# My friend, the fundie? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 14, 2001, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-friend-the-fundie/57923 "2001-03-14T08:09:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![JerseyDiamond](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8491ac/32.png) [@JerseyDiamond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JerseyDiamond)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2001, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-friend-the-fundie/57923/21 "2001-03-15T02:09:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tracer \* > **JerseyDiamond wrote:** > > > [@](#): > > > > If I say something and have the Bible to back me up, what exactlty is wrong with that? > > Well, if you’re anything like most of the Fundamentalists I’ve run across, there is something wrong with the _selective_ adherence to some scriptures as the divine, inerrant word of God, and the complete avoidance of others. I do not avoid any scriptures. So maybe the people you are encountering are not christians at all. Those are the people that avoid certain scriptures. Maybe you can give me some examples of what’s avoided by these people and what’s not. It might be that I don’t know what a ‘fundie’ is. Help me out here. > [@](#): > > F’rinstance, a certain rather obnoxious subset of Fundies [TM] believes that God hates, actively hates, homosexual men. They even maintain a website to that effect. Their main argument for why God hates homosexual men is that Leviticus 20:13 prescribes the death penalty for male homosexual relations. These very same people also believe, however, that there is nothing wrong with eating ham or wearing wool-cotton blend clothing, even though the eating of pig flesh and the wearing of mixed fabrics are _also_ forbidden by Leviticus. I never said ( i’m not saying that you said I said this) thats God hates anyone. People who make website like that are not christian, they are only fooling themselves. Ok, for one, Christians are suppose to live by the New Covenant/Testament. The old testament laws are for the Jewish ( if I’m wrong and offended any Jewish, I’m sorry and please correct me). This I just needed to clear up. Yes, Christians read the Old Testament, and that makes things in the New testament more understandable. There are Laws/ rules that are in the Old Testament that are different in the New Testament. Jesus specifically tells us what is expected and what commandments to keep. That is what Christians are suppose to follow. God does not actively hate homosexuals. Yes, homosexuality is a sin, (not only in the OT but in the NT too) just as fornication is condemned by the Bible, and for the same reason; it is a perversion of God’s plan. God’s plan is one man for one woman, for life, and the sexual relationship between a man and a woman is a sacred, God given right, privilege, and pleasure, intended by God to be exercised only within the confines of marriage. Any and every other allowance for sexual practices on the part of human beings is sexual perversion. Man does not have the right to do what he pleases. God sets the standard for morality, although man seems to feel that he is free to set his own standard. God grants man the opportunity to obey him. We can choose to obey, or we can choose to be disobedient. God’s law for human beings is sexual relations within marriage, period. Man thinks this to be too restrictive, so he looks for ways to rationalize his perversion ( yes, this is perversion because it’s not part of Gods plan). Some sexual perverts enjoy pornographic material, some sexual perverts are adulators, some perverts want sex with children, some sexual perverts engage in sex with animals, some are homosexuals. All of these are previsions of God’s plan. An adulator is an immoral person because he has violated God’s standard of morality. A homosexual is an immoral person for the same reason. A sin is a sin is a sin. Homosexuality isn’t any worse to him then pre-marital sex, it’s all the same. {fixed code. --Gaudere} [Edited by Gaudere on 03-15-2001 at 04:33 PM] ---
**Author:** ![Pariah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/41988e/32.png) [@Pariah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pariah)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2001, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-friend-the-fundie/57923/22 "2001-03-15T06:10:37Z")
> [@](#): > > In other words, they don’t truly believe Jesus when he said, “with God all things are possible.” I suppose that the sin of presumption is only a few hops and skips from this position though. Well, I know that in Mark 9, the _believer_ responded to his own doubt “I do believe; help me to overcome my unbelief!”, thereby acknowledging his own infirmity in resolve… And I know that Christ said, “Whosoever believeth in me shall not perish, but have everlasting life…” So here we have the dichotomy of human fallibility versus the soveriegnty of God’s promise… Hmm… Wonder if God knew how _weak_ we were _before_ he sacrificed Himself for us… Wonder if the man’s request, “Help me to overcome my unbelief” was honored as a confession of the fallibility of man, and thus attended to by a God Who promised “They will call to me, and I will answer them, and I will be their God.” You quote the catechism–and not to refute the validity and efficacy of the tenets of writ therein–but I wonder if your initial offering was not hypothetical, and if you’re not posing your view merely to play ‘Devil’s Advocate.’ And please understand, I do not accuse you of aligning yourself with ‘The Devil’ by stating such. I use the term loosely, as a fitting position for one who presents the ‘other side of the coin’ merely to spark insight… ---
**Author:** ![spathiphyllum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6f9a4e/32.png) [@spathiphyllum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spathiphyllum)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2001, 9:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-friend-the-fundie/57923/23 "2001-03-15T09:22:03Z")
Here is how I would define the terms: “Fundie”: One who actively promotes harsh, extremist views using a strict interpretation of religious writings for justification; regarded by the outside world as closed-minded, overly zealous, and fixated on converting others, sometimes to a dangerous degree. Derived from “Christian fundamentalist”, though it does not exclusively refer to Christians (ex: the Taliban would qualify as Muslim “fundies” IMO). Fundamentalist: Any adherent of a faith who believes in a strict interpretation of religious scripture. Sometimes fundamentalists are also “fundies”, but sometimes they simply adopt a passive or separatist position (ex: from what I know of The Amish, they appear to take the Bible literally, thus they are fundamentalists, but I would not call them “fundies” since they reject the aggressive conversion tactics and such) I am not a fundamentalist by any definition, so I went to look at some webpages to see how they would explain their views. Here is (one, probably not the only) fundamentalist view: [http://www.wherry.com/~gbisaga/fundamentalist.htm](http://www.wherry.com/~gbisaga/fundamentalist.htm) ---
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2001, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-friend-the-fundie/57923/24 "2001-03-15T14:38:20Z")
Thanks for this thread. I was wondering if I were a fundie. Guess not. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2001, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-friend-the-fundie/57923/25 "2001-03-15T19:46:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Pariah \* > Well, I know that in Mark 9, the _believer_ responded to his own doubt “I do believe; help me to overcome my unbelief!”, thereby acknowledging his own infirmity in resolve… I’m not promoting Pelagianism. I don’t believe people can over come original sin without God’s help, a.k.a. grace. Protestants don’t believe people can over come original sin at all. Mark 9 also says if you do not stop sinning you will be thrown into Hell. Protestants don’t believe it is possible to stop sinning. > [@](#): > > And I know that Christ said, “Whosoever believeth in me shall not perish, but have everlasting life…” If you think you can be saved by believing Jesus exists but without loving him, good luck. Even the devil believes in God. > [@](#): > > So here we have the dichotomy of human fallibility versus the soveriegnty of God’s promise… The new covenant doesn’t apply if you do not uphold your end of the bargain. > [@](#): > > Wonder if God knew how _weak_ we were _before_ he sacrificed Himself for us… Before his crucifixion, Jesus prayed to the father for those who keep his commandments, not for the world. But Protestants somehow think everytime it says “us” in the Bible, no matter how out of context, it somehow applies to them also. What vanity! > [@](#): > > Wonder if the man’s request, “Help me to overcome my unbelief” was honored as a confession of the fallibility of man, and thus attended to by a God Who promised “They will call to me, and I will answer them, and I will be their God.” Again, who is “they”? All day long he holds out his hands to a disobedient and obstinate people. But if they don’t take it… And God does not accept a confession without repentance. If you do not repent you will perish. I don’t understand the disconnect many people who claim to believe have in their minds on that. > [@](#): > > I wonder if your initial offering was not hypothetical, and if you’re not posing your view merely to play ‘Devil’s Advocate.’ As to how I define “fundies”? I think this is a fair enough definition. From what I have seen here that is their most annoying trait. (IANA Christian.) ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2001, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-friend-the-fundie/57923/26 "2001-03-15T19:55:59Z")
\*\*\*THURSDAY-THURSDAY-THURSDAY!!! ONE DAY ONLY-ONLY-ONLY!!! IN THE GD COLISEUM!!![/B\* Sorry . . . it’s just really fascinating to see **Joel** and **Pariah** going head to head . . . carry on. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2001, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-friend-the-fundie/57923/27 "2001-03-15T21:50:37Z")
This whole thing is beginning to resemble the three-cornered shootout in “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly” – scary!!! :eek: My stance here would be somewhere near **Pariah** , probably a few steps in the direction of **Andros**. But **Jersey Diamond** has said some intelligent things on the subject. A **fundamentalist** is, according to the guy who invented the term, “one who believes in the fundamentals of the Christian religion.” By this he meant the time-honored dogmata of the faith, such as the Resurrection, the Virgin Birth, and so on. To this far too many modern fundamentalists have added the requirement for Biblical literalism (which as everybody here has, I think, pointed out here or elsewhere **nobody** accepts, even those who claim it as dogma) and “creation science” in an effort to prove Genesis 1 as literally true despite any scientific evidence to the contrary. **Joel** , where you’re wrong is when you start getting out the tarbrush: > [@](#): > > I’m not promoting Pelagianism. I don’t believe people can over come original sin without God’s help, a.k.a. grace. \*\*Protestants don’t believe people can over come original sin at all. \*\* > > Mark 9 also says if you do not stop sinning you will be thrown into Hell. **Protestants don’t believe it is possible to stop sinning.** > (Bolding mine - Poly) We must associate with a far different crowd of Protestants, then. And of Catholics, too. The ones of both faiths I know believe that God’s grace is sufficient to overcome **anything** and that avoiding sin is possible but extremely hard, so that most of us sin nonetheless, and God grants forgiveness on repentance. **Pariah** commented: > [@](#): > > Well, I know that in Mark 9, the believer responded to his own doubt “I do believe; help me to overcome my unbelief!”, thereby acknowledging his own infirmity in resolve… > > And I know that Christ said, “Whosoever believeth in me shall not perish, but have everlasting life…” …drawing the famous dichotomy. And, of course, somebody is going to come along and make the comment about the guy who spent his life sinning and then made a deathbed conversion and was saved, vs. the guy who did good all his life but didn’t “believe” right. (Needless to say, this is a perversion of the Christian understanding of God’s grace, no matter how it may seem to be implied in it.) And it’s always struck me as insane that people can get upset about God’s willingness to forgive sin yet have absolutely no problem with the same thing in, of all places, a Backstreet Boys song: > [@](#): > > I don’t care who you are, or where you’re from, or what you did, As long as you love me. Wading my way further back in this trainwreck, I find **Jersey Diamond** expressing adherence to God’s word and implying fault to those who disregard it. But, as I’ve tried to discuss with her in the past, the point to me is that the text is never as self-explanatory as it may appear. Or else we wouldn’t have over 450 denominations, all claiming to “follow the Bible,” and each with a different take on what it says. I do my best to understand what it says, with Jesus’s summary of the law as my touchstone for how to apply it in my life, and trust in His mercy to forgive me if and when I go wrong. I do encourage that on everyone else, simply because it strikes me that a lot of the religious arguments come from focusing on something else and yelling, jumping, and screaming when that something else is apparently violated by someone else. And in particular the example which **tracer** gave and **Jersey** responded to, which has been food for several megabytes worth of posts here over the past year (many by me – mea culpa) where what St. Paul is condemning is **clearly** not the same thing as someone else is advocating – if you get beyond the “scare” term and look at what each is saying. **Jersey** , you did a couple of paragraphs on what God’s plan and man’s sin is. Would you be willing to re-post that with the Bible cites for your assertions? I’m not necessarily trying to provoke an argument, but I’d like to see what you base them on. I reserve the right to agree or respectfully disagree on the basis of my own studies. And perhaps we can learn from each other. Fair? ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2001, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-friend-the-fundie/57923/28 "2001-03-15T22:44:06Z")
> [@](#): > > And it’s always struck me as insane that people can get upset about God’s willingness to forgive sin yet have absolutely no problem with the same thing in, of all places, a Backstreet Boys song: > > > [@](#): > > > > I don’t care who you are, or where you’re from, or what you did, As long as you love me. I have a problem with that. And not just because the Backstreet Boys sang it, either. 😉 Besides, do you really think we should hold the justice and doctrines of the putative Omnibenvolent Creator of All to the exact same standards as we bring to bear on fluffy pop rock puppy love croonings? ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2001, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-friend-the-fundie/57923/29 "2001-03-16T02:09:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > A **fundamentalist** is, according to the guy who invented the term, “one who believes in the fundamentals of the Christian religion.” Well, that is a circular description if I’ve every heard one. _Fundamentalists believe in what fundamentalists believe are the fundamentals of the faith._ > [@](#): > > and so on. Sure, and so on. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > **Joel** , where you’re wrong is when you start getting out the tarbrush: > > > [@](#): > > > > … **Protestants don’t believe it is possible to stop sinning.** > > … The ones of both faiths I know believe that God’s grace is sufficient to overcome **anything** and that avoiding sin is possible but extremely hard, so that **most of us sin nonetheless, and God grants forgiveness on repentance.** (bolding added by jmullaney) To repent means to stop sinning. Yes, God grants forgiveness to those who stop sinning. But since Protestants believe this is impossible (or at least, impossible for themselves) they can’t have God’s forgiveness. So while what you say _sounds_ good, it doesn’t actually make any sense. > [@](#): > > **Pariah** commented: > > > [@](#): > > > > Well, I know that in Mark 9, the believer responded to his own doubt “I do believe; help me to overcome my unbelief!”, thereby acknowledging his own infirmity in resolve… > > > > And I know that Christ said, “Whosoever believeth in me shall not perish, but have everlasting life…” > > … **drawing the famous dichotomy**.(bolding by jmullaney) See, you give yourself away. You claim I’m painting with a “big brush” and yet, somehow, both you and Pariah – two people who I presume have never met – are going on about some **“dichotomy”** which is produced by twisting two scriptures (one a throw-away line from some unnamed walk on character, the other taken out of context) in _the exact same way_. Don’t pretend you aren’t playing out of the exact same playbook. I don’t know if it is some oral tradition, or what, but if you are going around calling this a **famous dichotomy** you must be getting the idea from some source outside of the Bible. > [@](#): > > I do my best to understand what it says, with Jesus’s summary of the law as my touchstone for how to apply it in my life, and trust in His mercy to forgive me if and when I go wrong. Jesus never gave a summary of the law. You know what you do wrong. Whoever knows what he must do and does not do it sins. If you don’t think God will give justice to those who _do_ keep his commandments, you need to read the Gospels again. > [@](#): > > I do encourage that on everyone else, simply because it strikes me that a lot of the religious arguments come from focusing on something else and yelling, jumping, and screaming when that something else is apparently violated by someone else. I just wish that those who do not love their fellow man or God or Jesus would be honest about it. I can’t stand the lies, and if you are out there spreading the lies in an attempt to make peace you are only making the world more lukewarm. Keep crying peace and security all you want while there is none – you are only making things worse, simply to justify yourself. And you will make things worse for yourself in the long run, too. I really should just wash my hands of it. There’s nothing I can do about this situation. As Jesus said > [@](#): > > I took my stand in the midst of the world, and in flesh I appeared to them. I found them all drunk, and I did not find any of them thirsty. My soul ached for the children of humanity, because they are blind in their hearts and do not see, for they came into the world empty, and they also seek to depart from the world empty. > > But meanwhile they are drunk. When they shake off their wine, then they will change their ways. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2001, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-friend-the-fundie/57923/30 "2001-03-16T02:25:45Z")
JerseyDiamond wrote: > [@](#): > > I do not avoid any scriptures. Even Luke 14:26? “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters–yes, even his own life–he cannot be my disciple” [NIV translation] (And don’t try to weasel out of it by saying that Luke 14:26 only means to love Jesus more than you love your family and your own life. No translation of this passage supports that interpretation. Jesus is telling you to _hate_.) And once you’re finished digesting the implications of that little New Testament verse, you might also want to check out the ones in [http://www.bettybowers.com/biblequiz.html](http://www.bettybowers.com/biblequiz.html). ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2001, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-friend-the-fundie/57923/31 "2001-03-16T02:35:17Z")
Hey, Joel? What I said to Jersey about what seems clear not necessarily being clear seems to hold here. We’re using the same words – but investing them with quite disparate meanings. And so we’ve once again failed to communicate. I’m not going to answer you tonight – I feel some anger and a lot of frustration at what you’ve said in response to me. I’ll let it set for a while. Then perhaps I can essay a forthright and understanding response. In the meantime, if I may ask this, take a look at Paul’s letter to the Philippians. And see if what it says doesn’t help clarify what I’m trying to say. If it does, please let me know. ---
**Author:** ![Opus1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/858c86/32.png) [@Opus1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Opus1)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2001, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-friend-the-fundie/57923/32 "2001-03-16T04:51:56Z")
tracer wrote: > [@](#): > > Even Luke 14:26? > > “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters–yes, even his own life–he cannot be my disciple” [NIV translation] I’m afraid our good friend Jersey Diamond is screwed on this one. Even if he _does_ follow this scripture, he’s still got to deal with 1 John 3:15: Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him. BTW, the words for “hate” (miseo) and “brother” (adelphos)are the exact same in Lk. 14:26 and 1 Jn. 3:15. Some “Holy Spirit” for you! Here are some more commands which I doubt many modern Christians obey: abstaining from blood not swearing oaths giving away all of their possessions giving to anyone who asks not contesting lawsuits obeying all human laws (So I guess MLK Jr. is in hell now, right?) ---
**Author:** ![Randy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2acd7d/32.png) [@Randy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Randy)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2001, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-friend-the-fundie/57923/33 "2001-03-16T05:28:17Z")
The word “Fundie” is a SDMB thing isn’t it? **Podkayne** brought up the word “Literalist”, which is a title that has been placed on me a few times. What I get out of that word is, we believe that the Bible means exactly what it says. My own interpretation is this; We believe that a God who created the Heavens and Earth with his Word alone, is big enough to relay the exact message He wants to relay, through the people He wants to relay it, in the way He wants to relay it, specifically, the Bible. Also we believe that He is big enough to keep the Bible around, intact, as long as it takes to get the message out. We also believe that what He said will never change, and never conform to any new way of thinking. That’s why nobody likes us. Just tell him we’re the annoying ones. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2001, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-friend-the-fundie/57923/34 "2001-03-16T05:40:32Z")
> [@](#): > > To repent means to stop sinning. Not according to Webster’s. Is this another word that only means what you claim it means, Joel? ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2001, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-friend-the-fundie/57923/35 "2001-03-16T05:43:48Z")
Oh, and **Randy** , a Yahoo! search on “fundie” returns 874 hits. It’s not a SDMB thing by a looooong shot. 'Fact, as I was hearing it used in the early 1980s, I suspect it predates the persoanl computer. ---
**Author:** ![Pariah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/41988e/32.png) [@Pariah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pariah)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2001, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-friend-the-fundie/57923/36 "2001-03-16T06:19:10Z")
I must say, I find it a difficult matter to address your post, **jmullaney** -your position confuses me in that you seem disposed to generalize, and then you would attempt to draw some sort of conspiracy between, and thus vilify, the only conversants who might rebut your generalization. You stray from objectivity into the realm of suspicion through the course of your posit, which leads me to wonder if you really have a vested interest in _understanding_ the subjects you so readily denounce. > [@](#): > > I’m not promoting Pelagianism. I don’t believe people can over come original sin without God’s help, a.k.a. grace. Protestants don’t believe people can over come original sin at all. You assume a great deal here, more than is accurate, and I believe \*you understand this. \* Your generalization _merits_ rebuttal in that you assert a paradigm you cannot support without discounting the individual ‘Protestant,’ favoring a seeming ‘Borg’ mentality (which you oddly attempt to bolster later) and would have the reader believe your position authoritative by your exclusion of a simple ‘It is my opinion…’. Which I find ironic-but this is only _my_ opinion. I rebut your assertion simply: **It is my belief:** _I don’t need to overcome original sin. That’s why Christ sacrificed himself._ > [@](#): > > Mark 9 also says if you do not stop sinning you will be thrown into Hell. Protestants don’t believe it is possible to stop sinning. True. And let me tell you how difficult it is to type with no hands and dry sockets where my eyes once were. If your point, using the verses 43-47 and the ‘If thine eye offend thee’ discourse, is to state that since Protestants don’t believe it’s possible to stop sinning, and since Christ said sinning leads to hell, that Protestants damn themselves- **it is my belief** _you_ are ignoring context. **I believe** continuation of volitional sin when one is aware of it is the imperative in the admonition from Christ; his exhortation to rid oneself of the desire to sin by sacrificing the worldly desires of the self in favor of leading a Godly life-this is the crux of the passage. > [@](#): > > If you think you can be saved by believing Jesus exists but without loving him, good luck. Even the devil believes in God. True. I am attempting to cull from my previous offering where you drew the inference that I believe one can simply believe, i.e. maintain a ‘knowledge’ without placing one’s _faith in_ Christ and expect a great reward. I can’t find it. But if I somehow parleyed that stance, allow me to clear it up. **It is my belief** that ‘Believing on’ connotes _places one’s faith in._ And if one is to place one’s faith in his God, or his General, or his Mommy, he _places his life into the hands of._ He _surrenders himself to_ trusting in the care of his benefactor/guide/sage/mentor and in this case, Redeemer. But don’t take my word for it. Let’s look at Strong’s Greek concordance. > [@](#): > > ``` > 4100 pisteuo {pist-yoo'-o} > > ``` > > AV - believe 239, commit unto 4, commit to (one’s) trust 1, > be committed unto 1, be put in trust with 1, > be commit to one’s trust 1, believer 1; 248 > > ``` > 1) to think to be true, to be persuaded of, to credit, place > confidence in > 1a) of the thing believed > 1a1) to credit, have confidence > 1b) in a moral or religious reference > 1b1) used in the NT of the conviction and trust to which a man > is impelled by a certain inner and higher prerogative and > law of soul > 1b2) to trust in Jesus or God as able to aid either in > obtaining or in doing something: saving faith > 1bc) mere acknowledgment of some fact or event: intellectual > faith > 2) to entrust a thing to one, i.e. his fidelity > 2a) to be intrusted with a thing > > ``` Strong argument for my belief of what belief means. Pun intended. So yes, I agree that you are correct that acknowledgement does not equal adherence to. > [@](#): > > The new covenant doesn’t apply if you do not uphold your end of the bargain. My end, **it is my belief** , is simply to _believe._ And for all that entails, refer to my previous entry and add this: “To love my Lord with all my heart, all my strength, all my mind and all my will.” And through this, I may be granted the grace enough to ‘Love my neighbor as myself.’ > [@](#): > > Before his crucifixion, Jesus prayed to the father for those who keep his commandments, not for the world. But Protestants somehow think everytime [sic] it says “us” in the Bible, no matter how out of context, it somehow applies to them also. What vanity! John 17, right? Please cite the passage in which Christ uses ‘keeps my commandments.’ Not there. ‘Kept my word’ connotes did not reject Christ as many did - but if you want to fight for that one, present your case exegetically and I’ll listen. Now: Cite the passage in which Christ uses ‘Believes.’ There. A few times. _I feel I’ve already proven why this is significant._ And as far as your posit that the Protestants are vain because they think Christ meant them as well-from the same prayer in John 17: > [@](#): > > Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. _There’s that **believe** word again…_ Do I really need to dig up the references to the ‘grafted in’ as well? Or to ‘this is for you, and for your children, and your children’s children, and all who are far off?’ Or all the references to the Gentiles? Or the Great Commission, that the Gospel be preached ‘unto all the world’-which, **I believe** , Christ had the presence of mind not to simply mean 'The Middle East, ’ which many will state was the ‘known world.’ He strikes me as someone who’d probably ken that the globe was a tad larger than the adjacent countries. After all, _China’s_ pretty old. Wonder if God knew it was there… > [@](#): > > Again, who is “they”? All day long he holds out his hands to a disobedient and obstinate people. You’re asking two questions here. But ‘They’ means ‘My people.’ I’ll post a list of references if you like. Please let me know. > [@](#): > > But if they don’t take it…And God does not accept a confession without repentance. If you do not repent you will perish. I don’t understand the disconnect many people who claim to believe have in their minds on that. Me neither. ‘To change one’s idea toward’ and ‘to turn from and make amends for the better’ is the Greek ‘metanoeo,’ what we know as ‘repent.’ _Repentance of sin_ comes from an acknowledgement that one’s course of action is sinful, and the desire to remedy and alter that course of action to better align oneself with the will of God. **It is my belief** those who believe they are not responsible to God for their actions are misled. > [@](#): > > As to how I define “fundies”? I think this is a fair enough definition. From what I have seen here that is their most annoying trait. And you are vague-you don’t specify what the most annoying trait is. You displayed dismay at their ‘vanity’ for believing themselves included in God’s people. And you’ve alluded to ‘many people’ not believing they are accountable to repent of sin. But you still haven’t made a deliniation between ‘Protestants’ and ‘Fundamental Christians.’ Perhaps you do not know the difference yourself? Or do you admit that you see all Protestants as ‘fundies’? > [@](#): > > (IANA Christian.) But it would seem you used to be Catholic, or have experience with the Catholic doctrine-because the near entirety of your offerings display traces of Catholic doctrine. And understand, this is by no means a derogatory observation. Presumptuous, maybe-but I trust you will correct me if I’m wrong, and if I am, I will apologize if I have offended. I’ll get to your next offering in a bit. **Poly** might have already rendered his view. Because I wouldn’t want to step on his toes-we are conspiring together against you, after all. A joke. \*That was a joke. \* ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2001, 9:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-friend-the-fundie/57923/37 "2001-03-16T09:16:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > I’m not going to answer you tonight – I feel some anger and a lot of frustration at what you’ve said in response to me. I’ll let it set for a while. Religion doesn’t make for polite conversation. The whole world is going to be destroyed anyway. “I forget to forget, nothing is important” as the song goes. > [@](#): > > In the meantime, if I may ask this, take a look at Paul’s letter to the Philippians. Sure. I’ll paraphrase the parts I get. > [@](#): > > Paul and Tim to the saints at Philippi: > > Hi folks! I pray for you with joy because you are partners in the gospel with us, and have been since you heard it. I haven’t forgotten about you – I’m going to keep helping out as best I can, till kingdom-come. I miss you whether in jail or out defending Christ’s teachings. I miss you tons. I hope the more you know and understand, the more you will love Jesus – so you may be able to discern what is right and not sin until you see Christ again. > > I’m in prison for Christ, which is a good thing since everyone knows I am in prison though I’m innocent, and my brothers are preaching the gospel all the more ardently to because of this whole situation. Some are preaching against me because of it, but the ones who are preaching out of love know I’m one of the good guys. Whatever – at least the Gospel is being preached. Whether I’m ultimately put to death or released, Christ wins either way. I’d rather be dead than in this lousy world anyway, but if I go on living I can going on teaching the truth for your sake, right? > > Whatever happens to me, keep your conduct in accordance with the gospel, despite the opposition. That’ll show them! They’ll be destroyed, and you saved, by the justice and mercy of God. It has been given to you not only to believe, but to suffer for Christ also. > > Be humble, not selfish. Look to the interests of others and not just your own, just as Jesus did, who was obediant to the Father even to the grave. As you have always obeyed Jesus’s teachings, whether I’ve been with you or not, continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling and act according to God’s purpose. Become blameless and pure, children of God without fault in a crooked and depraved generation, in which you shine like stars in the universe. Don’t let my efforts go to waste, for I could be executed at any minute (not that I mind.) > > God willing, I’ll send Timothy to you soon once these matters are concluded. And Epaphroditus – he almost died for the work of Christ, risking his life to make up for the help you could not give me. > > Watch out for men who do evil. We have no confidence in the flesh – and the argument is on our side about it. Sure, I used to be a screw up, and one of those evil people now persecuting you. But I haven’t lost anything I’ve not gone on to gain in Jesus. For Jesus’s sake, I’ve given up all my possessions. But they were all just rubbish I had to give up so I could gain Jesus – and have a righteousness which comes from faith. > > Not that I’m perfect – but I press on. I forget what is behind me and strain forward to what is ahead. > > This is the mature way of looking at things. God will sort out your minor theological quibbles. Continue living up to Jesus. Follow my example, and take note of those who live according to this pattern. OTOH, as I have often told you before and now say again even with tears, many live as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their destiny is destruction. Their mind is on earthly things, but we are citizens of the kingdom of heaven, eagerly awaiting Jesus’s return. > > Stand firm in the Lord. Don’t quibble. Hi to all my buddies, shout outs all around. God’s peace with guard your hearts. Think about what is true, noble, right, pure, lovely, and admirable. Whatever I have taught you, put into practice, and God will be with you. > > I appreciate your concern, but I’ve learned to be content whatever the circumstances. God gives me strength. You people have always been good to me. > > There are other saints here [in Rome] – yes, even in the emperor’s palace – and they all say hi too. > > The grace of Christ be with you. Amen. > [@](#): > > And see if what it says doesn’t help clarify what I’m trying to say. If it does, please let me know. Sorry, I forgot what you are trying to say already! **andros** – well, webster was a Protestant, of course but “to turn from sin and dedicate oneself to the amendment of one’s life” isn’t exactly out of line with what I said. Unless you are going to maintain that Webster means some sort of turn of the compass direction. :rolleyes: G’night, folks. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2001, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-friend-the-fundie/57923/38 "2001-03-16T18:25:44Z")
**Joel** , prevarication doesn’t become you. You quoted the applicable passage yourself: > [@](#): > > dedicate oneself to the amendment of one’s life Compare that to what you originally said: > [@](#): > > To repent means to stop sinning To resolve to change one’s life **does not** mean one will perforce “stop sinning.” In other words, it **is** possible to truly repent and then sin again. :shrug: We’re weak. ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2001, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-friend-the-fundie/57923/39 "2001-03-16T18:37:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Opus1 \* > BTW, the words for “hate” (miseo) and “brother” (adelphos)are the exact same in Lk. 14:26 and 1 Jn. 3:15. Some “Holy Spirit” for you Hsven’t I explained this to you before? It is the holy spirit which is supposed to help you understand what is in fact different about these two verses, the first of which you’ve taken out of context, anyway. > [@](#): > > Here are some more commands which I doubt many modern Christians obey: > … > obeying all human laws Where is this one written? 😕 > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Pariah \* > You stray from objectivity into the realm of suspicion I have good cause to be suspicious. > [@](#): > > you assert a paradigm you cannot support without discounting the individual ‘Protestant,’ favoring a seeming ‘Borg’ mentality I’ve had far too many “one true Scotsman” discussions around here. One must generalize to some extend, or else one can not discuss anything. > [@](#): > > I rebut your assertion simply: > > **It is my belief:** > > _I don’t need to overcome original sin. That’s why Christ sacrificed himself._ This isn’t a rebuttal – you are merely agreeing with my position (and that of the Catholic Church) using slightly different language. Christ died so his followers _could_ overcome original sin, occording to the Catholics. Protestants believe that man doesn’t have the freedom to do so – and, yes, I understand the theology which claims overcoming isn’t needed, anyway. But it is the belief that it can’t be done which is the root of this belief. > [@](#): > > **I believe** continuation of volitional sin when one is aware of it is the imperative in the admonition from Christ; his exhortation to rid oneself of the desire to sin by sacrificing the worldly desires of the self in favor of leading a Godly life-this is the crux of the passage. yes, and by doing so, avoid damnation. Where the worm does not die, the fire is not quenched. It would appear on the surface we are in agreement, then. But you use this qualifying word “volitional” which could just as well be another word for “freedom” and the freedom to stop sinning, again, is something Protestants don’t believe they have. > [@](#): > > am attempting to cull from my previous offering where you drew the inference that I believe one can simply believe, i.e. maintain a ‘knowledge’ without placing one’s _faith in_ Christ and expect a great reward. I can’t find it. But if I somehow parleyed that stance, allow me to clear it up. If you say that you have faith in Christ, as we again agree as to what this means, it is not that I don’t believe you – but help me overcome my disbelief! > [@](#): > > I agree that you are correct that acknowledgement does not equal adherence to. You make me happy. 🙂 > [@](#): > > My end, **it is my belief** , is simply to _believe._ And for all that entails, refer to my previous entry and add this: > > “To love my Lord with all my heart, all my strength, all my mind and all my will.” > > And through this, I may be granted the grace enough to ‘Love my neighbor as myself.’ To which the Catholic Church throughout history has added a third statement, which Protestants have an odd habit of leaving off. Of course, it is not really required, since if you love God you will keep his commandments as taught by his son _anyway_. But it is important, since merely saying “love” without explaining _how_ may result in quite a bit of moral relativism. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Before his crucifixion, Jesus prayed to the father for those who keep his commandments, not for the world. But Protestants somehow think everytime [sic] it says “us” in the Bible, no matter how out of context, it somehow applies to them also. What vanity! > > John 17, right? > > Please cite the passage in which Christ uses ‘keeps my commandments.’ In John 14, Jesus says keeping his commandments is a requirement of loving him. If your contention is that the apostles (Judas Iscariot leaves prior to John 17) didn’t love Jesus, though every implication in the [Sermon of the Last Supper](http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=john+14-17&version=NIV&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=english) is otherwise, you’ve lost me. “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” “The Father himself loves you because you have loved me.” “I am praying for them; I am not praying for the world but for those whom You have given me” “For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them.” > [@](#): > > Cite the passage in which Christ uses ‘Believes.’ Oh, he uses this word also. But he links the concept very closely with loving him also. Do you choose to take one without the other? > [@](#): > > And as far as your posit that the Protestants are vain because they think Christ meant them as well-from the same prayer in John 17: > > > [@](#): > > > > Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. > > _There’s that **believe** word again…_ Yes, believe in him through their word. Which we have in the form of the New Testament and the apostolic tradition – although we need to be cautious of the potential for false teachings and false understandings in each. > [@](#): > > Do I really need to dig up the references to the ‘grafted in’ as well? No, but I still find it hard to believe you think you can be saved by believing in Jesus but not loving him, if that is what you are saying. > [@](#): > > ‘They’ means ‘My people.’ Right, and Jesus’s people are those who hear his teachings and obey them. > [@](#): > > _Repentance of sin_ comes from an acknowledgement that one’s course of action is sinful, and the desire to remedy and alter that course of action to better align oneself with the will of God. No. It is not a mere _desire_ to turn away from sin. It IS a turning away from sin. (I believe **andros** has a dictionary you can borrow – I’m am still doubtful he knows how to use it. Kidding, kidding.) > [@](#): > > **It is my belief** those who believe they are not responsible to God for their actions are misled. This sounds right to me. > [@](#): > > you don’t specify what the most annoying trait [of fundalmentalism] is. Their belief that they are saved without true repentance. Thus, their conversation with a typical atheist: “We are exactly alike, but I utter magic spells once a week and will therefore go to a magic fairy land while you will burn in hell.” Even if they were to repent, a belief that they are saved while others are not would be a violation of what Jesus said to his disciples on this matter. (although, danged if I can find the passage right now.) > [@](#): > > you still haven’t made a deliniation between ‘Protestants’ and ‘Fundamental Christians.’ The larger body of Protestants do not necessarily believe they are saved, but only hope it is so. There is probably more hope for them as they may continue to figure out what is right and wrong while maintaining a fear of the Lord. Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. So if you believe you are saved, there is no need for you to fear the Lord – and, well, you do the math. > [@](#): > > the near entirety of your offerings display traces of Catholic doctrine. I used to be a Catholic, but I found some of their teachings flawed. Then I became a Free Spirit, but I didn’t have much in the way of a root. So now I am apostate. I am dead meat. Still, false teachings do annoy me. Though I don’t know why I bother – although, mind you, hell has many tiers, and I’d rather not be too far down. As Peter said, helping one soul to know the truth can make up for a myriad of sins. Not all of them, but if there is a hell I’ll gladly hedge my bets as I see fit. ---
**Author:** ![Pariah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/41988e/32.png) [@Pariah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pariah)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2001, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-friend-the-fundie/57923/40 "2001-03-16T19:07:49Z")
Working on my response to the ‘second part of the contention’, but I couldn’t help but notice > [@](#): > > Well, webster was a Protestant I laughed out loud–not out of scorn, but surprise that you included this. I hope it was a joke–I don’t know you well enough to discern… So now you’re saying Webster is **responsible** for the definition of ‘repent?’ _I guess the 1800’s were a lot… **older** than previously believed._ 😃 Seriously, that dog doesn’t even know what it’s hunting. If you want me to trace the lineage of ‘repent’ all the way back to the Greek I’ve already provided, I will–but I have a feeling most of our readers will find it a waste of time. Semantic dissection of a word to prove that the origin was not somehow ‘tainted by Protestant belief’ seems a bit… _eccentric._ I’ll reply to your thoughts above sometime today, sometimes between my flagellation and my ritual scrubbing. Actually, I’ll do it after the scrubbing. _The blood gets my keys all tacky._ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-friend-the-fundie/57923.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-friend-the-fundie/57923.md?page=3)