My first pit: Judgmental (Typical?) Fundamentalists

[SCCajun]

Heh, immagine my surprise at the topic of my first Pit Thread. Let me explain.

(After I wrote it, I realized that some of you may not want to read it, so I moved it below. See Introduction if you want to know about me in more detail. In order to explain the sentence above, I'll just say...)

I am a devout fundamentalist Christian.

That said, I was reading and responding to this thread, and I discovered who Mr. Phelps is.

As I said in that thread (page 2 toward the end), let me apologize from my heart, as a fundamentalist for the attitudes and actions of some (most) of the fundamentalists who are idiots. Makes me sick and angry. So angry I could curse, but I try not to.

Anyway, where was I. Oh yeah, listen, everyone, but especially those of you here that are gay or lesbian, I am VERY sorry for idiots like him. We don't have to agree in order to treat each others decently. In fact, when I joined this board, I didn't expect to find many people to agree with me. I did expect to find people who were decent human beings deserving of respect and kind treatment.

Now, I don't expect any fast and furious friends, I really don't expect any of you to even like or trust me. However, when I read the brief description provided of Phelps, it really made me sick. He has the rights to his beliefs, but to be so mean spirited and evil towards others is not the image of Christ that he is supposed to be projecting.

I am and probably will always be a fundamentalist, but please, please, please, don't make the mistake of lumping me in with the rest of the self-righteous, arrogent, judgmental idiots just because they have stolen a label that I wear.




My Introduction is below. It is rather graphic and free with my opinions. Proceed with caution:








I am a devout fundamentalist Christian. Yes, I said fundamentalist. I believe the Bible. I believe every word is verbally inspired by God and infallible. I believe that it was preserved to modern English speaking generations by the protective hand of God.

I believe that anyone who doesn't accept Jesus Christ's payment for their sins will die and spend an eternity in a literal burning Hell. Those who do (sincerely and in faith) accept that payment will be taken to a literal Heaven.

I believe in a literal 7 day creation of this world. I believe it happened less than 10,000 years ago. I believe in a literal Adam and Eve as the first parents of all mankind. I believe that among other things, gossip, gluttony, homosexual acts, extramarital sex, stealing, lying, and murder are all sins.

Please don't misunderstand. I chose that list purposefully. There are things that I do on that list, and I'm not judging anyone else, I'm simply saying what I believe. I further believe that you have the right and liberty, granted to you by the very God of the universe to do what you want with your life regardless of whether I think it is a sin or not.

I am at a crossroads in determining how these two ideas (my beliefs and your freedoms) should meet in the place of governments and laws. I honestly don't have an answer that satisfies me yet.

End of Introduction.

[Polycarp]

It's certainly your privilege to believe as you choose. And though you may get flames for some of what you've said, count me out on them. I'll happily share with you what I believe on the creedal assertions you've made, if and when you wish.

But there are two premises I believe you will find extremely useful and which do not contravene your beliefs that I think will be immensely helpful to you as you work out your answers to that antinomy that you face.

1. It's a longstanding formula among conservatives and in particular literalists to "let the Bible interpret the Bible." You'll notice in the Sodom and Gomorrah GD thread that we gave the evidence from Ezekiel (and Isaiah and Jeremiah back him up, though not so clearly) as to what "the sin of Sodom" for which they were condemned was. Granted that you could stop 100 people on the street and ask "What was Sodom condemned for in the Bible?" and get the answer "homosexuality," that's somebody's opinion, not what the Bible itself says.

It's also very helpful, and not at all unBiblical, to get all available information about cultural customs, legal standards, and social mores regarding the time and place written of in Scripture. Then you know why X swearing an oath to Y placed his hand on Y's thigh, you know why Abraham and Isaac kept playing the "She's not my wife, she's my sister" game, you know why "high places" and "standing stones" are matters that piss off any randomly chosen O.T. prophet. All they do is add to your understanding of the Bible story, in the same way as knowing that a male character in a tense situation in a historical novel is taking off his gloves means that he's about to challenge someone to a duel, adds to your appreciation of what's going on in that novel.

2. Scripture says a lot of things, and while they can be interpreted into conformity with each other, sometimes that takes bending the story all out of shape. But there is one thing regarding moral theology, and in particular your feelings of live-and-let-live vs. sinfulness, that has always been key to my understanding. Four times in the Gospels Jesus says that something "is" (encapsulizes) all the Law and the Prophets (i.e., all the Old Testament). Three times it's the two commandments he describes as first and greatest and second to it: Love God with your total self, and love your neighbor as ourself. The fourth is the Golden Rule. Repeatedly He and Paul say that in judging others you incur judgment on yourself, that we are all guilty, all entitled to forgiveness, and that we are forgiven in the same way as we forgive, and condemned in the same way as we condemn. And He said that whatever we do or not do towards our fellow man, He will regard as done or not done towards Him.

That you may have grounds for believing some things that most people believe patently false about the world is one thing, and purely your business. That you follow His commandments in your behavior toward others, and resist the all-too-human temptation to judge and condemn others, is something different. That's where you cross the line between your private business and what is not only not commanded but forbidden in the Gospels.

Live according to what Jesus said was most important, behave towards others as if you saw Christ in them, and believe what you wish. (But don't forget my offer to discuss those issues you set forth as "I believes" in your OP; most of them are capable of several interpretations, including ones that don't conflict with our understanding of the natural world. I mean it sincerely and not argumentatively, and I do hope you'll take me up on it.)

[Liberal]

One of the most interesting OPs I've seen here, if for no other reason than it is surprising and different. Regarding this:

I am at a crossroads in determining how these two ideas (my beliefs and your freedoms) should meet in the place of governments and laws. I honestly don't have an answer that satisfies me yet.

When Jesus met with His governor, Pilate, what law did He call upon him to make? You should do what Jesus did.

[rjung]

Originally Posted by SCCajun

I am at a crossroads in determining how these two ideas (my beliefs and your freedoms) should meet in the place of governments and laws. I honestly don't have an answer that satisfies me yet.

"Separation of Church and State" has always worked for me. You have your beliefs, I have mine, and the government and laws don't take sides for either of us.

[gobear]

What Rjung said. As long as you recognize that the secular sphere and that of religion should not impinge on each other.

[SolGrundy]

Originally Posted by SCCajun

I am at a crossroads in determining how these two ideas (my beliefs and your freedoms) should meet in the place of governments and laws. I honestly don't have an answer that satisfies me yet.

Good luck. Just remember that it's much, much more difficult than finding an answer that satisfies you. It's finding an answer that satisfies everyone.

[Squink]

Originally Posted by SCCajun

...crossroads...

Get a copy of Heinlein's first novel "For Us the Living." Read it. The line is drawn where your religious freedoms start limiting the freedoms of others.

[SCCajun]

Originally Posted by rjung

"Separation of Church and State" has always worked for me. You have your beliefs, I have mine, and the government and laws don't take sides for either of us.

But when the government says that a 15 year old girl isn't old enough to give her consent in order to have sex, they are taking sides with me, but not with some other people in this world. When they say that abortion is legal, they are disagreeing with me and taking sides with someone else.

Not saying that "Separation of Church and State" is a bad ideal; I actually agree with the principle. What I'm saying is that when the government says something is wrong, they are siding with someone. Obviously, they have to side with someone, somewhere. And, since, unlike Christ in the Roman Empire, I have the ability and some would say responsability to vote. Given that, who should I vote for? That is the trouble as I see it. Maybe not as clear as it can be, but hopefully clearer than in my OP.

[gobear]

I also dislike abortion, but the choice isn't (and shouldn't) be up to me. If you dislike abortion, contribute to groups that adopt children from unwed mothers, or do something that helps reduce abortions, but what you must recognize is that you can't make people's decisions for them.

I'm sure you must oppose gay marriage, but you have to recognize that secualr legality doesn't confer religious legitimacy. You can oppose it in your church because that's between you and your co-religionists, but you ought not to oppose the secular, non-religious rights to marriage because equality belongs to everyone.

[Gorsnak]

Originally Posted by SCCajun

But when the government says that a 15 year old girl isn't old enough to give her consent in order to have sex, they are taking sides with me, but not with some other people in this world. When they say that abortion is legal, they are disagreeing with me and taking sides with someone else.

Thing is, these are not purely religious issues. There are any number of entirely secular rationales that can be used to support either side of age of consent issues or abortion. The government's taking a stand on them doesn't constitute its taking sides on religious issues.

My own understanding of seperation of church and state goes something like this:

The state should never act based on a religious motive. It may (and often does) act in ways congruent with religion, but its reasons should be secular.

The state should never interfere with religious freedom, except where the religious "freedoms" in question constitute felonies. (i.e., laws against human sacrifice are fine)

Religious groups should never attempt to use the coercive power of the state to enforce their religious views.

[Yeticus Rex]

Originally Posted by Liberal

One of the most interesting OPs I've seen here, if for no other reason than it is surprising and different. Regarding this:

When Jesus met with His governor, Pilate, what law did He call upon him to make? You should do what Jesus did.

An excellent observation.......along with "Render unto Caesar what is his but render unto God what is God's"

[Polycarp]

Originally Posted by Gorsnak

Thing is, these are not purely religious issues. There are any number of entirely secular rationales that can be used to support either side of age of consent issues or abortion. The government's taking a stand on them doesn't constitute its taking sides on religious issues.

My own understanding of seperation of church and state goes something like this:

The state should never act based on a religious motive. It may (and often does) act in ways congruent with religion, but its reasons should be secular.

The state should never interfere with religious freedom, except where the religious "freedoms" in question constitute felonies. (i.e., laws against human sacrifice are fine)

Religious groups should never attempt to use the coercive power of the state to enforce their religious views.

You put the Lemon in the SCOTUS test, and drink 'em both togeddah!

[Good Egg]

Originally Posted by SCCajun

I believe in a literal 7 day creation of this world. .

What was created on the 7th day?

[Miller]

It's nice that you can recognize Phelps for what he is, and I appreciate the apology, but really, taking a stand against Phelps is like taking a stand against Hitler. It doesn't take a whole lot of insight or courage to do so. I'd be more impressed if you were to take a stand against your co-religionists who mouth sentiments that are similiar in intent, if not intensity. Phelps is on the lunatic fringe of the lunatic fringe of the right. He's a vicious little rat, but he's ultimatly impotent in terms of political/social power. It's the Jesse Helms and the Jerry Falwells who scare me: men who are no less bigotted than Phelps, but canny enough to couch their hatred in terms that make them seem reasonable and persuasive. Speak out against them, and you'll earn my respect, little as it may be worth.

As for where to draw the line between your beliefs and your politics, I don't think it's really that hard. If you can find a valid secular reason to be opposed to something, go ahead and vote against it. If the only reasons you have to stand against something are founded in your religion, then by trying to enshrine it in law you are forcing your religion on others. Abortion, for example, does not require a religious reason to oppose it. If you believe that a fetus is the same as a person, than abortion is murder. You don't need God to tell you that murder is bad. On the other hand, there is no valid reason to oppose gay marriage that does not stem from religion. No matter what your views on homosexuality may be, you have no right to impose your own religious restrictions on people who do not share your religion.

[Zoe]

SCCajun: What I'm saying is that when the government says something is wrong, they are siding with someone. Obviously, they have to side with someone, somewhere.

I think of it this way, especially regarding Supreme Court decisions:

The Court is trying to side with the Constitution of the United States. It is we, the people, who take sides on the issue.

I am also a Christian, though not a fundamentalist. You remind me very much of the sweet-natured and generous souls who were the fundamentalists in my youth in the 1940's and 1950's. They were not angry and pushy and self-righteous then -- not the ones I knew.

I think about some of the girls in my school who had to wear long dresses that came almost to their ankles. They couldn't wear makeup because that was sinful. And the high school four miles from me didn't allow dancing of any kind. For some women, cutting their hair was a sin.

How needlessly dull and boring my high school life would have been if their ideas of sin had been allowed to become the law of the county.

Even worse, what if some people decided that St. Paul had intended women to stay out of the church life altogether? What if women had to stay home or ask their husbands or brothers for permission to leave the house -- just because that was considered "the right thing to do."

What if marriage becomes so "protected" that it is just for certain people and you have to get the government's permission to make your relationship a legal bond? What happens if they say no and you are never ever allowed to marry the person you love with all of your heart? Would Jesus celebrate with the government or weep with the lovers?

[Scissorjack]

Originally Posted by SCCajun

I believe the Bible. I believe every word is verbally inspired by God and infallible. I believe that it was preserved to modern English speaking generations by the protective hand of God.

I believe that anyone who doesn't accept Jesus Christ's payment for their sins will die and spend an eternity in a literal burning Hell. Those who do (sincerely and in faith) accept that payment will be taken to a literal Heaven.

I believe in a literal 7 day creation of this world. I believe it happened less than 10,000 years ago. I believe in a literal Adam and Eve as the first parents of all mankind. I believe that among other things, gossip, gluttony, homosexual acts, extramarital sex, stealing, lying, and murder are all sins.

So you believe that most of us are going to burn in Hell for all eternity, but apart from that you're not judging us and are prepared to play nice? Big of you. May I ask what you base your beliefs upon - faith?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I just want to say that I appreciate the spirit and intent of SCCajun's statement even if I am his philosphical polar opposite on just about every view espoused. Welcome aboard, SCC.
I would actually welcome your input into any factual debates on a few of the issues you've listed. (Evolution/Biblical inerrancy). We have precious few Fundamentalists who are willing to engage very deeply in those discussions and I think you will find that our debates, while rigorous, can be quite civil and mutually respectful. I expect that I will seldom agree with you but that doesn't mean I won't welcome you as a member or fairly consider what you say.

[dropzone]

Originally Posted by Miller

It's nice that you can recognize Phelps for what he is, and I appreciate the apology, but really, taking a stand against Phelps is like taking a stand against Hitler.

Shut up until he PAYS, dude!

Jokes aside, Miller, kaizen. He's taking his first steps and we must be patient and supportive.

SCCajun, welcome. Though I disagree with some of the specifics of your beliefs you state them so eloquently and politely I cannot help but be impressed.

[Theologue]

I am a (very) long-time lurker. The civility in this thread pushed me over the edge to pay the $9.95 and sign up.

I am a conservative (which is not the same thing as Fundamentalist) Christian theologian. I'm not particularly fond of debating, but I look forward to participating in this board more.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Good Egg

What was created on the 7th day?

The rest.

[Kinthalis]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

The rest.

That was a beautiful day

[SCCajun]

Originally Posted by Squink

Get a copy of Heinlein's first novel "For Us the Living." Read it. The line is drawn where your religious freedoms start limiting the freedoms of others.

Leave it to me to post on the Friday before one of the busiest weekends of the Little League Baseball season. So many posts I want to reply to. I'll get to them in time.

As to the above, thanks, Squink, I will look for it. I really have enjoyed the Heinlein I've read so far, "Assignment Eternity," "Starship Troopers," and "Stranger in a Strange Land." Although the latter was quite interesting to my "virgin eyes." Yeah, anyway.

Thanks for the suggestion. I don't base my socio-political views on Heinlein, but I do find that he has a way of making a reader think about much more than the novel at hand. At least this reader.

[SCCajun]

Originally Posted by Good Egg

What was created on the 7th day?

The part of my religion I don't get enough of, REST!

[SCCajun]

Originally Posted by Miller

It's nice that you can recognize Phelps for what he is, and I appreciate the apology, but really, taking a stand against Phelps is like taking a stand against Hitler. It doesn't take a whole lot of insight or courage to do so. I'd be more impressed if you were to take a stand against your co-religionists who mouth sentiments that are similiar in intent, if not intensity. Phelps is on the lunatic fringe of the lunatic fringe of the right. He's a vicious little rat, but he's ultimatly impotent in terms of political/social power. It's the Jesse Helms and the Jerry Falwells who scare me: men who are no less bigotted than Phelps, but canny enough to couch their hatred in terms that make them seem reasonable and persuasive. Speak out against them, and you'll earn my respect, little as it may be worth.

Well, I'll speak out against them as much as I have against Phelps. It was the reply to my not knowing who Phelps was that prompted my original post (and I call myself a fundie ). Anyway, for what it's worth, I think Fallwell and Helms (not as familiar with him), are more destructive because they do indeed mask their judgementalism in "good sounding" words. What they say sounds good to the typical, non-thinking evangelical or fundamentalist. They are the internal cancer to society. Phelps is a skin cancer. Skin cancer is bad, and if undetected and left alone, will cause serious problems, but it is generally easy to spot before it become too desctuctive. Internal cancer is different. It can destroy you before you even know it is cancer.

I do have to honestly admit, though, that it is far easier for me to condemn the acts of Phelps because they are so obvious. The acts of the Fallwell's and Helms' are not so obvious and often escape notice. For that, I am sorry, as well as for the attitude they secretly sow.

However, I do have to say, that I am much more vocal in our local congregation than I am in the general public and on the national political front. As I mentioned in one of my other posts, I shocked a group of folks I was talking with by trying to explain to them that the church in general and ours in specific could learn a lot from the polyamory movement. Don't do what they couldn't, though. They couldn't get past the "sex" of the polyamory to see the value of the emotional support (which is the pattern I see from the early church).

Oh well, as the subtitle says, fighting ignorance is taking longer that I think.

More later (and thanks to everyone who replied.)

Oh, and real quick before I have to go. Case Sensitive, I am sorry if you have a problem with what I believe. I'll answer your post more directly when I have more time (late for T-Ball practice as we speak).

[The Flying Dutchman]

Originally Posted by Good Egg

What was created on the 7th day?

As if we don't know. What I want to know is what did God do on the 8th day. Continue to rest or what?

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by grienspace

As if we don't know. What I want to know is what did God do on the 8th day. Continue to rest or what?

"And on the eighth day, God created woman. And when man grew tired of woman, God created Monday Night Football..."

(from some long-lost issue of Mad Magazine)

[Rhubarb]

Originally Posted by SCCajun

I shocked a group of folks I was talking with by trying to explain to them that the church in general and ours in specific could learn a lot from the polyamory movement. Don't do what they couldn't, though. They couldn't get past the "sex" of the polyamory to see the value of the emotional support (which is the pattern I see from the early church).

For an interesting treatment of this subject as well as some insight into the American Revolution, read Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress . It will definitely make you think.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by SCCajun

Well, I'll speak out against them as much as I have against Phelps. It was the reply to my not knowing who Phelps was that prompted my original post (and I call myself a fundie ). Anyway, for what it's worth, I think Fallwell and Helms (not as familiar with him), are more destructive because they do indeed mask their judgementalism in "good sounding" words. What they say sounds good to the typical, non-thinking evangelical or fundamentalist. They are the internal cancer to society. Phelps is a skin cancer. Skin cancer is bad, and if undetected and left alone, will cause serious problems, but it is generally easy to spot before it become too desctuctive. Internal cancer is different. It can destroy you before you even know it is cancer.

You're going to fit in just fine around here.

[Spoke]

Thnaks to the OP for proving what I've been trying to tell folks around here for a while.

There are plenty of fundamentalist Christians who are people of good will, and who understand (and follow) the Biblical injunction to "Judge not lest ye yourselves be judged."

Unfortunately there are a few loudmouth fundamentalists who have trouble with that passage, and they give fundamentalists a bad name.

I am an atheist myself, but I grew up in a fundamentalist church and encounter enough fundamentalists still to know that they are mostly well-intentioned, charitable people, of the "hate the sin, not the sinner" variety. Happily, you seem to be a good example of this.

Welcome aboard, and please stick around. Your beliefs will be challenged, vociferously at times. Don't let that discourage you. These boards need your point of view.

[Mighty_Girl]

Isn't this a pretty lame pit thread?

Let's see: OP posts a reasonable, intelligent, respectul first post. Then everybody else starts using logic, facts and reason to discuss his points of view. I am sure this is a first.

Welcome SCCajun, you sure are a valuable acquisition for this board. *



*And he paid!

[Siege]

Open-minded, religious, and a Heinlein fan?! SCCajun, you'll do just fine around here! I'm Siege, CJ to my friends. We met over in Great Debates earlier, when I told you you'd have to do more than just quote the Bible to get flamed around here. I'm also a devout, liberal, female Episcopalian. While I haven't been "born again" the way some Christians mean it, my faith is the most important thing in my life and it saddens me to see it abused the way Phelps and even Falwell and his ilk do.

I should warn you that you and I do disagree on the issue of who gets to go to heaven. I was a perpetual outsider in my youth long ago; one of my closest friends is a Wiccan who used to be a Fundamentalist Christian; and I've known people who've been driven away from Christianity by the actions of Christians. That said, I'm glad you've joined us and I'm looking forward to learning from you. Something tells me you've got a lot to teach as well as to learn.

To you and theologue, welcome aboard!

CJ

[eleanorigby]

Welcome aboard.

I have no real problem with "fundies" except for when they attempt to legislate their values. I see no reason why this country, diverse as it is, should be held to the morals of fundamentalist Christians.

I have a question:

Why can't you walk your own walk and leave the rest of us to find our own ways?
Why the prosletizing and adhorting to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior?

I am a nominal, disaffected Christian. I find preaching to the unwashed or unsaved or whatever to be one of the most arrogant and offensive things possible. I am not alone in this--so why do it?

Sorry to hijack-I find myself pleasantly surprised by the appearance of a sensible, courteous "fundie", so I struck while the iron was hot, so to speak.

[gobear]

Why can't you walk your own walk and leave the rest of us to find our own ways?
Why the prosletizing and adhorting to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior?

But SCCajun has done neither of those things, and in fact has been perfectly nice. He seems to be all about the "live and let live," which makes him cool in my book.

[Siege]

gobear, remind me to link to this next time someone's jumping all over you for being anti-Christian, especially if that someone is me!

CJ

[eleanorigby]

Originally Posted by gobear

But SCCajun has done neither of those things, and in fact has been perfectly nice. He seems to be all about the "live and let live," which makes him cool in my book.

But I am not saying that he (she?) is doing that.....

I am saying that it is a practice common to evangelical/fundamentalist Christians.

As I said, hey, looks to me like here's a nice, courteous one--let's ask him!

Enquring minds and all that.

[gobear]

Originally Posted by Siege

gobear, remind me to link to this next time someone's jumping all over you for being anti-Christian, especially if that someone is me!

CJ

Thank, Siege. Despite saying constantly that I'm not out to get Christians and after defending Christians in several threads, I still get hysterical ninnies attacking me because I take the "con" position on debates on the the evidence for the existence of supernatural entities.

[Good Egg]

Originally Posted by grienspace

As if we don't know. What I want to know is what did God do on the 8th day. Continue to rest or what?

Hmm. Didn't He eventually have to create rain? (the flood)

[SCCajun]

Originally Posted by Case Sensitive

So you believe that most of us are going to burn in Hell for all eternity, but apart from that you're not judging us and are prepared to play nice? Big of you. May I ask what you base your beliefs upon - faith?

Well, I don't know that I ever said anyone in particular is going to burn in Hell for all eternity. I believe that whether you do or not is between you and God. I believe that it is no less likely that a homosexual will be allowed into Heaven than that someone who gossips or tells lies. I can't tell what is REALLY in your heart than you can tell what is in mine. Because of that, I don't REALLY know that (should my beliefs prove right) whether you will be in Heaven or not.

I'm not sure whether that is "big of me" or simply honesty. I'm not trying to be hypocritical, but rather transparent. I don't want to present myself as anything more than I am. But, I am intending to "play nice."

To answer your question, yes. My beliefs are indeed based on my faith. I'm not sure that anyone can do otherwise. I know many people say that they base what they believe on facts and evidence, but they are basing their beliefs on the faith they have that what they can't see (God, Heaven, Hell, etc) doesn't exist. I'm not sure that is really clear (long day), but hopefully it is a bit of an explanation.

I think to answer the question that you didn't ask, I base my beliefs on the fact that I believe in a perfect, infallible, all-knowing, eternal God. That is the core belief. Second to that is that God provided His truth in the Scriptures, and that those Scriptures (based on their Author) are perfect, infallible, and exactly what we need to know about God.

I hope that answers your question, but more importantly, I hope you don't misunderstand my purpose. I really didn't mention it because it didn't apply to the initial post. My reason for being here is because, while I do have a strong faith, I am also what I consider a "free thinker." I don't just take the pablum(sp?) that is fed to pew-sitters in church, but study things out on my own. I'm interested in "fighting ignorance," not of others, but of myself. I'm not opposed to others disagreeing with me. I don't know everything, and I haven't considered every other possible opinion, and I'd like to learn about other ideas.

[Homebrew]

Originally Posted by Good Egg

Hmm. Didn't He eventually have to create rain? (the flood)

No, the firmament just sprung a leak.

[SCCajun]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I just want to say that I appreciate the spirit and intent of SCCajun's statement even if I am his philosphical polar opposite on just about every view espoused. Welcome aboard, SCC.
I would actually welcome your input into any factual debates on a few of the issues you've listed. (Evolution/Biblical inerrancy). We have precious few Fundamentalists who are willing to engage very deeply in those discussions and I think you will find that our debates, while rigorous, can be quite civil and mutually respectful. I expect that I will seldom agree with you but that doesn't mean I won't welcome you as a member or fairly consider what you say.

Thanks for the kindness. I enjoyed your posts in the other threads, and, while I can say that I see where we are different in some areas , I was impressed to consider views that I hadn't thought of before (especially well presented and not "shoved" at me as a "You have to accept this").

Originally Posted by dropzone

SCCajun, welcome. Though I disagree with some of the specifics of your beliefs you state them so eloquently and politely I cannot help but be impressed.

Thanks, I appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Theologue

I am a (very) long-time lurker. The civility in this thread pushed me over the edge to pay the $9.95 and sign up.

I am a conservative (which is not the same thing as Fundamentalist) Christian theologian. I'm not particularly fond of debating, but I look forward to participating in this board more.

I'm glad for what little part I played to get you in. I think the broader the scope of experience and belief, the better a chance to solidify what you really believe. However, that requires participation. That's one reason I joined. There are too many vocal fundamentalists that SHOUT idiot stuff that people don't hear what we are really about. Too much noise. I don't think conservative Christianity is too much different (at least in perception). Sure there are things we disagree on, but the loud mouth louts make both groups seem horrid, when there are some decent people in both groups.

I'm new myself, but welcome.

[AHunter3]

Welcome aboard!

If I were asked to point at something and say "that, there, is the cornerstone of my religion", it would be the reverence for the state of "wanting to know", which cannot coexist with a state of being certain that one already knows. (Not that I'm not every bit as inclined to be in the latter state quite often. I think it's an unavoidable part of being human, our intense desire to feel secure in our knowledge of things we deem important).

Like many others on this board, I have reached different understandings and conclusions than you have. On the other hand, I have reached different understandings and conclusions from nearly everyone else on this board, too. We're a pretty diverse bunch, as you've no doubt noticed!

I see in you the strength and willingness to be open, to suspend certainty and create room for that "wanting to know", to listen. I think you'll like it here, and that you'll bring much to the table for us to listen to and learn from.

[SCCajun]

Originally Posted by Rhubarb

For an interesting treatment of this subject as well as some insight into the American Revolution, read Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress . It will definitely make you think.

Cool, two new books to add to my "to read" list. And yes, some fundies do read, we don't burn all books.

Seriously, I don't get very good glances from anyone when I admit to being a Sci-Fi fan. Honestly, I think one of my Pastor's grown daughters believes that I'm a sinner for watching StarWars (who know how evil I am since I let my kids watch it). Anyway, our Pastor (fortunately) has a live and let live attitude about many things.

(OK, no comments about how even an athiest can see the evil of Star Wars. )

[furt]

So what's with the "guest" under your name?

If you don't have $14.95, I do and you can email me.

[furt]

Whoa ... did that just change?

[TVeblen]

Even though I usually avoid participating in religious issues here like the plague, I'm very glad SCCajun posted this. He (she?) sounds very much like some fundamentalists in my own family, and ones who doesn't remotely fit 99% of the stereotypes tossed around. And by that I mean the stereotypes that have become so prevalent in the media, not just here on the SDMB.

'Popular' religion is a double-edged sword, y'know? And for many quiet, sincere believers, applied faith carries its internal obligations toward charlatans as well as everyone else. For those who live the faith, it's a damned hard row to hoe.

My cousin and her family are fundamentalist Christian. They're also the absolute kindest, generous and geuniely humble people you'd ever meet. There isn't a single Doper they wouldn't welcome, and take into their home to live. And they wouldn't preach at them either. I don't believe as they do, but they've never once--NEVER--made used their faith as a barrier. (They're also side-splittingly funny. I've never yet had a meal with them, at their home or a restaurant, without all of us howling with laughter.)

But here's the catch: they live the lessons of their faith, starting and continuing with the hard ones, right down the line. They take count and responsiblity of their own souls first, which doesn't leave any time or slack for getting pissy with others. They really do place way more weight and worry on how their lives are incongruent with their beliefs than with other people's progress. But here's the related catch: applying the 'judge not' "mote in eye' things, when taken seriously for its own sake and worth, extend even to the politically expedient wannabes and manipulators.

They loathe, seriously loathe, the currently touted 'faith' bandwagon, not just because it degrades the seriousness of real, life-long commitment, but because of the active damage done. I suspect the only reason Quakers et. al. survived the excesses of the 60s/70s peace brouhaha was that they knew that wannabes might don the cloak while onlookers cheered but not last the real journey.

That was a rambling mess, but there 'tis.

Veb

[Theologue]

TVeblen , thank you for sharing your thoughtful (not messy at all) post. That’s how I try to live my life.

Too often, I have seen (here and elsewhere) the term “Fundamentalist” used pejoratively to describe any Christian who is serious about his or her faith. That person is then lumped together with the worst stereotypes and summarily dismissed. That does not help in mutual understanding.

Historically, “Fundamentalism” describes an early 20C American movement that reacted against modernism and liberal theology. The Fundamentalists affirmed the historic Christian “fundamentals” of the virgin birth, miracles, atoning death, and resurrection of Jesus, as well as the inerrancy of the Bible. Those particular beliefs would be affirmed by the vast majority of Christians, Protestant, Roman Catholic and Orthodox, who ever lived. Historical developments brought about a narrowing of the meaning as the more militant Fundamentalists pushed for separation from other conservative groups. It is thus--unfortunately, I feel--a media phenomenon that the word has been expanded to cover any strict follower of any religion. Words begin to lose their meaning when they try to cover too many different things.

Anyway, God loves us all.

[Siege]

SCCajun and Theologue, you two have just given me another reason to be glad you've joined us.

CJ

[Atticus Finch]

Welcome, SCCajun and Theologue.

A question for you two, and for the board as a whole: if the term "fundamentalist", used in the common sense of sanctimonious and hypocritical small-mindedness and intolerance, is not useful since it unfairly puts you two in the same category as the Jerry Falwells and Phred Phelpses of this world, what word should we use to replace it? That is, what word fits Falwell and Phelps, but not the more broad-minded people who share fairly similar conservative Christian beliefs?

[Scissorjack]

Originally Posted by SCCajun

...anyone who doesn't accept Jesus Christ's payment for their sins will die and spend an eternity in a literal burning Hell.

"It seemed to him that he stood in the midst of a great hall, dark and silent save for the ticking of a giant clock. The ticking went on unceasingly; and it seemed to this saint that the sound of the ticking was the ceaseless repetition of the words
: ever, never; ever, never. Ever to be in hell, never to be in heaven;ever to be shut off from the presence of God, never to enjoy the beatific vision; ever to be eaten with flames, gnawed by vermin, goaded by burning spikes; never to be free from those pains; ever to have the conscience upbraid one, the memory enrage, the mind filled with darkness and despair; never to escape; ever to curse and revile the foul demons who gloat fiendishly over the misery of their dupes, never to behold the shining raiment of the blessed spirits; ever to cry out of the abyss of fire to God for an instant, a single instant, of respite from such awful agony; never to receive, even for an instant, God's pardon; ever to suffer, never to enjoy; ever to be damned, never to be saved; ever, never; ever, never. O what a dreadful punishment! An eternity of endless agony, of endless bodily and spiritual torment, without one ray of hope, without one moment of cessation, of agony limitless in extent, limitless in intensity, of torment infinitely lasting, infinitely varied, of torture that sustains eternally that which it eternally devours, of anguish that everlastingly preys on the spirit while it racks the flesh, an eternity, every instant of which is an eternity, and that eternity an eternity of woe. Such is the terrible punishment decreed for those who die in mortal sin by an almighty and a just God."

{James Joyce, A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man}

My apologies for Joyce's lack of paragraphs. I seem to be swimming against the tide of love in this thread, but if that's genuinely what you believe, then your faith {apart from begging at least two questions - that I have sins that need to be "paid for" and that Jesus Christ, whoever he was, has in some undefined sense footed that bill} seems pretty judgemental to me, and a fairly nasty judgement at that. However, as you're at least polite in pronouncing eternal damnation upon me and almost everyone I know, that makes everything hunky-dory, doesn't it?

Oh, and your logic is rotten, too. If you are basing your beliefs upon faith, or, as you put it, "I base my beliefs on the fact that I believe in a perfect...God", then I congratulate you on managing to centre your entire spiritual well-being on a perfectly circular argument which is cheerfully impervious to evidence, reason or debate. I bid you goodnight.

[Liberal]

Originally Posted by Atticus Finch

Welcome, SCCajun and Theologue.

A question for you two, and for the board as a whole: if the term "fundamentalist", used in the common sense of sanctimonious and hypocritical small-mindedness and intolerance, is not useful since it unfairly puts you two in the same category as the Jerry Falwells and Phred Phelpses of this world, what word should we use to replace it? That is, what word fits Falwell and Phelps, but not the more broad-minded people who share fairly similar conservative Christian beliefs?

How about "extremist" or "militant"?