| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Carl" |
| Date: |
10 Aug 2007 11:07:54 PM |
| Object: |
Secularism: Ignoring the Eternal |
The following is an article from R.C. Sproul that basically boils down to
Secularism versus Christianity. It's a very interesting article and I hope
it will give you something to think about.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
---
Secularism: Ignoring the Eternal
by R.C. Sproul
Students of history realize that no society can survive, no civilization can
function, without some unifying system of thought. All societies are made up
of different people, different jobs, different values, and different
classes. In a broad sense, all societies are melting pots.
How do the parts fit together to make a whole? What makes a society a
unified system? Some kind of glue is required in order for the parts to
stick together. The glue is found in a unifying system of thought, what we
call a "world view." Various world views can spring from diverse sources.
The world view can be built upon a philosophy system such as Platonism or on
a religion as in the case of Old Testament Israel. Other civilizations have
been unified by a common mythology. Still others came together by a devotion
to the state and a particular political philosophy.
Yet in all societies we find elements of philosophy, religion, mythology,
and politics, all competing for the rank of dominance. One of these elements
will inevitably emerge as the dominant view to order and unify the society.
What dominates American culture? Is it religion? Is it philosophy? Is it
mythology? Is it statism? I am sure we will hear voices from each of these
claiming theirs as the dominant system. It is difficult to isolate America's
dominant world view precisely because our culture is so diverse. We have an
unusually free and open society where the battle of ideas takes place.
If there is a consensus among analysts of American culture they would agree
that our unity is no longer (if ever) based on a religious system. Nor is
mythology a likely candidate. Though we live in society with an
ever-accelerating growth of central government we are not (yet) totally
statist. That leaves one option, philosophy. But which philosophy? Is our
world view found mainly in humanism? Pragmatism? Existentialism? Positivism?
Each of these schools of thought, as well as others, is flourishing in our
day. They compete with each other. They coexist, not always peacefully, and
make for strange bedfellows. The question that is provoked is one of common
denominator. Is there one dominant philosophy that can include these other
schools as subheadings? Is there an umbrella world view that is broad enough
to cover these other systems?
We believe that one current ism has emerged as the dominant world view of
our culture. Before we explore it, however, it is important to understand
the anatomy of an ism.
Ism is a suffix added to the root of a word. These three letters, when added
to a root word, change the meaning of the term dramatically. It is one thing
to be social, quite another to embrace socialism. It is one thing to be
human, something else to adopt humanism. See, for example, how the following
words are changed merely by adding the suffix ism.
national - nationalism
impression - impressionism
feminine - feminism
exhibition - exhibitionism
natural - naturalism
behavior - behaviorism
military - militarism
moral - moralism
peace - pacifism
plural - pluralism
liberal - liberalism
The list could go on. As soon as we put the suffix on the word it changes
the word into a system of thought, a way of looking at things, a world view.
Philosophers use the German word Weltanschauung to describe it. A
Weltanschauung is a systematic way of looking at the world. It conditions
how we interpret the meaning of daily life.
Again, we do not all look at things the same way. We all exist, but are not
all existentialists. We are all thinking subjects but we do not all embrace
subjectivism. We all have relatives but are not all relativists.
When Melville's Captain Ahab set out on his maniacal quest for the great
white whale, Moby *****, he tacked a gold doubloon to the mainmast and
promised it as a reward for the first sailor to spot Moby *****. As the
sailors passed the gleaming coin they contemplated its meaning to them. One
saw it as a symbol of great seamanship, another for how many cigars it would
buy. The half-wit cabin boy, Pip, declared, "I see, you see, we all see." In
his simple-mindedness Pip understood that everyone on board viewed the gold
coin in a different way. How the sailors viewed life, how they viewed the
world, determined how they viewed things in the world, including the gold
coin.
The dominant ism of American culture, the ism reflected in the news media,
the film industry, the novel, and the art world is secularism. Secularism is
the umbrella that shields the various competing philosophies beneath it.
Secularism has the necessary common denominator to tie together humanism,
pragmatism, relativism, naturalism, pluralism, existentialism, and several
other isms.
What then, is secularism? What gives it the glue necessary to unify the
other isms? To understand secularism as an ism we must first look at its
root, secular, before we can see what magic is performed upon it by the
addition of the suffix ism.
A Secular Priesthood
Historically, the word secular is a positive word in the Christian's
vocabulary. The church has always had a good view of that which was regarded
as secular. In the Middle Ages, for example, men were ordained to a specific
role in the priesthood that was called the "secular priesthood." These were
men who had responsibilities which took them out of the institution of the
church to minister in the world where there were specific needs requiring
the healing touch or the priestly mission of the church.
There is a sense of which I was ordained as a secular clergyman because I
was ordained to the teaching ministry, not to an ecclesiastical office
within a local congregation. I was commissioned to go to the university and
become a teacher in the secular world. It is this secular world that can be
distinguished, to some degree, from that sphere we have set apart and called
the church, or the sacred realm. Often, in the minds of many Christians, the
distinction between sacred and secular is the distinction between the good
and the bad, but that is not the way it has been used in church history.
Secular was simply a different sphere of operation.
The word secular has its origins and its roots in the Latin language and
comes from the word saeculum which means "world." The secular priest is one
who ministers in the world.
There is another Latin word for "world," mundus. One notable place it is
used is on the tombstone of Athanasius, a fourth-century bishop who was a
leading defender of the faith. His tombstone read, Athanasius contra
mundum-"Athanasius against the world." If both words, saeculum and mundus,
mean "world," what is the difference?
The people in the ancient world understood that, as human beings, they lived
in time and space. We still talk that way. Our life is spatial,
geographical. There is a certain "whereness" to our lives. We live within a
time frame. Jesus talked about "this age," the present age. So in Latin the
word for this world, in terms of time is saeculum. The word for this world,
in terms of space, is mundus.
The secular refers then to this world in this time. Its point of focus is
here and now. The accent of the secular is on the present time rather than
on eternity. I live right now. I can look at the clock and watch the second
hand move. I can hear it ticking.
Try a little experiment. Look at your wristwatch, if it has a second hand,
or at a clock. Watch the entire face of the clock. Now wait until the second
hand reaches 12. Look quickly at the 6. Watch the second hand sweep toward
the 6. The 6 is still future as the second hand approaches it. What happens
when the second hand reaches 6? Does it stop? No, unless your clock breaks.
Now the 6 is past. It's over, gone forever. That part of your life is gone
in an instant. We have just experienced time as it passes us by.
The question we ask is this: Is that all there is? Is there only time? This
time? This secular moment? Or is there something else? Is there eternity
beyond this world and this time? What we are really asking is, is there a
God beyond this world who has always existed and will always exist? Does my
personal life extend beyond the limits of this world?
We could ask the question another way. We start with the easy one. Where are
you right now as you read these words? Can you identify your location? Are
you in Chicago or San Francisco? What are you doing this moment? (I trust
that you are reading.)
Those questions are easy. Let's make them a little more difficult. Where
will you be tomorrow at exactly the same time? What time is it now? Add
twenty-four hours and guess where you will be and what you will be doing. It
has to be a guess, doesn't it? You don't know for sure because you can't
possibly know for sure. You may have plans for tomorrow. You may even have a
specific activity marked on your calendar for this specific time. The odds
may favor that your guess will be correct. But you don't know for sure
because you don't know that you will be alive at this time tomorrow or that
the place you intend to be will still be there tomorrow.
These are the limits of being time-bound creatures. We guess about tomorrow;
we hope for tomorrow; but tomorrow is always shrouded a bit in mystery for
us. That is because we are secular. We live in a world of time.
Let's make the experiment even more difficult. Now note the time, the day,
the month, and the year you are reading these words. Write them down. Now
add one hundred years. Five hundred years. Where will you be one hundred
years from now? Five hundred years? What will you be doing then?
Some of you are smiling. You're perhaps thinking, "Hey, that's not so
difficult. I'll be in the boneyard somewhere pushing up daisies. I'll be
fertilizer for the cemetery or part of the ingredients of 'Soylent Green.' "
Perhaps you'll say, "I'll be dead, but some of my genes will still be around
in my great-grandchildren."
Secularism Versus Christianity
This is precisely where Christianity and secularism collide. This is the
point of conflict. The biblical world view has a long-term view of human
life. The term is much longer than that of secularism.
For secularism, all life, every human value, every human activity must be
understood in light of this present time. The secularist either flatly
denies or remains utterly skeptical about the eternal. He either says there
is no eternal or if there is we can know nothing about it. What matters is
now and only now. All access to the above and the beyond is blocked. There
is no exit from the confines of this present world. The secular is all that
we have. We must make our decisions, live our lives, make our plans, all
within the closed arena of this time-the here and now.
That obviously brings conflict with Christianity. In the New Testament the
biblical world view is always concerned with the long-term. The Bible
teaches us that we are created for eternity. The heart of the New Testament
message is that Christ has come to give us a life that wells up into eternal
life. The startling news is that we will get out of this world alive.
The biblical starting point for understanding the world is found on page one
of Genesis. We read, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth"
(Genesis 1:1). We look at the earth and we see that it has a beginning in
space and time. But before there was even a world, there is One who
transcends the world, One who is outside of the restrictions of this space
and time order that we call the world-namely God. "In the beginning, God."
At the core of our Christian faith, we believe in a God who is beyond the
confines of this planet and who is eternal. All judgments that God makes,
all things that He does, are done from the perspective of the eternal.
In philosophy, we say that God considers everything sub specie aeternitatis.
That is merely a fancy Latin phrase meaning that God considers everything
"under the species" or auspices, or from the perspective of, the eternal.
The admonition and rebuke that Christ brings to this world is that men are
only thinking of the short-term. They are thinking of the now and only the
now, instead of the long-term consequences of their behavior. Jesus says
that He comes from above. He descends from the eternal realm. He calls the
Christian to live his life in light of eternity. A Christian's values are to
be measured by transcendent norms of eternal significance.
I write a column in Table Talk, the magazine of Ligonier Ministries, and I
call it "Right Now Counts Forever." I chose that title for a reason. If
there is one message that I can give to my generation it is this: Right now
counts forever. What you and I do now has eternal significance. The now is
important because it counts for a long, long time. The secular is important
because it is linked forever to the sacred.
When I chose that title I was acutely aware that we, as Christians, are
being pressed on every side by the philosophy of the secularist. The
secularist declares, "Right now counts for.right now!" There is no eternity,
there is no eternal perspective. There are no absolutes. There are no
abiding principles by which human life is to be judged, embraced, or
evaluated. All reality is restricted or limited to the now.
We see this view in different forms in theology. We have seen an attempt in
the twentieth-century theology to produce a secularized gospel. Remember the
"Death of God" movement? One of the most important books that came out of
that movement was called The Secular Meaning of the Gospel by Dr. Paul Van
Buren. Van Buren talked of synthesizing classical Christianity with the
philosophy of secularism. That simply cannot be done without first declaring
the death of God. Secularism as an ism must include within its world view at
least an implicit atheism.
The death of God, in terms of the loss of transcendence and the loss of the
eternal, also means for us the death of man. It means that history has no
transcendent goal. There is no eternal purpose. The meaning of our lives is
summed up by the ciphers on our tombstone: "Born 1925, died 1985." We live
between two points on a calendar. We have a beginning and an ending, with no
ultimate significance.
We need not go to a library and take down a dusty tome of philosophy to be
exposed to the world view of secularism. The media screams it. We think, for
example, of the beer commercial that says, "You only go around once in life,
so grab for all the gusto you can get." We see a man on a sailboat, the wind
blowing his hair and the salt spray splashing in his face. He's having a
fantastic time right now. Pepsi calls ours "The Now Generation." "Do it
now!" "Get it now!" The message that comes through is, "You'd better get it
now because there is no tomorrow ultimately." Life is to be consumed in the
present. Our philosophy must be a philosophy of the immediate.
The secularists of Jesus' day summed up their philosophy like this: "Eat,
drink, and be merry. For tomorrow you die." Contrast that with Jesus' words:
"Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven." Think in terms of eternity.
Think of the long-range implications. This touches us most directly, not
simply in how we handle our bank accounts, but at the level of how we invest
our lives. Life is an investment and the question that modern man has to
answer is, "Am I going to invest my life for short-term benefits or for
long-term gains?" Every time we are faced with a moral decision, with the
temptation to do something now that may have harmful aftereffects, we are
caught in the tension between two world views.
We cannot escape the secular. The world is our dwelling place. At times,
Christians have sought to escape this world, to abandon it as an ungodly
place. But where do we go? If we flee to the desert we have not left the
world. Even monasteries have clocks. Our task is not to escape the secular,
but secularism. We must embrace the world without embracing worldliness.
The theologians who have sought to combine Christianity and secularism are
on a fool's errand. It cannot be done. The root concepts of Christianity
cannot be unified with the root concepts of secularism. If we seek to breed
them the result will be a grotesque hybrid. It will be sterile, like a mule,
powerless to reproduce. If we seek to effect a synthesis between two
radically conflicting world views, we must inevitably submerge one into the
other. The result of such bastardization can be neither Christianity nor
secularism. If a Christian buys into secularism his world view is no longer
Christian. If a secularist buys into Christianity he is no longer a
secularist.
It was Aristotle who said that in the mind of every wise man resides the
corner of a fool. Perhaps the reverse is also true. Perhaps inside the head
of every fool resides the corner of the wise man. In biblical terms
foolishness is deemed a moral act as well as an intellectual one. It
involves more than mental error; it is also wicked. We are not to suffer
fools gladly. Yet there are times we can learn something even from the fool.
What, apart from wickedness, could ever motivate someone to seek an unholy
alliance between Christianity and secularism? Is any good motivation to be
found there? I think there is. The secularist reacts negatively to religious
people who are "so heavenly minded that they are of no earthly good." He
reacts against a kind of distorted religious faith that neglects the vital
concerns of this world. He rejects a reservation mentality where Christians
isolate themselves from the pain and struggles of this world. Many
professing Christians have "dropped out," preferring to look to the future
world alone. They embrace a spurious spirituality, which gives license for
neglecting this world.
We Are Called to Be Secular People
Such a standpoint cannot be found in the New Testament. The Christ of
Scripture was profoundly concerned with this world. This world was the site
and purpose of the Incarnation. The God of heaven so loved this world that
He sent His Son to redeem it. This is the world God created. This is the
world God is redeeming. There is no other theater of God's redemptive action
than this world. There is a profound sense in which we are called to be
secular people.
When Harvey Cox wrote The Secular City, it was clear that one of his grand
passions was that the church be "where the action is." On this point he was
echoing the plea of Martin Luther that the church be "profane." What Luther
meant by a profane church was not that the church should indulge in uttering
obscenities or use gutter language. Rather, Luther was playing with the
Latin roots for the word profane. Profane originally meant simply "outside
of the temple." In Luther's terms a profane church is one that moves out of
the temple and into the world.
There is a tendency for Christians to seek shelter in the temple. The
disciples wanted to stay on the mount of transfiguration. At the death of
Jesus they huddled in the upper room with the doors shut because they feared
the Jews. Jesus sent them down from the mountain of transfiguration. He
virtually broke down the door of the upper room to send them to the
uttermost corners of the earth. Our Lord had no time for isolationism. He
had an agenda for the world.
Luther also argued that a mature Christian must be secular in the sense that
he must embrace the world. He detected a normal pattern in a growing
Christian. The pattern begins with conversion, often followed by a sense of
withdrawal from and rejection of this world. This period of retreat is
marked by preoccupation with spiritual matters. But at the point of maturity
there must be a kind of re-entry into the world. This is not a return to
worldliness. It is not a fall into secularism. It is a new appreciation of
the world as the theater of redemption. It is recognizing that this is our
Father's world and not a place to be despised or ignored.
The Christian must distinguish between the secular and the sacred, but never
separate them. To separate them is to deny the agenda of Christ. The voices
of the theologians who go too far in embracing secularism serve as a warning
to us. They don't separate the secular and the sacred; they confuse them.
They stress the now and neglect the eternal. We must guard against stressing
the eternal so much that we neglect the now. A Christian world view must be
concerned with the temporal and the eternal. There must be no false
dichotomy between the two.
At the core of our moral behavior are actions. Every action not only has a
cause, but also a result. Results, or consequences, take us to tomorrow and
beyond. What did Macbeth say? "Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, creeps
in this petty pace from day to day, To the last syllable of recorded time."
But for the Christian, there is no "last syllable of recorded time." Our
lives are forever. Beyond the secular or saeculum there is the eternal. That
is what the Christian faith is all about.
Why should a person be worried about salvation in terms of personal
redemption if there is no eternal dimension? What is the mission of the
church if secularism is correct? Why should we be concerned about the
redemption of individuals if there is no tomorrow? All we can really do is
minimize pain and suffering for a season. The secularist can never offer
ultimate answers to the human predicament because, for him, there are no
ultimate answers-because there is no ultimate realm. This side of eternity
is the exclusive sphere of human activity. It is not by accident, as we will
see, that most of those who accept secularism and who are thinking people,
ultimately embrace a philosophy of despair. That despair will manifest
itself in escapism through drugs, alcohol, and other forms of behavior that
dull the senses from the message that is being proclaimed, indeed screamed,
from every corner of our culture: "There is no tomorrow ultimately." It is a
philosophy of despair and it is right now competing for people's minds in
the United States.
In the chapters to follow, we will be looking at the elements that make up
secularism: secularistic existentialism, secular humanism, and positivism.
Although these different philosophies may seem to be on a collision course
with each other, they all embrace one common point, namely, the denial of
the transcendent and the eternal. Look for it in your culture. Be aware of
it when you see it. We need to understand this world and this society in
which we live.
.
|
|
| User: "Mark T moi@illgiveuwot42" |
|
| Title: Fundamentalism: Ignoring Your God-Given Brain |
11 Aug 2007 01:10:11 AM |
|
|
"Carl" wrote:
.... whatever ...
--
DISTINGUISHING FEATURES OF A CHRISTUS OBNOXIUM
.... quoting from James Barr's book "Fundamentalism" on the three
distinguishing features of the Fundamentalist:
'Firstly, a fundamentalist has a very strong emphasis on the inerrancy of
the Bible, and believes in the absence from it of any sort of error.
Two, a strong hostility to modern theology and to the method, results and
implications of modern critical study of the Bible.
And three, an assurance that those who do not share their religious
viewpoint are not really true Christians at all.'
Peter Cameron "Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 178
--
"We're Christians! We're not supposed to think!" Fanny Wype ("Nudist Colony
Of The Dead")
--
My Blog - MARK T - my thoughts on Christianity & links
http://www.blognow.com.au/strooth/
FUNDY FUNHOUSE -
http://fundamentalistfunhouse.blogspot.com/
- a resource on the current Fundamentalist Dark Age and Christian
fundamentalism.
My Soundclick Page - download my original songs in mp3 format
http://www.soundclick.com/marktindall
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalism: Ignoring Your God-Given Brain |
13 Aug 2007 07:21:06 PM |
|
|
"God" is not the source but the product of the brain. -- L.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "~Hey, WhaddyaKnow?JesusSaysImAWhosoeverToo!~" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalism: Ignoring Your God-Given Brain |
11 Aug 2007 03:13:47 PM |
|
|
On Aug 10, 11:10 pm, "Mark T" <moi@illgiveuwot42> wrote:
DISTINGUISHING FEATURES OF A CHRISTUS OBNOXIUM
Hey, Mark? Christianity and Christian Fundamentalism are not
synonymous. How many in the Christian newsgroups have identified
themselves as "fundamentalist" that you know of?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark T moi@ere4u" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalism: Ignoring Your God-Given Brain |
11 Aug 2007 06:37:26 PM |
|
|
"<~(Hey, WhaddyaKnow?JesusSaysI'mAWhosoeverToo!)~>" wrote:
DISTINGUISHING FEATURES OF A CHRISTUS OBNOXIUM
Hey, Mark? Christianity and Christian Fundamentalism are not
synonymous.
I know. Try telling Fundamentalists that!
How many in the Christian newsgroups have identified
themselves as "fundamentalist" that you know of?
Hundreds.
It would include Baptists, Methodists and Pentecostals.
I became a Christian in 1972 and was a fundamentalist ... then I began to
use my God-given brain and changed. I have been a Pentecostal, Baptist and
also a member of the Uniting Church (former methodits in Australia). I've
also been the Principal in a Christian School and recorded as a Christian
musician. I am now an Exiled believer.
The current Fundamentalsit Dark Age is destroying Christianity.
For more about my journey read http://www.blognow.com.au/strooth/ starting
from page 18.
--
My Blog - MARK T - my thoughts on Christianity & links
http://www.blognow.com.au/strooth/
FUNDY FUNHOUSE -
http://fundamentalistfunhouse.blogspot.com/
- a resource on the current Fundamentalist Dark Age and Christian
fundamentalism.
My Soundclick Page - download my original songs in mp3 format
http://www.soundclick.com/marktindall
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "john w" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalism: Ignoring Your God-Given Brain |
11 Aug 2007 05:17:11 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 13:13:47 -0700, "<~(Hey,
WhaddyaKnow?JesusSaysI'mAWhosoeverToo!)~>" <kaseybeck61@gmail.com>
wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Aug 10, 11:10 pm, "Mark T" <moi@illgiveuwot42> wrote:
DISTINGUISHING FEATURES OF A CHRISTUS OBNOXIUM
Hey, Mark? Christianity and Christian Fundamentalism are not
synonymous.
?? They aren't??
How many in the Christian newsgroups have identified
themselves as "fundamentalist" that you know of?
Only the real Christians!
john w
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark T moi@ere4u" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalism: Ignoring Your God-Given Brain |
11 Aug 2007 06:46:53 PM |
|
|
"john w @woohoo.com>" <johnw<no> wrote:
DISTINGUISHING FEATURES OF A CHRISTUS OBNOXIUM
Hey, Mark? Christianity and Christian Fundamentalism are not
synonymous.
....
How many in the Christian newsgroups have identified
themselves as "fundamentalist" that you know of?
Only the real Christians!
Trew Kristyuns!
--
A Trew Kristyun is a deranged individual living in the current
Fundamentalist Dark Age who believes:
- The One God Yahweh is really three gods.
- Jesus, a finite Jew from Nazareth, is the infinite One God Yahweh
- A human sacrifice was required by God because God needs blood, gore and
guts in order to forgive sins.
- The Bible, a collection of fallible ancient Near Eastern books / letters /
myths, is "God's word" and inerrant
--
Fundies can kiss my left behind! {_l_}
--
My Blog - MARK T - my thoughts on Christianity & links
http://www.blognow.com.au/strooth/
FUNDY FUNHOUSE -
http://fundamentalistfunhouse.blogspot.com/
- a resource on the current Fundamentalist Dark Age and Christian
fundamentalism.
My Soundclick Page - download my original songs in mp3 format
http://www.soundclick.com/marktindall
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "~Hey, WhaddyaKnow?JesusSaysImAWhosoeverToo!~" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalism: Ignoring Your God-Given Brain |
11 Aug 2007 06:08:25 PM |
|
|
On Aug 11, 3:17 pm, john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
How many in the Christian newsgroups have identified
themselves as "fundamentalist" that you know of?
Only the real Christians!
So, you're saying you've never identified as a fundamentalist?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vernono O Here @there" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalism: Ignoring Your God-Given Brain |
11 Aug 2007 06:53:10 PM |
|
|
"<~(Hey, WhaddyaKnow?JesusSaysI'mAWhosoeverToo!)~>" <kaseybeck61@gmail.com>
wrote in message
news:1186873705.277317.226480@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 11, 3:17 pm, john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
How many in the Christian newsgroups have identified
themselves as "fundamentalist" that you know of?
Only the real Christians!
So, you're saying you've never identified as a fundamentalist?
Baptists believe in the fundamentals of Christ, thus fundamentalist
Christians.
Idiots in the news media create words of their own and don't know the
difference between fundamental Christians and fundamental Islam or
fundamental Jew.
Hateful (hate filled) people LOVE to call someone "fundamentalist". Of
course the hate MUST be accompanied by general ignorance. (Just one of the
reasons they call the people in the news media "Talking heads") The word
heads has also been used to describe toilet, but that isn't the "usual"
connotation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark T moi@ere4u" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalism: Ignoring Your God-Given Brain |
11 Aug 2007 06:58:50 PM |
|
|
"Vernono O" wrote:
Baptists believe in the fundamentals of Christ, thus fundamentalist
Christians.
There are no fundamentals in Christianity.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There are, however, certain problems associated with any such attempt to lay
down what is essential to the faith or that by which, in a historic phrase
the Church stands or falls.
First of all there is the practical question of who decides. In a period
where there is a universal Church, when everyone is a Christian and the only
dispute is whether they are orthodox or heretical, it is relatively simple:
the Church decides. But what happens when the Church begins to fragment into
various denominations, and the 'Fundamentals' of a particular denomination
are different from those of another, each claiming to be orthodox? What
happens when the Fundamentals of a Christian movement which claims to be
impeccably conservative are different from the Fundamentals of early
Christian orthodoxy? Is there not, for example, something odd in the fact
that Fundamentalism's five Fundamentals do not include everything in the
classic Christian creeds?
And that leads to the second problem, a logical problem. What is the status
of those elements of Christianity which are not included in the
Fundamentals? Take the residue of the Apostles' Creed which is not covered
by the five Fundamentals of Fundamentalism: for example, the creation and
the Holy Spirit. Does their absence from the Fundamentalists' creed imply
that they are unimportant, optional, mistaken? I suppose the Fundamentalists
would argue that their insistence on the infallibility of the Bible takes
care of the creation and the Holy Spirit, but in that case why single out
the resurrection and the virgin birth for special mention? Is it in fact
possible for any movement claiming to stand in the tradition of orthodoxy to
make any pronouncement at all on the Fundamentals of the faith, which does
not simply repeat previous such pronouncements? In other words, can
something which has once been stated to be fundamental to Christianity ever
cease to be fundamental?
The third problem is partly logical and partly psychological. The
implication of the Fundamentalists' Fundamentals is that you must believe
them before you can claim to be a Christian. But how can you be required to
believe anything? Does the formulation 'You must believe' make any sense at
all? We do not in fact decide what to believe or if we do we are misusing
the word 'believe'. The content of a belief constrains us to believe. To
that extent it does make sense to say I must believe it: I must believe it
because it's true. But I cannot be compelled to believe anything by external
authority, not just because l might wish to resist that authority but
because belief cannot be coerced.Now if the Fundamentalists say that they
are simply stating in their Fundamentals what is true, and that is why I
must believe them, the question naturally arises: what about all the other
aspects of Christianity, the non-Fundamentals? Are they less true, or
untrue? It seems that any statement of what must be believed can only apply
to the whole of Christianity, that is, to the whole truth. Once the
Fundamentalists attempt to concentrate on 'Fundamentals' then either they
become logically incoherent or they are in fact trying to force us to
believe, which is impossible.
But the most important objection to Christian Fundamentals, or essentials
of the faith, is a theological objection: the whole idea of an irreducible
minimum of belief is contrary to the spirit of Christianity. It is not easy
to explain why, except obliquely - by saying, for example, in Kierkegaard's
arresting simile, that it is like trying to paint the god Mars in the armour
which made him invisible. I was once asked on a radio program to sum up in
one sentence the message of Jesus. I racked my brains feverishly for a
minute, but then I thought, 'No, why should I play this game?' if Jesus
could have said in a single sentence why he had come, then it would have
been quite unnecessary for him to come at all - except in order to utter
that sentence.
....
You cannot generalise or abstract certain principles or 'Fundamentals' and
attach some saving significance to them, or make of them a test of
allegiance and put everything else on the level of non-essential or optional
or whatever. Of course it is entirely understandable why people should want
to do so. As Dostoevsky's Grand lnquisitor saw so clearly, people don't want
freedom, they want to be told what to do. And psychologically there is
nothing more satisfying than a rule book, or a party manifesto, which tells
you simply and categorically just what you should do and what you should
believe. And that psychological need is so great that you remain blind to
the fact that a religion which wants to - from rules and exclusiveness and
seeing God as a possession, and to open you up instead to the absolute love
of God is immediately involved in a hopeless contradiction whenever it
allows itself to be reduced to certain essentials or 'Fundamentals'....
And in that sense Christianity is incommunicable, in any direct sense. It
doesn't proceed on the analogy base camp in mountaineering, and 'teach'
certain minimum beliefs which you can then build upon for the purposes of
your individual attempts to climb higher, but below which you need never go
in refreshing yourself and taking stock. Much more apt is the anaIogy of the
pilgrimage or voyage, which is different for everyone, and on which you
never come back to the same point.It is your pilgrimage, your voyage, and no
one else has ever taken exactly the same route. You can get advice from
other people, hints on the sort of things that might happen to you and the
sort of things you might do; but no one can travel with you, far less
instead of you. And dictating to you the Fundamentals of Christianity,
telling you what you must believe js precisely trying to travel with you or
instead of you.And, as if to prove a point, it is on this question of the
incommunicability of Christianity that the Fundamentalists really become
angry. They quoted a sermon of mine on the subject at one stage in the
heresy proceedings, without comment, as if I was condemned out of my own
mouth. Because it is here that we are fundamentally opposed. The whole basis
of their religion is that it offers salvation through acceptance of
propositions about God and Jesus Christ-the Fundamentals of Christianity.
And their whole purpose as Christians is to persuade themselves and others
to accept these propositions, to be converted. But that is precisely why
they will never be converted. In the Fourth Gospel Jesus offers freedom to
the Jews but in reply they deny that hey have ever been slaves. You cannot
liberate those who think they are free. You cannot convert a Fundamentalist.
From Peter Cameron's "Fundamentalism and Freedom" (Doubleday, Sydney: 1995)
pp 36 -42
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Idiots in the news media create words of their own and don't know the
difference between fundamental Christians and fundamental Islam or
fundamental Jew.
They are the same type of people ....
###############################################################
"LIFE ...and how to survive it" - Robin Skinner & John Cleese (Methuen;
London:1993)
p. 253 -255
John: ... In fact you could claim that most values in the West are derived
from Christianity, and you don't find anything more inclusive than the words
of Jesus Christ. ...
Robin: ... people interpret each myth according to their level of mental
health....
John: So let me get this right: a less healthy person will take a healthy
idea and turn it into something less healthy?
Robin: Absolutely! And vice versa too. ... Each person will bring their own
family attitudes and feelings to their interpretation of myths about
loyalty. So if hey come from a very unhealthy family, they'll feel that the
group should all hold practically identical views, and that anyone who
questions these views is a 'trouble-maker' who is being 'disloyal'; they'll
feel hostility towards outside groups, and a disregard for the rights of
such 'outsiders'; and they'll feel intense and demanding dependence on all
the other members of the group. ...loyalty to unhealthy people is simply
paranoia dressed up and relabelled.
p. 261
John: So the healthy behaviour is to look at the thinking behind
regulations; the less healthy behaviour is to take a literal and inflexible
interpretation of the letter of the law. It sounds to me a general principle
of mental health,
p. 266
John: Well, I'll attempt a rough summing-up so far. We've been looking at
the idea that each person interprets the world according to his or her level
of mental health. And it seems to me that the unhealthier we are, the more
literal minded we are in the interpretations of the letter of the law, as it
were; and the healthier we are, the more influenced we are by the broader
idea that lies behind the formulation of the myth that we are interpreting.
p. 268
John: ... we poor teenagers were hearing sermons every Sunday so
breathtakingly half-witted that the only valid response was reading,
sleeping, or invading the pulpit.... Any God, I felt, who would seriously
approve of what was going on in that church would be out of his
infinitemind.
p. 270 - 271
John: So a religious idea will be interpreted by a person in a way that fits
in best with their existing psychology?
Robin: Yes, and it can therefore support them in functioning at the best
level they're capable of, given their limitations. ... Well, take people
functioning at the least healthy level first. They'll understand religion as
a collection of rules, of rewards and punishments, of threats andpromises,
all enfoced by a powerful and frightening God.
John: The extreme black-and-white thinking found in young children?
Robin: That's exactly what it is. The thinking of such people has got stuck
at that level, and though it's normal in a very young child, it's obviously
unhealthy in an adult. ...
John: And how is God experienced?Robin: He's seen as a terrifying,
domineering, bad-temprered dictator, who wants everyone to spend heir time
admiring him and telling him how marvellous he is. ... So naturally people
holding this view feel they have to do lots of things to keep Him sweet, so
that He won't get into a bad mood and blast them with thunderbolts, or
boils, or rivers of blood.
John: A little bit like the church congregation in "The Meaning of Life",
who, when invited to praise God, all chant 'Ooooh, you are so big', and 'You
're so tough and strong, you could beat anyone up, even the Devil', and
'We're really impressed don here' before singing Hymn 42 'Oh Lord, please
don't burn us'. I can remember as a nione-year-old, thinking that God
couldn't be so stupid that he wouldn't se through such blatant buttering up.
p. 275 - 276
John: So the way I can explain our position now is to say this: there are
different ways of following Christ - which correspond to different levels of
mental health - and therefore it's quite legitimate to make fun of the less
healthy ways, not least because they actually conflict with His teaching!
The Inquistion was not an example of 'Blessed are the meek'.
p. 277
Robin: ... I'll start at the bottom level again. As we said just now, for
the least healthy, religion is based on the kind of thinking typical of very
yopund children. And young children have difficulty distinguishing fantasy
from reality, wishes from deeds. So at this level, religion is valued as
magic - as a means of making wishes come true, without acknowledging
scientific laws and relationships of cause and effect.
John: You mean at this level we believe that we only have to repeat a prayer
of incantation, or perform some other prescribed routine, in order to make
the world do what we want.
Robin: Yes, and when you're thinking like this, whether or not youir wishes
come true seems to depend only on how strongly you believe in the procedure!
p. 282
Robin: ... to the extent that you face and accept your own psychology,
including all your weakneses and faults ... to THAT degree will you be able
to accept and love others. And conversely: to the extent that you love
others, to that degree you will be able to love yourself.
p. 287
John: Well, everything that you've been saying implies that [Fundamentalism]
is a manifestation of a fairly low level of mental health, doesn't it? For a
start, Fundamentalists call for a literal interpretation of scripture, and
as we saw when we were discussing secular values, focusing in on the letter
of the law is a characteristic of the less healthy. In addition, wise people
tend not to exhibit literal mindedness, so it seems singularly inappropriate
to assume that this is the vein in which great spiritual teahers are
speaking. Then again, whether we're talking about Christianity, Islam,
Judaism or Hinduism, the values of Fundamentalists seem aimed at making
themselves feel better by placing all negative and destructive emotions in
people with different beliefs, and enjoying the golden glow of
self-justification that results. ... You know that simile: 'As rare as a
Fundamentalist who loves his enemy.' ... the Inquisition did largely miss
the point of 'Love Thy Neighbour', didn't they? Wasn't burning heretics
'worse' than being tolerant towards them? ...
p. 308
John: In other words, the aim is integration?
Robin: Yes. It's even there in the language. The words 'whole', 'healthy'
and 'holy' all have the same root. They're all expressions of the same idea.
--
My Blog - MARK T - my thoughts on Christianity/ song covers & pics & links
http://www.blognow.com.au/strooth/
FUNDY FUNHOUSE -
http://fundamentalistfunhouse.blogspot.com/
- a resource on the current Fundamentalist Dark Age and Christian
fundamentalism.
My Soundclick Page - download my original songs in mp3 format
http://www.soundclick.com/marktindall
.
|
|
|
|
| User: " ::: vera :::" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalism: Ignoring Your God-Given Brain |
12 Aug 2007 04:31:03 PM |
|
|
In news:46be4bce$0$20120$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com,
Vernono O <Here @there> typed:
"<~(Hey, WhaddyaKnow?JesusSaysI'mAWhosoeverToo!)~>"
<kaseybeck61@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186873705.277317.226480@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 11, 3:17 pm, john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
How many in the Christian newsgroups have identified
themselves as "fundamentalist" that you know of?
Only the real Christians!
So, you're saying you've never identified as a fundamentalist?
Baptists believe in the fundamentals of Christ, thus fundamentalist
Christians.
Idiots in the news media create words of their own and don't know the
difference between fundamental Christians and fundamental Islam or
fundamental Jew.
Hateful (hate filled) people LOVE to call someone "fundamentalist". Of
course the hate MUST be accompanied by general ignorance. (Just one
of the reasons they call the people in the news media "Talking
heads") The word heads has also been used to describe toilet, but
that isn't the "usual" connotation.
Correct.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "~Hey, WhaddyaKnow?JesusSaysImAWhosoeverToo!~" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalism: Ignoring Your God-Given Brain |
12 Aug 2007 12:47:18 AM |
|
|
On Aug 11, 4:53 pm, "Vernono O" <Here @there> wrote:
Baptists believe in the fundamentals of Christ, thus fundamentalist
Christians.
Baloney. Baptists do not have a monopoly on Christian fundamentalism.
Idiots in the news media create words of their own and don't know the
difference between fundamental Christians and fundamental Islam or
fundamental Jew.
There's nothing wrong with the secular media coming up with
descriptors for religion. There *is* a problem with Christians using
non-Scriptural terms like "fundamentalist" to describe themselves.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vernono O Here @there" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalism: Ignoring Your God-Given Brain |
12 Aug 2007 02:52:17 PM |
|
|
"<~(Hey, WhaddyaKnow?JesusSaysI'mAWhosoeverToo!)~>" <kaseybeck61@gmail.com>
wrote in message
news:1186897638.726259.202060@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 11, 4:53 pm, "Vernono O" <Here @there> wrote:
Baptists believe in the fundamentals of Christ, thus fundamentalist
Christians.
Baloney. Baptists do not have a monopoly on Christian fundamentalism.
Having a little trouble with your hate today?
I made no mention of anything even remotely close to monopoly.
Idiots in the news media create words of their own and don't know the
difference between fundamental Christians and fundamental Islam or
fundamental Jew.
There's nothing wrong with the secular media coming up with
descriptors for religion. There *is* a problem with Christians using
non-Scriptural terms like "fundamentalist" to describe themselves.
Get an education. English is obviously not your first language, if you have
a cogent language at all.
The fundamentals (fundamentalism) of the O.T is what is called the "Law".
Jesus fulfilled the law and gave a new fundamental.
DDUUUUHHHH
Having a little trouble with your hate today?
It may be possible in your ignorance that you confuse legalism and
fundamentalism or legalist and fundamentalist.
The Pharisees and Sadducees of Jesus' time were legalists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "~Hey, WhaddyaKnow?JesusSaysImAWhosoeverToo!~" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalism: Ignoring Your God-Given Brain |
12 Aug 2007 03:17:54 PM |
|
|
On Aug 12, 12:52 pm, "Vernono O" <Here @there> wrote:
Baptists believe in the fundamentals of Christ, thus fundamentalist
Christians.
Baloney. Baptists do not have a monopoly on Christian fundamentalism.
Having a little trouble with your hate today?
I made no mention of anything even remotely close to monopoly.
By stating "Baptists believe in the fundamentals of Christ, thus
fundamentalist
Christians" you are indicating that Baptists are the only
fundamentalist Christians, ergo, they have a monopoly on the
descriptor.
There's nothing wrong with the secular media coming up with
descriptors for religion. There *is* a problem with Christians using
non-Scriptural terms like "fundamentalist" to describe themselves.
Get an education. English is obviously not your first language, if you have
a cogent language at all.
That's real funny coming from you.
The fundamentals (fundamentalism) of the O.T is what is called the "Law".
Jesus fulfilled the law and gave a new fundamental.
Wrong. Jesus never said he "fulfilled the Law", He said that He
fulfilled the Scriptures (meaning the prophecies concerning the coming
of Messiah). Not the same thing. The misconception that Jesus
fulfilled the Law, however, is a lie that's been ignorantly
perpetuated by fundamentalists for a long time.
Having a little trouble with your hate today?
Sorry, I am not feeling any hate at all. I do, however, get
frustrated with cherry-picking Christians like you who don't even
understand the Scriptures they cherry-pick.
It may be possible in your ignorance that you confuse legalism and
fundamentalism or legalist and fundamentalist.
Most fundamentalists are legalists, however, the fundamentals of
Christianity are not legalism but freedom in Christ.
The Pharisees and Sadducees of Jesus' time were legalists.
Close friends and relatives of yours, eh?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vernono O Here @there" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalism: Ignoring Your God-Given Brain |
12 Aug 2007 05:34:04 PM |
|
|
"<~(Hey, WhaddyaKnow?JesusSaysI'mAWhosoeverToo!)~>" <kaseybeck61@gmail.com>
wrote in message
news:1186949874.550232.170340@g12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 12, 12:52 pm, "Vernono O" <Here @there> wrote:
Baptists believe in the fundamentals of Christ, thus fundamentalist
Christians.
Baloney. Baptists do not have a monopoly on Christian fundamentalism.
Having a little trouble with your hate today?
I made no mention of anything even remotely close to monopoly.
By stating "Baptists believe in the fundamentals of Christ, thus
fundamentalist
Christians" you are indicating that Baptists are the only
fundamentalist Christians, ergo, they have a monopoly on the
descriptor.
Like I said, get an education.
Most denominations, or at least a large percentage, believe in the
fundamentals.
Excluded would such cults as Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, RCC.
But anyway, bye bye
You are incapable of understanding.
.
|
|
|
| User: "~Hey, WhaddyaKnow?JesusSaysImAWhosoeverToo!~" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalism: Ignoring Your God-Given Brain |
12 Aug 2007 05:44:07 PM |
|
|
On Aug 12, 3:34 pm, "Vernono O" <Here @there> wrote:
Like I said, get an education.
Got one. You, OTOH, should try it some time.
But anyway, bye bye
You are incapable of understanding.
Run, Vernon, run!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark T moi@ere4u" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalism: Ignoring Your God-Given Brain |
11 Aug 2007 06:49:13 PM |
|
|
"<~(Hey, WhaddyaKnow?JesusSaysI'mAWhosoeverToo!)~>" <kaseybeck61@gmail.com>
wrote:
How many in the Christian newsgroups have identified
themselves as "fundamentalist" that you know of?
Only the real Christians!
So, you're saying you've never identified as a fundamentalist?
john w is a good example of a fundie!
Fundies ignore how the bible was put together .....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BIBLE TIMELINE
Dates are approximate
3000 BC
- Egyptian songs written that were the source of many of the Psalms
2000 BC
- Eclessiastes written
1900 BC
- Abraham comes to Palestine
- Beginning of oral tradition later recorded in the bible
1375 - 1358 BC
- Reign of Egyptian Pharoah Amenhotep IV ( later called Ikhnaton)
inspiration of much of Moses' writing.
1250 BC
- Moses leads Isrealites out of Egypt
1030 - 1010 BC
- Reign of Saul
1010 - 970 BC
- Reign of David
1000 BC
- Bible begins to be written with Job (fiction)
970 - 931 BC
- Reign of Solomon
960 BC
- The YAHWIST editor began in Jerusalem. He calls God YHWH.and describes God
in humanlike terms. The Yahwist editor wrote Genesis 2 ( Genesis 1 had not
yer been written.). Bible heroes are not whitewashed - Abraham is called a
liar (Gen 20), Noah's drunken state is described (Gen 9) and Lot's incest is
told (Gen 19). The monarchy and priesthood in Jeruslem are important. This
editor wrote the first version of the 10 Commandments in Exodus 34 which
contains no reference to resting on the Sabbath.
850 BC
- The ELOHIST editor began in Samaria. He calls God Elohim. The
Elohist editor has a democratic value system and so asserts that no priest,
leader or king can claim permanent status over God's people. There is no
dynasty established. He starts his story with Abraham and wrote about Isaac
and Jacob. He places importance on the Northern kingdoms power and shrines.
He uses dreams, miracle and magic as a way to demonstrate God's power. He
asserts that God raises up prophets whn required.
621 BC
- The DEUTERONOMIST editor began in 621 BCE in the reign of King Josiah in
Jerusalem. The "discovered" book was called the second (deuters) giving of
the Law (nomas) and became known as Deuteronomy. It was responsive to the
prophetic tradition of Hosea, Amos, Isaiah, Micah and Jeremiah (who was
alivce at the time of writing). The deuteronomist editor centralised worship
under the supervision of the Jerusalem priesthood. Its interest's were in a
high spiritual monotheism and therefdore wrote than no image could be made
of God.
596 BC
- The PRIESTLY editors began after the city of Jerusalem fell to
Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians. Many of the Psalms were
written in this time (including Psalm 137). The priests edited and rewrote
massive parts of the sacred story. They emphasised circumcision, dietary
laws and Sabbath day observance and were responsible for writing Genesis 1
to provide a reason for observing the Sabbath abnd it was one of the last
parts of the Old Testament to be written. At the same time synagogues were
built to indoctrinate the people. As a result thje etails of worship, the
rules of worship, the observance of worship became important and resulted in
much of Exodus, almost all of Leviticus and major portions of Numbers. All
the chronologies were written by the priestly editors. The incompleted
harmonisation of the Yahwist and Elohist editors produce most of the
contradictions in the Old Testament.
400 BC
- Emphasis on individualism and life after death
200 BC
- Daniel written (fiction)
6 BCE
- Jesus birth
27 - 34 CE
- Jesus' death
50 - 60 CE
- 1 Thessalonians (Paul)
- Philippians (Paul)
- Galatians (Paul)
- 1 Corinthians (Paul)
- 2 Corinthians (Paul)
- Romans (Paul)
- Philemon (Paul)
50 - 80 CE
- Colossians (May not be Paul)
50 - 95 CE
- Hebrews (Not Paul)
65 - 80 CE
- Mark's gospel
- Source may be Peter
- Messianic secret
- Based on Deuteronomy / liturgy
- All actions could be done in one week
70 - 100 CE
- James
80 -100 CE
- 2 Thessalonians (May not be Paul)
- Ephesians (May not be Paul)
- Matthew's gospel
- Addressed to Diaspora
- Written in Antioch
- Conservative
- 90% of the references to Hell
- Based on Moses' life / Exodus
- Portrays division between Jews and Christians
80 -110 CE
- 1 Peter
80 CE - 130 CE
- Luke's gospel, Acts (both written in Caesarea)
- Roman recognition sought
- Gentile interested in universalism
- Focuses on spirit
- Based on II Isaiah
- Jesus portrayed as greater than Elijah
90 - 95 CE
- Revelation of John (Not the apostle John)
- Apocalyptic genre
90 -120 CE.
- I John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude
- John's Gospel
- Not the apostle
- Written in Ephesus
- Centred in Judea / Jerusalem not synoptic Gallilee
- Actions over 3-4 years instead of synoptics 1 year
- Symbolic narrative
- Focus on Wisdom and Word
- Focus on self rather than kingdom of God
- No Ascension or Pentecost
100 -150 CE
-1 Timothy (Not Paul)
- 2 Timothy (Not Paul)
- Titus (Not Paul)
100 -160 CE
- 2 Peter (Not Peter)
Refer to http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
--
My Blog - MARK T - my thoughts on Christianity & links
http://www.blognow.com.au/strooth/
FUNDY FUNHOUSE -
http://fundamentalistfunhouse.blogspot.com/
- a resource on the current Fundamentalist Dark Age and Christian
fundamentalism.
My Soundclick Page - download my original songs in mp3 format
http://www.soundclick.com/marktindall
.
|
|
|
| User: "john w" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalism: Ignoring Your God-Given Brain |
11 Aug 2007 09:55:52 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 09:49:13 +1000, "Mark T" <moi@ere4u> wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
"<~(Hey, WhaddyaKnow?JesusSaysI'mAWhosoeverToo!)~>" <kaseybeck61@gmail.com>
wrote:
How many in the Christian newsgroups have identified
themselves as "fundamentalist" that you know of?
Only the real Christians!
So, you're saying you've never identified as a fundamentalist?
john w is a good example of a fundie!
Fundies ignore how the bible was put together .....
I think you overstate things a bit!
john w
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BIBLE TIMELINE
Dates are approximate
3000 BC
- Egyptian songs written that were the source of many of the Psalms
2000 BC
- Eclessiastes written
1900 BC
- Abraham comes to Palestine
- Beginning of oral tradition later recorded in the bible
1375 - 1358 BC
- Reign of Egyptian Pharoah Amenhotep IV ( later called Ikhnaton)
inspiration of much of Moses' writing.
1250 BC
- Moses leads Isrealites out of Egypt
1030 - 1010 BC
- Reign of Saul
1010 - 970 BC
- Reign of David
1000 BC
- Bible begins to be written with Job (fiction)
970 - 931 BC
- Reign of Solomon
960 BC
- The YAHWIST editor began in Jerusalem. He calls God YHWH.and describes God
in humanlike terms. The Yahwist editor wrote Genesis 2 ( Genesis 1 had not
yer been written.). Bible heroes are not whitewashed - Abraham is called a
liar (Gen 20), Noah's drunken state is described (Gen 9) and Lot's incest is
told (Gen 19). The monarchy and priesthood in Jeruslem are important. This
editor wrote the first version of the 10 Commandments in Exodus 34 which
contains no reference to resting on the Sabbath.
850 BC
- The ELOHIST editor began in Samaria. He calls God Elohim. The
Elohist editor has a democratic value system and so asserts that no priest,
leader or king can claim permanent status over God's people. There is no
dynasty established. He starts his story with Abraham and wrote about Isaac
and Jacob. He places importance on the Northern kingdoms power and shrines.
He uses dreams, miracle and magic as a way to demonstrate God's power. He
asserts that God raises up prophets whn required.
621 BC
- The DEUTERONOMIST editor began in 621 BCE in the reign of King Josiah in
Jerusalem. The "discovered" book was called the second (deuters) giving of
the Law (nomas) and became known as Deuteronomy. It was responsive to the
prophetic tradition of Hosea, Amos, Isaiah, Micah and Jeremiah (who was
alivce at the time of writing). The deuteronomist editor centralised worship
under the supervision of the Jerusalem priesthood. Its interest's were in a
high spiritual monotheism and therefdore wrote than no image could be made
of God.
596 BC
- The PRIESTLY editors began after the city of Jerusalem fell to
Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians. Many of the Psalms were
written in this time (including Psalm 137). The priests edited and rewrote
massive parts of the sacred story. They emphasised circumcision, dietary
laws and Sabbath day observance and were responsible for writing Genesis 1
to provide a reason for observing the Sabbath abnd it was one of the last
parts of the Old Testament to be written. At the same time synagogues were
built to indoctrinate the people. As a result thje etails of worship, the
rules of worship, the observance of worship became important and resulted in
much of Exodus, almost all of Leviticus and major portions of Numbers. All
the chronologies were written by the priestly editors. The incompleted
harmonisation of the Yahwist and Elohist editors produce most of the
contradictions in the Old Testament.
400 BC
- Emphasis on individualism and life after death
200 BC
- Daniel written (fiction)
6 BCE
- Jesus birth
27 - 34 CE
- Jesus' death
50 - 60 CE
- 1 Thessalonians (Paul)
- Philippians (Paul)
- Galatians (Paul)
- 1 Corinthians (Paul)
- 2 Corinthians (Paul)
- Romans (Paul)
- Philemon (Paul)
50 - 80 CE
- Colossians (May not be Paul)
50 - 95 CE
- Hebrews (Not Paul)
65 - 80 CE
- Mark's gospel
- Source may be Peter
- Messianic secret
- Based on Deuteronomy / liturgy
- All actions could be done in one week
70 - 100 CE
- James
80 -100 CE
- 2 Thessalonians (May not be Paul)
- Ephesians (May not be Paul)
- Matthew's gospel
- Addressed to Diaspora
- Written in Antioch
- Conservative
- 90% of the references to Hell
- Based on Moses' life / Exodus
- Portrays division between Jews and Christians
80 -110 CE
- 1 Peter
80 CE - 130 CE
- Luke's gospel, Acts (both written in Caesarea)
- Roman recognition sought
- Gentile interested in universalism
- Focuses on spirit
- Based on II Isaiah
- Jesus portrayed as greater than Elijah
90 - 95 CE
- Revelation of John (Not the apostle John)
- Apocalyptic genre
90 -120 CE.
- I John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude
- John's Gospel
- Not the apostle
- Written in Ephesus
- Centred in Judea / Jerusalem not synoptic Gallilee
- Actions over 3-4 years instead of synoptics 1 year
- Symbolic narrative
- Focus on Wisdom and Word
- Focus on self rather than kingdom of God
- No Ascension or Pentecost
100 -150 CE
-1 Timothy (Not Paul)
- 2 Timothy (Not Paul)
- Titus (Not Paul)
100 -160 CE
- 2 Peter (Not Peter)
Refer to http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "john w" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalism: Ignoring Your God-Given Brain |
11 Aug 2007 09:55:18 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 16:08:25 -0700, "<~(Hey,
WhaddyaKnow?JesusSaysI'mAWhosoeverToo!)~>" <kaseybeck61@gmail.com>
wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Aug 11, 3:17 pm, john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
How many in the Christian newsgroups have identified
themselves as "fundamentalist" that you know of?
Only the real Christians!
So, you're saying you've never identified as a fundamentalist?
I'm absolutely a fundamentalist!
I've made the joke for YEARS that there's nothing in the world wrong
with being a fundamentalist! We're the only real Christians!
ALL "fundamentalist" means is that we INSIST that there are certain
basic fundamentals that are ESSENTIAL to calling yourself a
"Christian."
born again
The Bible is inerrant (without error)
The Bible is THE final authority on all matters of scripture and on
all matters on which it speaks.
God exists as what has come to be called "The Holy Trinity".
Christ is God incarnate.
etc.
That covers the most basics, and I believe a "fundamentalist" would
agree that all of the above are ESSENTIAL to being a "Christian."
I am not remotely ashamed of being a fundamentalist Christian.
I DO find it interesting how many want to claim the title "Christian"
who poke fingers at-- and laugh at-- fundamentalists!
.
|
|
|
| User: "~Hey, WhaddyaKnow?JesusSaysImAWhosoeverToo!~" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalism: Ignoring Your God-Given Brain |
12 Aug 2007 12:54:28 AM |
|
|
On Aug 11, 7:55 pm, john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
How many in the Christian newsgroups have identified
themselves as "fundamentalist" that you know of?
Only the real Christians!
So, you're saying you've never identified as a fundamentalist?
I'm absolutely a fundamentalist!
Whoosh! (Feel the breeze over your head?)
I've made the joke for YEARS that there's nothing in the world wrong
with being a fundamentalist! We're the only real Christians!
Yeah - hilarious. A "joke" that highlights a separatist and elitist
viewpoint in reference to the one group of people that's supposed to
be known by their love is hardly a joke.
ALL "fundamentalist" means is that we INSIST that there are certain
basic fundamentals that are ESSENTIAL to calling yourself a
"Christian."
born again
The Bible is inerrant (without error)
The Bible is THE final authority on all matters of scripture and on
all matters on which it speaks.
God exists as what has come to be called "The Holy Trinity".
Christ is God incarnate.
etc.
That covers the most basics, and I believe a "fundamentalist" would
agree that all of the above are ESSENTIAL to being a "Christian."
There are even Christians who won't identify as being fundamentalist
who would agree that those points are essential to being a Christian.
I am not remotely ashamed of being a fundamentalist Christian.
No doubt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vernono O Here @there" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalism: Ignoring Your God-Given Brain |
12 Aug 2007 02:54:28 PM |
|
|
"<~(Hey, WhaddyaKnow?JesusSaysI'mAWhosoeverToo!)~>" <kaseybeck61@gmail.com>
wrote in message
news:1186898068.351510.287810@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 11, 7:55 pm, john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
How many in the Christian newsgroups have identified
themselves as "fundamentalist" that you know of?
Only the real Christians!
So, you're saying you've never identified as a fundamentalist?
I'm absolutely a fundamentalist!
Whoosh! (Feel the breeze over your head?)
I've made the joke for YEARS that there's nothing in the world wrong
with being a fundamentalist! We're the only real Christians!
Yeah - hilarious. A "joke" that highlights a separatist and elitist
viewpoint in reference to the one group of people that's supposed to
be known by their love is hardly a joke.
The fundamentals are very simple. It's called the Gospel.
Anything beyond that is legalism (man made stiff rules)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "john w" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalism: Ignoring Your God-Given Brain |
12 Aug 2007 09:10:27 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 22:54:28 -0700, "<~(Hey,
WhaddyaKnow?JesusSaysI'mAWhosoeverToo!)~>" <kaseybeck61@gmail.com>
wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Aug 11, 7:55 pm, john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
How many in the Christian newsgroups have identified
themselves as "fundamentalist" that you know of?
Only the real Christians!
So, you're saying you've never identified as a fundamentalist?
I'm absolutely a fundamentalist!
Whoosh! (Feel the breeze over your head?)
"Whoooooosh!" yourself, dear. You can think you're talking over my
head, if you like.
If it suits you to fool yourself, it suits me.
I've made the joke for YEARS that there's nothing in the world wrong
with being a fundamentalist! We're the only real Christians!
Yeah - hilarious.
Thanks!
A "joke" that highlights a separatist
You sure can twist stuff into pretzels.
"Separate", yes. "Elite", no.
We are to be separate-- and I'm not even that.
and elitist
"Elitist"? No. I don't consider myself "better" than anyone else,
nor do I know any other fundamentalist Christians who think they are.
If we thought we were better than everyone else, we wouldn't spend
BILLIONS building hospitals and universities for those who can't
afford them.
Go to your local soup kitchens and food banks. They're staffed and
supplied by Christians.
viewpoint in reference to the one group of people that's supposed to
be known by their love is hardly a joke.
Well, you can point your middle finger all you like.
We would certainly exclude YOU from Heaven and from church
membership, but I would not belong to or attend a church that would
exclude you from WORSHIPPING in my church.
And if my church refused to allow you in to worship, it wouldn't be my
church anymore.
It's very sad that you spend so much of your time distorting and
HATING.
ALL "fundamentalist" means is that we INSIST that there are certain
basic fundamentals that are ESSENTIAL to calling yourself a
"Christian."
born again
The Bible is inerrant (without error)
The Bible is THE final authority on all matters of scripture and on
all matters on which it speaks.
God exists as what has come to be called "The Holy Trinity".
Christ is God incarnate.
etc.
That covers the most basics, and I believe a "fundamentalist" would
agree that all of the above are ESSENTIAL to being a "Christian."
There are even Christians who won't identify as being fundamentalist
who would agree that those points are essential to being a Christian.
That doesn't bother me in the least.
I am not remotely ashamed of being a fundamentalist Christian.
No doubt.
I DO think it's very sad that there are some (you for one) who feel
the need to ridicule and mis-represent people who aren't JUST LIKE
YOu.
I love you, and I would not do anything knowingly to hurt you.
You can't say either about me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "~Hey, WhaddyaKnow?JesusSaysImAWhosoeverToo!~" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalism: Ignoring Your God-Given Brain |
12 Aug 2007 12:16:54 PM |
|
|
On Aug 12, 7:10 am, john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
Whoosh! (Feel the breeze over your head?)
"Whoooooosh!" yourself, dear. You can think you're talking over my
head, if you like.
If it suits you to fool yourself, it suits me.
You still didn't get it. Big surprise.
Yeah - hilarious.
Thanks!
It was sarcasm.
A "joke" that highlights a separatist
You sure can twist stuff into pretzels.
No twist. That was the essential nature of the "joke". No surprise
you don't understand that.
"Separate", yes. "Elite", no.
Christians are supposed to be separate from the world, not each other.
We are to be separate-- and I'm not even that.
The "joke" you presented indicates you feel otherwise.
"Elitist"? No. I don't consider myself "better" than anyone else,
The "joke" you presented indicates you feel otherwise.
nor do I know any other fundamentalist Christians who think they are.
No surprise that you haven't noticed. Your world consists of just you
no matter how many other people are in your world.
If we thought we were better than everyone else, we wouldn't spend
BILLIONS building hospitals and universities for those who can't
afford them.
Name some fundamentalist-built hospitals.
Name some fundamentalist univerities that aren't private and don't
charge an-arm-and-a-leg for tuition.
Go to your local soup kitchens and food banks. They're staffed and
supplied by Christians.
Fundamentalist Christians? Name one that you know of that is
fundamentalist and all-inclusive.
Well, you can point your middle finger all you like.
That would be you. I don't stoop to such vulgarities.
We would certainly exclude YOU from Heaven and from church
membership,
"Exclusion" from Heaven is not up to Christians.
Local church membership is not a Scriptural concept.
but I would not belong to or attend a church that would
exclude you from WORSHIPPING in my church.
And if my church refused to allow you in to worship, it wouldn't be my
church anymore.
Liar. You would be the loudest squeaky hypocritical wheel.
It's very sad that you spend so much of your time distorting and
HATING.
No need to try and "distort" what you say. You cocepts and mind-
processes are already distorted beyond normal recognition. Moreso
when you are off your meds and in a BPD phase.
As far as hating goes, I already explained that I would have to care
about you first to hate you.
There are even Christians who won't identify as being fundamentalist
who would agree that those points are essential to being a Christian.
That doesn't bother me in the least.
I don't think you understood the statement.
I DO think it's very sad that there are some (you for one) who feel
the need to ridicule and mis-represent people who aren't JUST LIKE
YOu.
What a bunch of baloney. You need no one to ridicule you, John - you
do it to yourself. "Mis-represent"? Wrong again - you're just so
mind-jumbled that you can't keep up and keep your own stories straight
let alone stay on topic.
Furthermore, unlike you, I have no need for others to be like me. I'm
not the narcissist, you are - the need to have personal clones is your
department.
I love you,
Again, totally creepy coming from you.
and I would not do anything knowingly to hurt you.
"Knowingly", huh? I see you're employing loopholes again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "john w" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalism: Ignoring Your God-Given Brain |
13 Aug 2007 04:00:04 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 10:16:54 -0700, "<~(Hey,
WhaddyaKnow?JesusSaysI'mAWhosoeverToo!)~>" <kaseybeck61@gmail.com>
wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Aug 12, 7:10 am, john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
Whoosh! (Feel the breeze over your head?)
"Whoooooosh!" yourself, dear. You can think you're talking over my
head, if you like.
If it suits you to fool yourself, it suits me.
You still didn't get it. Big surprise.
Just because I don't react in the manner you were 10,000,000 % sure
I would react doesn't mean I don't get it or didn't get it.
Yeah - hilarious.
Thanks!
It was sarcasm.
no kidding!
A "joke" that highlights a separatist
You sure can twist stuff into pretzels.
No twist. That was the essential nature of the "joke". No surprise
you don't understand that.
You are just bound and determined to convince yourself that your low
humor sailed over my head.
"Suit yourself." If you stopped and thought about it (if you're
capable of thought), you'd figure out that the ONLY person this
"didn't get it" matters to is YOU!
Explain to me/ explain to YOURSELF how-- in the grand scheme-- whether
I got your joke matters.
(it doesn't)
You only very shallowly fool yourself, "got him."
You didn't, but by ALL means, believe you did! That tiny delusion
could very well be the highlight of your week!
"Separate", yes. "Elite", no.
Christians are supposed to be separate from the world, not each other.
On THAT we agree, and there's even a debate in some circles as to
what "separate" means.
If we must completely separate from the world, and have NO THING to
do with them, when and how do we witness to them?
We are to be separate-- and I'm not even that.
The "joke" you presented indicates you feel otherwise.
zzzzz
All you are now saying is that you didn't get MY joke!
Ever heard of "irony."
"Elitist"? No. I don't consider myself "better" than anyone else,
The "joke" you presented indicates you feel otherwise.
Why are we having this discussion? You continue to talk for me!
john w
snip
.
|
|
|
| User: "~Hey, WhaddyaKnow?JesusSaysImAWhosoeverToo!~" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalism: Ignoring Your God-Given Brain |
13 Aug 2007 10:55:25 AM |
|
|
On Aug 13, 2:00 am, john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
Just because I don't react in the manner you were 10,000,000 % sure
I would react doesn't mean I don't get it or didn't get it.
You still don't get it, do you? (Come on, just be honest for once and
admit it went over your head)
You are just bound and determined to convince yourself that your low
humor sailed over my head.
My response had moved on to another point, why haven't you?
"Suit yourself." If you stopped and thought about it (if you're
capable of thought), you'd figure out that the ONLY person this
"didn't get it" matters to is YOU!
Still going on about something two points back, are you?
Explain to me/ explain to YOURSELF how-- in the grand scheme-- whether
I got your joke matters.
(it doesn't)
And still going on...
You only very shallowly fool yourself, "got him."
And on...
You didn't, but by ALL means, believe you did! That tiny delusion
could very well be the highlight of your week!
Yaaaawwwwnnnn...zzzzzzzz
Wake me up when you've finished.
On THAT we agree, and there's even a debate in some circles as to
what "separate" means.
If we must completely separate from the world, and have NO THING to
do with them, when and how do we witness to them?
Oh, boy - a new tangent that again has nothing to do with the point!
All you are now saying is that you didn't get MY joke!
Ever heard of "irony."
No - I got it. That's why I was balking, remember? (obviously not,
otherwise we wouldn't be going round-and-round like this)
Why are we having this discussion?
I have absolutely no idea.
You continue to talk for me!
No one need talk for you, JW - you babble on quite well by yourself
(you do need some help staying on topic, however)
.
|
|
|
| User: "john w" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalism: Ignoring Your God-Given Brain |
14 Aug 2007 01:49:36 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 08:55:25 -0700, "<~(Hey,
WhaddyaKnow?JesusSaysI'mAWhosoeverToo!)~>" <kaseybeck61@gmail.com>
wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Aug 13, 2:00 am, john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
Just because I don't react in the manner you were 10,000,000 % sure
I would react doesn't mean I don't get it or didn't get it.
You still don't get it, do you? (Come on, just be honest for once and
admit it went over your head)
You are just bound and determined to convince yourself that your low
humor sailed over my head.
My response had moved on to another point, why haven't you?
"Suit yourself." If you stopped and thought about it (if you're
capable of thought), you'd figure out that the ONLY person this
"didn't get it" matters to is YOU!
Still going on about something two points back, are you?
And now, you're lying! You commented in your last post!
tsk tsk (you DO know, don't you, that liars go to Hell?)
john w
Explain to me/ explain to YOURSELF how-- in the grand scheme-- whether
I got your joke matters.
(it doesn't)
And still going on...
You only very shallowly fool yourself, "got him."
And on...
You didn't, but by ALL means, believe you did! That tiny delusion
could very well be the highlight of your week!
Yaaaawwwwnnnn...zzzzzzzz
Wake me up when you've finished.
On THAT we agree, and there's even a debate in some circles as to
what "separate" means.
If we must completely se | | | | | | | | | | | |
