You are indeed unaware, as I was involved in various mainstream and not-so-mainstream churches/groups, and the more 'fundy' ;) churches I was in have a _far_ more level of similarity to those 'damn cults' than you realize, ... or even than you dare to admit.
Now that's funny! People like you evidently have no qualms in telling us unbelievers how to live our lives (when you tell us that we need to convert to Jesus), yet can't take the alleged same (if it is indeed the same) coming from us.
(((snort))) Yah! Right! ... Want to treat us with respect? Stop with the "I will preach the Gospel to you whether you like it or not!" mentality. If _I_ don't want to hear it, _you_ have no right to persist.
Fine. Tell ya what. YOU spare US your fundamentalist vitriol, and give us unbelievers some peace. ... But as per some of the things you say here, it's apparently against your religion to do that now, isn't it? Ie., the following providing us with a _classic_ example of this
Listen to yourself. . . . I don't see things the way you think I should and somehow. . . I don't care to admit it! There is something wrong with me? That is rich and INCREDIBLY hypocritical. As that is the "problem" you seem to have with all these "fundies" who are apparently bothering you day and night. . . . giving you no peace. What a joke.
People like you apparently feel some right in calling people NAMES, generalizing, and characterizing individuals you don't even KNOW. . . . based on your limited past experiences... . . and forgive me, but if you know the difference between a cult like TWI and the Christian faith . . . . you have yet to articulate it here. That doesn't stop you from calling names though.
Now, how you get get "I will preach the gospel to you whether you like it or not" from someone sharing their faith in conversation, in a CHURCH, on a network designed for just such purpose, or in a DOCTRINAL section of a discussion forum, is just a leap. Unless I am knocking down your door or badgering you at your workplace. . . . last time I checked, I am free to believe and speak as I want. Just as you are and just as you seem to avail yourself of this right (ad nauseum). . . . so will I.
You are in the wrong country Garth, there are places where Christians are imprisoned and tortured for their belief in Jesus, for not repudiating Him. . . . even executed, but that is not here. Yet. . . . . Funny, the attitude and justification for such things is painfully similar to your attitude. Filled with some rage are we?
Oddly enough, this IS a discussion about fundamentalists. . . and from what you are saying. . . . the first time someone expresses confidence in their belief system within a thread talking about fundamentalism the sky is falling. But, we can have page after page of generalization and pathetic attempts at intellectualizing a REACTIONARY response. A reaction to something we don't like.
I go to places I am INVITED and meet with people who seek me out. . . . people, who most of society shun. . . . and if you want to do something about it. . . . I suggest you get your a$ down to your local prison and preach intolerance for Christians your own damn self. Otherwise. . . . you are going to have to learn to live with people who believe differently than you. . . . like a grown-up. Like I do. I even manage to love them. What is your excuse again? You are annoyed?
Thank-you though. . . . . you have articulated better than I could imagine. . . . the intolerance, generalization, and underlying attitude of wanting to eviscerate all things Christian . . . . that usually masks itself as post-modernism and tolerance in this country.
Kudo's though for at least not hiding behind a Charter.
Wow. . . really? So, what are you moving towards? Ideationalism? You may find this more problematic. . . . No? Try applying rational thought to a subject without a predicate and see how far into the abyss you wander.
Well I was making a strong statement. Of course in doing that, the label of "fundamantalist" that I intended to indicate the type of thinking I described later in that sentence can wrongly be assumed to be applied towards many forward thinking individuals whose views might be seen in that realm. For example, CS Lewis. Now, I really don't think he's the type of person I was talking about. But anytime you generalize or apply a label there is the danger of it being misunderstood.
In the later part of this sentence, are you really trying to say that without a fundamentalist outlook you can't apply rational thought to a subject? Or that's required to apply rational thought with a predicate? That sounds like quite a reach.
You're coming after me pretty hard in your response. I think perhaps you're taking personally my statements due to my statement of moving away from fundamentalist viewpoints and your consideration of yourself as fundamentalist. However, I'm more targeted the narrow-minded, obedience instead of free thinking viewpoint of the type I saw in TWI than I am targeting the more general meaning of the term.
I personally would love to sit down with CS Lewis over a cup of coffee and conversation.
Thank-you though. . . . . you have articulated better than I could imagine. . . . the intolerance, generalization, and underlying attitude of wanting to eviscerate all things Christian . . . . that usually masks itself as post-modernism and tolerance in this country.
I don't know. I'm absolutely a Christian. Just not a big fan of the Crusades, and not looking to duplicate that effort in this century. ;)
Well I was making a strong statement. Of course in doing that, the label of "fundamantalist" that I intended to indicate the type of thinking I described later in that sentence can wrongly be assumed to be applied towards many forward thinking individuals whose views might be seen in that realm. For example, CS Lewis. Now, I really don't think he's the type of person I was talking about. But anytime you generalize or apply a label there is the danger of it being misunderstood.
In the later part of this sentence, are you really trying to say that without a fundamentalist outlook you can't apply rational thought to a subject? Or that's required to apply rational thought with a predicate? That sounds like quite a reach.
You're coming after me pretty hard in your response. I think perhaps you're taking personally my statements due to my statement of moving away from fundamentalist viewpoints and your consideration of yourself as fundamentalist. However, I'm more targeted the narrow-minded, obedience instead of free thinking viewpoint of the type I saw in TWI than I am targeting the more general meaning of the term.
I personally would love to sit down with CS Lewis over a cup of coffee and conversation.
I do not consider myself a fundamentalist . . . . that was the point. There is no clear definition. I am a Christian and the nature of my faith is Jesus Christ as the only way to salvation. It is the message people do not like. . . . the rest is just. . . dressing.
I also do not buy Bart Ehrmans arguments or Karen Armstrongs. . . . I have a Masters in history. . . and am just not moved.
If someone is talking about a group like TWI. . . . I am in. . . . but, once we start extrapolating out into Christianity, based on subjective arguments, while classifying groups of people, and making broad judgments. . . . count me out.
The irony is. . . it is exactly what the people claim they are standing against. Telling someone they are wrong because they hold a narrow view of God, assumes you know what is right. You cannot get away from it.
There is no crusade. . . .there is a message. Take it, leave it. . . it is a free-will choice, but, please do not make broad assumptions about nameless, faceless people. . . . because they put their faith in Jesus Christ as the only Savior. I put names, faces, and lives to many of those people. . . . and they are wonderful. . . . and many of them would give you the shirt off their backs or the last dollar from their pockets.
I don't think the original point was to question anyone's personal religious beliefs. The point was that what was passed off as "research" in The Way wasn't really research at all in the strict definition of "research". So, what sense does it make to hold in high esteem something that has been shown to be flawed?
Me mischaracterizing? ... calling names? ... acting enraged? ... acting 'cultic'? ..... Look who's talking! And you can't see that in yourself because ... why? Because you're a mainstream and orthodox Christian? And that keeps you from behaving like that?
There are a LOT of things that I said in my posts here that you egregiously mischaracterize and misrepresent. My initial point I made a few posts ago was regarding my _valid_ complaint regarding your misrepresentation regarding those who don't believe. And somehow you extrapolated from that some supposed desire of mine for Christians to be persecuted and tortured, illustrated by _your_ following, not-so-subtle statement:
You are in the wrong country Garth, there are places where Christians are imprisoned and tortured for their belief in Jesus, for not repudiating Him. . . . even executed, but that is not here. Yet. . . . . Funny, the attitude and justification for such things is painfully similar to your attitude.
And all because I don't like 'fundies' often exhibiting this "We are going to preach our gospel to you whether you like it or not!" attitude? You say that you aren't of that attitude. And yet when you say things like "Here is one I heard tonight. . . gotta make it my new tag line to go along with my new label . . . . IF sinners want to jump into the lake of fire.. . . they will have to do it over my body.", ... well, what am I supposed to think? And the person you heard it from, was he or she a fellow Christian? Because I just can't imagine an unbeliever spewing that kind of garbage.
Yes, you have the legal right to spew--errr, speak the gospel to whomever you will, ... and (like you yourself has also said), people like me can speak against your (if you'll pardon the term) 'moving the Word' ;), _particularly when it involves berating unbelievers_. ... What? You say you have never berated any unbelievers? Well, your scripture does, and since you believe that your scriptures are indeed the Word of God and the authority of your faith, ... and you believe in speaking such, . . . . . _you_ do the math. <_<
You are in the wrong country Garth,
Wrong lady, I'm in the _right_ country, founded by those which included a good number who had the same kind of skepticism towards religion that I do. ... At least!
Why, here's a few quotes from one such source, Thomas Jefferson, clearly illustrating said skepticism:
Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.
and
I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.
Hhmmm, now that last one sounded like name calling, ya think? ;)
Ohhh you called me "Lady" . . . . last time you called someone "Lady" was Linda Z. . . . I think she disagreed with you too. . . . have not seen her since. . . . you charmer . . . you do have a way with the Ladies.
The irony is. . . it is exactly what the people claim they are standing against. Telling someone they are wrong because they hold a narrow view of God, assumes you know what is right. You cannot get away from it.
So are you now labeling people who stand against fundamentalists?
Hey, I'll take a stand and say that people holding a restricted, narrow view of God are wrong. God is vast!!! He is the Creator of the universe!!! When people start defining narrow views of Him, they try to bring Him down to their level, which is narrow-minded. God is not an idol to dumb down to your level so you can control Him. Even if they try to justify it through scriptures, it doesn't work. They make themselves fools. All it means is that thier interpretation of scriptures is as narrow-minded as their viewpoint. And that leads to making up religions. And leads to appointing people as intercessors for God. And that leads to heads of religion. And that leads to the abuse of the common people, just like you see in TWI.
And it's a fallacy of logic that if you tell someone they are wrong it assumes you know what is right. It negates the scientific method. It negates common sense. It negates rational logic. You prove something wrong - then you know it's wrong, even if you don't know what's right at that point.
There is no crusade. . . .there is a message. Take it, leave it. . . it is a free-will choice, but, please do not make broad assumptions about nameless, faceless people. . . . because they put their faith in Jesus Christ as the only Savior. I put names, faces, and lives to many of those people. . . . and they are wonderful. . . . and many of them would give you the shirt off their backs or the last dollar from their pockets.
What is this message? All I'm hearing is that criticizing fundamentalists is wrong. That's no message, it's a misguided opinion. And you are tremendously reading into the fact they are being criticized for putting their faith in Jesus Christ Christ as the only Savior. They are being criticized for putting their Savior in a box. And yes they have names, faces, lives. And yes they still can be deluded and wrong in spite of that. Most of the people I've met like that would definitely not give me the shirt off thier back or dollars. They are takers, and anything they give you is a bribe for you supporting their delusions.
For example, a great deal of people currently in TWI. They are of this type. I've seen their fruit. So don't try to snow me that their fruit is heavenly and blessed by the Savior.
So are you now labeling people who stand against fundamentalists?
Hey, I'll take a stand and say that people holding a restricted, narrow view of God are wrong. God is vast!!! He is the Creator of the universe!!! When people start defining narrow views of Him, they try to bring Him down to their level, which is narrow-minded. God is not an idol to dumb down to your level so you can control Him. Even if they try to justify it through scriptures, it doesn't work. They make themselves fools. All it means is that thier interpretation of scriptures is as narrow-minded as their viewpoint. And that leads to making up religions. And leads to appointing people as intercessors for God. And that leads to heads of religion. And that leads to the abuse of the common people, just like you see in TWI.
And it's a fallacy of logic that if you tell someone they are wrong it assumes you know what is right. It negates the scientific method. It negates common sense. It negates rational logic. You prove something wrong - then you know it's wrong, even if you don't know what's right at that point.
What is this message? All I'm hearing is that criticizing fundamentalists is wrong. That's no message, it's a misguided opinion. And you are tremendously reading into the fact they are being criticized for putting their faith in Jesus Christ Christ as the only Savior. They are being criticized for putting their Savior in a box. And yes they have names, faces, lives. And yes they still can be deluded and wrong in spite of that. Most of the people I've met like that would definitely not give me the shirt off thier back or dollars. They are takers, and anything they give you is a bribe for you supporting their delusions.
For example, a great deal of people currently in TWI. They are of this type. I've seen their fruit. So don't try to snow me that their fruit is heavenly and blessed by the Savior.
When are you guys who call yourselves Christians on here ever going to learn your faith? When? Do you have a Pastor? A qualified trained Pastor to guide you? Do you have a church? If not, please go find an actual annointed Pastor to chat with. . . . from a basic bible believing church. . . . one who knows the gospel?
If you have one. . . go talk to him about the difference between a cult and a fundamentalist. . . . please
You call yourself a Christian? Great . . . I certainly recognize that in you. . . . I also recognize the struggles formerly being in a bible cult presents. . . .particularly TWI. . . I recognize the branch in the road that presents itself when people come to the realization that we worshiped the scriptures and the VP interpretation. It is that. . . well, dang. . . . now what?
Here is a thought. . . . the actual gospel message. The thing we denied in the first place.
God is vast? Really? Well, no kidding.
What is the message? I can assure you it is not that God is so vast there is no way to know Him.
You cannot think of one narrow way in which God defined Himself for us outside of scripture? Not one way? One narrow way where He did manifest Himself for us? One very specific way He did reveal Himself to us? And not just to us, but all mankind? Maybe in a person? Possibly? Sound at all familiar? A person in which He brought Himself down to our level to relate to us?
The scriptures were also made in documentary form. Who starred in the role? Who is the intercessor? Well, heck now, lookee here. . . . it is actually a man now isnt it?
How narrow minded is the view that Jesus is Lord and God? That is the real question. And we learn about this from the scriptures as we were born 2000 years too late to see Him manifest in the flesh. We, as Christians, followers of Jesus Christ, BELIEVE the scriptures and put our faith in the PERSON!
Fundamentalist hold a narrow view because they do not deviate from this belief to accept any other paths. They believe in the truth presented in the scriptures. In the reliability of scripture. . . . but, not only because it can be historically verified to a point we will accept it. . . . there is that I suppose, but then you get into a whole huge world of academics, but also because what it says SPEAKS TO OUR HEARTS!! Christianity 101 here.
It is a fundamental tenet of our faith. . . . I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father except by me. For us as CHRISTians. . . it begins and ends there. That is it. . . . He is the way we know God, relate to God, reach God, fellowship with God. . .. and He is the only way for anyone to know God. There is your narrow view.
Here is one for you. . . . For God who said "Let light shine out of darkness" that vast creator God of the universe. . . . that we cannot define. . . . "made His light to shine in our hearts to give the light of the KNOWLEDGE of the glory of God in the FACE of Jesus Christ."
We have this treasure in earthen vessels. . . . so that we do not laud ourselves. . . . but Him. . . .You ever listen to a Christian? They just blah blah blah about what? The scriptures? NO Jesus Christ. . . .
TWI put their faith in their knowledge OF the scriptures to know God. . . in the scriptures themselves. . . . .it began and ended right there. . . they DENIED Jesus. They worshiped the bible. . . very similar to the way the Pharisees did. . . . the Pharisees even quoted scripture at Him.
He said. . . . "You search the scriptures for in them you think you have eternal life, but they are they which testify of ME" "And you will NOT come to me that you may have life" It is not any different than what we did in TWI.
God's plan of salvation is not the scriptures. . . . it is how we learn about the person.
Deny the person you are NOT a Christian. The ink and paper was held in higher esteem than Jesus Himself in TWI. . . .
We are using terms interchangeably here. Fundamentalist Christians hold to the basic fundamental tenets of the Christian faith. . . the reliability of scripture, Jesus as savior for all mankind, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection, the trinity, Sola Scriptura. . . .
Which of those don't you believe? And . . it doesn't mean there is no truth in other faiths. . . . there is. . .and plenty of morality too but, Christians believe in God's plan of redemption. . . through the person of Jesus, revealed in the what? The Bible. . . or scriptures.
What part of that narrow view do you have a problem with as a Christian?. . . You must confess Jesus as Lord in your life and follow Him. . . . right? He must reveal Himself to you. . . you must have a PERSONAL relationship with Him if you worship God. Did I say faith is a personal relationship with Jesus and that we worship and relate with other Christians? Yep I did.
Do you have an issue with the reliability of the scriptures? Then why is He your Lord??? We have 90% down pretty good. . . the other 10% does not effect doctrine. . . . it is the most copied book in ancient history. . . we can recreate the NT from the church fathers writings alone to within a handful of verses. . . . and if you believe that any of the Caesars lived. . . you are going on thousands of less bits of info written during or after their lifetimes. . .
So, what is the narrow view you are rejecting? TWI's. . . . me too. . . . because they denied the most basic tenets of the faith in favor of bible worship. . . or breaking it down. . . . cult of personality worship. They are not Christian!!
Is it the interpretation that Jesus is Lord. . . the only path to God? I have to tell you. . . . there are specific things that make you a follower of Jesus Christ. . . . and on the other hand denying certain things makes you something else. If He is not the way to God. . . why would you yield your life to His Lordship. . . confess Him as Lord. . . and follow Him?
Why are you a Christian? You tell me.
Look to people. . . you are going to get people. . . look to Jesus and you are going to get God. Hopefully reflecting His glory in some small manner. Not everyone who says Lord, Lord. . . knows Him or is known by Him.
What is a fundamentalist Christian in your definition and how are you a Christian without the most basic fundamental Christian tenets found in scripture.? It is a book ABOUT Jesus Christ. He Himself claimed to be a narrow way. . . . what. . . He didn't mean it? Wrongly copied down. . . . misinterpreted? What? It wasn't good enough or clear enough. . . . that way which God made at great cost . . . wasn't enough?
Why do YOU think Jesus spoke so much of hell? Just a theory here, but such a sacrifice. . . such a way . . . . such a Savior. . . when denied. . . the alternate plan is. . .Allah? Because Jesus isn't good enough?
Define the terms please. . . . call yourself whatever you want. . . move away from the fundamentals of the Christian faith. . . namely Jesus Christ. . . who is revealed to us through scripture. . . .as the only path to God. . . . and you are what? A Christian?
If you doubt the reliability of scripture. . . why believe in the subject matter? If you put your faith in some guys theorizing about what the scriptures says about Jesus. . . you get a problem. . . put your faith in the right person. . . you are a Christian.
Christian fundamentalist arose as a movement to combat liberal theology which got away from the most basic tenets of our faith. . . . they also arose in opposition to groups like TWI. Fundamentalist would not claim TWI in their ranks for anything.
On the other hand. . . . having basic Christian fundamentals is unavoidable as a follower of Jesus Christ. . . no?
The term has morphed into something else. . . taken on a new meaning, but for the purposes of this thread. . . is it a bible believing Christian. . . or a cult like TWI?
I have yet to figure it out. Lets just lump all "believers" together. . . generalize and call names. We did that in TWI with the rest of Christianity. . . why deviate now?
In following this thread a couple of things piqued my interest – discussing conflicts between science & theology, classifying people in general broad strokes.. .I am trying to understand a little bit better the rationale behind fundamentalism – and maybe make some sense of the evolution of my belief system thus far.. . so anyway just wanted to throw in my 2 cents.
I've just started reading Karen Armstrong's The Battle for God: A History of Fundamentalism – and thought I'd share something pertinent from it – and also an excerpt from another book that this thread made me think of.
On pages 18 to 20 of The Battle for God Armstrong talks about Orobio de Castro [a Jewish philosopher, physician, and apologist 1617-1687] who had lived in Spain as a secret Judaizer for years. He was arrested and tortured by the Inquisition, recanted and taught medicine in France as a fake Christian.
Having grown weary of deception and a double life Orobio moved to Amsterdam in the 1650s to become a forceful apologist for Judaism and an instructor of other returning secret Jews [from T-Bone: they were labeled Marranos by Christians – a Spanish term for "pigs" – Wikipedia for what it's worth says it stems from the ritual prohibition against eating pork practiced by Jews & Muslims; the term acquired the meaning of "swine" or "filth"; in Portuguese the word refers only to crypto-Jews, using another word for "pig" or "swine"].
Orobio "described a whole class of people who found it very difficult to adjust to the laws & customs of traditional Judaism, which seemed burdensome to them. They had studied modern sciences in Iberia, such as logic, physics mathematics, and medicine, as Orobio himself had done. But, Orobio reported impatiently, 'they are full of vanity, pride and arrogance, confident that they are thoroughly learned in all subjects.' .. .These Jews, living for decades in religious isolation, had been forced to rely on their own rational powers.. .
.. .Some of the New Jews, Orobio complained, had become 'unspeakable atheists.' They were, to be sure, not atheists in our twentieth-century sense, because they still believed in a transcendent deity; but this was not the God of the Bible. The Marranos had developed a wholly rational faith, similar to the deism later fashioned by Enlightenment philosophers. This God was the First Cause of all being, whose existence had been logically demonstrated by Aristotle. It always behaved in an entirely rational way. It did not intervene in human history erratically, subvert laws of nature by working bizarre miracles, or dictate obscure laws on mountaintops. It did not need to reveal a special law code, because the laws of nature were accessible to everybody. This was the sort of God that human reason naturally tends to envisage, and in the past Jewish and Muslim philosophers had in fact produced a very similar deity. But it never went down well with believers generally. It was not religiously useful, since it was doubtful that the First cause even knew that human beings existed, as it could contemplate nothing short of perfection."
End of excerpt
~~
Armstrong's term "religiously useful" struck a nerve with me – and perhaps I'm taking liberties with it or straying way off base from her intentions - - but coupled with my broadening viewpoint of late.. . and I guess also factoring in having been burned by a cult, so you might want to take anything I say with a few grounds of Grease Spot coffee.. . but anyway.. . imho organized religion always seems to throw a wrench in the works. I mean.. .if life is a journey it seems you can always rely on organized religion to set up speed-bumps, detours & confusing traffic circles [aka religious circles ].
I guess you're always gonna have religious experts & expositors.. .and having my share of "near-truth experiences" - maybe I'm at the place now where I've decided to come out of the closet and declare that I have my own religion. That's right. I am a force of one. Just a lone turd floating around [ah yes, the aforementioned religious circles] in the porcelain bowl of life – oh Lord I pray I'm ready when it's flushing time.
~~
After reading of Orobio's "unspeakable atheists" – I kept thinking about TWI's tightly constructed theological box and that for all practical purposes it meant that if you didn't worship their idea of God you were worshipping a counterfeit. TWI's doctrine & practice are an exemplary case illustrating Armstrong's point of a fundamentalist putting religion to "good" use – developing an extremely flexible theology to suit an agenda – I also think wierwille's agenda came before the doctrine.
And reading of the Marranos' rational faith & deism of the Enlightenment philosophers I remembered something in another book I finished a few months ago – that reminded me of how I still tend to use broad brushstrokes to describe other folks' beliefs and that there's a lot more that goes into how our beliefs are formed than we realize and maybe there's not always simple rational reasons for holding to a particular belief.
The book is "The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism" by Timothy Keller. Keller talks about some studies conducted to see if scientists thought that their faith in God and their line of work were incompatible. In two surveys some eighty years apart scientists were asked the same question – asking them do they believe in a God who actively communicates with humanity, at least through prayer. Results were just about the same: at least 40 percent said they did, 40 percent said they did not, and 20 percent said they were not sure.
Keller remarks that "The surveys were only designed to "see" scientists with conservative, traditional belief. Those with a more general belief in God are screened out by the way the question is formulated.. . Alister McGrath, a theologian with an Oxford doctorate in biophysics, writes that most of the many unbelieving scientists he knows are atheists on other grounds than their science. Many complex factors lead a person to belief or disbelief in God. Some are personal experiences, some are intellectual, and some are social. Sociologists of knowledge like Peter Berger have shown that our peer group and primary relationships shape our beliefs much more than we want to admit. Scientists, like non-scientists, are very affected by the beliefs and attitudes of the people from whom they want respect. In McGrath's experience, most of his atheists colleagues brought their assumptions about God to their science rather than basing them on their science." [pages 92 to 94]
End of excerpts
~~
Fundamentalism no longer holds much appeal for me. My religion is a very personal thing – a convoluted amalgamation of faith, reason, assumptions, hopes & fears. Hadn't come up with a name for my religion yet – but I guess it should have some snazzy label for when I speak ex cathedra [from the porcelain throne ].
I will tell you up front. . . my politics are left leaning. . . . I am moved by the plight of the Palestinian people. . . .they are a warm and beautiful people.
But, do you know what road I want to be very careful not to ever travel down again? I never want to be sucked into the vortex of revisionist history with an agenda or anything that is remotely Anti-Semitic.
I have been there and that is one of the greatest shames I have from TWI. . . . I understand what happened to me. Someone had an agenda. . .
a viewpoint. . . and the ability to persuade me to it with their slant on history. Much like scripture. . . history can be molded to reflect what we
want it to. . .
TWI was an anti-semetic group . . . . .an extreme mindset. . . . with an agenda. . . look at the kind of fringe revisionist history we bought hook, line and sinker.
Reading and nodding as if it were gospel I suppose. .. .
Was that something in us? I don't know. . . but, I know I don't ever want to revisit that again.
When are you guys who call yourselves Christians on here ever going to learn your faith? When? Do you have a Pastor? A qualified trained Pastor to guide you? Do you have a church? If not, please go find an actual annointed Pastor to chat with. . . . from a basic bible believing church. . . . one who knows the gospel?
Well, geisha, in all actuality in spite of all your condescending statements here, my view is that learning my faith is a lifelong endeavor. And how about you? Second, what exactly is an "actual anointed Pastor"? Because for many years I believed that about myself. And I have found what I would consider that inside and outside TWI. So what do you believe about what is termed the "gift ministries"?
Since there seems to be a bit of controversy over the term fundamentalist, and some emotional reaction to me stating that I am "moving away from fundamentalist views", I thought I'd go look it up. Oh, and here's a suggestion - instead of the extreme emotional reaction and debate that you started from my statement, why don't you just ask me what I mean by that statement? I'm pretty sure that it's radically different that what you assume I mean.
From what I can gather researching the term "Fundamentalism", it certainly is a 20th century term. It seems to have arisen within the Presbyterian church over issues of tolerance between liberal and conservative viewpoints.
It also is a general term. It can describe a faction of the Muslim faith for instance. And it can describe politics, as in the term "right wing / left wing fundamentalist".
It's not a huge leap of logic to put together that pretty much all of us on this site have certain struggles attached to formerly being in a bible cult. There also are varying degrees of involvement and commitment to that cult we've experienced.
I have no viewpoint that God is so vast there is no way to know Him. My whole statement about "moving away from a fundamentalist viewpoint" is simply moving away from an elitist condescending "I have the only version of truth" attitude so prevalent in the Christianity of TWI and many other groups. I see fundamentalists of many categories that puff themselves up with knowledge, assume things about their brethren, and act in a condescending fashion.
I see that condescencion in your responses to me. And I think it is not Christian fruit. I am trying to move away from that in my life.
Maybe more accurately I should state that I'm not moving away from the fundamentals of the Christian faith, I am moving away from Fundamentalists.
Because I had enough lectures for a lifetime while in TWI. No need for more.
You are right, I was very condescending. I was reacting to your statement about rednecks and that tone I often hear from people about Christians. . . maybe I was wrong and misunderstood. . . either way I am sorry I was rude to you.
You are one of my favorite posters.
There were a couple of things in TWI that we did that I guess I am hyper aware of . . . one was being anti-semitic and two was siding with Arius based on some funky reasoning. I actually think the two go hand in hand. There is a great thread where some long gone poster just laid this stuff out so clearly. I wish he was still here. I don't even think he is a Christian. . . . but, it is the Snapping thread.
Maybe I have a much different perspective because I am Christian and I think that TWI was an assault on Christianity. I see the same mindset in some of the authors presented here. . . . I have the advantage of being familiar with them and I find it so ironic. It is the same kind of assault. . . . similar reasoning. . . . the same extreme. . . albeit reactionary. . . and it baffles me.
People claim to be turned off to fundamentalism. . . but, are they . . . . based on some of the same arguments we used in TWI to rewrite Christian history.
We have got a really great advantage here as we were in a group like TWI. . . . we can recognize these things. . . . seems to me we should.
Anyway. . . my apologies it is inexcusable. . . I do get carried away. We are to defend our faith from assault. . . but I did a poor job of it. :(
I got a question for you as regards this, and I mean this in all sincerity.
Why? ... Why do you need to defend it? Heck, I figure that if what you have is so true and so real, ... it ought to be able to stand on its own despite any and all questioning, scrutiny, criticism, and even challenges, ... which is often interpreted as 'assault' by many Christians.
Of all the crap that Weirwille spewed, one of the _few_ lines that I think that he made sense on was "Truth needs no defense." I mean, think about that one for a minute. ... If it's true, then it cannot fall to 'lies', else it wouldn't be worth much ... would it?
I got a question for you as regards this, and I mean this in all sincerity.
Why? ... Why do you need to defend it? Heck, I figure that if what you have is so true and so real, ... it ought to be able to stand on its own despite any and all questioning, scrutiny, criticism, and even challenges, ... which is often interpreted as 'assault' by many Christians.
Of all the crap that Weirwille spewed, one of the _few_ lines that I think that he made sense on was "Truth needs no defense." I mean, think about that one for a minute. ... If it's true, then it cannot fall to 'lies', else it wouldn't be worth much ... would it?
Because questioning, scrutiny, criticism and challenges are all worthy of a response. . . . . and people fall for lies every day Garth.
Charlene, the only problem I have with the article is that you describe the inerrancy of the Bible as a TWI conclusion. I don't remember ANYONE ever saying "...therefore, God's Word is perfect."
George
Hi there, George. Well, I've been re-reading some of these posts and thought you might get a kick out of this ection of PFAL that I've located for you:
PFAL BOOK pg. 103 (1971 edition)
"By deductive logic, if God is perfect, then the logos, Jesus Christ, has to be perfect. If God is perfect and Christ is perfect and The Word is given as holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, then God’s Word must be perfect also.
God is perfect, so Jesus Christ is perfect, so the revealed Word of God is perfect. Consequently the words which make up The Word must also be perfect. This is why if any other word had been used than the preposition pros in John 1:1 and 2 the whole Bible would fall to pieces because of imperfect usage of words. To have a perfect Word, the words must be perfect and the order of the words must be perfect.
...God is perfect, The Word is perfect, and therefore The Word means what it says, and says what it means. God has a purpose for everything He says, where He says it, why He says it, how He says it, to whom He says it, and when He says it." END OF PFAL BOOK QUOTE.
I suspect most of us are aware of the endless problems this leads to when dealing with various translations and versions...
Anyhow, just thought I'd add this here for the record.
Hi there, George. Well, I've been re-reading some of these posts and thought you might get a kick out of this ection of PFAL that I've located for you:
PFAL BOOK pg. 103 (1971 edition)
"By deductive logic, if God is perfect, then the logos, Jesus Christ, has to be perfect. If God is perfect and Christ is perfect and The Word is given as holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, then God’s Word must be perfect also.
God is perfect, so Jesus Christ is perfect, so the revealed Word of God is perfect. Consequently the words which make up The Word must also be perfect. This is why if any other word had been used than the preposition pros in John 1:1 and 2 the whole Bible would fall to pieces because of imperfect usage of words. To have a perfect Word, the words must be perfect and the order of the words must be perfect.
...God is perfect, The Word is perfect, and therefore The Word means what it says, and says what it means. God has a purpose for everything He says, where He says it, why He says it, how He says it, to whom He says it, and when He says it." END OF PFAL BOOK QUOTE.
I suspect most of us are aware of the endless problems this leads to when dealing with various translations and versions...
Anyhow, just thought I'd add this here for the record.
Cheers!
I do get a kick out of it. This is what those in math would call a shell game with the commutative law of equality.
VPW: “If the Word can be broken at any one place, The Word crumbles from Genesis to Revelation. Either the whole Bible is God’s Word from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21 or none of it is God’s Word.”
So, here he clearly states the Bible is God’s Word. He does not qualify the Bible by saying “in the original texts” of the Bible, nor does he say which Bible, although he uses the KJV as his text for the class so by implication accepts the canon used in that version.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
43
39
63
36
Popular Days
Feb 8
30
Nov 3
21
Nov 4
20
Feb 12
18
Top Posters In This Topic
geisha779 43 posts
waysider 39 posts
penworks 63 posts
spectrum49 36 posts
Popular Days
Feb 8 2010
30 posts
Nov 3 2009
21 posts
Nov 4 2009
20 posts
Feb 12 2010
18 posts
Popular Posts
penworks
Hold everything. Some people can believe that they are not sure they believe in God. That is another topic that belongs in a different thread, IMO. I appreciate these lessons in mathmatics and lo
Sunesis
With all due respect Spectrum, who cares when this thread will end? Most people here have enjoyed reading the posts and having their say. Sure, threads meander here, there, everywhere. Its the Body
penworks
I've been thinking about these sorts of things a long time, myself. One thing I found is that there are other ways to value the Bible besides thinkig it is has to be either "God's Word" (thereby it h
geisha779
Listen to yourself. . . . I don't see things the way you think I should and somehow. . . I don't care to admit it! There is something wrong with me? That is rich and INCREDIBLY hypocritical. As that is the "problem" you seem to have with all these "fundies" who are apparently bothering you day and night. . . . giving you no peace. What a joke.
People like you apparently feel some right in calling people NAMES, generalizing, and characterizing individuals you don't even KNOW. . . . based on your limited past experiences... . . and forgive me, but if you know the difference between a cult like TWI and the Christian faith . . . . you have yet to articulate it here. That doesn't stop you from calling names though.
Now, how you get get "I will preach the gospel to you whether you like it or not" from someone sharing their faith in conversation, in a CHURCH, on a network designed for just such purpose, or in a DOCTRINAL section of a discussion forum, is just a leap. Unless I am knocking down your door or badgering you at your workplace. . . . last time I checked, I am free to believe and speak as I want. Just as you are and just as you seem to avail yourself of this right (ad nauseum). . . . so will I.
You are in the wrong country Garth, there are places where Christians are imprisoned and tortured for their belief in Jesus, for not repudiating Him. . . . even executed, but that is not here. Yet. . . . . Funny, the attitude and justification for such things is painfully similar to your attitude. Filled with some rage are we?
Oddly enough, this IS a discussion about fundamentalists. . . and from what you are saying. . . . the first time someone expresses confidence in their belief system within a thread talking about fundamentalism the sky is falling. But, we can have page after page of generalization and pathetic attempts at intellectualizing a REACTIONARY response. A reaction to something we don't like.
I go to places I am INVITED and meet with people who seek me out. . . . people, who most of society shun. . . . and if you want to do something about it. . . . I suggest you get your a$ down to your local prison and preach intolerance for Christians your own damn self. Otherwise. . . . you are going to have to learn to live with people who believe differently than you. . . . like a grown-up. Like I do. I even manage to love them. What is your excuse again? You are annoyed?
Thank-you though. . . . . you have articulated better than I could imagine. . . . the intolerance, generalization, and underlying attitude of wanting to eviscerate all things Christian . . . . that usually masks itself as post-modernism and tolerance in this country.
Kudo's though for at least not hiding behind a Charter.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Well I was making a strong statement. Of course in doing that, the label of "fundamantalist" that I intended to indicate the type of thinking I described later in that sentence can wrongly be assumed to be applied towards many forward thinking individuals whose views might be seen in that realm. For example, CS Lewis. Now, I really don't think he's the type of person I was talking about. But anytime you generalize or apply a label there is the danger of it being misunderstood.
In the later part of this sentence, are you really trying to say that without a fundamentalist outlook you can't apply rational thought to a subject? Or that's required to apply rational thought with a predicate? That sounds like quite a reach.
You're coming after me pretty hard in your response. I think perhaps you're taking personally my statements due to my statement of moving away from fundamentalist viewpoints and your consideration of yourself as fundamentalist. However, I'm more targeted the narrow-minded, obedience instead of free thinking viewpoint of the type I saw in TWI than I am targeting the more general meaning of the term.
I personally would love to sit down with CS Lewis over a cup of coffee and conversation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I don't know. I'm absolutely a Christian. Just not a big fan of the Crusades, and not looking to duplicate that effort in this century. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
I do not consider myself a fundamentalist . . . . that was the point. There is no clear definition. I am a Christian and the nature of my faith is Jesus Christ as the only way to salvation. It is the message people do not like. . . . the rest is just. . . dressing.
I also do not buy Bart Ehrmans arguments or Karen Armstrongs. . . . I have a Masters in history. . . and am just not moved.
If someone is talking about a group like TWI. . . . I am in. . . . but, once we start extrapolating out into Christianity, based on subjective arguments, while classifying groups of people, and making broad judgments. . . . count me out.
The irony is. . . it is exactly what the people claim they are standing against. Telling someone they are wrong because they hold a narrow view of God, assumes you know what is right. You cannot get away from it.
There is no crusade. . . .there is a message. Take it, leave it. . . it is a free-will choice, but, please do not make broad assumptions about nameless, faceless people. . . . because they put their faith in Jesus Christ as the only Savior. I put names, faces, and lives to many of those people. . . . and they are wonderful. . . . and many of them would give you the shirt off their backs or the last dollar from their pockets.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I don't think the original point was to question anyone's personal religious beliefs. The point was that what was passed off as "research" in The Way wasn't really research at all in the strict definition of "research". So, what sense does it make to hold in high esteem something that has been shown to be flawed?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Me mischaracterizing? ... calling names? ... acting enraged? ... acting 'cultic'? ..... Look who's talking! And you can't see that in yourself because ... why? Because you're a mainstream and orthodox Christian? And that keeps you from behaving like that?
There are a LOT of things that I said in my posts here that you egregiously mischaracterize and misrepresent. My initial point I made a few posts ago was regarding my _valid_ complaint regarding your misrepresentation regarding those who don't believe. And somehow you extrapolated from that some supposed desire of mine for Christians to be persecuted and tortured, illustrated by _your_ following, not-so-subtle statement:
And all because I don't like 'fundies' often exhibiting this "We are going to preach our gospel to you whether you like it or not!" attitude? You say that you aren't of that attitude. And yet when you say things like "Here is one I heard tonight. . . gotta make it my new tag line to go along with my new label . . . . IF sinners want to jump into the lake of fire.. . . they will have to do it over my body.", ... well, what am I supposed to think? And the person you heard it from, was he or she a fellow Christian? Because I just can't imagine an unbeliever spewing that kind of garbage.
Yes, you have the legal right to spew--errr, speak the gospel to whomever you will, ... and (like you yourself has also said), people like me can speak against your (if you'll pardon the term) 'moving the Word' ;), _particularly when it involves berating unbelievers_. ... What? You say you have never berated any unbelievers? Well, your scripture does, and since you believe that your scriptures are indeed the Word of God and the authority of your faith, ... and you believe in speaking such, . . . . . _you_ do the math. <_<
Wrong lady, I'm in the _right_ country, founded by those which included a good number who had the same kind of skepticism towards religion that I do. ... At least!
Why, here's a few quotes from one such source, Thomas Jefferson, clearly illustrating said skepticism:
Hhmmm, now that last one sounded like name calling, ya think? ;)
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Garth,
Ohhh you called me "Lady"
. . . . last time you called someone "Lady" was Linda Z. . . . I think she disagreed with you too. . . . have not seen her since. . . . you charmer . . . you do have a way with the Ladies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Hey! I try sometimes to be a nice guy. ... I don't always succeed, but perhaps I can try better next time.
And with that final tap dance
, I think I'll bow out of this conversation. I've made my point, and you've made yours.
Peace!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
Dammit - it was just getting entertaining...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
What? Don't you get Netflix over the net?
:B)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
So are you now labeling people who stand against fundamentalists?
Hey, I'll take a stand and say that people holding a restricted, narrow view of God are wrong. God is vast!!! He is the Creator of the universe!!! When people start defining narrow views of Him, they try to bring Him down to their level, which is narrow-minded. God is not an idol to dumb down to your level so you can control Him. Even if they try to justify it through scriptures, it doesn't work. They make themselves fools. All it means is that thier interpretation of scriptures is as narrow-minded as their viewpoint. And that leads to making up religions. And leads to appointing people as intercessors for God. And that leads to heads of religion. And that leads to the abuse of the common people, just like you see in TWI.
And it's a fallacy of logic that if you tell someone they are wrong it assumes you know what is right. It negates the scientific method. It negates common sense. It negates rational logic. You prove something wrong - then you know it's wrong, even if you don't know what's right at that point.
What is this message? All I'm hearing is that criticizing fundamentalists is wrong. That's no message, it's a misguided opinion. And you are tremendously reading into the fact they are being criticized for putting their faith in Jesus Christ Christ as the only Savior. They are being criticized for putting their Savior in a box. And yes they have names, faces, lives. And yes they still can be deluded and wrong in spite of that. Most of the people I've met like that would definitely not give me the shirt off thier back or dollars. They are takers, and anything they give you is a bribe for you supporting their delusions.
For example, a great deal of people currently in TWI. They are of this type. I've seen their fruit. So don't try to snow me that their fruit is heavenly and blessed by the Savior.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
When are you guys who call yourselves Christians on here ever going to learn your faith? When? Do you have a Pastor? A qualified trained Pastor to guide you? Do you have a church? If not, please go find an actual annointed Pastor to chat with. . . . from a basic bible believing church. . . . one who knows the gospel?
If you have one. . . go talk to him about the difference between a cult and a fundamentalist. . . . please
You call yourself a Christian? Great . . . I certainly recognize that in you. . . . I also recognize the struggles formerly being in a bible cult presents. . . .particularly TWI. . . I recognize the branch in the road that presents itself when people come to the realization that we worshiped the scriptures and the VP interpretation. It is that. . . well, dang. . . . now what?
Here is a thought. . . . the actual gospel message. The thing we denied in the first place.
God is vast? Really? Well, no kidding.
What is the message? I can assure you it is not that God is so vast there is no way to know Him.
You cannot think of one narrow way in which God defined Himself for us outside of scripture? Not one way? One narrow way where He did manifest Himself for us? One very specific way He did reveal Himself to us? And not just to us, but all mankind? Maybe in a person? Possibly? Sound at all familiar? A person in which He brought Himself down to our level to relate to us?
The scriptures were also made in documentary form. Who starred in the role? Who is the intercessor? Well, heck now, lookee here. . . . it is actually a man now isnt it?
How narrow minded is the view that Jesus is Lord and God? That is the real question. And we learn about this from the scriptures as we were born 2000 years too late to see Him manifest in the flesh. We, as Christians, followers of Jesus Christ, BELIEVE the scriptures and put our faith in the PERSON!
Fundamentalist hold a narrow view because they do not deviate from this belief to accept any other paths. They believe in the truth presented in the scriptures. In the reliability of scripture. . . . but, not only because it can be historically verified to a point we will accept it. . . . there is that I suppose, but then you get into a whole huge world of academics, but also because what it says SPEAKS TO OUR HEARTS!! Christianity 101 here.
It is a fundamental tenet of our faith. . . . I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father except by me. For us as CHRISTians. . . it begins and ends there. That is it. . . . He is the way we know God, relate to God, reach God, fellowship with God. . .. and He is the only way for anyone to know God. There is your narrow view.
Here is one for you. . . . For God who said "Let light shine out of darkness" that vast creator God of the universe. . . . that we cannot define. . . . "made His light to shine in our hearts to give the light of the KNOWLEDGE of the glory of God in the FACE of Jesus Christ."
We have this treasure in earthen vessels. . . . so that we do not laud ourselves. . . . but Him. . . .You ever listen to a Christian? They just blah blah blah about what? The scriptures? NO Jesus Christ. . . .
TWI put their faith in their knowledge OF the scriptures to know God. . . in the scriptures themselves. . . . .it began and ended right there. . . they DENIED Jesus. They worshiped the bible. . . very similar to the way the Pharisees did. . . . the Pharisees even quoted scripture at Him.
He said. . . . "You search the scriptures for in them you think you have eternal life, but they are they which testify of ME" "And you will NOT come to me that you may have life" It is not any different than what we did in TWI.
God's plan of salvation is not the scriptures. . . . it is how we learn about the person.
Deny the person you are NOT a Christian. The ink and paper was held in higher esteem than Jesus Himself in TWI. . . .
We are using terms interchangeably here. Fundamentalist Christians hold to the basic fundamental tenets of the Christian faith. . . the reliability of scripture, Jesus as savior for all mankind, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection, the trinity, Sola Scriptura. . . .
Which of those don't you believe? And . . it doesn't mean there is no truth in other faiths. . . . there is. . .and plenty of morality too but, Christians believe in God's plan of redemption. . . through the person of Jesus, revealed in the what? The Bible. . . or scriptures.
What part of that narrow view do you have a problem with as a Christian?. . . You must confess Jesus as Lord in your life and follow Him. . . . right? He must reveal Himself to you. . . you must have a PERSONAL relationship with Him if you worship God. Did I say faith is a personal relationship with Jesus and that we worship and relate with other Christians? Yep I did.
Do you have an issue with the reliability of the scriptures? Then why is He your Lord??? We have 90% down pretty good. . . the other 10% does not effect doctrine. . . . it is the most copied book in ancient history. . . we can recreate the NT from the church fathers writings alone to within a handful of verses. . . . and if you believe that any of the Caesars lived. . . you are going on thousands of less bits of info written during or after their lifetimes. . .
So, what is the narrow view you are rejecting? TWI's. . . . me too. . . . because they denied the most basic tenets of the faith in favor of bible worship. . . or breaking it down. . . . cult of personality worship. They are not Christian!!
Is it the interpretation that Jesus is Lord. . . the only path to God? I have to tell you. . . . there are specific things that make you a follower of Jesus Christ. . . . and on the other hand denying certain things makes you something else. If He is not the way to God. . . why would you yield your life to His Lordship. . . confess Him as Lord. . . and follow Him?
Why are you a Christian? You tell me.
Look to people. . . you are going to get people. . . look to Jesus and you are going to get God. Hopefully reflecting His glory in some small manner. Not everyone who says Lord, Lord. . . knows Him or is known by Him.
What is a fundamentalist Christian in your definition and how are you a Christian without the most basic fundamental Christian tenets found in scripture.? It is a book ABOUT Jesus Christ. He Himself claimed to be a narrow way. . . . what. . . He didn't mean it? Wrongly copied down. . . . misinterpreted? What? It wasn't good enough or clear enough. . . . that way which God made at great cost . . . wasn't enough?
Why do YOU think Jesus spoke so much of hell? Just a theory here, but such a sacrifice. . . such a way . . . . such a Savior. . . when denied. . . the alternate plan is. . .Allah? Because Jesus isn't good enough?
Define the terms please. . . . call yourself whatever you want. . . move away from the fundamentals of the Christian faith. . . namely Jesus Christ. . . who is revealed to us through scripture. . . .as the only path to God. . . . and you are what? A Christian?
If you doubt the reliability of scripture. . . why believe in the subject matter? If you put your faith in some guys theorizing about what the scriptures says about Jesus. . . you get a problem. . . put your faith in the right person. . . you are a Christian.
______________________________
There you go RR. . . hope I didn't disappoint.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Christian fundamentalist arose as a movement to combat liberal theology which got away from the most basic tenets of our faith. . . . they also arose in opposition to groups like TWI. Fundamentalist would not claim TWI in their ranks for anything.
On the other hand. . . . having basic Christian fundamentals is unavoidable as a follower of Jesus Christ. . . no?
The term has morphed into something else. . . taken on a new meaning, but for the purposes of this thread. . . is it a bible believing Christian. . . or a cult like TWI?
I have yet to figure it out. Lets just lump all "believers" together. . . generalize and call names. We did that in TWI with the rest of Christianity. . . why deviate now?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
In following this thread a couple of things piqued my interest – discussing conflicts between science & theology, classifying people in general broad strokes.. .I am trying to understand a little bit better the rationale behind fundamentalism – and maybe make some sense of the evolution of my belief system thus far.. . so anyway just wanted to throw in my 2 cents.
I've just started reading Karen Armstrong's The Battle for God: A History of Fundamentalism – and thought I'd share something pertinent from it – and also an excerpt from another book that this thread made me think of.
On pages 18 to 20 of The Battle for God Armstrong talks about Orobio de Castro [a Jewish philosopher, physician, and apologist 1617-1687] who had lived in Spain as a secret Judaizer for years. He was arrested and tortured by the Inquisition, recanted and taught medicine in France as a fake Christian.
Having grown weary of deception and a double life Orobio moved to Amsterdam in the 1650s to become a forceful apologist for Judaism and an instructor of other returning secret Jews [from T-Bone: they were labeled Marranos by Christians – a Spanish term for "pigs" – Wikipedia for what it's worth says it stems from the ritual prohibition against eating pork practiced by Jews & Muslims; the term acquired the meaning of "swine" or "filth"; in Portuguese the word refers only to crypto-Jews, using another word for "pig" or "swine"].
Orobio "described a whole class of people who found it very difficult to adjust to the laws & customs of traditional Judaism, which seemed burdensome to them. They had studied modern sciences in Iberia, such as logic, physics mathematics, and medicine, as Orobio himself had done. But, Orobio reported impatiently, 'they are full of vanity, pride and arrogance, confident that they are thoroughly learned in all subjects.' .. .These Jews, living for decades in religious isolation, had been forced to rely on their own rational powers.. .
.. .Some of the New Jews, Orobio complained, had become 'unspeakable atheists.' They were, to be sure, not atheists in our twentieth-century sense, because they still believed in a transcendent deity; but this was not the God of the Bible. The Marranos had developed a wholly rational faith, similar to the deism later fashioned by Enlightenment philosophers. This God was the First Cause of all being, whose existence had been logically demonstrated by Aristotle. It always behaved in an entirely rational way. It did not intervene in human history erratically, subvert laws of nature by working bizarre miracles, or dictate obscure laws on mountaintops. It did not need to reveal a special law code, because the laws of nature were accessible to everybody. This was the sort of God that human reason naturally tends to envisage, and in the past Jewish and Muslim philosophers had in fact produced a very similar deity. But it never went down well with believers generally. It was not religiously useful, since it was doubtful that the First cause even knew that human beings existed, as it could contemplate nothing short of perfection."
End of excerpt
~~
Armstrong's term "religiously useful" struck a nerve with me – and perhaps I'm taking liberties with it or straying way off base from her intentions - - but coupled with my broadening viewpoint of late.. . and I guess also factoring in having been burned by a cult, so you might want to take anything I say with a few grounds of Grease Spot coffee.. . but anyway.. . imho organized religion always seems to throw a wrench in the works. I mean.. .if life is a journey it seems you can always rely on organized religion to set up speed-bumps, detours & confusing traffic circles [aka religious circles
].
I guess you're always gonna have religious experts & expositors.. .and having my share of "near-truth experiences"
- maybe I'm at the place now where I've decided to come out of the closet and declare that I have my own religion. That's right. I am a force of one. Just a lone turd floating around [ah yes, the aforementioned religious circles] in the porcelain bowl of life – oh Lord I pray I'm ready when it's flushing time.
~~
After reading of Orobio's "unspeakable atheists" – I kept thinking about TWI's tightly constructed theological box and that for all practical purposes it meant that if you didn't worship their idea of God you were worshipping a counterfeit. TWI's doctrine & practice are an exemplary case illustrating Armstrong's point of a fundamentalist putting religion to "good" use – developing an extremely flexible theology to suit an agenda – I also think wierwille's agenda came before the doctrine.
And reading of the Marranos' rational faith & deism of the Enlightenment philosophers I remembered something in another book I finished a few months ago – that reminded me of how I still tend to use broad brushstrokes to describe other folks' beliefs and that there's a lot more that goes into how our beliefs are formed than we realize and maybe there's not always simple rational reasons for holding to a particular belief.
The book is "The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism" by Timothy Keller. Keller talks about some studies conducted to see if scientists thought that their faith in God and their line of work were incompatible. In two surveys some eighty years apart scientists were asked the same question – asking them do they believe in a God who actively communicates with humanity, at least through prayer. Results were just about the same: at least 40 percent said they did, 40 percent said they did not, and 20 percent said they were not sure.
Keller remarks that "The surveys were only designed to "see" scientists with conservative, traditional belief. Those with a more general belief in God are screened out by the way the question is formulated.. . Alister McGrath, a theologian with an Oxford doctorate in biophysics, writes that most of the many unbelieving scientists he knows are atheists on other grounds than their science. Many complex factors lead a person to belief or disbelief in God. Some are personal experiences, some are intellectual, and some are social. Sociologists of knowledge like Peter Berger have shown that our peer group and primary relationships shape our beliefs much more than we want to admit. Scientists, like non-scientists, are very affected by the beliefs and attitudes of the people from whom they want respect. In McGrath's experience, most of his atheists colleagues brought their assumptions about God to their science rather than basing them on their science." [pages 92 to 94]
End of excerpts
~~
Fundamentalism no longer holds much appeal for me. My religion is a very personal thing – a convoluted amalgamation of faith, reason, assumptions, hopes & fears. Hadn't come up with a name for my religion yet – but I guess it should have some snazzy label for when I speak ex cathedra [from the porcelain throne
].
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
I will tell you up front. . . my politics are left leaning. . . . I am moved by the plight of the Palestinian people. . . .they are a warm and beautiful people.
But, do you know what road I want to be very careful not to ever travel down again? I never want to be sucked into the vortex of revisionist history with an agenda or anything that is remotely Anti-Semitic.
I have been there and that is one of the greatest shames I have from TWI. . . . I understand what happened to me. Someone had an agenda. . .
a viewpoint. . . and the ability to persuade me to it with their slant on history. Much like scripture. . . history can be molded to reflect what we
want it to. . .
TWI was an anti-semetic group . . . . .an extreme mindset. . . . with an agenda. . . look at the kind of fringe revisionist history we bought hook, line and sinker.
Reading and nodding as if it were gospel I suppose. .. .
Was that something in us? I don't know. . . but, I know I don't ever want to revisit that again.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Well, geisha, in all actuality in spite of all your condescending statements here, my view is that learning my faith is a lifelong endeavor. And how about you? Second, what exactly is an "actual anointed Pastor"? Because for many years I believed that about myself. And I have found what I would consider that inside and outside TWI. So what do you believe about what is termed the "gift ministries"?
Since there seems to be a bit of controversy over the term fundamentalist, and some emotional reaction to me stating that I am "moving away from fundamentalist views", I thought I'd go look it up. Oh, and here's a suggestion - instead of the extreme emotional reaction and debate that you started from my statement, why don't you just ask me what I mean by that statement? I'm pretty sure that it's radically different that what you assume I mean.
From what I can gather researching the term "Fundamentalism", it certainly is a 20th century term. It seems to have arisen within the Presbyterian church over issues of tolerance between liberal and conservative viewpoints.
It also is a general term. It can describe a faction of the Muslim faith for instance. And it can describe politics, as in the term "right wing / left wing fundamentalist".
It's not a huge leap of logic to put together that pretty much all of us on this site have certain struggles attached to formerly being in a bible cult. There also are varying degrees of involvement and commitment to that cult we've experienced.
I have no viewpoint that God is so vast there is no way to know Him. My whole statement about "moving away from a fundamentalist viewpoint" is simply moving away from an elitist condescending "I have the only version of truth" attitude so prevalent in the Christianity of TWI and many other groups. I see fundamentalists of many categories that puff themselves up with knowledge, assume things about their brethren, and act in a condescending fashion.
I see that condescencion in your responses to me. And I think it is not Christian fruit. I am trying to move away from that in my life.
Maybe more accurately I should state that I'm not moving away from the fundamentals of the Christian faith, I am moving away from Fundamentalists.
Because I had enough lectures for a lifetime while in TWI. No need for more.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
You are right, I was very condescending. I was reacting to your statement about rednecks and that tone I often hear from people about Christians. . . maybe I was wrong and misunderstood. . . either way I am sorry I was rude to you.
You are one of my favorite posters.
There were a couple of things in TWI that we did that I guess I am hyper aware of . . . one was being anti-semitic and two was siding with Arius based on some funky reasoning. I actually think the two go hand in hand. There is a great thread where some long gone poster just laid this stuff out so clearly. I wish he was still here. I don't even think he is a Christian. . . . but, it is the Snapping thread.
Maybe I have a much different perspective because I am Christian and I think that TWI was an assault on Christianity. I see the same mindset in some of the authors presented here. . . . I have the advantage of being familiar with them and I find it so ironic. It is the same kind of assault. . . . similar reasoning. . . . the same extreme. . . albeit reactionary. . . and it baffles me.
People claim to be turned off to fundamentalism. . . but, are they . . . . based on some of the same arguments we used in TWI to rewrite Christian history.
We have got a really great advantage here as we were in a group like TWI. . . . we can recognize these things. . . . seems to me we should.
Anyway. . . my apologies it is inexcusable. . . I do get carried away. We are to defend our faith from assault. . . but I did a poor job of it. :(
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
geisha,
It's OK. I forgive you. I get heated too regarding TWI injustices.
-cf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
I got a question for you as regards this, and I mean this in all sincerity.
Why? ... Why do you need to defend it? Heck, I figure that if what you have is so true and so real, ... it ought to be able to stand on its own despite any and all questioning, scrutiny, criticism, and even challenges, ... which is often interpreted as 'assault' by many Christians.
Of all the crap that Weirwille spewed, one of the _few_ lines that I think that he made sense on was "Truth needs no defense." I mean, think about that one for a minute. ... If it's true, then it cannot fall to 'lies', else it wouldn't be worth much ... would it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Because questioning, scrutiny, criticism and challenges are all worthy of a response. . . . . and people fall for lies every day Garth.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Hi there, George. Well, I've been re-reading some of these posts and thought you might get a kick out of this ection of PFAL that I've located for you:
PFAL BOOK pg. 103 (1971 edition)
"By deductive logic, if God is perfect, then the logos, Jesus Christ, has to be perfect. If God is perfect and Christ is perfect and The Word is given as holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, then God’s Word must be perfect also.
God is perfect, so Jesus Christ is perfect, so the revealed Word of God is perfect. Consequently the words which make up The Word must also be perfect. This is why if any other word had been used than the preposition pros in John 1:1 and 2 the whole Bible would fall to pieces because of imperfect usage of words. To have a perfect Word, the words must be perfect and the order of the words must be perfect.
...God is perfect, The Word is perfect, and therefore The Word means what it says, and says what it means. God has a purpose for everything He says, where He says it, why He says it, how He says it, to whom He says it, and when He says it." END OF PFAL BOOK QUOTE.
I suspect most of us are aware of the endless problems this leads to when dealing with various translations and versions...
Anyhow, just thought I'd add this here for the record.
Cheers!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I do get a kick out of it. This is what those in math would call a shell game with the commutative law of equality.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
...and ...Pg. 104
VPW: “If the Word can be broken at any one place, The Word crumbles from Genesis to Revelation. Either the whole Bible is God’s Word from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21 or none of it is God’s Word.”
So, here he clearly states the Bible is God’s Word. He does not qualify the Bible by saying “in the original texts” of the Bible, nor does he say which Bible, although he uses the KJV as his text for the class so by implication accepts the canon used in that version.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leafytwiglet
Funny thing when I read the words VP spoke in PFAL all those years ago... I hear them in his voice... it is annoying.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.