. It's so ironic to see liberals condemn fundamental Christians, realizing they are no different. I guess that is human nature too, and that's why Jesus pointed out the timber in our eye when we start noticing splinters in others' eyes.

I just love how liberals boast in their "tolerance," yet have no tolerance for those who believe in Jesus, loving to brand them all as "radical, right-wing, gun-loving, fundamentalists." I like to question what they actually "tolerate," and I quickly learn that what they tolerate is all the things the Bible warns us about. Liberalism is basically just another religion requiring blind faith in things which God disagrees with.

The latest liberal bandwagon is cop hate. It's called the "Ferguson effect." Wait till 911 operators start asking whether the caller is a liberal or not. Ooops, I guess they already are, since the police are not answering calls in certain neighborhoods.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I just love how liberals boast in their "tolerance," yet have no tolerance for those who believe in Jesus, loving to brand them all as "radical, right-wing, gun-loving, fundamentalists." I like to question what they actually "tolerate," and I quickly learn that what they tolerate is all the things the Bible warns us about. Liberalism is basically just another religion requiring blind faith in things which God disagrees with.

What God dislikes and so do liberals are "radical, right-wing, gun-loving, fundamentalists." If you read the NT you find that Jesus asked his disciples to put down their weapons when approached by Roman solders to arrest him which led to his crucifixion. This act was consistent with his other actions/statements e.g. turn the other cheek etc. Jesus rebuked the fundamentalist Pharisees with their laws. He sought out the downtrodden, disparaged, persecuted, homeless etc. Jesus never preached what the "white fundamentalist right wing Christians" are preaching today...never happened.

I don't think you can place all the police into one category for the actions of a few. Unfortunately it appears that a few police have been getting by with some unsavory actions but now with cameras everywhere they can't keep it up. Some things have to change but I don't think it will happen overnight and I am opposed as anyone should be to the lawlessness that happens when a perceived injustice happens in a city.

I just don't think that there is a simple answer and I don't believe that Jesus would tell the police to arm themselves and shoot em all down. I think he would approach the situation in a way that understands the suffering that people have gone through and try and quiet the situation with peace and understanding. http://churchintoronto.blogspot.com/...should-be.html
http://churchintoronto.blogspot.com/...?q=nigel+tomes

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

So I think we do have examples of secular fundamentalism here in America.

If there are secular fundamentalists, then what are their fundamentals?

[zeek]

Problem with link.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

If there are secular fundamentalists, then what are their fundamentals?

That's a good question. If Christian fundamentalism has declared five fundamentals, do the secular fundamentalists declare their fundamentals?

There's prolly many different answers to this question, but here's a list of declared fundamentals of secular fundamentalists:

The secular fundamentalist believes the following things:

–One’s religious beliefs are a sort of personal hobby, like following sports or taking part in amateur theater, with one major difference: following sports or partaking in theater are things the state is inclined to approve of, but religious beliefs are a somewhat undesirable quality for a good citizen. No one objects when a passionate golfer or avid amateur theater participant shows up at the city council to give favorable testimony about the building of a new golf course or new theater building, but religious citizens are supposed to leave their religious beliefs at home, *especially* when speaking in front of the city council or any other government entity.

–While all religions are false, they are not all equal. The good citizen should differentiate between religions which encourage good citizenship (such as those faiths which help hand out condoms to homeless prostitutes, say) and those which do not. Any time people argue in the name of religion against state policies, initiatives, or programs, that is proof that their religion is one of the bad ones that should be stifled whenever possible.

–It is a given that “bad” religions have never done any good, and students must be taught that followers of those religions only did anything good when they went against their religions leaders or violated their religion’s teachings. Christianity is foremost among the “bad” religions, but there are others–however, political correctness may require the secularist to pretend that those other religions aren’t really bad at times.

–Despite the fact that there are some “good” religions, the default belief of the secular fundamentalist is that religions and the state have an inherently inimical relationship. Concepts like the separation of church and state mean, to a fundamentalist, that no church should ever be allowed to interfere in secular matters; however, it is necessary for the state to interfere in church matters all the time, such as when they decide religious employers must pay for contraception and abortions.

–The Bill of Rights must be understood in a secular fundamentalist construct. Not only must a teacher in a public school classroom not *teach* her religious beliefs (a principle most people would agree with), but her freedom of speech must be denied to her from the moment she sets foot on the school campus until the moment she leaves it (except, perhaps, for minor “speech” acts such as wearing religious jewelry–and even that ought to be denied her in a perfectly secular world). It is good and right for a teacher to share–in or out of the classroom–her personal beliefs about love, marriage, sex, family, and life generally UNLESS those beliefs have been informed by one of the “bad” religions. In other words, the teacher who divorces her husband and moves in with a girlfriend should proudly display the girlfriend’s photo in the classroom, but the teacher who believes in traditional marriage must keep her religious “bigotry” to herself.

–Finally, no state institution, entity, or enterprise can be tainted by any suspicion that it ever approves of any religion at all. The secular fundamentalist insists that the only proper attitude to have toward religion is disapproval–mild for the “good” religions, and harsh for any that hold beliefs contrary to the state’s vision for the common good, even if that vision is utterly devoid of actual virtue (and, indeed, sees the very concept of “virtue” as something inimical to good secular values).

http://www.theamericanconservative.c...undamentalism/

[Ken, I delivered mine today - Ha]

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

What God dislikes and so do liberals are "radical, right-wing, gun-loving, fundamentalists."

Talk about twisting up my words.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Christianity is foremost among the “bad” religions, but there are others–however, political correctness may require the secularist to pretend that those other religions aren’t really bad at times.

A-ware c'mon man. This is either conservative hyperbole or some kind of satirical sh*t. Get serious. The Christian fundamentalists went on record and declared the five fundamentals. This is an ironic criticism of liberalism.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

A-ware c'mon man. This is either conservative hyperbole or some kind of satirical sh*t. Get serious. The Christian fundamentalists went on record and declared the five fundamentals. This is an ironic criticism of liberalism.

But I delivered. Ha again.

The five fundamentals sprang up because the fundamentalists felt under threat by science and modernity. They obviously felt they were about to die out.

Where are secular fundamentalists under threat, by what, and are they about to die out?

I'll keep looking ...

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

But I delivered. Ha again.

The five fundamentals sprang up because the fundamentalists felt under threat by science and modernity. They obviously felt they were about to die out.

Where are secular fundamentalists under threat, by what, and are they about to die out?

I'll keep looking ...

Even Richard Dawkins doesn't claim Darwin's Origin of Species is inerrant, so he doesn't deserve the label.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

Even Richard Dawkins doesn't claim Darwin's Origin of Species is inerrant, so he doesn't deserve the label.

But inerrancy is not one of the original five fundamentals. Besides, not having a secular equivalent of each specific religious fundamental is not the mark of fundamentalism. Instead it is the insistence that certain things are true without proof and the blindness to the violation of one's own tenets when going to "war" against those who disagree.

Yes. They may not hold to their unprovable/unfalsifiable thoughts with the kind of zeal of religious fundamentalists, but they are certain enough that their version is more likely than the religious ones that they will scoff at one set while suggesting the other is more likely.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

But inerrancy is not one of the original five fundamentals.

Yes it was. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism

Besides, not having a secular equivalent of each specific religious fundamental is not the mark of fundamentalism. Instead it is the insistence that certain things are true without proof and the blindness to the violation of one's own tenets when going to "war" against those who disagree.

True. But, then it becomes incumbent upon the one asserting that this or that person or group is doing that to demonstrate that the accusation is founded. You and Harold haven't done that yet.

Yes. They may not hold to their unprovable/unfalsifiable thoughts with the kind of zeal of religious fundamentalists, but they are certain enough that their version is more likely than the religious ones that they will scoff at one set while suggesting the other is more likely.

You may be on to something. But, you haven't said who "they" are or shown that they dogmatically hold uncertain propositions as incontrovertible truths. I look forward to seeing that.

[awareness]

What is fundamentalism? According to Reza Aslan “Fundamentalism is a singular outlook in a pluralistic world.”

What is secular fundamentalism? The "Urban Dictionary defines secular fundamentalism as “the adherence to anti-religious ideology that militantly ridicules, mocks, scorns and satirizes he idea of the existence of a deity or deities and or religion, indifferent of feelings of bigotry, intolerance, hatred and persecution that adherents feel as a result.”

I find it no surprise that when the idea of secular fundamentalism comes up Dawkins is ushered into the discussion; like he's king of the secular fundamentalists; their fearless leader; their "SFOTA" (Secular Fundamentalist Of The Age), in LCD jargon.

But Dawkins is just a cartoon. He's not as honest about it as Christopher Hitchens was, nor as cuddly. Hitchens was smart, and good with words, AND he had a comedic wit. He made atheism attractive, and funny. Not that Dawkins can't be seen as a joke.

Okay let's get down to where the claim of secular fundamentalism is being slung about in earnest:

Dave will be happy. It's not in America.

""In the United States, the Constitution protects the freedom of individuals to express their deeply held religious beliefs. In France, the law protects the individual’s freedom to not to have to see others express their religion.""

France is called "the most hyper-secular state on the continent." So France might better earn the SFOTA status. They do seem to be the most assertive and aggressive about it.

"In 2010, the National Assembly of France passed a bill banning the covering of the face - a law whose sole intent was to deny Muslim women the right to wear a burqa or veil. In 2013 a nursery school assistant was fired for refusing to remove her Islamic veil. A poll taken shortly thereafter found that 84 percent of French citizens oppose the wearing of the Islamic veil or even the headscarf."

As a result, French Muslims are calling France a secular fundamentalist state.

I'll let y'all read about it yourselves. All my quotes come from one link. It's a must read for secular fundamentalists still denying the existence of secular fundamentalism.

And it does present examples of American secular fundamentalism.

http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns...ism-2063476376

Is there concern that secular fundamentalism is coming to America:

“Christian convictions are under attack as never before,” [future Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee] said in the call, which was meant to rally pastors to participate in the [Family Research Council]'s upcoming “Stand for Marriage” event. “Not just in our lifetime, but ever before in the history of this great nation. We are moving rapidly towards the criminalization of Christianity.”
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/0...f-Christianity

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

What is fundamentalism? According to Reza Aslan “Fundamentalism is a singular outlook in a pluralistic world.”

What is secular fundamentalism? The "Urban Dictionary defines secular fundamentalism as “the adherence to anti-religious ideology that militantly ridicules, mocks, scorns and satirizes he idea of the existence of a deity or deities and or religion, indifferent of feelings of bigotry, intolerance, hatred and persecution that adherents feel as a result.”

OK now we're getting somewhere. Urban Dictionary indeed. This is definition by quite inexact analogy. Use of the term seems to be motivated by the desire to tar this group with the now pejorative "fundamentalist" label. Nonetheless, I have encountered people on the Internet who fit the description. A more apt, less freighted label for them would be anti-christian, since, whether they are following fundamentals or not their stated position is explicitly and unabashedly anti-christian. But, since the term is out there in apparently widespread usage, now we have a defintion of what it refers to.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

OK now we're getting somewhere. Urban Dictionary indeed. This is definition by quite inexact analogy. Use of the term seems to be motivated by the desire to tar this group with the now pejorative "fundamentalist" label. Nonetheless, I have encountered people on the Internet who fit the description. A more apt, less freighted label for them would be anti-christian, since, whether they are following fundamentals or not their stated position is explicitly and unabashedly anti-christian. But, since the term is out there in apparently widespread usage, now we have a defintion of what it refers to.

I suppose what we've defined is that there exists something like a dogmatist personality disorder (DPD), and those afflicted are like fundamentalists in their opinions, regardless of what they are, for or against God and/or religion.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I suppose what we've defined is that there exists something like a dogmatist personality disorder (DPD), and those afflicted are like fundamentalists in their opinions, regardless of what they are, for or against God and/or religion.

There are dogmatic folks with DPD in all walks of life. Religion and politics are just two of them, but there are also anti-religion and anti-politics DPD folks out there. There all "thumpers" in every segment of society, and on every forum. It's more about their personality, than it is about the topic at hand. If you happen to share their particular passion, then you are "brothers," but if not, woe unto you!

Notice that DPD's never own up to their own disorder; they always like to project the disorder upon others. On this forum the DPD's like to go after those who believe in the veracity of the Bible, and particularly the virgin birth of Jesus and the inerrancy of scripture.

For example, I happen to live next to an elderly "gentleman" who is a dogmatic tree-hater. He might have THPD because he likes to spread his dogma to the other neighbors on the street. Unfortunately the guy who lived here before me was a tree lover with TLPD and planted 28 trees on my lot, or so I have been repeatedly told. My dear neighbor wants his lawn looking like Yankee stadium, and trees happen to be his "unforgivable" sins.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

OK now we're getting somewhere. Urban Dictionary indeed. This is definition by quite inexact analogy. Use of the term seems to be motivated by the desire to tar this group with the now pejorative "fundamentalist" label. Nonetheless, I have encountered people on the Internet who fit the description. A more apt, less freighted label for them would be anti-christian, since, whether they are following fundamentals or not their stated position is explicitly and unabashedly anti-christian. But, since the term is out there in apparently widespread usage, now we have a defintion of what it refers to.

I think that this kind of definition that seems to mock the very core of the meaning of the word fundamentailism is a little like the modern use of the word organic.

So far, I have not been known to eat inorganic food. Yet much of what I eat is labeled as "not organic" according to the current use in product labeling.

Fundamentalism should be the adherence to fundamentals. That is what it was. But it has become the pejorative term by identifying it with the kind of actions of some of the people who are among those who adhere (or at least think they adhere) to those fundamentals. So the pejorative version of fundamentalism has nothing to do with the fundamentals, but rather to the actions which also have nothing to do with those fundamentals, but are undertaken by some who claim them.

The label becomes disconnected with respect to its namesake and is easily used in reference to others who engage in similar behavior in different arenas. When we talk about fundamentalist Islam, we are seldom speaking of fundamentals of Islam, but of the extreme positions of people who are claiming Islam as their source for those positions. If that works, then it should be little different to apply the same kind of thinking to those at the opposite extremes on the same subjects.

As the introduction to a Tom Lehrer song in the 60s said, "I know there are people in the world that do not love their fellow human beings . . . and I hate people like that."

Now it is surely better to have different labels for different positions. But is the problem the position that is taken, or it is the way in which it is taken? Is the problem the fundamentals, or is it the dogmatic way that some ignore other aspects of the Christian calling to fight for those fundamentals. To go to war over how inerrant the Bible is or isn't. To curse at people who do not claim to be Christian for having morals that they think a Christian should not have.

All in the name of a God who says to love your neighbor as yourself.

And it seems little different when people on the secular side of the divide do not consider anything from a Christian source but rather mock it. Deride it as not worthy of existing. All coming from people who claim that even the baby seals should be protected. But not the Christians. Or their beliefs.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

And it seems little different when people on the secular side of the divide do not consider anything from a Christian source but rather mock it. Deride it as not worthy of existing. All coming from people who claim that even the baby seals should be protected. But not the Christians. Or their beliefs.

Baby seals have more rights than baby humans.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Baby seals have more rights than baby humans.

I almost included that one. Oddly, many years ago, a coworker mentioned that a very liberal friend of hers had decided that if she was going to defend the rights of baby seals and other animals, she would have to also defend the rights of unborn humans. A little sanity in the midst of chaos.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

I almost included that one. Oddly, many years ago, a coworker mentioned that a very liberal friend of hers had decided that if she was going to defend the rights of baby seals and other animals, she would have to also defend the rights of unborn humans. A little sanity in the midst of chaos.

The total disregard for the lives of the unborn is what initially turned me off to liberalism, and nothing they have done since has altered my opinion.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The total disregard for the lives of the unborn is what initially turned me off to liberalism, and nothing they have done since has altered my opinion.

So should we add "personhood" to our list of Christian fundamentals?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The total disregard for the lives of the unborn is what initially turned me off to liberalism, and nothing they have done since has altered my opinion.

This is a legitimate concern but my take on this (against abortion) is that those advocating this have done little to address the issue. Why don't those who advocate this point of view indicate that they will pay for all the expenses of the woman having birth and will adopt the child to a good family? The problem is that before Roe vs Wade women in the US were using coat hangers to have their own abortions with many of them dying or the rich women were flying to some countries which allowed abortions. If you had money you could abort but if you were poor you had few options.

Many conservatives want it both ways. They don't want to pay for all of the babies that would be born if there were no abortions (they are against gov't payouts such as welfare, Medicaid etc) but they are against abortions. Do you really want poor families to have 15 kids? You know you are against that yet you don't have a solution except for extreme measures such as sterilization. The Catholics oppose any contraception and I guess you would also.

There are more admonitions against the rich in the NT than against those who are poor. Therein is your argument. Jesus had more empathy for the poor and that is where we must agree. Do you really think that people who have some money are going to these abortion clinics? It is the poor people for numerous reasons...to include they can't afford it.... If they had a better life situation they would keep the baby and take care of it. It is mostly (not always) about wealth or in some cases mental illness etc. Do you want a mentally ill woman taking care of 15 kids...guess what her kids will be doing when they get older. Be part of the solution and not part of the problem!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

This is a legitimate concern but my take on this (against abortion) is that those advocating this have done little to address the issue. Why don't those who advocate this point of view indicate that they will pay for all the expenses of the woman having birth and will adopt the child to a good family? The problem is that before Roe vs Wade women in the US were using coat hangers to have their own abortions with many of them dying or the rich women were flying to some countries which allowed abortions. If you had money you could abort but if you were poor you had few options.

Many conservatives want it both ways. They don't want to pay for all of the babies that would be born if there were no abortions (they are against gov't payouts such as welfare, Medicaid etc) but they are against abortions. Do you really want poor families to have 15 kids? You know you are against that yet you don't have a solution except for extreme measures such as sterilization. The Catholics oppose any contraception and I guess you would also.

There are more admonitions against the rich in the NT than against those who are poor. Therein is your argument. Jesus had more empathy for the poor and that is where we must agree. Do you really think that people who have some money are going to these abortion clinics? It is the poor people for numerous reasons...to include they can't afford it.... If they had a better life situation they would keep the baby and take care of it. It is mostly (not always) about wealth or in some cases mental illness etc. Do you want a mentally ill woman taking care of 15 kids...guess what her kids will be doing when they get older. Be part of the solution and not part of the problem!

Your post is filled with half-truths, factoids, fibs, and spin. And this justifies a million murders a year?

The only thing of value was your opening line about a "legitimate concern."

Go read some actual history about Roe/McCorvey and the lies presented to the SCOTUS, instead of Planned Parenthood sales literature.

Christians have given millions and millions to educate and assist young girls. Because of the lack of babies to adopt, loving Christian families have even gone around the world to adopt, often taking the what liberals called "unwanted."

It's so easy for rich liberals like you to sit back and place responsibility for every social problem on others.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

This is a legitimate concern but my take on this (against abortion) is that those advocating this have done little to address the issue. Why don't those who advocate this point of view indicate that they will pay for all the expenses of the woman having birth and will adopt the child to a good family? The problem is that before Roe vs Wade women in the US were using coat hangers to have their own abortions with many of them dying or the rich women were flying to some countries which allowed abortions. If you had money you could abort but if you were poor you had few options.

Many conservatives want it both ways. They don't want to pay for all of the babies that would be born if there were no abortions (they are against gov't payouts such as welfare, Medicaid etc) but they are against abortions. Do you really want poor families to have 15 kids? You know you are against that yet you don't have a solution except for extreme measures such as sterilization. The Catholics oppose any contraception and I guess you would also.

There are more admonitions against the rich in the NT than against those who are poor. Therein is your argument. Jesus had more empathy for the poor and that is where we must agree. Do you really think that people who have some money are going to these abortion clinics? It is the poor people for numerous reasons...to include they can't afford it.... If they had a better life situation they would keep the baby and take care of it. It is mostly (not always) about wealth or in some cases mental illness etc. Do you want a mentally ill woman taking care of 15 kids...guess what her kids will be doing when they get older. Be part of the solution and not part of the problem!

Pro-lifers care for the unborn. But after they're born they could care less. Apparently, as it works out, we need those poor kids for war; to grow up, and in 17 years, join the military, and kill and die for us. So ... it appears ... that ... It's only okay for them to die after they are born. We can, as happens, trap them with no economic options, and then can legally abort them at 17.

Sorry bro Ohio ... I'm pro-choice and chose no abortion, when I have an actual say. And I've been there.

Also, my son is one that had no option but the military. That hits close to home too. They recently trained him how to bring any man down with one blow ... and he's signed on to die, if so ordered.

I'm pro-choice and chose not to abort at any age; if I have a say ... and I don't.

How can humans be so intelligent, and even religious, and yet so savage? Is it because they look up to a savage God? or have they, as OBW pointed out, created God in their own savage image ... and put it in the Bible?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Pro-lifers care for the unborn. But after they're born they could care less. Apparently, as it works out, we need those poor kids for war; to grow up, and in 17 years, join the military, and kill and die for us. So ... it appears ... that ... It's only okay for them to die after they are born. We can, as happens, trap them with no economic options, and then can legally abort them at 17.

Sorry bro Ohio ... I'm pro-choice and chose no abortion, when I have an actual say. And I've been there.

Also, my son is one that had no option but the military. That hits close to home too. They recently trained him how to bring any man down with one blow ... and he's signed on to die, if so ordered.

I'm pro-choice and chose not to abort at any age; if I have a say ... and I don't.

How can humans be so intelligent, and even religious, and yet so savage? Is it because they look up to a savage God? or have they, as OBW pointed out, created God in their own savage image ... and put it in the Bible?

awareness, there's a war going on in the unseen, and that's why there is a war going on in the seen. Blaming religion is like blaming money or blaming guns for war. War has always existed, but soon will come to an end with the Lord's return.

War affects the rich and the poor. Read your history books. Mao, Hitler, and Stalin didn't use religion (except for the occult, but we won't mention that) to fight their wars, and they were the bloodiest tyrants of the 20th century.

But ... what the heck ... the crusades were sponsored by Rome a thousand years ago ... so let's blame Jesus Christ too!

And who told you that pro-lifers couldn't care less for the born? Talk about stereotypical liberal characterizations of Christians.

[Cal]

Abortion rights laws exist because some people are highly offended that there would be any cost attached to sex, especially the cost of babies. My gosh, what the heck was God thinking when he made something as fun as sex come with the cost of having children!? We're entitled to have sex at no cost! Only a savage God would make it otherwise!

We are certainly entitled to get rid of unwanted pregnancies so we can get back having fun, no-cost sex! What savage says otherwise?! Must be some blighted conservative.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Abortion rights laws exist because some people are highly offended that there would be any cost attached to sex, especially the cost of babies. My gosh, what the heck was God thinking when he made something as fun as sex come with the cost of having children!? We're entitled to have sex at no cost! Only a savage God would make it otherwise!

We are certainly entitled to get rid of unwanted pregnancies so we can get back having fun, no-cost sex! What savage says otherwise?! Must be some blighted conservative.

You seem to feel strongly about this, Igzy. Is your conviction based on personal experience or abstract ethical principles as they apply to someone else?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Abortion laws exist because some people are highly offended that there would be any cost attached to sex, especially the cost of babies. My gosh, what the heck was God thinking when he made something as fun as sex come with the cost of having children!? We're entitled to have sex with no cost! Only a savage God would make it otherwise!

We are certainly entitled to get rid of unwanted pregnancies so we can get back having fun, no-cost sex! What savage says otherwise?! Must be some blighted conservative.

I've always read your responses with respect because you seem to be a learned person and I know you have moderated this site and others previously. I know you are being a "little" sarcastic in this response but I have a question. Why do you come across as being against the poor? You're right, making babies can take the fun out of sex. Of course, having kids of my own I know that it also can be a blessing. As awareness pointed out it can also be a curse. I never considered suggesting an abortion. Heck, we had difficulty having a kid to begin with.

As I look at this world at 10 Billion people and growing I know that it is not sustainable e.g. water, food, environment (China's efforts at only allowing one kid per couple hasn't slowed things down and neither has India's efforts at controlling the number of babies---like you said--sex is just too much fun).

I am not advocating that abortion is a real solution either and Ohio has his facts wrong again. The poor use hangers and the rich use money to obtain abortions if we don't have Roe vs Wade. The conservatives can spend billions on an election but they can't spend enough money to take care of all the babies out of wedlock for the poor but they will spend money on their own out-of-wedlock babies and yet oppose abortion at the same time.

It is this fundamental difference of believing that the poor are the way they are because they don't work hard enough or don't make sufficient effort to do more. As a result "some" conservatives believe they don't deserve handouts.....e.g. Limbaugh and his piglets metaphor. Whatever happened to what Jesus taught? At one point he said "the poor you have with you always" but that was when he was nearing the point of going to be crucified. It wasn't an indictment on poor people. His actions towards the poor was universally hopeful and helpful.

This is not about abortion. It is about how the poor are treated in a country that has more money than anyone can imagine and we can't get our poor out of poverty. Notice how much tax dollars are spent on subsidies for farmers, for example, who have consistently abused this privilege because of their powerful farmer lobby. When I was at a "dining with dignity" dinner where we feed the homeless I couldn't help but notice that there were several moderate SUVs with people bringing their children to eat and this was going on at the food pantry as well. These were people who lost jobs during the 2008 recession who hadn't been able to get back on their feet. This has changed over the past few years as more jobs have been created. However, if we don't take care of those who have little it won't matter how much we shout "Hallelujah" because if God doesn't judge us for our negligence then something is terribly wrong.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

I've always read your responses with respect because you seem to be a learned person and I know you have moderated this site and others previously. I know you are being a "little" sarcastic in this response but I have a question. Why do you come across as being against the poor? You're right, making babies can take the fun out of sex. Of course, having kids of my own I know that it also can be a blessing. As awareness pointed out it can also be a curse. I never considered suggesting an abortion. Heck, we had difficulty having a kid to begin with.

As I look at this world at 10 Billion people and growing I know that it is not sustainable e.g. water, food, environment (China's efforts at only allowing one kid per couple hasn't slowed things down and neither has India's efforts at controlling the number of babies---like you said--sex is just too much fun).

I am not advocating that abortion is a real solution either and Ohio has his facts wrong again. The poor use hangers and the rich use money to obtain abortions if we don't have Roe vs Wade. The conservatives can spend billions on an election but they can't spend enough money to take care of all the babies out of wedlock for the poor but they will spend money on their own out-of-wedlock babies and yet oppose abortion at the same time.

It is this fundamental difference of believing that the poor are the way they are because they don't work hard enough or don't make sufficient effort to do more. As a result "some" conservatives believe they don't deserve handouts.....e.g. Limbaugh and his piglets metaphor. Whatever happened to what Jesus taught? At one point he said "the poor you have with you always" but that was when he was nearing the point of going to be crucified. It wasn't an indictment on poor people. His actions towards the poor was universally hopeful and helpful.

This is not about abortion. It is about how the poor are treated in a country that has more money than anyone can imagine and we can't get our poor out of poverty. Notice how much tax dollars are spent on subsidies for farmers, for example, who have consistently abused this privilege because of their powerful farmer lobby. When I was at a "dining with dignity" dinner where we feed the homeless I couldn't help but notice that there were several moderate SUVs with people bringing their children to eat and this was going on at the food pantry as well. These were people who lost jobs during the 2008 recession who hadn't been able to get back on their feet. This has changed over the past few years as more jobs have been created. However, if we don't take care of those who have little it won't matter how much we shout "Hallelujah" because if God doesn't judge us for our negligence then something is terribly wrong.

Oh now i understand. The solution for the poor is government assisted and paid for murder -- about a million a year.

Yep, that was the message Jesus brought to mankind!

[zeek]

Conservatives who bring their religion to politics want to keep religion out of politics when the religious view differs from theirs: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/20...=fb-share&_r=0

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

I know you are being a "little" sarcastic in this response but I have a question. Why do you come across as being against the poor? You're right, making babies can take the fun out of sex.

Why do you constantly turn our support and protection for the innocent unborn as an attack on "the poor."

Originally Posted by Dave

I am not advocating that abortion is a real solution either and Ohio has his facts wrong again.

How in the world would you know my facts are wrong when you have never studied anything except liberal spin?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Why do you constantly turn our support and protection for the innocent unborn as an attack on "the poor."

I certainly get that impression from what you have stated in the past.

Originally Posted by Ohio

How in the world would you know my facts are wrong when you have never studied anything except liberal spin?

Of course you really know nothing about my background except what I have listed regarding the LC. I listened to Limbaugh for almost a year, read mostly conservative points of view at the time etc. I have looked at the dark side to understand their point of view. Your point of view is all over the map and inconsistent with the more radical conservatives which may be a good thing.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Oh now i understand. The solution for the poor is government assisted and paid for murder -- about a million a year.

Yep, that was the message Jesus brought to mankind!

I have already stated that I oppose abortion whether it is by the government or any other way. On the other hand, women should have control over their own bodies and not men. In addition, I haven't seen any plausible or viable solution to this issue. Your info doesn't stand up to what I have read.

Jesus never spoke to this issue so we have to use "thou shalt not kill" as our example and then we get into the entire debate as to when does the fetus become a baby which I have no interest in getting into. The other anomaly in this discussion is that the poor and minorities are the most likely to be on death row. However, when it comes to "thou shalt not kill" the conservatives line up on the other side and want these death row inmates killed off as fast as possible all the while fighting abortion rights.

All of this is interesting in the context of Witness Lee and the LC. I don't think they ever took a stand on any of this and maybe you or someone knows their position. My take on it is that you pray read, call Oh Lord Jesus and follow your conscience but there are perimeters---maybe unspoken perimeters.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

I certainly get that impression from what you have stated in the past.

I have constantly spoken up for the rights of women ... that is until some one else gets hurt. As a rule, all personal rights end with another's danger, and don't you think that abortion is a little dangerous for the totally innocent unborn?

Here's one for you -- I see nothing wrong with poor surrogate moms having babies for those who cannot have children of their own, and are willing to pay for such services, and many adopters are. So if some poor girl, like you mentioned before, had 15 children as a surrogate mom, think about how good that is -- everybody is a winner!

Originally Posted by Dave

Of course you really know nothing about my background except what I have listed regarding the LC. I listened to Limbaugh for almost a year, read mostly conservative points of view at the time etc. I have looked at the dark side to understand their point of view.

I have only heard Limbaugh a couple times, and I thought he was too arrogant.

Originally Posted by Dave

Your point of view is all over the map and inconsistent with the more radical conservatives which may be a good thing.

Couldn't you have presented this comment in a more positive light:

"Dear brother Ohio, I really like the way you have formed your own opinions based on years of experience and the Bible, and not just repeated those of some radical."

-- Thanks Dave.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

The other anomaly in this discussion is that the poor and minorities are the most likely to be on death row. However, when it comes to "thou shalt not kill" the conservatives line up on the other side and want these death row inmates killed off as fast as possible all the while fighting abortion rights.

To be fair the Catholic church is consistently pro-life and oppose both abortion and the death penalty.

But there are those on the Protestant side of the isle that think the catholic church is wrong; that hold against abortion and also hold to, at the same time, "an eye for an eye" on the death penalty.

I just consider the inconsistent pro-lifers as right-wing nutjobs. Jesus, the one in the gospels (not the one in the book of Revelation) would put the ear back on.

But lots of Christians, even the RCC, want Jesus to come back and pour out bowls of wrath on everybody, even on the fetuses. Lots of Christians are crazy like that.

[Cal]

Dave,

That the rich can do certain things does not mean that the poor ought to be able to do them. If the rich can get away with driving Lamborghinis at 180mph does that mean the poor have the right to speed? If the rich can get away with insider trading does that mean the poor have the right to steal? Just because it's easier for the rich to cover their sins is no reason to stop calling it sin where the poor are concerned. I mean, that kind of logic does not hold.

I wasn't making the case that abortion should be illegal. I was just stating the real reason it is legal. Poor people using coat hangers to abort babies is just a way to slather some morality on it. The real reason is people can't deal with the weighty responsibilities of the privileges God has given us, and that includes the poor. At least be honest enough to admit that. But trying to argue that abortion should be legal because the rich have more attractive options in that regard is spurious.

Here's the thing about the poor. I believe in helping them and I do. But there is a reason they are called the poor. They are poor because they lack advantages, not the other way around. If they didn't lack advantages they wouldn't be poor anymore. Get it? So when you are outraged that the poor lack advantages it's like being outraged that fire is hot. Tell us something we don't know.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I just consider the inconsistent pro-lifers as right-wing nutjobs. Jesus, the one in the gospels (not the one in the book of Revelation) would put the ear back on.

A nut-job is one who considers the murder of innocent unborn children to be totally justified, and yet is convinced that capital punishment for convicted serial murderers is totally unjustified.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

A nut-job is one who considers the murder of innocent unborn children to be totally justified, and yet is convinced that capital punishment for convicted serial murderers is totally unjustified.

So we have two sets of nutjobs.

[awareness]

Talk about nutjobs I saw on Fox that the 9 killed in the church is an attack on Christianity.

If so Christianity thrives when under attack.

When the boys at Princeton cooked up the five fundamentals it was because they thought Christianity, and the Bible, were under attack.

Oops ... forgot to link a video. I found it on the web:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/0...arm-themselves

[zeek]

Jesus taught "Resist not evil." Should we take him seriously? http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...arolina-church

[Dave]

As a result of the talk at the UU today (although this was by no means the main topic) I was thinking about what Nee and Lee taught us and most fundamentalists hold dear to their hearts: We are all sinners because we are born with a sinful nature. The only thing we can do is sin because it is our nature because Adam ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It is thus only the blood of Jesus and death and resurrection of Christ which can give us access to God, forgive us our sins and address our sinful nature and take us to the heavenly kingdom. Without that we are doomed to a life of sin without any hope.

What made me think of this (as well as a recent visit to the WWII museum in NO) is what is proclaimed as demonstrated by all the evil (sin) in the world today---killings, chopping off of heads, slaughter of innocents etc. Of course, since WWII what we have seen is nothing comparatively---20 million Russians, 6 million Jews etc...in all it is estimated that 60 million people were killed in WWII (soldiers and innocents). You can add all the AIDS victims, Eboli, 9/11, earthquakes, Darfar, Uganda, Iraq, Afghanistan etc and you don't come close to the deaths in WWII. However, evil is seen everywhere. One of the reasons today is "media". Everything is instant--no lapse in time...the internet brings everything to our lives almost at the moment it happens and the detail can be beyond our imagination.

My point is this---the good that is being done in this world is staggering despite the idea that man is lost and sinful. But good is not media friendly. Sure, we'll hear about someone who does a good deed periodically but most of it is lost because hearing about evil captures our imagination more quickly and thoroughly. I can use NFL football as an example of our country---you almost exclusively hear about the few of the 1700 NFL players who abuse women or children and not the majority of players who work to improve their communities.

As long as we play the "sin" tag and focus on sin in people that is what we will see in people and not the goodness of people or the hope. Certainly we are products of our environment and "nature" but if we are only exposed to people talking about the evil of sin that will be our focus in life. This is the basic question: are we really born in sin as Paul wrote in the NT or as WN and WL believed? This issue, from my perspective, is one of the underlying problems with WL and WN teachings and leads to most of the detrimental issues in the LC.

Of course, the ultimate is the book of Revelation which will bring more damnation than one can imagination on the face of the earth for all the sinfulness so let's focus on what hell we are in for as described in the book of Revelation. No estimation of how many will be burned, slaughtered etc but it should beat the 60 million from WWII.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

As a result of the talk at the UU today (although this was by no means the main topic) I was thinking about what Nee and Lee taught us and most fundamentalists hold dear to their hearts: We are all sinners because we are born with a sinful nature. The only thing we can do is sin because it is our nature because Adam ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It is thus only the blood of Jesus and death and resurrection of Christ which can give us access to God, forgive us our sins and address our sinful nature and take us to the heavenly kingdom. Without that we are doomed to a life of sin without any hope.

What made me think of this (as well as a recent visit to the WWII museum in NO) is what is proclaimed as demonstrated by all the evil (sin) in the world today---killings, chopping off of heads, slaughter of innocents etc. Of course, since WWII what we have seen is nothing comparatively---20 million Russians, 6 million Jews etc...in all it is estimated that 60 million people were killed in WWII (soldiers and innocents). You can add all the AIDS victims, Eboli, 9/11, earthquakes, Darfar, Uganda, Iraq, Afghanistan etc and you don't come close to the deaths in WWII. However, evil is seen everywhere. One of the reasons today is "media". Everything is instant--no lapse in time...the internet brings everything to our lives almost at the moment it happens and the detail can be beyond our imagination.

My point is this---the good that is being done in this world is staggering despite the idea that man is lost and sinful. But good is not media friendly. Sure, we'll hear about someone who does a good deed periodically but most of it is lost because hearing about evil captures our imagination more quickly and thoroughly. I can use NFL football as an example of our country---you almost exclusively hear about the few of the 1700 NFL players who abuse women or children and not the majority of players who work to improve their communities.

As long as we play the "sin" tag and focus on sin in people that is what we will see in people and not the goodness of people or the hope. Certainly we are products of our environment and "nature" but if we are only exposed to people talking about the evil of sin that will be our focus in life. This is the basic question: are we really born in sin as Paul wrote in the NT or as WN and WL believed? This issue, from my perspective, is one of the underlying problems with WL and WN teachings and leads to most of the detrimental issues in the LC.

Of course, the ultimate is the book of Revelation which will bring more damnation than one can imagination on the face of the earth for all the sinfulness so let's focus on what hell we are in for as described in the book of Revelation. No estimation of how many will be burned, slaughtered etc but it should beat the 60 million from WWII.

It's a great question, Dave. What is sin? What are the consequences of viewing people oneself and other people as sinful? Is the doctrine of original sin justified by scripture? How exactly is sin related to the Christian life? I don't think we would be free to discuss these matters openly on the main LCD forum. We could easily devote a thread to the subject on Alt. Views if enough people are interested and up for it.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

It's a great question, Dave. What is sin? What are the consequences of viewing people oneself and other people as sinful? Is the doctrine of original sin justified by scripture? How exactly is sin related to the Christian life? I don't think we would be free to discuss these matters openly on the main LCD forum. We could easily devote a thread to the subject on Alt. Views if enough people are interested and up for it.

It certainly is a fundamental doctrine i.e. original sin. I recall back in the 1960s reading Watchman Nee's book, "The Normal Christian Life" where he stated that we have a sinful nature and that is why we commit sins (yes, that is fundamental to Christianity but the way he described it and how to deal with it made the difference). He noted that the blood which Christ shed on the cross deals with our "sins" (which is also a fundamental doctrine) while allowing Christ to grow in us deals with our sinful nature. This seems to have led to the Godmen doctrine of WL. It is subtle but it is also one of the reasons many of us were attracted to the LC in the beginning because of the influence of WN and finding a "practical" way of allowing Christ to grow in us through pray-reading and calling Oh Lord Jesus.

I was steeped in WN when I met Karl Hammond in SC even though I was attending Bible college. However, after reading the NCL and other books by Nee I was still asking myself the question how is this practically worked out? When I discovered the LC I was thinking ....here it is --- getting away from the letter to the spirit and the life through pray-reading and calling on the Lord...eating and drinking Christ...wow... However, what brought me at least to that point was the NCL which dealt with "sins" and our sinful nature which causes us to commit sins. The ground of the LC was just a practical way to bring us all together and make it work.

In addition, looking back to the summer of 1965 I was working for my uncle in Detroit (Albert) when I was off from college and he was familiar with Nee as well. We were both going around saying "I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me" a Biblical quote taken from Nee's NCL. It was based on the interpretation that Christ needed to grow and live in us and the more He grew in us the more we would be Christ-like but not because we were trying to be Christ like but because he was growing in us and dealing with or "replacing" our fallen sinful nature. Again, this led to the Godmen interpretation by Lee and the attraction of the LC back when I was involved. It also led to the exclusivity and the intense feeling that we were better than everyone else. Everything else followed. At least that is how I see it as I reflect back on this issue.

It is Nee/Lee's interpretation of original sin and how our fallen nature was interpreted by WN/WL and our belief that they held some "doctrinal knowledge/spirituality which was beyond what other Christians were familiar which led to the critical problems of the LC.

[zeek]

How close were Nee and Lee to Paul's concept of sin? For Paul sin was personified as an enemy power. Thus, according to Romans 5: 12, sin ‘entered the world’; after that ‘sin reigned in death’ (5: 21); sin may ‘reign’ in our bodies (6: 12) or ‘have dominion’ over us (6: 14); sin takes advantage of the commandment and ‘wrought in me all kinds of covetousness’ (7: 8); it ‘revived’ (7: 9); found ‘opportunity in the commandment, deceived me and by it killed me’ (7: 11); and it ‘worked death in me through what is good’ (7: 13). sin may be served (6: 16–18), and consequently it enslaves us (6: 20). In other words, sin is a ‘law’ which lurking in within us and preventing the fulfilling of the law of God (7: 17–23). I think the concept of Nee and Lee are very close to this. Don't you?

But Lee goes even further than Paul to personify sin. For example, in the Life Study of Romans, Chapter 13 Section 2 Lee says:

Although man was created good, the evil nature of Satan was injected into his body when he partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. The tree of knowledge denoted Satan, the evil one, who has the power of death. Thus, when man ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, Satan came into his body. Satan’s principle, the factor of every evil thing, is the law of sin. In our mind we have a principle created by God, the law of good. Hence, if we understand Romans 7 adequately, we will know where we are and what we have within us. We have a good law in our mind and an evil law in our flesh, two laws which are incompatible. The good law represents the good principle created by God, and the evil law is Satan’s principle in our flesh. Satan in our flesh hates God, deceives man, and tries his best to damage and ruin humanity. Thus, whenever man’s mind by the good law thinks to do good, the evil law immediately rises up to fight, defeat, and capture the pitiful, wretched man.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

How close were Nee and Lee to Paul's concept of sin? For Paul sin was personified as an enemy power. Thus, according to Romans 5: 12, sin ‘entered the world’; after that ‘sin reigned in death’ (5: 21); sin may ‘reign’ in our bodies (6: 12) or ‘have dominion’ over us (6: 14); sin takes advantage of the commandment and ‘wrought in me all kinds of covetousness’ (7: 8); it ‘revived’ (7: 9); found ‘opportunity in the commandment, deceived me and by it killed me’ (7: 11); and it ‘worked death in me through what is good’ (7: 13). sin may be served (6: 16–18), and consequently it enslaves us (6: 20). In other words, sin is a ‘law’ which lurking in within us and preventing the fulfilling of the law of God (7: 17–23). I think the concept of Nee and Lee are very close to this. Don't you?

I couldn't say for sure one way or another. I grew up with original sin, and just assumed it was the same in the LC.

Personally I think telling children that they were born with original sin is instilling a unhealthy self image in them; especially if, to the extreme, if they are told they are totally depraved -- as very conservative fundamentalists are wont to do. If you ask me the notion is really meant to scare children, toward Jesus.

I've read that when Christian missionaries go into a primitive tribe the first thing they need to teach them is that their mythology is of the devil, and that they are sinners.

No sinner, means no need for salvation. No need for salvation means no need for Jesus.

So ... if there's no original sin there's no need for Jesus. If you don't believe in original sin you may as well be a atheist.

I'll revisit Lee's extra-Biblical exegesis on the Tree, Satan, and Sin, perchance, if the Spirit moves me, in another post.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I couldn't say for sure one way or another. I grew up with original sin, and just assumed it was the same in the LC.

Personally I think telling children that they were born with original sin is instilling a unhealthy self image in them; especially if, to the extreme, if they are told they are totally depraved -- as very conservative fundamentalists are wont to do. If you ask me the notion is really meant to scare children, toward Jesus.

I've read that when Christian missionaries go into a primitive tribe the first thing they need to teach them is that their mythology is of the devil, and that they are sinners.

No sinner, means no need for salvation. No need for salvation means no need for Jesus.

So ... if there's no original sin there's no need for Jesus. If you don't believe in original sin you may as well be a atheist.

Yes, it's possible that Paul did not start with a presupposition of humanity’s sinfulness, but rather deduced it from his vision of Christ as the solution. When he "saw" that God intended to save the world by sending his Son, it followed that the entire world needed to be saved because it was "under sin" [Romans 3:9]. His view of salvation may have preceded his inconsistent arguments in favor of the reign of universal sin.

But, I think "original sin" provides a metaphysical mechanism for sin that goes beyond Paul. And, after all, where is the basis for it in the Hebrew Bible for Paul to go on? But, lack of the concept of original sin didn't make atheists out of the Hebrews or others , so your conclusion that "If you don't believe in original sin you may as well be a atheist." is unfounded.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Yes, it's possible that Paul did not start with a presupposition of humanity’s sinfulness, but rather deduced it from his vision of Christ as the solution. When he "saw" that God intended to save the world by sending his Son, it followed that the entire world needed to be saved because it was "under sin" [Romans 3:9]. His view of salvation may have preceded his inconsistent arguments in favor of the reign of universal sin.

But, I think "original sin" provides a metaphysical mechanism for sin that goes beyond Paul. And, after all, where is the basis for it in the Hebrew Bible for Paul to go on? But, lack of the concept of original sin didn't make atheists out of the Hebrews or others , so your conclusion that "If you don't believe in original sin you may as well be a atheist." is unfounded.

What?!? The Jews rejected God, and had Him killed. That makes THEM atheists ... extraordinaire.

If they had accepted Jesus they would have come to know of their original sin.

Or would they? Did Jesus even teach original sin?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

What?!? The Jews rejected God, and had Him killed. That makes THEM atheists ... extraordinaire.

If they had accepted Jesus they would have come to know of their original sin.

Or would they? Did Jesus even teach original sin?

Of course not. Jesus of Nazareth was a wisdom sage not a systematic theologian. That concept would await the eminent Professor Augustine of Hippo. Don't be misled by the Gospel of John. That one is a theological treatise that puts the narrator's reflection on the Christ into the mouth of Jesus much like Plato is thought to have put his own philosophy in the mouth of Socrates in the later dialogues. It isn't literal history because the author evidently didn't intend for it to be.

[zeek]

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/pat-...-racist-fears/

Who knew how insightful Pat Boone could be? "Boone dismisses the massacre of nine black worshipers last week by an avowed white supremacist as a “satanically inspired” attack against Christians." I guess that pretty much lets the perpetrator off the hook. He was the innocent victim of Satanic monkey business. Had nothing to do with racism. It was just the latest violent leak in the ever-faulty 2000 year old Satanic system.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/pat-...-racist-fears/

Who knew how insightful Pat Boone could be? "Boone dismisses the massacre of nine black worshipers last week by an avowed white supremacist as a “satanically inspired” attack against Christians." I guess that pretty much lets the perpetrator off the hook. He was the innocent victim of Satanic monkey business. Had nothing to do with racism. It was just the latest violent leak in the ever-faulty 2000 year old Satanic system.

The more we turn away from God the more the devil has a heyday. That explains global warming. The devil likes it hot. Plus, since the heat of the loins is what's causing global warming the devil is behind that nasty -- unChristian -- behavior too ... it's so dirty, and sticky, it has to be of the devil.

Boone is just echoing the latest theme at Fox News, that, Christianity is under attack. In fact, when the shooting at the church broke in the news that is exacting what Fox claimed it was. The attack happened at a Christian church, so that has to have been what motivated Roof, to Fox ... before it came out it was all about race, and white supremacy ... and that Roof grew up a practicing Christian.

Christians, apparently gathering from these reports, so like to play the victim. Maybe they have a persecution complex, from reading their Bible.

Plus, if we just look away from racism it won't exist any more. Isn't that what the loony Pat Boony is saying ... Mr. President?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by awareness

The more we turn away from God the more the devil has a heyday. That explains global warming. The devil likes it hot. Plus, since the heat of the loins is what's causing global warming the devil is behind that nasty -- unChristian -- behavior too ... it's so dirty, and sticky, it has to be of the devil.

Boone is just echoing the latest theme at Fox News, that, Christianity is under attack. In fact, when the shooting at the church broke in the news that is exacting what Fox claimed it was. The attack happened at a Christian church, so that has to have been what motivated Roof, to Fox ... before it came out it was all about race, and white supremacy ... and that Roof grew up a practicing Christian.

Christians, apparently gathering from these reports, so like to play the victim. Maybe they have a persecution complex, from reading their Bible.

Plus, if we just look away from racism it won't exist any more. Isn't that what the loony Pat Boony is saying ... Mr. President?

I don't think Pat Boone is far off if we agree with what WL stated from the study of Romans (quoted by zeek from post 982),

"Although man was created good, the evil nature of Satan was injected into his body when he partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. The tree of knowledge denoted Satan, the evil one, who has the power of death. Thus, when man ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, Satan came into his body. Satan’s principle, the factor of every evil thing, is the law of sin."

The evil nature of Satan was injected into our bodies so in a sense "the Devil made me do it" has a certain ring to it. Every evil thing is the law of sin. You see, we were created "good"...wow...but Adam ate fruit from the tree of knowledge and Satan was injected into us and we are now "bad". Created good by God but now bad because Adam ate the wrong fruit. Of course, God has been working overtime trying to get us back to the "good" that we were in the beginning but it is taking him thousands of years. Plus, He tried to work through the Israelite people but they let him down constantly so He had to send His own Son to straighten things out.

Anyway, as I stated earlier WL's perspective on sin has led the LC into the wilderness from which they will never return. As I noted before, for me, it all began with my reading of WN's book NCL leading me into the LC and it all goes back to WL/WN's concept of sin.

[zeek]

Is divide between evolutionists and creationists basically a matter of intuitive vs. analytic cognitive styles?

http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/201...ntent=20150629

[zeek]

"John Boswell was a historian and religious Catholic who dedicated much of his scholarly life to studying the late Roman Empire and early Christian Church. Poring over legal and church documents from this era, he discovered something incredible. There were dozens of records of church ceremonies where two men were joined in unions that used the same rituals as heterosexual marriages."

http://io9.com/gay-marriage-in-the-y...0108/953627434

[Lisbon]

Originally Posted by zeek

"John Boswell was a historian and religious Catholic who dedicated much of his scholarly life to studying the late Roman Empire and early Christian Church. Poring over legal and church documents from this era, he discovered something incredible. There were dozens of records of church ceremonies where two men were joined in unions that used the same rituals as heterosexual marriages."

http://io9.com/gay-marriage-in-the-y...0108/953627434

I think this just shows how long the Roman church has been sick. If there is any thing to what Paul taught or the OT, I wouldn't care to take the RCC as something to follow.

We men and I think the women also have many fatal flaws. At 85 I know of a few of them. Life is a battle from pretty early on. I learned from WL, although I don't think he came up with it, that Joshua's fight with the Amelekites was to go on forever and that fight was our flesh. The Gays just have an extra battle to fight. But you know we all don't fight exactly the same battles.

Lisbon

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

"John Boswell was a historian and religious Catholic who dedicated much of his scholarly life to studying the late Roman Empire and early Christian Church. Poring over legal and church documents from this era, he discovered something incredible. There were dozens of records of church ceremonies where two men were joined in unions that used the same rituals as heterosexual marriages."

http://io9.com/gay-marriage-in-the-y...0108/953627434

The real problem found in the linked article is:

Annalee Newitz is the author of the book, Scatter, Adapt and Remember: How Humans Will Survive a Mass Extinction.

Since we're over populating the earth, homosexual marriage may actually contribute to the solution.

SO if I have convictions your going to make that fundamentalism? Isnt it just clear some things are just true and somethings false isn't it as simple as that & wouldn't that be a child's response?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

SO if I have convictions your going to make that fundamentalism? Isnt it just clear some things are just true and somethings false isn't it as simple as that & wouldn't that be a child's response?

Welcome to Alt. Views. There isn't a consensus about what fundamentalism means on this thread. So if you want to know what a member means by the term, you may wish to address your question to that person. What does the term means to you? I'm also interested in reading what things appear to be "just true" to you.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

SO if I have convictions your going to make that fundamentalism? Isnt it just clear some things are just true and somethings false isn't it as simple as that & wouldn't that be a child's response?

Well technically bro Unregistered, if your convictions are of the five fundamentals defined at Princeton Theological Seminary in 1910 then you are by definition a fundamentalist:

• The inspiration of the Bible by the Holy Spirit and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result of this.
• The virgin birth of Christ.
• The belief that Christ's death was an atonement for sin.
• The bodily resurrection of Christ.
• The historical reality of Christ's miracles.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

if your convictions are of the five fundamentals defined at Princeton Theological Seminary in 1910 then you are by definition a fundamentalist:

• The inspiration of the Bible by the Holy Spirit and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result of this.
• The virgin birth of Christ.
• The belief that Christ's death was an atonement for sin.
• The bodily resurrection of Christ.
• The historical reality of Christ's miracles.

Do any of the posters here, besides me, still believe any of these statements?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Do any of the posters here, besides me, still believe any of these statements?

Well I think I've made it plain out here that I gave up fundamentalism, like you gave up Catholicism.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well I think I've made it plain out here that I gave up fundamentalism, like you gave up Catholicism.

I don't think it is the same.

When I gave up Catholicism, I dumped man-made traditions, the same kinds of things that the Lord Jesus faced in His ministry on earth with the Jewish traditions.

What I did not give up was the things of God. In other words, I dumped everything regarding the worship of Mary, but kept everything related to the Son of God. I dumped all the church laws and commandments, but still held on to the word of God.

God's word, primarily the New Testament, became the definitive test for everything.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

God's word, primarily the New Testament, became the definitive test for everything.

That's good but Christians are still fighting over just what the Bible means.

There are Christians in the past claiming to hold to scripture that the RCC stamped out.

Have you gone back to them?