Fundamentalism...

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Frtigurn, it seems, as if i'm not making myself clear; or, i'm not understanding You clearly??? I'll interject 'boldly' into your post...

Yea, I think yer right. "Disillusionment" IS necessary to get back to "Jesusism", THE "Two New Commandments" and, their application to human relations...

I wasn't talking about disillusionment with institutional religion (Spong offers a good heavy dose of institutional religion), I was talking about disillusionment with Christianity, including belief in God and Jesus. RM: That describes "Institutional"/Domesticated/Neutred Religion for me... Spong doesn't strike me as someone particularly interested in belief in God and Jesus, RM: Then i think you haven't read Spong. HIS beliefs are not conventional, but he is a theist & believes in THE historical, mortal Jesus, not Luke's divine, stable birthed Jesus born under a travelling star... which is part of his appeal to contemporary po-mos. RM: Reassess your last clause following my correction, then opine again. Which will probably not change the fact that Spong appeals to the unconvential, pragmatic Christian/"po-mos" ..

"...blessed are the peace-makers..." Where are they hiding?

There are plenty of Christian peace makers, but they get drowned out by the war hawks. Historically the self-titled 'orthodoxy' Christians have persecuted them and hunted them to death.

My point exactly! Thanks for specifically answering my question: "Drowned by war hawks" & "...hunted to death by 'orthodox' Christians..." Th

This neatly nullifies, "There ARE plenty of Christian PMs..." Wouldn't you say?

I think we might be in agreement, when we get our thoughts in line, and our language sorted out??? Warm regards, Roger

[_Fortigurn]

RM: That describes "Institutional"/Domesticated/Neutred Religion for me...[/b]

Belief in God and Jesus is 'Institutional/Domesticated/Neutred Religion'?

RM: Then I think you haven't read Spong. HIS beliefs are not conventional, but he is a theist & believes in THE historical, mortal Jesus, not Luke's divine, stable birthed Jesus born under a travelling star...[/b]

I have read Spong. I think he's closer to being a Deist than a Theist ('Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead', says Spong). I find his attitude to morality both disturbing and dangerous.

My point exactly! Thanks for specifically answering my question: "Drowned by war hawks" & "...hunted to death by 'orthodox' Christians..." Th

This neatly nullifies, "There ARE plenty of Christian PMs..." Wouldn't you say?

No I wouldn't. They are out there, but they aren't heard as frequently. This doesn't change the fact that they are out there.

[_Roger Morrison]

Fortigurn, i'll do the bold thing again:

RM: That describes "Institutional"/Domesticated/Neutred Religion for me...[/b]

Belief in God and Jesus is 'Institutional/Domesticated/Neutred Religion'? Try this: I/D/N religion/christianity, does not teach humanity the 'truth' about "God" or Jesus. In My Seriously Considered Opinion, generally speaking...

RM: Then I think you haven't read Spong. HIS beliefs are not conventional, but he is a theist & believes in THE historical, mortal Jesus, not Luke's divine, stable birthed Jesus born under a travelling star...[/b]

I have read Spong. I think he's closer to being a Deist than a Theist ('Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead', says Spong). I find his attitude to morality both disturbing and dangerous. OK, if that's the way You see him, and you say you've read him, i can't argue with that. However, i will state that, "...his attitude to morality..." does not disturb me, nor do i find it dangerous. Why do you think that about his "attitude..."?

My point exactly! Thanks for specifically answering my question: "Drowned by war hawks" & "...hunted to death by 'orthodox' Christians..."

This neatly nullifies, "There ARE plenty of Christian PMs..." Wouldn't you say?

No I wouldn't. They are out there, but they aren't heard as frequently. This doesn't change the fact that they are out there.

OK, so "They are out 'there'..." :-) Where is "there"? What are "they" doing? Who are "they" denominationally?

Fort, i'm not sure what your point is? Mine, about "peace makers", is IF Christianism had emphasised P-M, as they have redemption from "The Fall" we would be living in a better world than we now are. I think Spong, and Eagleton, speak to that premise whether in my words or not...

I think Spong still believes in "The Fall"... Of course, Eagleton doesn't, nor do i. IMSCO, as humanity accepts biblical errancy, which does not "throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bath-water" "THE fall" will be seen as the myth that it is. Blood Atonement will be seen as the absurdity that it is. THEN we can, if we will, get working with the "Two New Commandments"... As i consider the past, experience the present and anticipate the future. The latter being totally in the hands of man working within the sciences of "God"... Warm regards, Roger

[_Fortigurn]

However, I will state that, "...his attitude to morality..." does not disturb me, nor do I find it dangerous. Why do you think that about his "attitude..."?

Moral relativism is the justification for all evil we choose to visit on each other.

Fort, I'm not sure what your point is?

My point is that there are plenty of Christians out there who are peace makers, but they don't get heard as much.

Mine, about "peace makers", is IF Christianism had emphasised P-M, as they have redemption from "The Fall" we would be living in a better world than we now are. I think Spong, and Eagleton, speak to that premise whether in my words or not...

Redemption from the fall is about peace making. It's people who don't understand we start off in a situation which requires reconciliation who end up fighting. They think that it's about blood payment, which is why they don't have a problem shedding blood. Spong is explicitly and unashamedly aggressive in his approach to other Christians, and that shows to me that his is still a very medieval view of relationships between man and man (not to mention man and God). It's the conquest mentality which results from the concept that bloodshed is the way to achieve closeness with God.

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Fort, i'm most interested in your thoughts re the Atonement/redemption as you claim in your below quote:

Redemption from the fall is about peace making. It's people who don't understand we start off in a situation which requires reconciliation who end up fighting. They think that it's about blood payment, which is why they don't have a problem shedding blood. Spong is explicitly and unashamedly aggressive in his approach to other Christians, and that shows to me that his is still a very medieval view of relationships between man and man (not to mention man and God). It's the conquest mentality which results from the concept that bloodshed is the way to achieve closeness with God.

It might help if i knew where you are coming from. Are you Christian? If so denomination & sect? If not "C" then what? Buddist? Hindo? Moslem? ???

We seem to be in agreement on one thing: Bloodshed does not lead to Peace, or "God". Do you agree?

I don't see Spong as you do. He is assertive in his promolgations, yes. But, he is not "aggressive" as i understand that word. Please name names of current, prominent folks on the peace-path who do not demonstrate, "...medieval view of relationships between man..." ???

I too dislike "...the conquest mentality..." I think the US "Football Mentality" (to win) roots the competetion that is anything but Jesus stuff, IMSCO. Which makes America every thing it claims not to be, IMSCO...

How do You think a better world is more likely to evolve? Warm regards, Roger

[_richardMdBorn]

What this has to do with "Fundamentalism"--as I understand it: My IQ & EQ tends to make/lead me (to) 'think' that the "5/7" points established as their 'presenter's' criteria of being a "true believer"--so to speak--are, IMSCO, fundamentally errant.

Richard, once again I ask You to help Me understand the relevance of your "test" to the subject/topic. Granted, they are Your thoughts and comments, as I asked for: "thank-you." Maybe no more need be said?? :-)

Hi Roger, I think that it's useful to define what evangelicals mean by inerrancy. Otherwise, we may be dealing with strawmen (which I think is the case with the two quotes at the start of this thread). Martyn Lloyd-Jones was an MD before he was a preacher, and he said that a basic problem with modern men is that they move to diagnosis before knowing the facts. In a similar way, a lot of writers on GPS don’t understand the system and thus cannot correctly measure the contributions of TIMATION and 621B to the current system. Comments like

Yesterday's victims of the literal Bible were blacks, while today's victims are homosexuals. Fundamentalism always has a victim.

do not inspire confidence in Spong’s historical knowledge or objectivity. Evangelicals led the fight against the slave trade (Wilberforce, etc,). What has Spong done that is in any way comparable? And black churches tend to be theologically conservative. Maybe they know something Spong doesn’t about the power of the gospel to transform lives. And Eagleton’s comment that

It is not surprising that fundamentalism abhors sexuality and the body, since in one sense all flesh is rough, and all sex is rough trade.

is nonsense. On the contrary, evangelicalism celebrates marriage. The Puritans wrote love poems to their wives. Prior to that, most love poems were written to mistresses.

[_Runtu]

What this has to do with "Fundamentalism"--as I understand it: My IQ & EQ tends to make/lead me (to) 'think' that the "5/7" points established as their 'presenter's' criteria of being a "true believer"--so to speak--are, IMSCO, fundamentally errant.

Richard, once again I ask You to help Me understand the relevance of your "test" to the subject/topic. Granted, they are Your thoughts and comments, as I asked for: "thank-you." Maybe no more need be said?? :-)

Hi Roger, I think that it's useful to define what evangelicals mean by inerrancy. Otherwise, we may be dealing with strawmen (which I think is the case with the two quotes at the start of this thread). Martyn Lloyd-Jones was an MD before he was a preacher, and he said that a basic problem with modern men is that they move to diagnosis before knowing the facts. In a similar way, a lot of writers on GPS don’t understand the system and thus cannot correctly measure the contributions of TIMATION and 621B to the current system. Comments like

Yesterday's victims of the literal Bible were blacks, while today's victims are homosexuals. Fundamentalism always has a victim.

do not inspire confidence in Spong’s historical knowledge or objectivity. Evangelicals led the fight against the slave trade (Wilberforce, etc,). What has Spong done that is in any way comparable? And black churches tend to be theologically conservative. Maybe they know something Spong doesn’t about the power of the gospel to transform lives. And Eagleton’s comment that

It is not surprising that fundamentalism abhors sexuality and the body, since in one sense all flesh is rough, and all sex is rough trade.

is nonsense. On the contrary, evangelicalism celebrates marriage. The Puritans wrote love poems to their wives. Prior to that, most love poems were written to mistresses.

I find it fascinating that rather than deal with what was actually said about fundamentalism (for example Eagleton's main point that fundamentalism believes in a copperfastened meaning of sacred text), you focus on tangential issues such as the idea that EVs are pro-marriage instead of abhorring sexuality. I think an argument could be made that Eagleton is correct about EV attitudes towards sex, but that's really not the point. I posted the Eagleton quote because I believe he's pretty well spot on with his ideas about fundamentalism being primarily an issue of the primacy of text. But I guess no one wants to talk about that.

[_Fortigurn]

It might help if I knew where you are coming from. Are you Christian? If so denomination & sect? If not "C" then what? Buddist? Hindo? Moslem? ???

Religion, Christian. Sect, Christadelphian.

We seem to be in agreement on one thing: Bloodshed does not lead to Peace, or "God". Do you agree?

Yes. But sacrifice does lead to both peace and to God. You could rephrase 'sacrifice' as 'self-restraint' if you wish.

I don't see Spong as you do. He is assertive in his promolgations, yes. But, he is not "aggressive" as I understand that word.

I see. An irregular verb. I'm forthright, you are dogmatic, he is an aggressive fanatic. The difference is all in the point of view.

Please name names of current, prominent folks on the peace-path who do not demonstrate, "...medieval view of relationships between man..." ???

They're not that prominent, that's my whole point. My sect is completely against the doctrine of Divine retribution and appeasement through the murder of Jesus, but we're not exactly prominent. The Quakers were prominent, the Anabaptists were prominent, and a number of pacifist Christian denominations have been prominent in history, but these days you need political clout and media influence to be prominent, and the curious fact is that historically the same Christian denominations which have rightly denounced violence have also rightly been disestablishmentarian, and remained politically uninvolved as a result.

I too dislike "...the conquest mentality..." I think the US "Football Mentality" (to win) roots the competetion that is anything but Jesus stuff, IMSCO. Which makes America every thing it claims not to be, IMSCO...

Agreed.

How do You think a better world is more likely to evolve? Warm regards, Roger

It has to start with self-restraint. God has been trying to get this through to us since Genesis 1.

[_richardMdBorn]

I find it fascinating that rather than deal with what was actually said about fundamentalism (for example Eagleton's main point that fundamentalism believes in a copperfastened meaning of sacred text), you focus on tangential issues such as the idea that EVs are pro-marriage instead of abhorring sexuality. I think an argument could be made that Eagleton is correct about EV attitudes towards sex, but that's really not the point. I posted the Eagleton quote because I believe he's pretty well spot on with his ideas about fundamentalism being primarily an issue of the primacy of text. But I guess no one wants to talk about that.

All in good time sir. You will note that most of my couple of posts have on this thread have responded to Roger. I'm trying to limit my time on the MB but intend to reply to the rest of your quote sometime this week. The passage reminds me in its jargon to another Marxist I read in a history class in the 1970s.

To be a fundamentalist is to deny the inherent uncertainty of language. and instead see all meaning circumscribed by a well-defined set of scripture.

Does Eagleton think that his own meaning here is unclear? Is this passage subject to the inherent uncertainty of language?

[_Roger Morrison]

Roger injects in bold:

It might help if I knew where you are coming from. Are you Christian? If so denomination & sect? If not "C" then what? Buddist? Hindo? Moslem? ???

Religion, Christian. Sect, Christadelphian.

We seem to be in agreement on one thing: Bloodshed does not lead to Peace, or "God". Do you agree?

Yes. But sacrifice does lead to both peace and to God. You could rephrase 'sacrifice' as 'self-restraint' if you wish. You could, but i'd try to be more specific. "Self-restraint" runs a pretty varied gamut--from resisting chocolate cake, to not pulling a trigger... "Sacrifice" to me results in more dire effects--positive or negative...

I don't see Spong as you do. He is assertive in his promolgations, yes. But, he is not "aggressive" as I understand that word.

I see. An irregular verb. I'm forthright, (candid, honest) you are dogmatic, (forceful, over bearing, doctinaire) he is an aggressive fanatic (end justifies means, violent probabilities) . The difference is all in the point of view. And in one's vocabulary range and choice...

Please name names of current, prominent folks on the peace-path who do not demonstrate, "...medieval view of relationships between man..." ???

They're not that prominent, that's my whole point. My sect is completely against the doctrine of Divine retribution and appeasement through the murder of Jesus, but we're not exactly prominent. The Quakers were prominent, the Anabaptists were prominent, and a number of pacifist Christian denominations have been prominent in history, but these days you need political clout and media influence to be prominent, and the curious fact is that historically the same Christian denominations which have rightly denounced violence have also rightly been disestablishmentarian, and remained politically uninvolved as a result. Self inflicted/chosen impotence?

I too dislike "...the conquest mentality..." I think the US "Football Mentality" (to win) roots the competition that is anything but Jesus stuff, IMSCO. Which makes America every thing it claims not to be, IMSCO...

Agreed.

How do You think a better world is more likely to evolve? Warm regards, Roger

It has to start with self-restraint. How about active-involvement? God has been trying to get this through to us since Genesis 1.

Thanks Fort, for Wikki. It helped me understand where you are now. How did you get there? Pasted below re Christadelphians:

Beliefs
Christadelphians base their beliefs wholly on the Bible, and accept no other texts as inspired by God. They believe that God is the creator of all things and the father of true believers. God is a separate being from his son, Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit is not a person, but the power of God used in creation and for salvation, and at certain times in history has been given to certain believers for specific purposes.

Jesus is the promised Messiah, in whom the prophecies and promises of the Old Testament (particularly those to Abraham and David) find their fulfillment. Jesus is the Son of Man, in that he inherited sin-prone human nature from his mother, and Son of God by virtue of his miraculous conception by the power of God. Although tempted, he committed no sin, and was therefore a perfect representative sacrifice to bring salvation to sinful mankind. God raised Jesus to immortality, and he ascended to Heaven, God's dwelling place. All Christadelphians believe that Jesus will return to the earth in person to set up the Kingdom of God in fulfillment of the promises made to Abraham and King David. Jerusalem will be the capital city of the Kingdom. Some Christadelphians believe that the Kingdom will only be in Israel, but other Christadelphians believe that although the Kingdom will be centred upon Israel, Jesus Christ will also reign over all the other nations on the earth.

People become disciples of Jesus Christ only by belief in his teachings, by repentance, and through baptism by total immersion in water, not when they are babies but when they are of an age when they can understand their actions. Although saved by faith in God's grace, real faith will manifest in works, and so believers are expected to live a life consistent with Bible teaching. After death, believers are in a state of non-existence, knowing nothing until the Resurrection at the return of Christ. Following the judgment at that time, the accepted are given the gift of immortality, and live with Christ on a restored Earth, helping him to establish the Kingdom of God, and to rule over the mortal population for a thousand years (the Millennium). Christadelphians view the future Kingdom of God as the focal point of the Gospel taught by Jesus and the apostles. They point to fulfilled Bible prophecy, particularly as regards the nations, as clear evidence that the Scriptures can be trusted.

Christadelphians reject a number of doctrines traditionally held by the orthodox Christian denominations, notably the immortality of the soul, Trinitarianism, the pre-existence of Jesus Christ and present day possession of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. They believe that where the words devil or Satan occur in the Bible, they should be understood as the inherent evil within humankind (i.e. sin) and the human being's inclination to disobey his or her Eternal Creator. These terms may also be used in reference to specific political systems or individuals in opposition or conflict. Hell is understood to simply refer to the grave to which all men go, rather than being a place of eternal torment.

Christadelphians believe the doctrines they reject were introduced into Christendom after the 1st century, and cannot be demonstrated from the Bible.

Christadelphians are conscientious objectors (but not pacifists), and refrain from involvement with politics, joining the armed forces, the police force, or other organised bodies such as trade unions. There is a strong emphasis on personal Bible reading (some Christadelphians use the Bible Companion to help them systematically read the entire Bible each year), Bible study, prayer, and morality. Congregational worship, which usually takes place on Sunday, centres on the remembrance of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ by the taking of bread and wine

Seems to have some of the best, and some of the worst Bible extractions basing their dogma, IMSCO. Similar in many/some ways to Jehovah Witness, Mormonism and other well intended Christian sects.

I like "conscientious-objection"--"no central authority/autonomy"--"no trinity"... I do not like their: "Patriarchial stance", Messianic belief, Bible inerrancy, Baptism as powerful beyond an initiative symbol...

Having said that, i 'think' IF/WHEN we set aside our theological disputes, and ecclesiatic egotisms to concentate on Jesusism, and his Social gospel, as it is suggested in HIS "Two New Commandments", "Grace & Salvation" will be reunderstood AND applied here-and-now to benefit mortality...

As is any other Scientific or Spiritual principle. IMSCO... Warm regards, Roger