Whether or not Christian fundamentalists practice what they are taught in the NT is a different issue than what the NT’s teachings on morality are, and it doesn’t seem to me like you care much about that…you haven’t read the NT apparently, which teaches that God’s nature is love, and that we should love & respect others the way we wish others to love & respect us - sure sounds like the rantings of a Hater, doesn’t it? I guess when Jesus told us to love our enemies, and when He healed guard who had his ear chopped off by Peter, that He was actually being mean and insincere?
Of course not, what matters is what people actually believe and do, not what some book of myths says. Especially for the purposes of this thread; what matters is what they believe, not what the Bible or any other religious book says.
You, too, seem to be incapable of playing along with MyFootsZZZ’s hypothetical.
So, the NT does not teach that God’s nature is love? That we aren’t to practice the Golden Rule, and to love one another? If you assert that, it’s clear that you haven’t read the NT, forgotten what’s in there, and/or not understood what you saw. Whatever way it is, I consider you to be a flippant, unserious conversationalist who’s mired in childish anger, so, I bid you adieu! 
No, that’s your problem. You seem compelled to substitute* “The Christian fundamentalists were right – he IS an asshole”* with *“Johnny Banco’s idealized version of Christianity is right, and God is Love”. *
The two claims don’t resemble each other at all, no matter how hard you insist that they do.
All irrelevant to this thread.
Is not the purpose of this thread to hash out MyFootsZZZ’s hypothetical, which was that the Christian God exists, and that He’s an asshole even though He preaches love and forgiveness?
You don’t seem to be able to understand what “hypothetical” means, you don’t seem to able to understand that Christian fundamentalists believe the whole NT, which includes the statement, “God is love” in it, and you don’t seem able to understand that Christian fundamentalists who act unlovingly are not acting like good Christians should.
With all of that in mind, remind again why am I bothering with trying to talk with (at?) you? Bye!
Next time try to stay on-topic, mkay?
No; the purpose is to talk about what we do if the fundamentalists are right, and God is a megalomaniac control freak with a torture obsession. “Love and forgiveness” have nothing at all to do with this version of God. The one who has a problem with following the hypothetical is you.
You could just start a thread with your hypothetical if you genuinely want a conversation on it, instead of trying to hijack this very different thread.
“hijack”? LOL
You taught me my lesson here; now, I shall wait to see what MyFootsZZZ has to say to what I asked, because it is painfully obvious you, who has a propensity to present your opinions/beliefs/observations as factual statements instead, are not capable of following what I am saying!
He never did name his fundamentalist sect that’s all about “God Is Love” and ignores the Old Testament, did he?
What fundamentalist sect supposedly teaches what you are putting before us?
Yes, that’s what you are doing.
I follow what you are saying with ease. I just don’t agree with you.
Christian Fundamentalism. Please tell us where your particular sect falls on that page.
This has indeed become a hijack, Johnny Banco. Drop it.
As long as you stay serious and polite, I’ll interact with you, but, it won’t be on your terms alone…with that said, I ask you, how are you defining “fundamentalist”? I ask because we can’t have a meaningful, productive discussion until we know we are on the same page when it comes to definitions.
More questions:
-
do you believe it’s a NT principle that Christians are supposed to advocate for the physical punishments of sinners?
-
do you deny that the NT teaches that God is love?
-
do you believe that Christian fundamentalists don’t believe that precept?
-
what’s your opinion of Christians who act unlovingly - do you believe they are behaving like good Christians, or like bad Christians?
Please see the above instruction, Johnny Banco. Let it go at least until MyFootsZZZ responds, but really, this is not the right thread for the discussion you’re looking to have. I think you should start a new thread.
I am asking you this honestly: could you tell me how I have hijacked the thread?
I’ll present my observation: MyFootsZZZ asked a hypothetical, and I asked for clarification about it, because it didn’t make sense to me. Others jumped in and attacked what I was saying, even though I’ve seen myself as the one who’s trying to be faithful with MyFootsZZZ’s hypothetical. To this point: I have not asserted that Christianity is true outside of MyFootsZZZ’s hypothetical umbrella, have I?
If this presentation of mine is false, could you please show me where, because I am not seeing it.
I am sorry. I posted my last post to you before I saw this one of yours.
I hope you can see I am sincerely trying to stay on track.
Johnny: I can tell you’ve read the OP. You haven’t put forth any evidence that fundamentalist Christians have the same interpretation of Christianity that you appear to. You’ve just cited selections of the Bible, without addressing opposing quotes that show the opposite.
My take is that there are mainline Christian religions that take seriously Jesus’ commands to love God and His Creation, love thy neighbor and avoid being a sanctimonious ass about the preceding. But those aren’t fundamentalist sects.
Perhaps it might help if you attempted to interpret the OP sociologically. The key texts really aren’t the Bible but statements of belief by contemporary fundamentalists. Sure, the Phelps’ form of Christianity is a joke, theologically speaking. But its incoherence isn’t relevant to this thread. (What would be relevant would be to say, correctly, that they aren’t really representative of even most fundamentalists.)
Separately, I trust Der, Czar and AskthePizzaGuy could thrash the mainline Christian take on matters. But that would be for another thread.
No problem. So let this go. I think it’s pretty clear he was addressing what nonbelievers think and expect rather than engaging in any kind of scholarship. I don’t know if MyFootsZZZ plans to respond, but if he does you can take it from there.
And by the same token that means other posters can’t continue the hijack as well, so let’s draw this to a close.
Thank you for being patient with me - I appreciate it!
As to your statements that I haven’t presented evidence of what Christian fundamentalist believe which is in common with myself, and that I am failing to address quotes which show the opposite: I dispute the charges, on the grounds it is inarguable that Christian fundamentalists do believe in the inerrancy of the NT, and, because of this, they readily accept the teachings that God is love, that they should unhypocritically and lovingly respect others (which includes the notion that they should love & pray for their enemies,) and that they should have a forgiving attitute - whether or not they consistently practice what they profess about love & respect for others is a different matter altogether, as is whether or not they are nuttily Calvinistic.
Who here would deny that Christian fundamentalists would say Jesus is the Father in human form, a guy who advocated a different way of dealing with adulterers than was expressed in the OT’s Mosaic Law? MyFootsZZZ’s hypothetical, by using the term “asshole” in reference to the Christian fundamentalists’ God, seemed to be making a strawmannish caricature of their God by presenting Him as some sort of inalterable, unreachable totalitarian, as though He is impersonal and capricious like Allah, which does not accurately represent their professed take on Him - my point here has been to highlight this misrepresentation of their view of God, not to proselytize about Christianity at all.