What is a Christian fundamentalist?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
BChristianK
New member
Smaller,
I’m sure you are a pretty coherent person most of the time. That is why I am surprised at the way you treat scriptures like Matthew 24:46. So you are in no place to be pointing out where others refuse to believe in God’s word.
Your interpretation of Matthew 25 shows me you will import nearly any crazy idea to salvage your universalism.
I don’t agree with universalism, but honestly, smaller, there are those who do agree with universalism but who must have read your posts and cringed at their preposterousness.
I don’t buy universalism, but I know that there are argument for universalism that are vastly more coherent than your theory that the demons in all of us that make us do bad things will be punished while the rest of us will go to heaven.
There are probably people who agree with your conclusion but recognize that your arguments are silly. If someone like me were to associate your silly arguments with theirs, they have to make an effort to distinguish their rational from your own…
(For those who aren't familiar, read Smallers embarassing interpretation of Matthew 25 here:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13428&perpage=20&pagenumber=5 )
I wish those folks would send you a private message and urge you to reconsider some of your posts…. It might make it easier on them.
Finally, I think knight might like us to stay on the topic of fundamentalism, so can you please stick to this topic. If universalism plays into it, then fine, but you have demonstrated that this is your one big thing and you don't discuss much else.
Grace and Peace
I’m sure you are a pretty coherent person most of the time. That is why I am surprised at the way you treat scriptures like Matthew 24:46. So you are in no place to be pointing out where others refuse to believe in God’s word.
Your interpretation of Matthew 25 shows me you will import nearly any crazy idea to salvage your universalism.
I don’t agree with universalism, but honestly, smaller, there are those who do agree with universalism but who must have read your posts and cringed at their preposterousness.
I don’t buy universalism, but I know that there are argument for universalism that are vastly more coherent than your theory that the demons in all of us that make us do bad things will be punished while the rest of us will go to heaven.
There are probably people who agree with your conclusion but recognize that your arguments are silly. If someone like me were to associate your silly arguments with theirs, they have to make an effort to distinguish their rational from your own…
(For those who aren't familiar, read Smallers embarassing interpretation of Matthew 25 here:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13428&perpage=20&pagenumber=5 )
I wish those folks would send you a private message and urge you to reconsider some of your posts…. It might make it easier on them.
Finally, I think knight might like us to stay on the topic of fundamentalism, so can you please stick to this topic. If universalism plays into it, then fine, but you have demonstrated that this is your one big thing and you don't discuss much else.
Grace and Peace
Last edited:
Aw, your still TICKED OFF because you could not OVERCOME the WORD presented that DAMNS YOUR ETERNAL JUDGMENT OF OTHERS in favor of GOD'S LOVE TO ALL.
Your failure to read OR comprehend The Word is no surprise. That is why you FALSELY DAMN OTHERS and of course SPARE YOURSELF.
I guess when Jesus said He came to SAVE THE WORLD he was just joshin eh? He REALLY came to TORTURE THE MOST people right???
Your beliefs really are quite pathetic, and YOU like ATHEISTSSUCK cannot even OWN UP to DEALING WITH THE SIMPLE STUFF such as posted to him herein. I expect you to DENY THE WORD on these matters as well or SEVERELY LIMIT God in Christ. No surprise...
Nice try... I know my way around the block on Word matters and if a UNIVERSALIST agrees on THE MAIN THING then our DIFFERENCES MATTER much less...
But of course there is still that GOOD OLD money factor that comes in to TAINT any belief "system" eh???
Here's the good news...I'm glad THE WORD has given MORE HOPE than what YOU dish out you penny pinching salvation tightwad.
Hey, just because you don't understand a position doesn't make it valid. If you found a BETTER WAY to the truth of the SALVATION OF ALL more power to ya.
Your good ol' "other professionals disagree with you" debate tactic is rather DULL. I am happy to COMPARE with ANYone. Christian Universalists as a whole are FAR ABOVE you in WORD KNOWLEDGE for sure...
Someone like you would have to GET A CLUE first though eh?
Your entire position was to PROVE THAT SIN is the SAME AS people...IT IS not...AND that PAUL was the SAME AS sin...he wasn't.
When you hit the wall on this subject you went home bawling and declaring FALSE VICTORY eh? Same ol' same ol' You damnation dudes are really pathetically THE SAME.
Why don't you DEAL WITH THE FACTS and leave your petty debate tactics at home you SICKo torture fiend.
Why don't you FUNDAmental the last post I hit your buddy Atheistssuck with Mr. Word Genius??? I want to hear you DENY the WORD some more....
The BEST THING you FUDIES do is DODGE....
Salvation by DODGING...your creed of the day...
enjoy!
smaller
PureX
Well-known member
Reality exists. Truth is an evaluative assessment of our grasp of reality. Truth itself has no "existence" except as an idea. And since our grasp of reality is incomplete, and is limited by our own place, time, physical nature and intellect; the truthfulness of our grasp of reality is only relative (and relatively accurate). Thus, to claim that our ideas about what is true or untrue are "absolute" would be dishonest. This is basically what I have been saying all along.
Thanks.
It's a LOT antagonistic! And I am fully aware of this. I intended to "antagonize" those who claim to be fundamentalists. I understand that my definition of fundamentalism is essentially a "worst case" definition, in that I am using the name tag of "fundamentalist" to define one of the worst inclinations within human beings regarding ideology (religious, political, cultural, ethnic, or whatever). And I want those folks who call themselves fundamentalists to be shocked or angered or otherwise disrupted in their minds by my doing so.
Religions, like all human institutions, have a huge inclination toward the denial of their own faults. They NEED to have their metaphorical butts kicked right square where they least want to look, and they need it to be done to them hard and often. The temptation of a religion to use God as it's excuse to fall into self-righteous elitism, and from there into outright willful ignorance, hatred, and even violence, is very great. In fact it's so great that pretty much any religion men come up with will succumb to this path if given the opportunity and enough time. And Christianity is no exception. In fact, it's one of the two most worrisome religions on the planet, at the moment, and it deserves intense scrutiny.
So I'm not at all apologetic about focussing the light of this discussion right squarely on the Christian religion's worst fault. And I'm not at all apologetic about using the term "fundamentalist" in the process, because those are the very people who are most inclined to fall into the dangerous muck of religious ignorance, hatred, and violence. And if they can't see this themselves, I want those nearest to them to see it, if possible. And I want everyone else to see it, too. I want Christians and non-Christians alike to stop making excuses for the nasty and dangerous prejudices that lurk within religion, just waiting for a chance to be expressed in the worst kinds of human behaviors. And if I step on a few egotistical toes to do it, I'm not going to worry about it.
LightSon
New member
It is not my intention to bore you with the spiritual dynamics of my faith. Suffice it to say, there is no honor in me denying my faults. As a fundamentalist; I affirm my fallen, flawed & (with deference to Sozo) sinful nature.
"He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy. " Proverbs 28:13
This is a core principle; God is not fooled or impressed by my hypocracy.
Righteousness is an important Godly principle, but self-righteousness is detested by God and should loathed by us. Our "good" behavior and zeal (as Christians) is meant to separate us unto God and not to be used as a pretext to look down our noses at you or anybody. Many Christians do fail to get this, so I am not surprised you are picking up on muddled signals.
You err by painting Christian fundamentalists with the broad brush. Regarding religious ignorance, hatred, and violence:
Interestingly, it is you that insist we can't know anything for certain; hence, it is you that ought to be advocating a pandemic ignorance of any "truth". I think that the fact that we are so bold as to assert a body of revealed truth really chaps you, and so you are on a mission to undermine that principle. Yes. God has revealed His will. You don't like that; you don't want to be under God's authority and so you have picked up a philosophical stance to give yourself a plausible deniability. Your position will not stand in the day of judgment; God will not be impressed with your denial of Him and His word. Life is not a game to be played so as to avoid our responsibility to our Creator.
We are to love that which God loves, and to hate that which God hates. God loved PureX enough to die for him, so I guess that means I gotta love you. Hope that is okay.
Regarding violence: there is a time for war and a time for peace. Christians are generally directed to live peacably with all men as much as is possible. Sometimes it is not possible. Yet, Christians ought to be characterized as people of peace.
BCK said to smaller...
"I don’t agree with universalism, but honestly, smaller, there are those who do agree with universalism but who must have read your posts and cringed at their preposterousness."
I'm a universalist, and I cringe that one like smaller is a representative of this doctrine at all. Fortunately, intelligent people realize that there are some like smaller in every belief system, and that these do not represent the whole.
Like most universalists, he makes the error of trying to say all our badness is from the devil and tries to use the tired, worn out argument of most universalists, that forever doesn't mean forever in Scripture. He either is John from goodnewsinc or one of his disciples.
There is in fact a coherent, rational approach to Scripture which doesn't try to "fit" the concept of universal reconcilliation with either Arminian or Calvinist thought, or to denigrate traditional truths like the forever controversy, but you won't find it in smaller. You will find it in rational esotericism, or esoteric fundamentalism, however.
Again, doesn't anyone see that smaller feeds off of the contempt of others? It gives him his rush. Ignore it and it will go away. He's being fed here; why would he cease and desist as long as he's being encouraged?
"I don’t agree with universalism, but honestly, smaller, there are those who do agree with universalism but who must have read your posts and cringed at their preposterousness."
I'm a universalist, and I cringe that one like smaller is a representative of this doctrine at all. Fortunately, intelligent people realize that there are some like smaller in every belief system, and that these do not represent the whole.
Like most universalists, he makes the error of trying to say all our badness is from the devil and tries to use the tired, worn out argument of most universalists, that forever doesn't mean forever in Scripture. He either is John from goodnewsinc or one of his disciples.
There is in fact a coherent, rational approach to Scripture which doesn't try to "fit" the concept of universal reconcilliation with either Arminian or Calvinist thought, or to denigrate traditional truths like the forever controversy, but you won't find it in smaller. You will find it in rational esotericism, or esoteric fundamentalism, however.
Again, doesn't anyone see that smaller feeds off of the contempt of others? It gives him his rush. Ignore it and it will go away. He's being fed here; why would he cease and desist as long as he's being encouraged?
Purex, Bk is asking is there objective truths not absolutes. Again, you have to show how our knowledge being built upon relationships somehow limits our knowledge or falsifies it. Even from the first relationship we make, we have to know things about the essential nature of beings in order for a relationship to arise in our mind.
The relationships only apply to our knowledge of corporeal bodies. But although first cause is derived from what we percieve of the world, it become purely conceptual and we can conceive absolutes in a conceptual manner.
The relationships only apply to our knowledge of corporeal bodies. But although first cause is derived from what we percieve of the world, it become purely conceptual and we can conceive absolutes in a conceptual manner.
Bernie22 comes out of the closet! Very good. We have been here before though eh? I don't recall you blowing any universal trumpet til TODAY...go figure...
Talk is easy friend.
I found universalism to be filled with similar degrees and separations on text in various camps as is amply demonstrated here. Would you like to AIR some of them?
First of all I have NEVER used the eternal/ages position other than an sometime NOTE. It is NOT the fulcrum of the "universal position" imo.
I also do not think that Paul said HE was EVER sin indwelling or EVIL present with him. (Romans 7:17,20-21) so MAKE PAUL SIN and you will CONVINCE ME EH??? You will have to re-write the text to do so.
1 John 3:6 also brings YOUR position some HARD RUNNING eh?
Methinks you may also be a bit of a shil, so go figure.
Truth stands as TRUTH. You have tried this one before as well BERN, but hey, better luck next time.
It is always easy to make trouble when you have ZERO on the table yourself eh?
I adhere to neither the calvie or arm position and DO NOT deny the eternal position either..so again you are a hollow ring.
I also am not A TEMPORARY burning believer Bernie.
Perhaps you see the TEMPORARY burning of people as a good way to, you know, scare people into belief of universalism. Some tried that one on me as well. This position seems to suit those who MAKE A LIVING on the Good News eh?
The fact that I belittle ignorance of the text is certain. What you have remains to be seen AND is meant to be SHARED not hidden. hint hint.
Hey Bernie, if you feel you can do better, I really could care less HOW the doctrine of ETERNAL TORTURE is SET ASIDE.
It is simply an abomination and a lie.
and btw, I do not accept any of your false accusations Bernie/the shil...in this way you are no different than any common FALSEaccuser, universalism or no universalism.
We all wage a war in this wicked and evil generation. You are not exempt from the false accusers work. We only know our WAY THROUGH via HIS LIGHT.
His WORD is light.
enjoy!
smaller
Talk is easy friend.
I found universalism to be filled with similar degrees and separations on text in various camps as is amply demonstrated here. Would you like to AIR some of them?
First of all I have NEVER used the eternal/ages position other than an sometime NOTE. It is NOT the fulcrum of the "universal position" imo.
I also do not think that Paul said HE was EVER sin indwelling or EVIL present with him. (Romans 7:17,20-21) so MAKE PAUL SIN and you will CONVINCE ME EH??? You will have to re-write the text to do so.
1 John 3:6 also brings YOUR position some HARD RUNNING eh?
Methinks you may also be a bit of a shil, so go figure.
Truth stands as TRUTH. You have tried this one before as well BERN, but hey, better luck next time.
It is always easy to make trouble when you have ZERO on the table yourself eh?
I adhere to neither the calvie or arm position and DO NOT deny the eternal position either..so again you are a hollow ring.
I also am not A TEMPORARY burning believer Bernie.
Perhaps you see the TEMPORARY burning of people as a good way to, you know, scare people into belief of universalism. Some tried that one on me as well. This position seems to suit those who MAKE A LIVING on the Good News eh?
The fact that I belittle ignorance of the text is certain. What you have remains to be seen AND is meant to be SHARED not hidden. hint hint.
Hey Bernie, if you feel you can do better, I really could care less HOW the doctrine of ETERNAL TORTURE is SET ASIDE.
It is simply an abomination and a lie.
and btw, I do not accept any of your false accusations Bernie/the shil...in this way you are no different than any common FALSEaccuser, universalism or no universalism.
We all wage a war in this wicked and evil generation. You are not exempt from the false accusers work. We only know our WAY THROUGH via HIS LIGHT.
His WORD is light.
enjoy!
smaller
Last edited:
BChristianK
New member
PureX said:
So the statement that truth only exists as an idea, which is the same thing as saying that truth is not ontological it is only epistemological, is subject to the same limitation.
I can say that something appears true, and you can respond that the appearance of truth is merely epistemological and not ontological, it is only the appearance of truth when in reality it is not inherently true.
You can say that that it appears to you that nothing is inherently true, that truth is not a part of the ontology of reality, and I can respond with the same objection, that it only appears that nothing is inherently true when in fact truth might be an inherent ontological characteristic.
Neither of us can know something apart from our own experience of it, we can never know it directly, so we both are interpreting reality through knowledge. We are both creating an ontology through our epistemology.
Now your argument is that fundamentalists don’t admit that their ontology is epistemological. You say as much in your next statement.
And to say that it is dishonest, is equally dishonest. You don’t know, any more than they do, if they are right or wrong. You don’t experience reality directly either. So what appears to be true to them are the essentials of their fundamentalism. What appears to be true to you is that truth doesn’t exist as an ontological element in reality. Neither of you can verify anything apart from your existence so both of you are creating an ontology epistemologically.
The fundamentalists says that they believe in God. You say, “that’s just their interpretive experience of reality, reality apart from their experience and interpretation of it might be different.”
You say, “no one can know for sure if something is absolute”, the fundamentalist replies, “that’s just your experience of reality as well, apart from your experience and interpretation it might be different.”
That is what I have been saying all along.
Both position require faith. Both require us to make a decision as to what we are going to believe, and then stake our actions on those beliefs. You have faith that your interpretation of the nature of reality is correct. The fundamentalists do the same.
The only difference is the conclusion, not the epistemological process. But your argument is a criticism of the process not the conclusion.
Now I suggested that you definition of Fundamentalism was antagonistic, to which you replied:
It is a little disingenuous to incite them to anger and then to use the fact that they got angry as fuel for your arguments, don’t you think?
Because it appears from me, a not so casual observer, that your crusade is against fundamentalism, not the dynamics of “all human institutions.”
I don’t think you have exemplified or, or proven it sociologically. Nor do I think you have shown effectively that the tenants of Christian Fundamentalism lend themselves to violent action.
And this is where I think your argument is unfair. It draws a conclusion about a group of people that hasn’t been proven.
It would be equally unfair to me to say that all Darwinists are essentially hate mongers and then go on to define Darwinism as a philosophy defined principally by its hate mongering. You would rightly point out that my definition of Darwinism is self serving and abusive, and that my argument is flawed by virtue of my biased definition.
You would rightly be frustrated if you told me that you were a Darwinist and not a hate monger and I replied that you were simply wrong about what it means to be a Darwinist and that you were being dishonest about what Darwinism really is.
Would you not you become vehemently active in rebutting my assertions?, and become further frustrated when I just used that vehemence to feed my bias saying that this was just another sign that you were really hateful and that your behavior was just a proof of my argument?
When you pointed out that Darwinists aren’t currently involved in any systematic form of hatred, I would just say, “well just wait until they get the power, then we’ll see, but we’d better stop them before they do.”
You would be right in concluding that there was no rational discussion that would ever change my opinion about Darwinists, or any logic that I would consider that would falsify my viewpoint. In short, my view would be unfalsifiable in regard to Darwinism. And I would be the holder of a dogmatic belief that has absolutely no exception.
You would say that my argument is fundamentalistic for displaying these characteristics. Do you not see the similarities in how your argument treats the objections of the likes of Lightson, or JJJG or myself?
Grace and Peace
Well, like a good philosopher, you separate the ontological from the epistemological. The essential problem that we all struggle with is the fact that, in reality, we only know of ontology through epistemology.
So the statement that truth only exists as an idea, which is the same thing as saying that truth is not ontological it is only epistemological, is subject to the same limitation.
I can say that something appears true, and you can respond that the appearance of truth is merely epistemological and not ontological, it is only the appearance of truth when in reality it is not inherently true.
You can say that that it appears to you that nothing is inherently true, that truth is not a part of the ontology of reality, and I can respond with the same objection, that it only appears that nothing is inherently true when in fact truth might be an inherent ontological characteristic.
Neither of us can know something apart from our own experience of it, we can never know it directly, so we both are interpreting reality through knowledge. We are both creating an ontology through our epistemology.
Now your argument is that fundamentalists don’t admit that their ontology is epistemological. You say as much in your next statement.
And to say that it is dishonest, is equally dishonest. You don’t know, any more than they do, if they are right or wrong. You don’t experience reality directly either. So what appears to be true to them are the essentials of their fundamentalism. What appears to be true to you is that truth doesn’t exist as an ontological element in reality. Neither of you can verify anything apart from your existence so both of you are creating an ontology epistemologically.
The fundamentalists says that they believe in God. You say, “that’s just their interpretive experience of reality, reality apart from their experience and interpretation of it might be different.”
You say, “no one can know for sure if something is absolute”, the fundamentalist replies, “that’s just your experience of reality as well, apart from your experience and interpretation it might be different.”
That is what I have been saying all along.
Both position require faith. Both require us to make a decision as to what we are going to believe, and then stake our actions on those beliefs. You have faith that your interpretation of the nature of reality is correct. The fundamentalists do the same.
The only difference is the conclusion, not the epistemological process. But your argument is a criticism of the process not the conclusion.
Now I suggested that you definition of Fundamentalism was antagonistic, to which you replied:
Well then, it isn’t very fair to poke the gorilla and then blame him for aggressively taking away the stick, is it?
It is a little disingenuous to incite them to anger and then to use the fact that they got angry as fuel for your arguments, don’t you think?
You mean, like all human institutions, right?
Because it appears from me, a not so casual observer, that your crusade is against fundamentalism, not the dynamics of “all human institutions.”
The tendency to use anything as an excuse to fall into self-righteous elitism, hatred and violence is very great. Religion is no exception to that rule. The anti-semetism of communist Russia before during and after WWII was not due to religion but it was nonetheless a form of elitism that resulted in hatred and violence.
Well, that’s a pretty dim view of humanity. Not one I will deny categorically. And no, Chrisitanity is not an exception, it should be, but it isn’t. However, fundamentalists aren’t categorically religionists either. There are as many folks who agree with Cletes 5 points of Xtian fundamentalism that detest organized religion as it exists today as those who agree with Clete and love it.
Why is it one of the two most worrisome?
The fault is violence, or religious conviction? Because, I don’t want to reignite another argument, but I don’t think you have affectively shown that they are the same or even that one precedes the other.
Here’s the main point of disagreement. I don’t think you have established this.
I don’t think you have exemplified or, or proven it sociologically. Nor do I think you have shown effectively that the tenants of Christian Fundamentalism lend themselves to violent action.
And this is where I think your argument is unfair. It draws a conclusion about a group of people that hasn’t been proven.
It would be equally unfair to me to say that all Darwinists are essentially hate mongers and then go on to define Darwinism as a philosophy defined principally by its hate mongering. You would rightly point out that my definition of Darwinism is self serving and abusive, and that my argument is flawed by virtue of my biased definition.
You would rightly be frustrated if you told me that you were a Darwinist and not a hate monger and I replied that you were simply wrong about what it means to be a Darwinist and that you were being dishonest about what Darwinism really is.
Would you not you become vehemently active in rebutting my assertions?, and become further frustrated when I just used that vehemence to feed my bias saying that this was just another sign that you were really hateful and that your behavior was just a proof of my argument?
When you pointed out that Darwinists aren’t currently involved in any systematic form of hatred, I would just say, “well just wait until they get the power, then we’ll see, but we’d better stop them before they do.”
You would be right in concluding that there was no rational discussion that would ever change my opinion about Darwinists, or any logic that I would consider that would falsify my viewpoint. In short, my view would be unfalsifiable in regard to Darwinism. And I would be the holder of a dogmatic belief that has absolutely no exception.
You would say that my argument is fundamentalistic for displaying these characteristics. Do you not see the similarities in how your argument treats the objections of the likes of Lightson, or JJJG or myself?
Grace and Peace
PureX
Well-known member
And the fact that this is so, supports it's accuracy all the more.
The "truth" is what is. Reality is what is. Reality is therefor inherently true. So I would not say that reality is not inherently true. And I have not said that.
You have created a straw man, here. This is not what I have said, and is not what I would say, so the fact that you can argue against it is irrelevant to our discussion.
I agree. And this is why we would be lying if we claim that our knowledge of "truth" is or could be absolute. As long as we are human, the truthfulness of our ideas about 'what is' will be relative to and limited by our own place, time, physical nature and intellect.
And I don't have to know all things to make this assertion. I can reasonably make this assertion even while my own concept of truth is limited and relative, because it is limited and relative, and because it's limited and relative to my own humanity. So I can reasonably assume that all other human beings are experiencing reality in the same limited and relative way as I do.
Yes, and this supports MY assertion that our idea of truth is relative to our own human limitations, and so cannot by definition be "absolute". While it refutes the fundamentalist's assertion that they can "know absolute truth" while still being limited by human time, space, perceptual physics and intellect. They have to have "divine magic" to overcome this logical inconsistancy, because they have no actual evidence to support such an assertion.
But it isn't just my experience of reality. It's the reality of human condition. For the fundamentalist to refute this they would have to stop being human. And in fact this is what I think they're trying to do through the idea of "divine magic". This is why fundamentalists have to have some mechanism for obtaining divine knowledge. Without it, they're just more limited human beings. And this is why the "inerrant bible" is the most important idea for the religious Christian fundamentalist. Through it, they can imagine that they have access to divine knowledge - something they know that they can't claim as mere human beings.
But of course the "inerrant bible theory" is just an irrational circular argument because it's the fundamentalists themselves that have deemed the bible inerrant in the first place. So it's really no different logically than if they had simply declared themselves "inerrant". The book is just an intellectual abstraction that helps them to ignore their own disingenuity.
For limited creatures such as ourselves, all of life requires faith, because we can't ever be certain that what we think is real and true is actually real and true. The fact that a lunatic has "faith" in the accuracy of his own hallucinations, however, does not lend them any credibility. And neither does the fact that a fundamentalist "believes" in his own imagined divine knowledge.
The process is very different, and so is the conclusion. The process for the fundamentalist is to decide what idea of truth and reality he's going to"believe" is truth and reality, first, and then to eliminate all experiential evidence that does not support this idea of truth and reality as it occurs. And then to accept categorically any experiential evidence that supports this pre-conceived idea of truth and reality without question. He allows his own human bias to run amok, while doggedy working at elliminating any doubts or skepticism. They call this "faith". But in reality it's simply human ego and bias being given free reign.
Whereas the relativist, understanding and admitting that his ideas of what is real and true could always be wrong, has to keep testing them against actual realty through experiential interaction with reality. He is seeking to eliminate human ego and bias, and to maintain a healthy degree of doubt and skepticism. His goal is not to "possess the absolute truth" because he knows that for a human being this is not possible. So his goal is to be as honest as he can be with himself and others about what he learns from his experiences with truth and reality.
There is a HUGE difference between these two approaches to life. The fundamentalist is at war with reality because he has to deny and refute any evidence that does not support his pre-conceived ideas of what truth and reality are, while the relativist is trying to remain open and accepting of any new information that truth and reality might offer.
I have to go now .... more later.
Last edited:
BChristianK
New member
Good idea, I just figured out how to put Smaller on my ignore list.
What a feature!!!
Grace and Peace
PureX
Well-known member
I'm not poking anyone with a stick, I'm presenting the assertion that fundamentalists can't tolerate any ideas but their own, and that they will respond with violence, even, in an effort to eliminate opposing ideas (and they see all other ideas as opposing ideas). So when they react to my assertion just as my claim suggests that they will react, what are we to think? Haven't they just willingly proved my point even knowing exactly that this was my point?
If I claimed that "Bob" is a short-tempered fool, and Bob responds like a short tempered fool after having just heard me make this claim, hasn't he in effect just proven that he IS a short tempered fool? It would be different if I claimed that Bob was a short-tempered fool and then I poked him with a stick until he got angry. Anyone might get angry after being poked with a stick.
This thread is about Christian fundamentalism.
Many of them are fundamentalists by my definition in spite of what they claim, just as lots of alcoholics insist that they are not alcoholics. Partly they say this because they don't understand what fundamentalism really is, and partly because they can't see what they really are. It's in the nature of an addiction to deny it's own existence.
Fundamentalism is an addiction to the idea that one can possess absolute knowledge, and though this knowledge, that one can possess absolute righteousness. Like any addict, the fundamentalist will very often deny that their own addiction IS an addiction, and that they are addicted to this idea of their own righteousness.
Because elitism invites fundamentalism, and Christianity is an elitist religious doctrine. In fact, as elitism becomes more willful and radicalized, it becomes fundamentalism.
Have you forgotten 9/11? Have you forgotten David Koresh? Have you forgotten Salem? These are the famous examples. But less famous examples happen all the time - those folks in Texas that I mentioned, for exmple.
When people convince themselves that they can't be wrong, they can do anything and still presume themselves justified. Fundamentalism is an obsession/addiction with the idea that one can possess absolute knowledge, and therefor (through that knowledge) absolute righteousness. Once one is convinced of his own absolute righteousness, he can do no wrong in his own mind. He can torture your body believing that he is saving your soul. He can decide that you are a minion of the devil, and that God wants him to destroy you. He can decide that only he and his friends know what is good and right moral behavior, and that the government should use force to make everyone else comply to it. If he's a president, he can invade another country without reason or evidence, because he is so certain that he's right and that God wants him to do it. And in all these cases he will have no doubts or second thoughts, no matter what evidence should arise contradicting him, because fundamentalists dismiss any and all contrary evidence, and tolerate no self-doubt.
(Remember George Bush being asked at that press conference about what he thought was his biggest mistake since he took office? He just stood there dumbfounded. He couldn't think of a thing, because the whole idea that he might be making mistakes had never crossed his mind.)
Very often, there is no amount of proof that will convince an alcoholic that he is an alcoholic. I have seen and experienced this first hand.
You can present your opinions, and I will consider them. If I reject them, or accept them in part, or accept them in total, I will be able to explain why.
I am not an ideology. I would not be much bothered by anyone slandering any ideology, even those I hold myself. In fact, I would listen and consider their opinions, because I know that my own ideas about truth and reality are partial, and probably somewhat inaccurate.
No, not really. This is about as "vehement" as I get. You are free to form your own opinions about things, and there is no reason that I should expect or encourage you otherwise.
I'm not trying to change your opinions. I'm offering you my opinions as articulately and honestly as I am able so that you can understand them and find in them whatever truthfulness you think they possess. And I will do the same with yours. I'm a relativist. To me, there is no one right way, or one right belief, or one right truth. We all possess bits and pieces of related truths and viable possibilities. Abolute knowledge, or perfection, or righteousness, isn't my goal. I'm just trying to be honest and kind. I think that's all a human being can do.
BChristianK
New member
But you would say that our conception of reality is limited due to our inability to experience reality directly, which is what I was getting at.
Aimiel
Well-known member
Oh, gee, I don't know, maybe because he actually read someone's reply, and gave intelligent thought to it, before responding with gratitude and acknowledging that perhaps he'd had an epiphany, and the garbage that he's been spouting for far too long needs to be tossed out and replaced with understanding, instead of blind speculation? He's in error, and we are to confront those who are in error, publicly; that's why we do so. If he finds encouragement in being disagreed with, then that might point to a character flaw that needs some work, not point out a person that we need to ignore. We need to exclude him from the 'Christians only' portion of TOL, as far as I'm concerned, but I think TOL is far to liberal to do that, or they would probably exclude me from it, since I call myself a 'spirit-filled' Christian.
BChristianK
New member
Aimiel, I agree that we need to hold out hope that smaller will at some point come to his senses. However, every interaction I have had with him is akin to an adult trying to reason with a child who is throwing a temper tantrum. His responses are usually off topic, and when the logic is challenged, he usually degenerates to using childish insults.
Sometimes it is best to try to reason with such children, sometimes it is best to ignore their temper tantrum.
I have concluded that as far as it goes with my interaction with Smaller, the latter is long past due as an appropriate method of dealing with him.
If, he would like to resume conversation, and will actually engage the topic and refrain from insults, I will take him off my ignore list.
Grace and Peace
face it gentlemen. In the end the only thing we really disagree on is the ETERNAL DAMNATION OF YOUR NEIGHBOR and that irritates the HELL out of you. You KNOW that the universal position regarding this can stand up to Jesus COMMAND to LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF and don't forget your enemies.
The best claim any of you has tried to make is that by CONDEMNING SOMEONE TO BE TORTURED for ETERNITY you are LOVING THEM.
I simply call that SICK.
as ususal
enjoy!
smaller
The best claim any of you has tried to make is that by CONDEMNING SOMEONE TO BE TORTURED for ETERNITY you are LOVING THEM.
I simply call that SICK.
as ususal
enjoy!
smaller
LightSon
New member
Let us consider which of us is sick.
A man is unwittingly heading towards a cliff.
I am standing nearby and yelling at him, warning him of the cliff and impending doom. "Turn back," I plead.
You observe my efforts and accuse me of "desiring his torture".
Meanwhile you are standing by, giving him a :thumb: and reassuring him that everything will be "okay".
Which of us is demonstrating love and which of us is desiring the hurt of the wayward?
The love of Christ compells us to reach the lost. The love of God in our hearts is what compells us to give them the gospel. They are lost smaller and need Jesus. Jesus came to seek and to save that which was lost. Your efforts will effectively damn many who might have otherwise turned in faith to Jesus and escaped.
BChristianK
New member
Well said Lightson!
:thumb: