not to mention
'TOTAL DOMINION and AUTHORITY.... i have to wonder ...HOW any educated person could adhere to these sort of religious principles....




another thing that strikes me funny..............just consider , for a second,

"WHERE" literally all these males squeezed out from!!!!


sheesh...Mahhhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmm he pulled my haaaaaaair!!!!

i requested i to be deleted so everyone just let it go there a plennty of other thinkd to post about
usm

Voil;

Though I share a laugh with you over the web site you found - I am curious as to how you make the leap from having serious doubts about what these people believe to having no doubt that they are an example of "Christianity"? It often makes me wonder if you even know what a Christian believes.

Eljay,

Stick with the first part, "... share a laugh with you!"

It was essentially a humorous post.

The point though, is the exact opposite of what you claim.

It implies in no way that these people are an example of Christianity. To the contrary, I suggest in a rather loud manner that all types of 'fanatical fundamentalism' (taking the Bible litterally) disguising themselves as Christians, serve nothiong else than a gross perversion of Christianity. A hypocritical mischaractarization of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ IMO.

Christians IMO, don't send their waking hours imposing biblical morality as thy understand it. They humbly live their lives, open to, touched by, and radiating the spirit of Jesus Christ: 'love your neighbor as you would yourself' without ever needing to quote it.

I called for, in an allegorical fashion, the ...
... "Sinful Christian Fundamentalists Deprogramming Institute"

NOT the "Christian Deprogramming Institute" !!!

Join the growing ranks of members Eljay, and laugh-off the fundamentalists agenda with us!!!

voileazur,

I suggest you watch "Flock of Dodos". It's a Creationism vs Evolution documentary, which falls directly on the Evolution side. But even the people who made the movie admitted that the fundamentalist Christians they met during the making of the movie were wonderful people and much nice and more fun than the Evolutionists they met. I think that you have a distorted view of who Christians are, probably based on a few bad apples. Maybe you don't know any Christians or enough Christians to understand that the majority of Christians are loving and kind people, even the fundamentalists. There are some who fail in that regard, who are violent, imposing, overbearing, etc, but that's an issue to be dealed with by the Christian community and we don't need a "Sinful Christian Fundamentalists Deprogramming Institute".

I thank you for your suggestion 'spider',

I will look for the documentary you recommend.

That being said, you are again mischaracterizing my words, ad again, I forgive you.

I don't mix fundemantalism and Christianism as you so eagerly do.

I have but a great image of Christians, or Muslims, or Hindhus, or Buddhists, etc. And they are all loving, caring, human beings before being Christians, Muslims, Hindhus, an Buddhists.

Fundamentalism isn't Christianism, etc. It could be said that fundamentalism is a spiritless 'pseudo' (make believe) religion in itself. No spirit leaves only that which is destructive about religion.

Your antagonistic dispositions towards eveyone whom doesn't agree with every point you make, causes a serious distortion in judgement, and brings about IMO all the mischaracterizations you make.

I can't believe that you would have a problem in reading and understanding simple English.

When I write:

''...I called for, in an allegorical fashion, the ...
... "Sinful Christian Fundamentalists Deprogramming Institute"

NOT the "Christian Deprogramming Institute" !!!


... it is a gross distortion it seems to come with a lecture on my lack of appreciation of the Christian community as a whole. Fundamentalists in my view, whether Christians, Muslims or any other denominations, are distorting, abusing and manipulating a religion's spiritual foundation, to their crypto-fascist fundamentalist self-serving bogotry.

If you are incapable of distinguishing Fundamentalists abusing Christianism, please give me your opinion of Muslims Fundamentalists?!?!? Are they like your brand of 'Christian' Fundamentalists, Loving and Kind people?!?!?

Not only do I maintain my suggestion of a "Sinful Christian Fundamentalists Deprogramming Institute", you inspire me to suggest we open franchises:
"Sinful Muslim Fundamentalists Deprogramming Institute"
"Sinful Hindhus Fundamentalists Deprogramming Institute"
"Sinful Buddhists Fundamentalists Deprogramming Institute"
"Sinful 'coming soon' Fundamentalists Deprogramming Institute"

Fundamentalism is tribal, barbaric, exclusive, and spirit numbing!!!

Integrity with one's spriritual dimension is invariably short circuited by crypto-fascist fundamentalism.

Antagonistic predispositons are the essential tools of fundamentalism. There need not be permanent suspicion; permanent threats and ennemies; permanent fight for vain principles founded on fear, rather than trusting and loving spirit.

Coming together is the plan 'spider'. Antagonistic prejudices are hardly conducive to that.

Become a member of the "Sinful Christian Fundamentalists Deprogramming Institute" 'spider' ! (humour)

Send in your donation! (joke)

Allow yourself to play with these concepts a bit. You might be surprised by the spirit coming through in such dispositions.

I have numerous faults. I don't claim otherwise. But Antogonistic! Angry! Fundamentalist! Not me my friend!

i wash my hands of this

voileazur,

This is becoming somewhat of a back and forth that I believe will not be productive. Let me try to clear this up and then I will have to move on.

"But even the people who made the movie admitted that the fundamentalist Christians they met during the making of the movie were wonderful people and much nice and more fun than the Evolutionists they met."

"Maybe you don't know any Christians or enough Christians to understand that the majority of Christians are loving and kind people, even the fundamentalists. "

Your average Christian fundamentalist of today regards the follow definition of fundamentalism to be true: "a movement that sees itself opposed to Modernism, stressing the infallibility of the Bible in both religious matters and historical accuracy". You seem to be using another equally valid defintion "An emotional, narrow minded kind of religion that focuses on using good works to please God, rejects rational thinking, unjustly judges others, and tends to blur the distinction between church and state. True fundamentalism has always been the enemy of Christianity, but it is more rare these days than most people think. It is a more serious danger in other times and cultures. It is still around, though, and is strong in some areas. ...".

The point I was making to you is that there is a difference between various "Fundamentalist" groups. It's like saying "Cats are dangerous", it's only true if you are talking about the large cats, I doubt anyone would call a housecat dangerous, at least to humans anyways. Some fundamentalists, such as myself, believe in fundamental teachings in CHURCH (emphasis, not yelling): Jesus is God, the Bible is literally true, etc. Other fundamentalists believe that Christian doctrine should be made law or other extremist dogma, which I disagree with strongly. I believe that you are lumping the house cats in with the tigers and the two don't belong in the same box, a tiger is just as dangerous to a housecat as it is to a human.

Muslim fundamentalists, depending on their particular beliefs could be very loving and kind. Some Muslim fundamentalists insist that Christians, Jews AND Muslims will all be saved. Fundamentalism at it's root is the belief that religion should move back to it's fundamentals, but there is disagreement what those fundamentals are.

Let me leave you with this real world example. When I say "Skin Head", most people think "Neo-Nazi". The problem with that is that "Skin-Heads" were a political movement started by immigrants in London. The majority of Skin-heads world wide were not racist and hated their neo-nazi brothers. Skin-heads were a party for the poor and downtrodden and they shaved their heads to show that they were outcasts in society, many of the first skin-heads were blacks from Jamaica. In the same way, you think of the very worst kind of Christian fundamentalism, the non-scriptural kind, rather than the majority of fundamentalists who simply believe that the CHURCH (emphasis, not yelling) is off track and needs to be corrected and have no desire to enforce their beliefs on society.

DISCLAIMER: Throughout this post, I put the note (emphasis, not yelling). If this site allowed HTML code, I would simply bold the words, but since it doesn't I often use all caps. I believe that many here mistake my attempt to emphasize one sentence, paragraph or word for yelling. I will not in the future place any notes into my posts or a disclaimer like this one. I would hope that anyone who reads this will keep it in mind and not unfairly judge my future posts.

"QUID EST VERITAS?" Pontius Pilate

Heard that 'spider'!!!

"Quid est veritas?"

Nobody knows. Neither you or I know 'spider'. Neither my convictions or beliefs, nor yours, based on the Bible God. None of this knows or detains THE THRUTH.

"what is the truth?", only thruth herself knows!

And interestingly enough, the quote is very pertinent to the exchange going on here.

You and I can only examine, if we make the effort, and distinguish that which isn't accurate, and thereby not true.

When I distinguigh fundamentalism from Christian or any other belief, and I claim something which has been demonstrated as inaccurate, inexact, not true. I am no closer to establishing what is true, but I at least can sure as hell stay away from what isn't.

Fundamentalism and religious faith and beliefs simply do not belong together in any accurate or thruthful way.

As in a cat and a mouse mating will not give your a 'catmouse'. Not compatible.

So it is between religious beliefs and fundamentalism.

One could argue that 'believing' as human concept is fundamental to human beings. The need to organize what each one of can't explain, and would go nuts trying to understand and explain. Fundamental to human sanity, and ability to function in life.

That's the extent of relationship. Fundamental could be argued to be so with 'believing', but not to beliefs.

There is NOTHING (EMPHASIS!!!) fundamental to the Bible, Jesus Christ, Mohamet (Mohammad), Buddha, etc. Nothing fundamental in any words, parables, legends, or 'believed to be' truths from God in the bible or any other man declared sacred books. Believing is fundamental (probably arguable), but not the beliefs; inaccurate, incorrect, untrue.

I don't believe in the bible. Belief in the Bible isn't fundamental. That's it! End of subject! DOn't even need to ask Abra, KerryO, Redykeulous, et all. I alone blow the relationship between religious belief and fundamentalism.

The need to believe is probably universal. The moment humans discovered language, wondering what was what, and what was true from what was what, showed up. Forms of believing quickly created a infinite production of beliefs: deities of all sorts.

The very nature of the belief itself is non-fundamental. It doesn't need a foundation. It doesn't require an explanation. Doesn't require a story that makes sense, thus the parables, fictitious stories of the Bible.

Fundamental 'believing', giving way for all fictitious to all potential but made real to one, maybe.

But fundamental beliefs, religious or other forms, is an oxymoron. Won't make catmouses anytime soon.

To keep nurishing this fundamental lie, intellectually, with delusinal words, or with suicidal bombers for virgins contests, is one and the same. One encourages and feeds the other in the same lie. They go hand in hand. NO intellectual fundamentalits, no suicide bomber fundamentalists.

Inventing (believing) may fundamental to humans, but not the inventions (beliefs).

C'mon 'spider'! Admit it! Admit you'd love to join the "Sinful Christian Fundamentalists Deprogramming Institute".

Admit, now that I have corrected you on your err (sin), that you wouldn't want to perpetuate this 'fundamental' lie, this most obvious inaccuracy, this mischaracterization of mischaracterizations.

Should you make a belief fundamental my friend, it would cease to be a belief, and would have to be proven like everything else. Can't have your cake and eat it too!!!

The beauty of this whole conversation, is that believing is most arguably fundamental to all individual humans. Conscience is most arguably fundamental to all individual humans.

All human have it in them to consciously believe in what is true to their nature. In that I trust.
And in that, homosexuals or heterosexual matters not. Humans believing in what is conscionable and true to human nature, one human at a time, aspiring sincerely to what is true in the most sincere of manner. I trust conscionable human beings, one at a time, and moment by moment, over a book of ancient parables (self admitted fictitious strories, that some would wnat to mischaracterize as true!!!).


Start debate instead of 'preaching' spider. Best coaching I can think of for you if your real intention is to touch souls!!!

Voileazur,

=============================================================
Fundamental - cardinal: serving as an essential component; "a cardinal rule"; "the central cause of the problem"; "an example that was fundamental to the argument"; "computers are fundamental to modern industrial structure"
=============================================================

voileazur said...
=============================================================
"There is NOTHING (EMPHASIS!!!) fundamental to the Bible, Jesus Christ, Mohamet (Mohammad), Buddha, etc. Nothing fundamental in any words, parables, legends, or 'believed to be' truths from God in the bible or any other man declared sacred books. Believing is fundamental (probably arguable), but not the beliefs; inaccurate, incorrect, untrue. "
=============================================================

Those things aren't fundamental to you, but they might be to a Bible believing Christian. That's what you seem to be missing here, I'm not talking about fundamental to humanity, I'm talking about fundamental to the church. You are welcome to your beliefs, but my belief is that certain ideas and values are fundamental to Christianity. I am a fundamentalist Christian. I believe that Jesus is God. I believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Because of those beliefs I am a fundamentalist. I didn't suggest or even imply that beliefs of Christianity should for forced on others or that all people have to consider them fundamental. I was very explicit that I believe in fundamentalism in Church. I strongly encourage you to read the two definitions for fundamentalism that I posted earlier and see that there is more than one type of fundamentalism. You seem to think that I'm debating or arguing and I am simply telling you what I believe. I have no interest in debating, because nothing good will come from it. I'm most definately not preaching, I am explaining to you that "Fundamentalist" is a HUGE umbrella and not everyone standing under it wants to force their beliefs on others. Some of us believe that certain beliefs are FUNDAMENTAL to CHRISTIANITY, so we call ourselves FUNDAMENTALISTS.

Yes, Voil, it takes a good writer to string together the many ideas, thoughts and theories that play in my mind. You have done far better than I ever could. Nicely put.

'spider',

I will spare you, 'cause in the end, I love you!
... In a Christian (Jesus's spirit) 'Love your neighbor as you love yourself' kind of way!!!

But please ponder on the inscestuously misguided, and inconceivable, as well as ill-conceived nature of the sentence you served yourself in your previous post:

"... Some of us believe that certain beliefs are FUNDAMENTAL to CHRISTIANITY, so we call ourselves FUNDAMENTALISTS..."

Some believe... which is your right and privilege, and requires no demonstration of foundation or sense (other than to yourself).

How than can 'certain beliefs' be the foundation of what you believe, which doesn't require any foundation, for the belief of belief, in your case, Christianity, which require no more foundation than certain belifs in which in need not be founded, and the believing which is by nature, foundationless. When you say 'I believe', you claim your right to say something that is unfounded, and still believe it to be true for yourself.

INCESTUOUS (emphasis), Christianity is but one big belief!!!
Read slowly: NOTHING FUNDAMENTAL ABOUT BELIEFS. If there is anything fundamental about beliefs, it is that it is not fundamental (fictitious, UNFOUNDED, no need for foundation).

The act of believing IS arguably fundamental. As sort of safehouse for everything we don't know, or don't understand. OK on that one.

But no manner of convenient 'bulk' thinking, can associate the need for humans to believe withot having to present proof or foundation for their believing, and the non-fundamental beliefs (unfounded in and of themselves), which are only fundamental to the principles of believing itself, which in turn might be arguably fundamental to humans (no believing breeds suicidal tendencies: overwhelmed with the failure to understand everything).

So your fundamental need (urge, instinct) to believe needs to be nourished. Believing alone is like eating air.

Since believing itself need not be founded, we need to respect its organic nature when feeding it, and be careful not to feed anything founded, real, or verifiable as such, since human believing as a whole will reject it (throw it up as it may: which is very much what happens between you'spider', and many of us).

Believing, ironically feeds itself with what's not true, not founded, and not verifiable, but made to be true by, and for the 'self' of one individual at a time.

That is a 'universal towards individual process', and not an 'individual towards universal process', as some would like to pervert the believing experience.

Last point 'spider'. You may argue a short for the fundamental aspect of believing, and claim your personal beliefs to be essential in representing that.

By extension, your Church may use the same shortcut for itself.

But it is a shortcut. When you are no longer in that Church of yours, namely on a public forum, the shortcut is null and void. There is nothing fundamental here about your beliefs, your Church, or your 'fundamentalism', for which there is nothing fundamental.

Only one opinion, one unfounded belief, one fictitious conviction, amongst the multitde, making story tellers of all of us. Spirit which may or may not emanate from your 'stories' wins all. The spirit!!! Not you not your stories, not YOUR TRUTH, not your fundamentals, and not YOUR spirit,
... but the spirit which emanates, free fro EGO!!!

C'mon 'spider'!!! Sign-up! Sign-up and let the sprit flow!!!

Voileazur,

I'm sorry, but I disagree. A belief system can have a foundation. The foundation of Christianity is the Bible. You are free to have any opinion about the Bible or Christianity that you want, but fundamental Christians are "Back to the Bible" Christians. I get the feeling that you are simply arguing to get your licks in and to get the last word, you aren't trying to learn or make me see your side, which is why you taunt me in every post. I'm not going to play your game anymore, believe what you will about fundamentalist Christians, obviously the truth isn't going to change your mind.

'spider',

Here you go! All upset and angry again.

"... A belief system can have a foundation..."

Yes it can!!!

It would be a foundation of beliefs, parables (fictitious stories with a moral), and faith in those beliefs and stories which are all UNFOUNDED (the nature of beliefs).

If all this stuff were true, there would be no need to believe. It would be fact!

A belief is by definition and by nature unfounded, and made to be true by ONE PERSON AT A TIME.

It is not because a lot of people believe in something that is unfounded, that it makes it true. And it is not because something is unfounded, that someone cannot believe in it.

The person believing is truly believing. But the belief is truly unfounded (not true).

Taunting?!?!? I'm the host of this post?!?!? Besides, I thought you were chasing me! Thought you found interesting or something?!?!?

Anyhow. Don't give yourself too much self importance 'spider'. No one is chasing you. Maybe we just have more in common (common interest) then you're willing to admit. Hum scaring but interesting!

Last word?!?!? not interested! Go right ahead and reply something right here, and I promise I won't follow-up! You have the last word 'spider'! Congrats!

1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.
2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8 Love never falls. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; wherethere is knowledge, it will pass away.
9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part,
10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.
11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.
12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
Quoted from the NIV study bible, new international version.

Voil;

I often can follow your line of thinking, and can reason out the numerous ways you site examples of this idea of a "Christian Fundamentalist" that your deprogramming club is targeting - but I can't quite get a grasp of what a true Christian is to you. If simply "loving your neighbor as yourself" is the only requirement (and I sense that there's an exclusivity to this) to be a true Christian - than we are off in our semantics. As a Christian, I believe that one should follow this guideline but I don't see it as a mutually inclusive event. You can be an Atheist and do the same - but that doesn't make one a Christian as well. Being a Christian was the derogatory term used to describe the disciples of Christ. They were first called such at Antioch. Whether it was deterants or the disciples themselves that "coined the phrase" Christian - neither group would deny it was just another way of labelling the disciples who believed that Jesus was who he claimed to be - not those who thought he had a few really nice things to say. I would say it would be stretching the understanding of what a Christian is to claim that one does not believe what the bible says about the Man/God who the name suggests they follow. This isn't representative of fundamentalism - which I sense is synomical to fanatacism when I read your posts sometimes. And forgive me if I'm making up words here. But I can't see how the bible isn't fundamental to a Christian. How else does anyone know what Jesus stood for and believed himself - without it? And if the Golden rule was the words of truth from his mouth - why isn't "I am the way, the truth, and the light. No one comes to the father but through me." Was he a raving lunatic when he spoke those words? And I'm not quite sure what you are refering to when you say "Fundamental fanatical Christians". I call these groups Cults. Not Christians. And I've participated in the day to day life of enough of these groups to know what fanatical fundamentalism is. Simply thinking the bible is not a fairy tale does not make one anywhere near the mindset of these groups. I've read Spider's posts - He is nothing like the members of these groups. He's enthusiastic in defending his beliefs - but no more so than Abra is about his, or you about yours. I actually consider Abra more fanatical about Pantheism, than Spider is about Christianity.

So I would not have as much trouble with reasoning out your examples if I knew where you draw the line between a true Christian, and a fundamentalist Christian.

Eljay,



You wrote:

"... But I can't see how the bible isn't fundamental to a Christian..."

I totally agree, and never implied otherwise.

The Bible is fundamental to Christians.

But the Bible and Christians are not fundamental to life, or to non-Christian humans.

The Bible is only fundamental, in the sense of essential, to Christians whom chose to 'believe' the 'story' of the Bible. In other words, take the story of the Bible, and make it true to oneself: no longer a story for only one person at a time, the story becomes a 'belief' for that person. But here is the brutal paradox: it's not becomes it is a true belief for one, that a belief become THE TRUTH for all. That is the line being crossed by fundamentalists of any disguise: soft, hard, or medium.

Outside of Christianity, there is no fundamental aspect or foundation to any of the Christian beliefs.

There is Christian culture and history, which much more than its beliefs, are to a large extent, fundamental to a lot of the western world civilization.

I for one, would argue pragmatically, that Judeo-Christian culture is fundamental to my nature, and the nature of anyone born and raised in North American. Whether one resists, or embraces the culture, whehter one boxes himself in a ghetto to resist it, it is a significant part of western nations history, and could be argued by facts and number to be, by far, the dominant culture. Now that's the culture, NOT the belief.

While it makes perfect sense within the 'believing' Christian world, for a Christian to tell another Christian that he is a Christian 'fundamentalist', to argue for Christian fundamentalism in the non-believing-of-Christian-dogma world, is pure 'catmouse' heresy. No foundation whatsoever.

For everyone outside the Christian believing circle, your Christian 'fundamentals' are nothing other than legitimate 'beliefs' of some people, based on stories, rather than 'the Bible truth'. Nothing fundamental as such.

All should respect one legitimate right to one's beliefs. And those whom believe, should never confuse their beliefs as the truth for all. That is the underlying manipulation and bigotry of 'religious fundamentalism'.

As for the definition of 'Real Christian', there is no such thing. Faith is the domain of 'egoless' SPIRIT!
Having moral and ethical guidelines do not make a 'good' or 'real chriatian' out of you. Those guidelines, Christians or others, are only useful if one uses them to get the ego out of the way, and allow the 'spirit' to flow through. Only the spirit (egoless), connects humanity. And that is the fundamental mission IMO.


Spirit has no 'real christian' or any other denomination model. To the contrary, SPIRIT is 'model' free! No 'Real Christian' model, no Fundamental Christian' model, just SPIRIT.

'Eljay', 'spider',

Just a friendly reminder, that this need not be a fight to be right.

I respect both of you, and your beliefs. I just find walking through the 'what's so' of this exchange, when we all make sure not to take things personnally, can be enriching for all.

Just an invite.


:)

Voil;

Excellant clarity in your post. I understand. It helps me rightly divide your intent when you lean towards the sarcastic. Also - sometimes your all-encompassing labels are not quite all encompassing. I've never considered our posts to be a fight for what is right, just an appeal to be understood when it appears that we've been misrepresented. I can't speak for Spider about this - but that has been my motivation.