Is there room for Christian fundamentalists?

Sometimes I notice that Christians who identify as fundamentalist/conservative are treated with criticism, sarcasm and derision by other Christians who identify as mainstream/liberal.

It seems to me that some believers may need a more black-and-white, concrete and dogmatic religious tradition that is provided by fundamental Christianity. If it works for them, helping them to be better people, why is it subject to judgment by others?

I guess it just seems that there are different interpretations of Christianity for different types of people. Why does this present a problem?

wintersolstice said:

If it works for them, helping them to be better people, why is it subject to judgment by others?

Click to expand...

To be clear, I'm not comparing Christian fundamentalism to ISIS, but as an EXTREME example of why this doesn't work...
We blame moderate Muslims for the terrors of fundies, and suggest those moderates are somewhat complicit for not calling out the terrorists.

wintersolstice said:

Sometimes I notice that Christians who identify as fundamentalist/conservative are treated with criticism, sarcasm and derision by other Christians who identify as mainstream/liberal.

It seems to me that some believers may need a more black-and-white, concrete and dogmatic religious tradition that is provided by fundamental Christianity. If it works for them, helping them to be better people, why is it subject to judgment by others?

I guess it just seems that there are different interpretations of Christianity for different types of people. Why does this present a problem?

Click to expand...

It's not necessarily the different interpretations of Christianity that cause such tensions within our faith. Rather, it's the attitudes of some which equate to "You either do and view things my way, or you can take the highway to Hell." Many fundamentalist and hyperconservative Christians get so much flak precisely because they're judgemental towards others and have a very haughty "I'm right and you're wrong" mentality. If those types would take a dose of humility and stop trying to impose their faith on others through political lobbying, screaming at college students and passersby on street corners about how they're all going to Hell, raging over how companies decorate their coffee cups, and complaining on social media about how people say "happy holidays" in stores and on the news, then I'm sure people would respond to them differently.

As a conservative Christian myself in terms of doctrine, I've met many good-minded, loving conservative Christians who are not at all like the description I wrote above. They are people who acknowledge that some Christians belong to different traditions, have some different ideas, and do some different things. We may not agree with what these other Christians do or believe, but we're not going to insult them over it or damn them to Hell. The important thing is to love God, love our neighbor, and follow His commandments. If we go from there instead of from what bones we have to pick with each other, I think the tone would change a lot.

wintersolstice said:

Sometimes I notice that Christians who identify as fundamentalist/conservative are treated with criticism, sarcasm and derision by other Christians who identify as mainstream/liberal.

It seems to me that some believers may need a more black-and-white, concrete and dogmatic religious tradition that is provided by fundamental Christianity. If it works for them, helping them to be better people, why is it subject to judgment by others?

I guess it just seems that there are different interpretations of Christianity for different types of people. Why does this present a problem?

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but my experience has been completely opposite. I personally have no problem with any "kind" of Christian, but it's almost always the fundamentalists who are telling everybody else that they're not "the real thing." People who are constantly passing judgment on the rest of us are not, in my opinion, learning "to be better people."

wintersolstice said:

Sometimes I notice that Christians who identify as fundamentalist/conservative are treated with criticism, sarcasm and derision by other Christians who identify as mainstream/liberal.

Click to expand...

First, you should not equate conservative with fundamentalism. The two do are not dependent. You can have far left-wing liberal fundamentalists too. There are plenty of non-fundamentalists who are conservatives. Secondly, as far as actual fundamentalism is concerned, it is also important to make a distinction between them and traditional mythic-literal, concrete-literal black and white thinkers. Literalism is not what defines fundamentalism, even though that is a feature of it. What defines fundamentalism is a pathological fixation with the beliefs and forms of their religion that locks people in through fear into their system of belief, stunting their growth to that level of thinking alone. Fundamentalism is not a stage of growth, but an illness.

wintersolstice said:

It seems to me that some believers may need a more black-and-white, concrete and dogmatic religious tradition that is provided by fundamental Christianity.

Click to expand...

I agree some need more the rule/role based externalized forms at their stage of growth before the principles can be internalized at it moves from a purely exoteric religion to an esoteric religion. But fundamentalism most definitely does not work towards that goal! I seeks to shackle someone to an earlier stage, through fear, paranoia, and to summarize it, through violence. It is hostile to anything that move an inch beyond it. That is not a healthy stages of development that teaches principles in order for someone to understand the basics. It is instead a cancer that seeks to destroy healthy cells with its own system taking over the body.

wintersolstice said:

If it works for them, helping them to be better people, why is it subject to judgment by others?

Click to expand...

Because it is not a stage of growth. It's a pathology. It doesn't help people. It isolates them from others, creating demons out of all outsiders, compromisers of their own truth, ensnaring them, preying upon fears and weakness, exploiting phobias, creating enemies of others to create false unity among their isolationist group, and so on and so forth. Why does anyone seek to rid their body of an invasive illness? Again, fundamentalism is not a stage of development. It is not the same as traditionalism. It's a cancerous growth that does not serve the health of the body.

wintersolstice said:

I guess it just seems that there are different interpretations of Christianity for different types of people. Why does this present a problem?

Click to expand...

I hope my explanation helps illustrate the distinction that should be made.

Windwalker said:

First, you should not equate conservative with fundamentalism. The two do are not dependent. You can have far left-wing liberal fundamentalists too. There are plenty of non-fundamentalists who are conservatives. Secondly, as far as actual fundamentalism is concerned, it is also important to make a distinction between them and traditional mythic-literal, concrete-literal black and white thinkers. Literalism is not what defines fundamentalism, even though that is a feature of it. What defines fundamentalism is a pathological fixation with the beliefs and forms of their religion that locks people in through fear into their system of belief, stunting their growth to that level of thinking alone. Fundamentalism is not a stage of growth, but an illness.


I agree some need more the rule/role based externalized forms at their stage of growth before the principles can be internalized at it moves from a purely exoteric religion to an esoteric religion. But fundamentalism most definitely does not work towards that goal! I seeks to shackle someone to an earlier stage, through fear, paranoia, and to summarize it, through violence. It is hostile to anything that move an inch beyond it. That is not a healthy stages of development that teaches principles in order for someone to understand the basics. It is instead a cancer that seeks to destroy healthy cells with its own system taking over the body.


Because it is not a stage of growth. It's a pathology. It doesn't help people. It isolates them from others, creating demons out of all outsiders, compromisers of their own truth, ensnaring them, preying upon fears and weakness, exploiting phobias, creating enemies of others to create false unity among their isolationist group, and so on and so forth. Why does anyone seek to rid their body of an invasive illness? Again, fundamentalism is not a stage of development. It is not the same as traditionalism. It's a cancerous growth that does not serve the health of the body.


I hope my explanation helps illustrate the distinction that should be made.

Click to expand...

Thanks for taking the time to post a thoughtful and well written response. I particularly appreciate your differentiation between "conservative" and "fundamentalist". Well said and thought provoking!

Strategic Philosopher said:

I don't see why you aren't. Hate crime committed by christian fundamentalists and the law system they advocate for is more or less the same as ISIS

Click to expand...

Because that wasn't the thrust of this thread. I have found, generally, that it can be counter-productive to discussion to offer an extreme example, since it merely shuts down any meaningful dialogue. But in this case I thought it was the simplest illustration. Extreme Christian fundamentalists may be extremely dangerous, ideologically, but they aren't at this time causing the sort of pragmatic, physical damage ISIS is, and I didn't want my point lost in a haze off people stating that fact. It is (in terms of this thread) kinda besides the point.

wintersolstice said:

Sometimes I notice that Christians who identify as fundamentalist/conservative are treated with criticism, sarcasm and derision by other Christians who identify as mainstream/liberal.

It seems to me that some believers may need a more black-and-white, concrete and dogmatic religious tradition that is provided by fundamental Christianity. If it works for them, helping them to be better people, why is it subject to judgment by others?

I guess it just seems that there are different interpretations of Christianity for different types of people. Why does this present a problem?

Click to expand...

Conservative and fundamentalist are two completely different things. Fundamentalism (in the sense that Christians sometimes use it) means representing someone's opinion as if it were God's opinion while at the same time denying that you are doing it. A fundamentalist says 'I say God said this and therefore you must believe what I say that God said'. Its the definition of antichrist. It is 'Having a form of godliness but denying the power of godliness'. Its a form of greed, a form of pride, and its the basis of almost everything that has gone wrong in Christianity. So the fundamentalist takes everything that has gone wrong and elevates it to a doctrine. Of course we are not going to support that.

wintersolstice said:

Sometimes I notice that Christians who identify as fundamentalist/conservative are treated with criticism, sarcasm and derision by other Christians who identify as mainstream/liberal.

It seems to me that some believers may need a more black-and-white, concrete and dogmatic religious tradition that is provided by fundamental Christianity. If it works for them, helping them to be better people, why is it subject to judgment by others?

I guess it just seems that there are different interpretations of Christianity for different types of people. Why does this present a problem?

Click to expand...

Fundamentalist Christians normally interpret the bible literally, including the stories of the OT.
Go read the bible real fast, do it from a literal perspective.

You'll find out quickly why this doesn't help make them "better people".

Hate to be the guy who only looks at the bad stuff...
However, my slavery supporting, egotistical, child abusing, uneducated, Christian fundamentalist parents ruined the good things for me.
The few good things there were in that book, that is.

I always thought fundamentalists in general were difficult to deal with, not just Fundamentalist Christians. I haven't seen too many fundamentalist groups that were nice but hey I could be wrong. But really quite a few of them have the "We're right and you're wrong and you should feel bad." mentality.

wintersolstice said:

It seems to me that some believers may need a more black-and-white, concrete and dogmatic religious tradition that is provided by fundamental Christianity. If it works for them, helping them to be better people, why is it subject to judgment by others?

Click to expand...

Christian fundamentalists often seem to be very judgemental of others, which doesn't look very Christ-like.

Theweirdtophat said:

I always thought fundamentalists in general were difficult to deal with, not just Fundamentalist Christians. I haven't seen too many fundamentalist groups that were nice but hey I could be wrong. But really quite a few of them have the "We're right and you're wrong and you should feel bad." mentality.

Click to expand...

Yup. This is worth remembering. Fundamentalist political beliefs haven't exactly covered themselves with the milk of human kindness, last time I checked.

Spiny Norman said:

Christian fundamentalists often seem to be very judgemental of others, which doesn't look very Christ-like.

Click to expand...

Is not putting a label on a person judgmental?

A Christian is one who lives/walks as Jesus walked, and he or she does this through the grace given to them by the Holy Spirit.

Jesus called those who did not obey God some very bad names.

(1 John 2:6) “But if anyone obeys his word, God’s love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did”

As long as we are keeping an open mind ...

Fundamentalism:
1a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching
b : the beliefs of this movement
c : adherence to such beliefs

Sorry to burst your bubble, but a jerk who interprets scripture literally and acts like a jerk is a jerk because of how he behaves, not what he believes. Just like a jerk who interprets scripture metaphorically.

Fundamentalism draws opposition, rightly so, because it claims to possess Truth (with a big T). Once you embrace the position that there is no absolute Truth, then all truth becomes personal and subjective. There is no particular threat in "you have your beliefs and I have mine and both are ok".

My wife is a Registered Nurse and 'herbal self-medication' drives her crazy because these people are often masking symptoms and ignoring serious conditions with 'herb of the day' that will cure anything and everything depending on who you ask. Her knowledge makes it hard for her to ignore what she knows to be Medical Truth and allow people to enjoy herbal fantasy that may be endangering their life.

Fundamentalists may be dead wrong, but they also believe that they have the real cure in a world full of false cures. How can you say nothing and just let people suffer and die because it is their right to be ignorant of the Truth?
Now that does not exempt them (me) from the Christian obligation to always speak the Truth in Love ... that means placing the well being of others ahead of mine. I also admit that the idea of having 'Truth' draws mean and angry spirits like moths to a flame. However, as I stated at the beginning, they were already jerks. Fundamentalism didn't cause it, it just didn't cure them of it.

Where I cannot oblige non-fundamentalists, is to say 'the Bible says black is white because you want it to."
I choose to accept the Bible as generally literal and true (nobody seriously believes that the clearly allegorical parts of the bible are literal) and will honestly tell you what it says if asked. Of course, most people don't want to know and I am under no compulsion to tell them whether they want to hear it or not. Like a physician, my first goal is to do no harm.

atpollard said:

Fundamentalism draws opposition, rightly so, because it claims to possess Truth (with a big T). Once you embrace the position that there is no absolute Truth, then all truth becomes personal and subjective. There is no particular threat in "you have your beliefs and I have mine and both are ok".

Click to expand...

Actually to be more accurate truth becomes relative. It's not a matter of everything becoming individual, "personal and subjective" but you can have an "objective" understanding that is shared by others. However that "objective" truth is relative because the filters we all use to interpret things through is contextually based. People share the same contexts in how they understand things collectively But contexts are relative. Something in one context may be true, while in another it is not true. Truth is therefore relative, not absolute, nor wholly subjective. It may be objective truth, but relative truth nonetheless.
.

atpollard said:

My wife is a Registered Nurse and 'herbal self-medication' driver her crazy because these people are often masking symptoms and ignoring serious conditions with 'herb of the day' that will cure anything and everything depending on who you ask. Her knowledge makes it hard for her to ignore what she knows to be Medical Truth and allow people to enjoy herbal fantasy that may be endangering their life.

Click to expand...

But here's the gotcha there. The assumption made by most is that their knowledge and understanding is "the truth", whereas in reality it is perhaps at best a "better" understanding. It is not an absolute or complete understanding, and when someone assumes better understanding means you have a handle on facts, it blinds you to truth beyond your own understanding. It closes off the mind. I'm not here to argue that herbal medicines are the better way to go, but it's important to realize there may be 'truths" to them which currently escapes modern science's understanding, even if they are beliefs held largely through superstition. Truths can be discovered by even the most bumbling fool . But by no means does that invalidate modern science. I think as a system it is better equipped to digging deeper into understanding - up to the point it closes itself off and arrogantly assumes itself to holds "The Truth!", with a capital T. Same thing with religion.

atpollard said:

Fundamentalists may be dead wrong, but they also believe that they have the real cure in a world full of false cures. How can you say nothing and just let people suffer and die because it is their right to be ignorant of the Truth?
Now that does not exempt them (me) from the Christian obligation to always speak the Truth in Love ... that means placing the well being of others ahead of mine. I also admit that the idea of having 'Truth' draws mean and angry spirits like moths to a flame. However, as I stated at the beginning, they were already jerks. Fundamentalism didn't cause it, it just didn't cure them of it.

Click to expand...

The problem with such an assumption that you have the truth and other's don't have truth is because it invalidates their point of view. It ignores that your beliefs are a point of view as well. To me, if someone has a higher truth, it should lead to humility, not berating others for having a different point of view than your own. To say everyone who doesn't hold the religious beliefs you do are bound for hell, is utterly arrogant, and deeply ignorant.

atpollard said:

Where I cannot oblige non-fundamentalists, is to say 'the Bible says black is white because you want it to."

Click to expand...

I would say it is interpreted in black and white terms because the person themselves is stuck thinking in binary, absolutist terms. The Bible can be read and interpreted in a great many ways. It is absolutist thinking itself that is problem, not the Bible.

atpollard said:

I choose to accept the Bible as generally literal and true (nobody seriously believes that the clearly allegorical parts of the bible are literal) and will honestly tell you what it says if asked. Of course, most people don't want to know and I am under no compulsion to tell them whether they want to hear it or not. Like a physician, my first goal is to do no harm.

Click to expand...

Like a true scientist, they should realize they hardly have a handle on reality to the point they can assume all points of view other than their own is invalid. There are many ways to understand truth. The litmus test isn't how someone interprets it, but how they live their lives. "By their fruits you shall know them", not by their beliefs in this doctrine or that, or this understanding of the Bible or another.

Windwalker said:

Actually to be more accurate truth becomes relative. It's not a matter of everything becoming individual, "personal and subjective" but you can have an "objective" understanding that is shared by others. However that "objective" truth is relative because the filters we all use to interpret things through is contextually based. People share the same contexts in how they understand things collectively But contexts are relative. Something in one context may be true, while in another it is not true. Truth is therefore relative, not absolute, nor wholly subjective. It may be objective truth, but relative truth nonetheless.
.

But here's the gotcha there. The assumption made by most is that their knowledge and understanding is "the truth", whereas in reality it is perhaps at best a "better" understanding. It is not an absolute or complete understanding, and when someone assumes better understanding means you have a handle on facts, it blinds you to truth beyond your own understanding. It closes off the mind. I'm not here to argue that herbal medicines are the better way to go, but it's important to realize there may be 'truths" to them which currently escapes modern science's understanding, even if they are beliefs held largely through superstition. Truths can be discovered by even the most bumbling fool . But by no means does that invalidate modern science. I think as a system it is better equipped to digging deeper into understanding - up to the point it closes itself off and arrogantly assumes itself to holds "The Truth!", with a capital T. Same thing with religion.


The problem with such an assumption that you have the truth and other's don't have truth is because it invalidates their point of view. It ignores that your beliefs are a point of view as well. To me, if someone has a higher truth, it should lead to humility, not berating others for having a different point of view than your own. To say everyone who doesn't hold the religious beliefs you do are bound for hell, is utterly arrogant, and deeply ignorant.


I would say it is interpreted in black and white terms because the person themselves is stuck thinking in binary, absolutist terms. The Bible can be read and interpreted in a great many ways. It is absolutist thinking itself that is problem, not the Bible.


Like a true scientist, they should realize they hardly have a handle on reality to the point they can assume all points of view other than their own is invalid. There are many ways to understand truth. The litmus test isn't how someone interprets it, but how they live their lives. "By their fruits you shall know them", not by their beliefs in this doctrine or that, or this understanding of the Bible or another.

Click to expand...

Respectfully, no.
Fundamentalism is based on the Bible being both Literal and True. 'God Breathed' is the term it uses of itself. Most reject this view (which is why they are not Fundamentalists).
However, we believe that God is the final arbiter of what is Truth. It is not a relative truth, because God does not change. It is an eternal, absolute, immutable Truth.

Placing anything before God is wrong. (always and forever)
Stealing is wrong. (always and forever)

... and before you waste time on 'what ifs', I am not God, so I don't get to make those decisions. He does. He decides what counts and what does not.

Some truths don't give a hoot about your beliefs or feelings. Like gravity.
It is not that I am unsympathetic to your desire that things ought to be different. I simply refuse to tell you "Sure, you can fly. If you don't believe in gravity, then who am I to tell you that it is bad/wrong for you to step off the roof. I believe that it is wrong for me to step off the roof, but you have every right to follow your heart and I will support you in whatever you believe."

I view the truths of scripture like the Law of Gravity (an immutable truth) and you view all religious truths as opinions.
We have no real option but to agree to disagree.

PS. The Litmus Test is what God says (for a Fundamentalist, that usually means in the Bible). The burden on me is to correctly understand what God has said. From experience, any act that costs me and benefits some one else, is usually more or less on track ... love is like that.

atpollard said:

Respectfully, no.
Fundamentalism is based on the Bible being both Literal and True. 'God Breathed' is the term it uses of itself. Most reject this view (which is why they are not Fundamentalists).
However, we believe that God is the final arbiter of what is Truth. It is not a relative truth, because God does not change. It is an eternal, absolute, immutable Truth.

Click to expand...

This problem with this is that even if you believe something is spelled out in black and white in the Bible, you are still interpreting what is being said through all of your relative filters. No interpretation is absolute. Even though you may hold that God does not change, how we understand God in fact does. It always changes. And no one point of view of God is absolute. You can not say the Bible's point of view is absolute either, because they Bible does not read. It is read. And those who read are fallible in their interpretations.

A very basic example of this would be if I typed something on the screen for you to read. You read it and you walk away with an understanding of what I wrote. But it is not my thoughts. It is your thoughts about my thoughts. You see? And I guarantee you, how you process what I say coming out of my mind, will not be identical to what my mind was seeing. It's not possible. You don't have all the prerequisite contexts in which I am placing my understanding and speaking from. Now, if you were to walk away as an "authority" on what I said, proclaim yourself right and all others wrong for their interpretations of my words, I'd consider you deluded and foolish. Make sense?

atpollard said:

Placing anything before God is wrong. (always and forever)
Stealing is wrong. (always and forever)

Click to expand...

Is it? If you place your ideas about God as the truth, isn't that putting your ideas before God? Isn't it a form of self-deception, that one believes they are placing God first, when in reality they aren't through insisting their own points of view about God are absolutely true? How can one learn anything when your glass is already filled by your own beliefs?

But furthermore, regarding stealing is always and forever wrong, there is a basic test question given to test subjects by developmental psychologists that goes like this:

• A man that has no money to afford some medication that will in fact save his wife who is dying has an opportunity to just steal the drug and save her life. Should he take it? And state your reasons for why you believe he should or shouldn't take it.

I would be curious to hear your answer to this moral dilemma. There are three basic responses that people always give. Is yours "No, he shouldn't steal it because stealing is always wrong. In which case his wife will die, but it was the morally right thing to do because stealing is always and forever wrong"? Or do you have another way you might answer this dilemma?

atpollard said:

... and before you waste time on 'what ifs', I am not God, so I don't get to make those decisions. He does. He decides what counts and what does not.

Click to expand...

But you do have choices, and the world is full of morally ambiguous choices. You have to make choices that are not spelled out for you. That's part of being a mature individual. I do not believe God expects people to be stuck following rule books their whole lives. When grow up we become responsible for making good choices when things aren't spelled out in some pocket-law book. I can provide Bible verses to support this, if you like.

atpollard said:

Some truths don't give a hoot about your beliefs or feelings. Like gravity.

Click to expand...

Don't mistake the "laws" of physics with the rest of reality. People have choices to make. They are not machines following binary code language injecting into them like robots. The world is far more subtle and nuanced than that, far more complex than just the law of gravity. You may be able to predict where Jupiter will be in 100 years from now, but not be able to predict where your dog will be 10 seconds from now. Very few things actually are that predictable like that. Gravity and the rest of life are not a valid comparison. And yes, how we feel about truths in fact influences their reality, when you move past the lowest possible components into higher realms of complexity, such as the notions of truth in human societies and cultures.

atpollard said:

I view the truths of scripture like the Law of Gravity (an immutable truth) and you view all religious truths as opinions.

Click to expand...

So, do you then reduce God to a mathematical formula? Do you believe we could know God if we have the correct code to unlock these fixed truths? I do not. I believe truth is created. I believe truth is dynamic, not static. That's why it's called "Living Truth". If something is static, it neither grows nor evolves, it's dead. That's what defines Death.

atpollard said:

We have no real option but to agree to disagree.

Click to expand...

I literally despise that response when people pull it out. It's such a discussion kill. In reality I do not believe all opinions are of equal value. I believe some opinions people espouse are in fact completely illegitimate. Some opinions are ill-informed and therefore they are not "entitled" to them as if they hold equal value.

As far as religious truths in my view as "opinions", it's a bit more complex than that! There are perspectives, interpretations and understandings of truth. And though all interpretations are not absolute, some are in fact better than others. I do not see these as "just an opinion". I would call them insights, versus just blathering out whatever enters into their minds. Some do this of course, and I consider those to be just uninformed opinions worth very little, or are outright harmful.

atpollard said:

PS. The Litmus Test is what God says (for a Fundamentalist, that usually means in the Bible).

Click to expand...

I hear this said all the time, but I've never seen a Bible verse that says you measure someone's connection with the Truth by how they interpret the Bible. I read instead Jesus' words when he says "By their fruits you shall know them". It by what comes out of the heart of man that judge them. Not what their opinions about what this verse or that one means. I think fundamentalists have it absolutely backwards and upside down if they place their theology ahead of the fruits of the Spirit.

atpollard said:

The burden on me is to correctly understand what God has said. From experience, any act that costs me and benefits some one else, is usually more or less on track ... love is like that.

Click to expand...

I could in fact make an argument that many people who are "self-sacrificing" doing everything for others and nothing for themselves, may in fact not be acting out of genuine love at all. It goes much, much deeper than you may imagine.

Windwalker said:

This problem with this is that even if you believe something is spelled out in black and white in the Bible, you are still interpreting what is being said through all of your relative filters. No interpretation is absolute. Even though you may hold that God does not change, how we understand God in fact does. It always changes. And no one point of view of God is absolute. You can not say the Bible's point of view is absolute either, because they Bible does not read. It is read. And those who read are fallible in their interpretations.

A very basic example of this would be if I typed something on the screen for you to read. You read it and you walk away with an understanding of what I wrote. But it is not my thoughts. It is your thoughts about my thoughts. You see? And I guarantee you, how you process what I say coming out of my mind, will not be identical to what my mind was seeing. It's not possible. You don't have all the prerequisite contexts in which I am placing my understanding and speaking from. Now, if you were to walk away as an "authority" on what I said, proclaim yourself right and all others wrong for their interpretations of my words, I'd consider you deluded and foolish. Make sense?

Click to expand...

Damn, this is going to take a while.
Yes it makes sense.

I am called to surrender all I know of me to all I know of God ... at this moment.
I do the best I can at each moment.
Yes, my point of view changes. Sometimes daily.
Tomorrow, I will know more about me and more about God and, therfore, more will be expected of me, by me. However, God's word will not have changed. God's character will not have changed. So the RIGHT thing to do, whether I see it or not, will not have changed. That is Truth, God's Truth.

Windwalker said:

Is it? If you place your ideas about God as the truth, isn't that putting your ideas before God? Isn't it a form of self-deception, that one believes they are placing God first, when in reality they aren't through insisting their own points of view about God are absolutely true? How can one learn anything when your glass is already filled by your own beliefs?

But furthermore, there is a basic test that is given by developmental psychologists that goes like this:
A man that has no money to afford some medication that will in fact save his wife who is dying has an opportunity to just steal the drug and save her life. Should he take it? And what state the reasons for why you believe he should or shouldn't he take it.
I would be curious to hear your answer to this moral dilemma. There are three basic responses that people always give. Is yours "No, he shouldn't steal it because stealing is always wrong. In which case his wife will die, but it was the morally right thing to do because stealing is always and forever wrong"? Or do you have another way you might answer this dilemma?

Click to expand...

A clever game, but I don't care to play.
I have had too many opportunities to live out those sorts of issues in real life.

Do you remember the Donner Party?
Was it wrong to turn to canibalism to survive?
How have they lived with the consequences of their decisions?

We can play 'what ifs' with sick wifes, but what are the unintended consequences of stealing the medicine? Does she acidentially OD and die anyway, then he goes to prison and his children get raised by the state? Had he not stolen, might he made the local news, gone viral and brought help to others in similar circumstances? Will she recover and he commit suicide from the guilt?

In the real world, these stories play out in complex and unpredictable ways.
I have, thus far, chosen to trust in the innate goodness of God no matter what the circumstances. It has served me well for 35 years.

Windwalker said:

But you do have choices, and the world is full of morally ambiguous choices. You have to make choices that are not spelled out for you. That's part of being a mature individual. I do not believe God expects people to be stuck following rule books their whole lives. When grow up we become responsible for making good choices when things aren't spelled out in some pocket-law book. I can provide Bible verses to support this, if you like.

Click to expand...

I was unclear. Whether YOU stealing the medicine for your spouse, or marrying someone of the same sex, or smoking cigarettes, or eating raw shellfish, or swearing like a sailor is right or wrong is not MY responsibility to decide. Too many people seem to feel compelled to be Jimminy Cricket to everyone around them, proclaiming THUS SAYS THE LORD, YOU HEATHEN SINNER!!! I feel no such urge. My God is big enough to handle your sins all by himself if He feels that they need handling.

If you are dumb enough to ask me, then I am obligated to tell you the Truth to the best of my ability, but your sin (or not sin) is between you and God. I have no reason to be judging anyone for anything (except me).

However, I have found that if I ask God a question, he ususlly provides an answer with an amazingly short turn around time. The 'dificulty' in understanding scripture is often greatly over-stated. God's instructions tend to be easy to comprehend and harder to actually do. (like 'Love your enemies'.)

Windwalker said:

Don't mistake the "laws" of physics with the rest of reality. People have choices to make. They are not machines following binary code language injecting into them like robots. The world is far more subtle and nuanced than that, far more complex than just the law of gravity. You may be able to predict where Jupiter will be in 100 years from now, but not be able to predict where your dog will be 10 seconds from now. Very few things actually are that predictable like that. Gravity and the rest of life are not a valid comparison. And yes, how we feel about truths in fact influences their reality, when you move past the lowest possible components into higher realms of complexity, such as the notions of truth in human societies and cultures.

So, do you then reduce God to a mathematical formula? Do you believe we could know God if we have the correct code to unlock these fixed truths? I do not. I believe truth is created. I believe truth is dynamic, not static. That's why it's called "Living Truth". It something is static, it's dead.

Click to expand...

The complexity is beyond my comprehension, but not beyong God's comprehension. I view God's character/nature as every bit as unchanging as the laws of Physics and far more complex than even Quantum Physics. My inability to fully comprehend and predict God, does not make him random or capricious or morally relativistic.

My predominant choice, faced every day, is to trust God or to not trust God (and attempt to grab those reins myself). I choose to trust God.

Windwalker said:

I literally despise that response when people pull it out. It's such a discussion kill. In reality I do not believe all opinions are of equal value. I believe some opinions people are in fact not entitled to hold. Some opinions are ill-informed and therefore illegitimate. As far as religious truths in my view as "opinions", it's a bit more complex than that! There are perspectives, interpretations and understandings of truth. And though all interpretations are not absolute, some are in fact better than others. I do not see these as "just an opinion". I would call them insights, versus just blathering out whatever enters into their minds. Some do this of course, and I consider those to be just uninformed opinions worth very little.

Click to expand...

Sorry to **** you off.
The reality (especially around here) is that there are a LOT of people that are never going to agree with the personal convictions of a Calvinist Baptist Fundamentalist. For me to pretend that I am going to chat my way into a middle ground with most of the people that I meet here is crazy. 'Live and let live' is the only philosophy that allows me to participate at all. I state my opinion where it might provide more light than heat, and I move on. Outside the DIRs, I enter a topic with the expectation of being 'enlightened' until there is just no fun left in the discussion.

Windwalker said:

I hear this said all the time, but I've never seen a Bible verse that says you measure someone's connection with the Truth by how they interpret the Bible. I read instead Jesus' words when he says "By their fruits you shall know them". It by what comes out of the heart of man that judge them. Not what their opinions about what this verse or that one means. I think fundamentalists have it absolutely backwards and upside down if they place their theology ahead of the fruits of the Spirit.

I could in fact make an argument that many people who are "self-sacrificing" doing everything for others and nothing for themselves, may in fact not be acting out of genuine love at all. It goes much, much deeper than you may imagine.

Click to expand...

Time for another claification. As a Calvinist, I am sort of sensitive to anything that even hints of earning your salvation by works. Fruit of the Spirit is the RESULT of salvation, not the CAUSE of salvation. That was my only point.

I attend a Pentacostal Church with a few 'saints' that think that any crazy thought that pops into their head must be from god and needs to be proclaimed like an OT prophet. "God told me you will be a preacher." "God told me that you will start your own business." I ususlly respond "Thank you, but I am waiting for God to tell me, Himself."

Your 'many self-sacrificing' people sound like they should hang out with my 'prophets'. Both churches would be better off.
Some people are idiots. Why should the Church be exempt?

wintersolstice said:

Is there room for Christian fundamentalists?

Click to expand...

Well look. If everybody would just scoot over a bit, I'm sure we can squeeze one in. Like that guy, why does he need his legs spread so far apart? He's taking up room and a half. And that person over there is taking up extra room just for his coat. Come on people. Move over.

atpollard said:

Damn, this is going to take a while.

Click to expand...

Yes, I do like to roll up the sleeves in a discussion when I feel inspired to do so.

atpollard said:

Yes it makes sense.

I am called to surrender all I know of me to all I know of God ... at this moment.
I do the best I can at each moment.
Yes, my point of view changes. Sometimes daily.
Tomorrow, I will know more about me and more about God and, therfore, more will be expected of me, by me. However, God's word will not have changed. God's character will not have changed. So the RIGHT thing to do, whether I see it or not, will not have changed. That is Truth, God's Truth.

Click to expand...

We are in agreement then that what you may currently understand as a truth about God is in fact subject to change? God may be unchanging, but our understanding is not "the truth", nor ever really can be considered this? That then does seem to make the whole claim of believing in the "literal truth" of God's word in fact relative to the person, doesn't it?

I think a better way to maybe state this would be that you believe God is the standard you wish to base your beliefs around, but that your beliefs are in fact subject to change because you cannot know truth absolutely, even if you are told absolute truth. Agreed?

atpollard said:

A clever game, but I don't care to play.
I have had too many opportunities to live out those sorts of issues in real life.

Click to expand...

It's not actually a game at all. It's a question designed to gauge how someone makes choices, what sorts of mechanisms they use, etc. There is no right or wrong answer, but it's designed to see how you approach such choices. Someone who is at a pre-conventional stage of development will answer, "I'd steal it because I can, and F- you if you think you can stop me!". Someone at the conventional stage of development would say, "No, I wouldn't because stealing is wrong, and that is right to follow the rules". Someone at the postconventional stage would respond, "Yes, I'd steal it because the life of an individual is a greater value than for another to lose some money.". So the three basic responses are Yes, No, and Yes. But the yeses are for very different reasons, the latter being much more sophisticated than the first, or the second responses.

The point of this exercise, not game, is to shed light on how one approaches and resolves life's dilemmas. That you responded originally stating that, "Stealing is wrong. (always and forever)", would seem to place you at the conventional stage of moral development. (See Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development). I asked the question to see if your answer might offer a different insight.

atpollard said:

I have, thus far, chosen to trust in the innate goodness of God no matter what the circumstances. It has served me well for 35 years.

Click to expand...

In reality, if you understand that your understanding of God is relative, and not absolute, then your trust in God is in fact a reflection of yourself. No? I'm glad it has served you well, but it makes me think of something Jesus' once said to someone who received healing from him. He said, "Your faith has made you whole". Please note he did not say, "I did it! Praise me for what I did!". He said it was her faith that did it. There is a lot in that little verse that I think escapes most people.

atpollard said:

I was unclear. Whether YOU stealing the medicine for your spouse, or marrying someone of the same sex, or smoking cigarettes, or eating raw shellfish, or swearing like a sailor is right or wrong is not MY responsibility to decide. Too many people seem to feel compelled to be Jimminy Cricket to everyone around them, proclaiming THUS SAYS THE LORD, YOU HEATHEN SINNER!!! I feel no such urge. My God is big enough to handle your sins all by himself if He feels that they need handling.

Click to expand...

This of course much better than going around telling everyone how wrong they are. But to challenge your thinking here, aren't you in fact judging them in your heart that they are wrong and sinning, even if you "leave it up to God" to deal with them, "handling their sins if He feels that they need handling"? You see, in your mind, you have already judged it a sin, and them in error. You have in effect, put yourself in the seat of judgement of what is sin, but took the "higher road" of letting God deal with the problem instead of you.

In my understanding, it's not your place to judge at any level that it is a sin. Paul speaks of this at some length as well in letting everyone's own conscious be judge of themselves. To one eating meat is a sin, to another it is not. To me, sin, is far more basic that this practice or that. Those are only issues to people who need hard rules to follow, not to those who live for God from the heart, not from a rule book.

atpollard said:

If you are dumb enough to ask me, then I am obligated to tell you the Truth to the best of my ability, but your sin (or not sin) is between you and God. I have no reason to be judging anyone for anything (except me).

Click to expand...

But you see, you can share your view something is wrong, but you have to acknowledge that your view is relative, not absolute. And since we cannot judge another man's servant, as Jesus most clearly taught, we then therefore simply do not judge in any way shape or form, and let love speak instead, embracing those who love, regardless of how we think they are measuring up to some standard we have come to believe for ourselves. Right?

atpollard said:

However, I have found that if I ask God a question, he ususlly provides an answer with an amazingly short turn around time. The 'dificulty' in understanding scripture is often greatly over-stated. God's instructions tend to be easy to comprehend and harder to actually do. (like 'Love your enemies'.)

Click to expand...

I can assure you there are layer upon layers upon layers of truths to unfold and explore within these things. To reduce them into easy to follow rules, is to cheapen God. Actually, to love your enemies is easy to do, if you follow the simple injunction of the greatest commandments, to Love. All this business of rules distracts from love. It's much easier to justify oneself by saying they abstain from this or that, while they swallow the camel of an uncompassionate soul.

atpollard said:

The complexity is beyond my comprehension, but not beyong God's comprehension. I view God's character/nature as every bit as unchanging as the laws of Physics and far more complex than even Quantum Physics. My inability to fully comprehend and predict God, does not make him random or capricious or morally relativistic.

Click to expand...

I would actually say God is utter simplicity itself. It's us who make in complex. Jesus made it utterly simple. "Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself." Nothing else is needed. Nothing.

atpollard said:

Time for another claification. As a Calvinist, I am sort of sensitive to anything that even hints of earning your salvation by works. Fruit of the Spirit is the RESULT of salvation, not the CAUSE of salvation. That was my only point.

Click to expand...

I would not argue otherwise. The fruits of the Spirit is not a matter of beliefs, but a matter of the heart. If the heart is true, fruit will manifest. Even if they believe entirely differently than you.