Pardon the rather Left-Behind-ish thread title, but it does represent a real concern of mine. (And, of course, it also tars a variety of people with the same brush – more on that in a second.)
Start out by playing Bill Clinton and getting a definition of “saved.” For a Christian this would of course mean getting into a right relationship with Jesus and expecting to go to Heaven, or something expressed along those lines. For an atheist or agnostic, or for a UU, Buddhist, Hindu, or Taoist, it would probably mean “relieved of a delusional world structure that was impairing his/her thinking / progress towards Nirvana / comprehension of the Way.” But the bottom line would seem to be to get into a functional relationship with the world and Whatever underpins it, if anything.
By my standards as a Christian the rule of the game was pronounced by Jesus: “Love God with everything in you, and love all men as you love yourself. Do not judge, but give willingly, knowing that He Who controls all things cares for you and for all His creation. Do as you would be done unto. Do not impose laws on others, no matter their source, but follow God’s way for you yourself.”
And by those standards most fundamentalists fall short. Having erected the Bible into the status of a paper god, they point to its strictures as though they were proof positive of all things. And the loving God Who inspired the book seems to escape their notice.
To be sure, there are major exceptions to this rule. Jeffery (StrTrkr777), although IIRC not a strict fundamentalist, is a strong right-wing Christian and as full of compassion and commitment as one could ask. Adam (Zion) started as a pulpit-pounder, but has learned to listen and to show love as well as witness, and, though no less committed to his faith, has found the heart to care for his fellow man. And the cream of the Pounder Invasion, Jon (Navigator), Lauralee, Jason (Pariah), and Ghoti, are Christians after my own heart, with caring about others investing everything they write.
But they are the exceptions. I’ve browsed the Left Behind board (which won’t let me join) and debated at length with FriendofGod here – who at first seemed to be following in Zion’s footsteps. And the impression I get is “Kill an Atheist for Christ” or something quite similar. This depresses me.
Can fundamentalists be saved? Of course! Why waste a perfectly good fundamentalist.
Two questions:
Is your quest to “save” the fundamentalists motivated by a desire to improve the fundamentalists themselves (as the fundamentalists ostensibly are in trying to “save” others), or are you personally bothered by the presence of these obnoxious people?
You quote “love all men as you love yourself. Do not judge, but give willingly… Do not impose laws on others, no matter their source, but follow God’s way for you yourself.” Is this rule to be applied to everyone? Murderers? Rapists? Fundamentalists? If not, than you differ from the fundamentalists only in the specifics, and not in any broad principle.
Well, sure they can. Nobody is completely set in stone. I have often received the impression that many fundamentalists are trying as hard to convince themselves as they are everyone else. Their stridency when pressed with the illogic of some of their statements at times reeks of desperation. FoG, for instance, dodges questions (or abandons threads) whenever they are uncomfortable for him, or replies with a quote from the Bible rather than do any real thinking for himself. That kind of evasion leaves me with the distinct impression that the person in question knows that the emperor has no clothes, but is still afraid to speak up. I think it’s because that particular stripe of Fundamentalism primarily isn’t about faith, but about certainty.
Well, to quote the Boss, “Why do you call [them] good. No one is good except the Father.”
It wouldn’t be so much improving them as, IMO, waking them up to what a life following the Man Who they claim to have taken as Lord and Savior really entails.
And you definitely have a point; why my rules and not theirs? The answer would be that they are Jesus’s rules, as set forth in Scripture. Insufficient answer, until you take into account that they (and I) claim Him as Lord. Which means He has some say over what we (fundies and I) say and do.
The “law” item was not intended to take civil/criminal law into account, but to suggest that anyone saying “God’s Law demands…” be laughed out of court. Including me. My attitudes expressed above are regarding what Christians should do. I’d like it if others followed them too, but I have no right to demand it of them. Because they and I are followers of one Lord, I do have a right to demand it of them.
Extending the idea to the secular realm is something I am not particularly interested in doing. I remain very much a pragmatist as regards how a nation ought to run itself. I figure that the average liberal says, “The gummint knows better what you need than you do yourself, so accept their strictures meekly,” while the conservative says “Everybody is quite capable of taking care of himself in all situations, and those who had the poor foresight to be born poor or to be impoverished through no fault of their own have nobody but themselves to blame.” And, based on the merge-with-Canada thread, I’d hate to be one of the people dying on the road to Libertaria General, while doctors and well-to-do libertarians ride past me in their BMWs. (Just for the record, I was born and reborn in the House of the Good Samaritan Hospital; sometimes it shows.;)) Some fair and just balance between the extremes is where I stand; I’m something of a radical moderate politically. :rolleyes:
I can think of no greater compliment on this board than to be mentioned in what I believe to be a positive manner by PolyCarp. That is I respect his opinion greatly when it comes to matters of faith and the like.
Poly, I can honestly say, “Yes, Fundamentalists can be saved.” How do I know, I was/am one. That is I have never physically smacked anyone on the head with a bible, but I have had and still hold certain beliefs that are attributed to the Fundamentatlists.
When I first came to the AOL boards, I was just as bad if not worse than Adam. I have held very strick beliefs about abortion, homosexuallity, creation, etc. I still hold very strick beliefs about alcohol, and certain other areas.
What I have learned over time is that one must open one’s mind to the ideas of others. Let’s say I read a story and I pull what I feel is a bit of symbolism out of that story. I may believe I have learned all that the author wanted to convey, but if I will listen to others who have read the same book and maybe know things about the author that I do not, I can learn even more.
I believe the bible is a book that one can never fully understand all that God was trying to convey to man.
I have listened to what my Jewish brethren have had to say (CMK, CKDex, and a lot of others whose usernames are not coming to me right now) and I have learned a lot about the long held beliefs of my God. I have listened to Poly, Lib, Snark, Monty, Adam, and many others about their ideas on the bible. I have listened to Gaudy, David B., Phil, Glitch, and many other atheists about their beliefs of this world and why they do not believe the bible. These things I have pondered over the years and have discussed with my wife and others. From them I have developed different ideas about God and my faith.
I have learned that if everything in the bible is completely literal, then there is gonna be some crazy stuff happening at the end of time and that sometimes you have to look at the context of the bible and talk to God to see what he would say to you.
Poly may be asking if Fundamentals can really go to heaven and still be fundamentals, if so, I believe the answer is yes, because I believe that all Christ asked of us was to believe that he died for our sins and accept his sacrifice and his forgiveness.
Or Poly may be asking whether or not there is any hope that Fundamentals can be saved from themselves. That is they spend so much time worrying about abortion, homosexuallity, and all the other causes that they do not do what God put them here for and that is to make the world a better place. If that is what Poly’s question is then again I feel the answer is yes. Mostly due to my statements of my transformation above.
I think there are a lot of things that cause this, but one of the main problems IMHO, is the dumbing down of America. A number of schools across the country teach memorization and test taking not learning. Science and math and the like require one to learn the method to arrive at an answer not just the answer. It is that way in church (at least in my experience). In sunday school, you are told bible stories as a child and you memorize what the story says. As an adult you are still taught what the teacher believes and only if you share ideas do you learn. But since most of the ones in the class have grown up going to the same types of sunday school classes, they all have the same “ideas”, so no exploration occurs. Then you go to worship service, you sing the same songs each week, and you listen to sermons. Obiviously the pastor knows all about the bible, he is the pastor after all. So, what he says must be true. Why read it for yourself? It is just some old dull book. Why think for yourself? The church will tell you what to think. Why get to know God personally? Isn’t knowing about him enough?
But as people engage more in communicating with different folks via the Internet (after all I would not write a letter or talk on the phone to complete strangers, but I will on the Internet), then those people will see new ideas and think on them and learn from them.
I do not participate on the LBMB because I know most of what they believe and I have likely either believed it or still believe it, but that does not help me grow. Hearing the same things does nothing but reinforce the idea. No new ideas can come from it. A place like this however, has lots of different view points and I can hear new ideas and can learn and grow from them.
Look at the names Poly has mentioned above. The ones from the LBMB have contributed quite nicely, not everyone that came by has stayed, but maybe a few have grown from the experience.
So, Poly, I believe that we Fundamentalists can be saved.
By “fundamentalists” I assume you mean those with a pound-your-Bible-in-their-face attitude. As you said, thankfully not everyone is like this. However, it’s pretty clear there’s more to the Bible than just love God and love everyone else. This sums up what Jesus taught, but it is putting everything into one general catagory without looking at specifics. There is a need for both, and God bless those who can look at the specifics without losing sight of this general command.
I would like to see more questioning on the fundamentalist side. I realize this may seem to them as if I am saying I would like to see Jews eat more ham. The problem I foresee is that unless you question your beliefs, you will never find out if you are wrong. Now, maybe they are absolutely 100% right about their particular interpretation and everyone else is wrong–but if they are wrong, they will never know. I do not think any truth is so weak that it is right to never fundamentally question it–if it is genuinely true, it should be able to withstand questioning, and if you honestly want the truth, you should be willing to discard what you once thought was true. It’s not that a “questioner” will never do wrong or hurtful things, but at least you have a chance of convincing them that they are wrong, and I don’t think a thorough thinking-through of your beliefs is harmful.
Some fundamentalists do use their unwavering beliefs to excuse bigotry and hatred; I think a hateful person may simply find this capability of unquestioning belief in a particular interpretation attractive, and not necessarily that fundamentalist beliefs are inherently hateful. I can certainly see, though, that if you accept a set of beliefs without question you will not have to doubt your righteousness even if you are clearly harming others by your actions. I think this danger is inherent in any unquestioning obedience to rote rules; maybe you are lucky and your rote rules are the best ones ever, but if they’re not you’re going to do harm without any chance of being convinced otherwise. Some of the tenets of fundamentalist Christians are wonderful things, and holding to them unswervingly may make you a better person. Some of them seem not so great, and I am particularly concerned about any attempts to keep others from what they consider sinning–by, say, banning homosexual marriages. I prefer to allow secular laws to rule all humans, (optimally) concerned only with whether another person is harmed by an action, and let people take care of their own souls without “help” from laws inspired by some particular religion’s taboos.
That said, the very implication of “saved” seems a bit presumptuous–as if I am the arbiter of anyone’s soul besides my own! (If I had a soul, that is… <g> )We all do tend to judge others, though. I suppose my definition of “saved” would be: are you a decent person, respectful of other’s rights and beliefs, honest, willing to learn, willing to be proven wrong, willing to accept the objective evidence of this world and reason as being valid? As to whether you believe in Jesus, Yahweh, the inerrancy of the Bible or the IPU, it doesn’t matter a bit as to whether I would consider you “saved” (although it makes for entertaining debates to argue with such beliefs). Closing your eyes to facts, embracing logic when it suits you and denying it when it doesn’t, using your particular interpretation of a book to excuse hurtful acts…that’s the bad side of unquestioning beliefs. But you can still be a grade-A fundamentalist and not do any of those things, and many of the fundamentalists on this MB do not.
Despite your outrageous mischaracterization of Libertaria General (see MPSIMS sometime tomorrow morning), drawn from a misapprehension of economics, I hold you in the highest regard. My shock at that slap is mitigated, however, by Jeffery’s mention of me, and I realize that we are all brothers, children of God, and in fact, Gods.
With respect to your three questions, my opinions follow:
Can fundamentalists be saved? Yes.
What are your definitions? I define a fundamentalist as a strict adherent to a doctrine. That, of course, makes me a fundamentalist libertarian.
What do you think? I think you and I (and some others) are fundamentalist Christians.
Well, sure, there’s more to the Bible than that. But Poly seems to me to be saying that the Bible is not the Way, it is not the Word, it is not the Christ.
There might be more to the Bible than love God and love your neighbor, but there isn’t anything more to salvation than that.
OK, I’m gonna ramble a bit but I’m trying to make a point. Really.
Ptahlis said:
Yeah. And to me, Fundamentalism reeks of a failure of imagination above all else.
You can’t really accept someone else’s viewpoint unless you can both: A) allow for uncertainty on your part and B) have the imagination to see that the other person’s viewpoint might be correct.
So I got to thinking:
Polycarp says:
and also:
I like that definition. But some fundamentalist Christians argue that those two statements are irreconcilable, because the practice of getting into any relationship with “the world” represents a tainting of one’s soul. Hence, they argue that the less isolated you are the less “saved” you are. This general train of thought is also used to support the idea that challenging “the Word of God” (ie applying critical thinking skills) is also wrong.
Now, part of the problem I’ve had following a lot of the religious debates around here is that there’s such an enormous variety of definition even within (supposedly) narrowly defined groups, that most debates drown in bickering over definitions. But sometimes it seems impossible to advance past that.
For instance, I’ve done a lot of comparative religious study (both from a philosophical and an anthropological basis). When the dilemma above comes up, I think about the work of Kierkegaard, who went on at great length about whether critical thinking is a violation of faith, or whether it is a prerequisite to true faith. I mean, the guy wrote volumes and volumes about this, it is not as simple as one camp being right and the other wrong.
Another example, the quote of Christ:
(emphasis mine)
Seems to fly directly in the face of some who firmly believe that being “saved” requires proselytization on the part of the applicant (or should that be supplicant?)
I think about all this and end up feeling like the orignal question is non-sequitur, or at least, inherently meaningless. Can one hand clap? I feel that most of thse questions can be answered any way you want, just so long as you define your terms appropriately in advance.
And it seems to me (OK I’m finally getting to my point here) that beyond just being arrogant, trying to say who and who cannot be saved does little to advance understanding but instead plays right into the certainty trap.
I would prefer to get comfortable with the ambiguity and unknowability of it.
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Three months, two days, 21 hours, 8 minutes and 17 seconds.
3755 cigarettes not smoked, saving $469.40.
Life saved: 1 week, 6 days, 55 minutes.
Well, Poly’s OP seems to me to be using “saved” in an individualistic way, allowing “saved” to mean basically “turned away from their views to ____,” with the blank being defined as what we wish it to be. Whatever God uses as a standard is a different debate entirely.
The one “sin” JC personally railed on about, was intolerance, especially religous intolerance. It is the one “big” sin of my Church* also. And many “Fundies” are intolerant, but by no means all. Of course, that sin, even tho the “worst” sin, can be forgiven also, like any other. But many “Fundies” go to their grave intolerant and unrepentant about being intolerant. Whether that damns them or not is a matter of interpretation, but certainly they “got some 'splaining to do”, AND a big surprize. “Of course, that’s just my opinion, I could be wrong.”
That’s the Celtic Christian Church, for those of you not following along.
Yes, Poly, it does seem beyond our best efforts to save those who are so enamored of sin that they must spend all their lives seeking it out (in others, of course.) But take heart, it is not our task to save them. It is our task only to love them. He shall save every soul that will be saved. So sad that that might not be every soul that ever was, but it may be so.
Saving them is not our task. It is the most bitter lesson for anyone who finds themselves filled with joyous good news, and eager to spread it to the wretched world. Or perhaps the MOST bitter is learning that appointing oneself the standard bearer of the Lord is unrepentant pride, and will bring stinging tears to your eyes, when at last you see yourself as others see you, vain, self absorbed, and pitiable. Even that pride is not beyond redemption.
It’s really about the good news. It’s about the love that lives forever, and reaches into the depths of each and every soul. We don’t have the answers. We don’t figure out the way Heaven. It’s a gift, and it is offered to each and all. And there will be some who think I am undeserving of His love. They are right, but the miracle is that He loves me anyway. It is much harder to love Christians than it is to love Christ.
There in a nutshell, Jeffery, is the precise distinction between you and “them” – the group I would have tarred. Your faith is, IMHO, the more strong for having been questioned and your having to bear witness to it in an open forum with standards that do not start with, “Now, let’s open to the Epistle to the Colossians.” (The idea of David B. leading a Bible study just gave me a bad case of the giggles.:)) And that, in a nutshell, is why I am proud to call you friend and brother.
I think you targeted me perfectly there. If “sin” is anything that comes between you and God, then if the Bible’s words come between you and God, the Bible becomes an occasion for sin. Granted that the usual application of this definition is more what FriendofGod trotted out in the “Christianity and Love” threads, anything can be sinful if it fills that bill.
Gaudere said:
I’d appreciate your expanding on this thought. I suspect you mean “they will never know because (IYHO) they will die deluded, and there’s nothing after death.” But I’d welcome clarification.
She also said:
That is at the nitty gritty of my theme here. I find the lack of “love thy neighbor (i.e., every human being) as thyself” in most fundamentalist writings, broadcasts, press releases, etc. to be so far from the principles proclaimed by the Founder of their faith as to make me physically ill. (I am not exaggerating; I’ve developed stomachaches as a result of encountering some diatribes.)
Libertarian started with:
I brought this up because of my failure to identify “law” in my OP as "God’s law, as set forth in this here Holy Book – never mind whether Torah, Paul’s letters, the Koran, or Brother Philip’s Explication of God’s Plan is being referred to – and other posters’ consequent misapprehension that I was talking about civil/criminal law. Way off subject, but my view is that the extreme of any viewpoint leads to unChristlike behavior, Libertarianism (I am sorry to say to you) included. A Libertarian Christian such as yourself would see his proper role as aiding the man by the side of the road, as would a good-hearted person of any or no religious persuasion. But Objectivist Libertarianism as a political philosophy would say that no such charitable act is required, and that expecting the community organized as a political entity to perform such an act is a trespass on the individual rights of all other members of the community. Wherefore I reject it. Not the general theory, but the application to that extreme.
Lib continued:
Well, yeah. The guy who invented fundamentalism had a definition that includes only those points that you and I have posted as agreeing with. He was interested in protecting the fundamentals of Christianity from a watered-down version indistinguishable from Unitarianism but dressed up in Trinitarian clothes. (I am not slamming Unitarianism by this – I am slamming the hypocrisy of calling oneself by a category that one has twisted the meaning of way out of what is normally meant by it. Which is getting dangerously close to the Lib./Gaudere terminology front, and that is a can of worms I want to leave hermetically sealed for this thread, if neither of you mind.) The problem is that fundamentalism accreted additional doctrines such as Biblical literalism and refused to examine what it was that were those “fundamentals” that Christianity ought to focus on. So that you get people who claim, e.g., that anyone who accepts any evolutionary process as part of God’s world cannot be a “Christian” – their definition being restricted to “one who adheres to the literal reading of the whole Bible” – except those parts we consider metaphorical, as when Jesus said, “This is my body.” Can’t let any of that heretical Catholic doctrine in!!
So, yes, I am a fundamentalist, but Gaudere would quickly say that I’m playing a Lib-type redefinition of terms in saying so. And, given what the term has come to mean, Lib., she would be right. When the Elizabethans read “he prevents the coming of the morning” they didn’t figure “he” was stopping dawn from arriving – they understood it to mean “arrives before” as it clearly meant – except that today we never use that meaning of “prevent” and by saying “your post prevented mine” I’d only be confusing the T.M., not making clear that you posted first.
Again, right on target. I am not denying the value of the Bible, just pointing out that what Jesus had to say was that those two rules were the basis of all moral behavior for a theist, the two commands to be followed come Hell or high water. Dredging out something from Leviticus or First Corinthians and putting it on a standard with them is going contrary to Jesus’ clear instructions and to underscore the point He Himself “breaks the Law” by, e.g., healing on the Sabbath when work, including healing, might not be done under the Law.
ren had a detailed and thoughtful post. Some comments apropos what he had to say.
First, as I hope most people picked up on, my thread-title question was not to be taken literally (:D!!) but was a provocative question in the tradition I learned from a Demonic Presence of my acquaintance. (Hi, “Stan”!) And as a Christian myself, it does have more than an ironic meaning to me – quite literally, there is a serious problem in the salvation of someone who turns from the clear instructions of a Man Who is God Incarnate to follow the legalistic paradigm He condemned, particularly when they do it in His Name. (As I recall, He said something that effectively predicted this, about many saying things in His Name but doing not His works.)
ren continued:
I’ve never made any secret of the fact that what I have to say here is intended to present the faith I hold in such a light as to make others willing to accept it. In a really great quote someone else has adopted as a signature line, St. Francis of Assisi once said: “Preach the Gospel of Christ to all men. If necessary, use words.”
Danielinthewolvesden commented:
My sentiments exactly. I ran across a LBMB thread including a post from a woman who was complaining about her sister who, in her words, “believed in toleration and acceptance” although she was “raised to believe in good Christian doctrine.” She was worried about her sister’s salvation for following this unChristian view.
I started to put a smiley after that last paragraph. But for me it is no laughing matter. That somebody seriously could say that sort of thing paints such an evil picture that I want to weep.
Daniel’s comment “…got some 'splaining to do. And a big surprize” echoes with my thoughts exactly. I’ve said more than once here (and got just what I expected! :eek: ) the people who will be the most surprised at the Second Coming will be the fundamentalists who thought they had it all figured out.
And I just thank God once again for Triskadecamus, whose post was just what I needed to hear.
Thanks, everybody, for thoughtful comments and wisdom.
Thanks for clearing all that up. It is important to stress that libertarianism is not immoral; on the contrary, its ethic of noncoercion is eminently moral. You might have used a better metaphor, for example “Tyrannia General”.
As to fundamentalism, I submit that what passes for “Christian fundamentalism” ought to be called “Biblical fundamentalism”. If atheists can clarify such things as “soft atheist”, “hard atheist”, and “agnostic”, then surely they will not mind our clarifying a term like “fundamentalist”. Besides, they know which witch is which.
As to Tris, I hesitate to burden him with this, but he is my mentor — the example to which I aspire — Gaudere made whole, if you will. I’m not good enough even to wash his feet, though I know he would disagree.
I don’t really have anything substantive to add to that.
