Fundamentalist Christianity

[Quahom1]

Fundamentalism is not the truth. It is a "walled garden" approach to life. Jesus NEVER surrounded himself with like minded people. He never hid behind His faith, or His beliefs, nor did He pass judgement (like so many of us are so quick to do).

But there is a difference between Fundamentalism and liberalism, or progressivism. Fundamental Christianity does not sway from the "fact" that Jesus is Lord and God of us all, hence we are subject to His rules, and accountable. The same can not be said of the other two, because in the other two, Man takes precedence over everything (including God).

So, we are left with the original beginnings of the Christian faith...as balanced in this approach to life. The truth is Jesus rules, and we must be more open minded to the diversity of life, because He was and is...that doesn't mean we give cart blanche to others to "do as they wish regardless of what consequences others may suffer".

THAT is the problem I have with the two extremes...they are both out of balance, and everyone else suffers because of it.

my thoughts

v/r

Q

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

THAT is the problem I have with the two extremes...they are both out of balance, and everyone else suffers because of it.

my thoughts

v/r

Q

What do you perceive as the "two extremes"?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

What do you perceive as the "two extremes"?

Now that would be inviting a war of words, now wouldn't it (in this public forum)?

v/r

Q

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

Yeah . . . it's weird huh? Is there some evidence that political movements calling themselves "liberal" have started using the methods of fundamentalism?

**Warning: Tongue in cheek response**

I can describe some symptoms: "political correctness overdone to the point of intolerence," and "newspeak," where (intolerable) words are removed over time, with a net result of the limitation of ideas and words to express them, to name a couple.
The "Conservative/Liberal Fundamentalist" principles:

1. Thou Shalt not Offend, except if it happens to be one of the close-minded "Liberal/Conservative Fundamentalists," because they are too dumb to recognize something as offensive. {btw, did I mention that the same principle will apply both ways if you simply reverse the "liberal" and "conservative" labels?}
2. Hot and Cold are offensive--lukewarmness is the only inoffensive way to go. {Even if it leads to intellectual and spiritual inertia. It is better to be inert than to be offended.}
3. Diversity can only be achieved inoffensively through homogenization. {talk about double speak! }

[flowperson]

Seattle:

I believe you forgot #4.

Mediocrity is the ultimate goal of the human race. In this future utopia nobody will be offended, no one will need to search for answers that will ultimately conflict with another's beliefs, there will be lots of places to shop, and above all everyone's life will become "comfortably numb" and boring.

flow....

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by flowperson

Seattle:

I believe you forgot #4.

Mediocrity is the ultimate goal of the human race. In this future utopia nobody will be offended, no one will need to search for answers that will ultimately conflict with another's beliefs, there will be lots of places to shop, and above all everyone's life will become "comfortably numb" and boring.

flow....

"What a beautiful world this will be...what a beautiful place to be free...90 minutes from New York to Paris, undersea by rail. Can't wait for my "spandex" jacket, one for everyone....ooooohhhhhh"

[kenod]

The idea that Truth is somehow malleable really worries me. I may not have the whole Truth (yeah, even I can be wrong!!) but I sure believe that there is only one Truth. The Bible is either the infallible Word of God or it is not. One of the defining hallmarks of Christian fundamentalists is that we believe the former.

Dialogue that embraces the inerrancy of Scripture, still produces different points of view. It would be nice to say that we all can be right, but obviously that is not possible. But is it possible for one person to be totally right … probably not.

We should be tolerant and respectful of others’ opinions, but I have sometimes asked myself this question: “What would I be prepared to die for?”. Fortunately, I probably won’t be required to do so, although right now around the world, people are being persecuted and killed for their beliefs.

We do not have to apologise for believing that we are right, when we honestly believe we are. It may not sit too well with the “let’s all just love each other” mentality, but let's not get so wishy-washy that we are afraid to say “you are wrong” ... or so precious that we get offended when someone tells us he/she thinks we are wrong.

Robust debate is healthy, and requires conviction. The harm stems from using our beliefs to inflict pain and suffering on others. But at times even this may not be completely avoidable ... social/moral issues are often influenced by one's religious beliefs, and are regarded as causing suffering by those who are on the losing side ... eg, creating embryos for stem cell research.

The love that Jesus practised encompassed forgiveness and patience, but it did not include the "many paths to the Truth" rhetoric we often hear today.

[taijasi]

Oh, my bad, then when the man spoke this, he must have been on crack ...

And other sheep I have which are not of this fold,
Them also I must bring and they shall hear my voice
And there shall be one fold and one shepherd ...

Thanks for the correction.

taijasi

Truth is One, paths are many

[Abogado del Diablo]

Kenod, I wrote something here, but decided this forum wasn't the right place for it. If you (or anyone else following this discussion) is interested, I've posted some ideas and questions stimulated by your last post into the "comparative studies" forum as a new topic.

[Jeannot]

Kenod,

"The love that Jesus practised encompassed forgiveness and patience, but it did not include the "many paths to the Truth" rhetoric we often hear today."
________________

But how could it be otherwise? There are almost as many varieties of views as there are people.

So let's say that Truth is one, and is not malleable. Okay. But we are malleable. So how do we move toward the Truth? It seems to me that the greatest barrier to the Truth is those who assume they are already in possession of it. No one is. But we are all called to move toward the Truth. And the journey is never-ending; the mistake is to settle down and stop moving.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Jeannot

Kenod,

"The love that Jesus practised encompassed forgiveness and patience, but it did not include the "many paths to the Truth" rhetoric we often hear today."
________________

But how could it be otherwise? There are almost as many varieties of views as there are people.

So let's say that Truth is one, and is not malleable. Okay. But we are malleable. So how do we move toward the Truth? It seems to me that the greatest barrier to the Truth is those who assume they are already in possession of it. No one is. But we are all called to move toward the Truth. And the journey is never-ending; the mistake is to settle down and stop moving.

I believe what Kenod is pointing out is the statement that Jesus made about the path to righteousness and "heaven" being narrow and hard, while the road to destruction is wide and easy...

v/r

Q

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by kenod

The idea that Truth is somehow malleable really worries me. I may not have the whole Truth (yeah, even I can be wrong!!) but I sure believe that there is only one Truth.

Truth is a symmetry and malleable by anyone... but every action is being recorded and that history is not malleable. Does that address your worry?

Newton was 'flat' wrong when he said, "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." Action and reaction are NOT equal. Action and reaction are not interchangeable, not repeatable, and not reversible. What Newton meant was, "For every action force there is an equal and opposing reaction force." But there is no tug-o-war that will last for very long.

Originally Posted by kenod

The Bible is either the infallible Word of God or it is not. One of the defining hallmarks of Christian fundamentalists is that we believe the former.

Your first sentence is called extremism regardless of whether it is the former or the latter.

[Jeannot]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

I believe what Kenod is pointing out is the statement that Jesus made about the path to righteousness and "heaven" being narrow and hard, while the road to destruction is wide and easy...

v/r

Q

Yes, it's narrrow and hard--for each of us.

[kenod]

Originally Posted by Jeannot

Kenod,

"The love that Jesus practised encompassed forgiveness and patience, but it did not include the "many paths to the Truth" rhetoric we often hear today."
________________

But how could it be otherwise? There are almost as many varieties of views as there are people.

So let's say that Truth is one, and is not malleable. Okay. But we are malleable. So how do we move toward the Truth? It seems to me that the greatest barrier to the Truth is those who assume they are already in possession of it. No one is. But we are all called to move toward the Truth. And the journey is never-ending; the mistake is to settle down and stop moving.

I agree that we all have different personal journeys to the Truth, but that is not exactly what I meant. What has been suggested to me is that all paths to God are equal ... in other words, it does not matter if we are Buddhist, or Hindu, or Muslim, or Wicca, or whatever - it is all the same God, they say, so all are equally valid paths to the Truth.

May I ask you if there are any Christian doctrines you would be prepared (assuming any of us have that degree of courage) to die for, eg, the divinity of Jesus Christ? Wouldn't one need to believe that he/she "possessed" the Truth to make this sort of commitment? (The recent story of the Christian arrested in Afghanistan comes to mind).

[kenod]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Truth is a symmetry and malleable by anyone... but every action is being recorded and that history is not malleable. Does that address your worry?

Newton was 'flat' wrong when he said, "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." Action and reaction are NOT equal. Action and reaction are not interchangeable, not repeatable, and not reversible. What Newton meant was, "For every action force there is an equal and opposing reaction force." But there is no tug-o-war that will last for very long.


Your first sentence is called extremism regardless of whether it is the former or the latter.

Nature teaches us that there is only one Truth. Whether we once thought the world was flat, or whether we thought the sun went around the earth, does not matter to Truth.

Our interpretation of the Truth may be malleable, but all Truth, both natural and supernatural, radiates from God, who is eternal and unchanging.

Yes, I know my views are sometimes referred to as "extremism" ... actually, they have been called a lot worse. I'm in good company though, St Paul's views were regarded as heresy, and they cut off his head.