Ten signs someone is a fundamentalist christian

Scofflaw

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote:

Hmmm...continuing to reject or not to believe in a God even you are confronted with him? Outside of the possibility that you would obviously think you were suffering from a mental illness, you would...what? Continue rejecting/disbelieving him though confronted with reality?

Wicknight wrote:

I think (judging from past posts of his) that Scofflaw means his rejection of God in the way I mean it, ie I don't think God exists but even if he did I wouldn't worship him.

Wicknight is quite correct. I often describe myself as an 'alatrist' (non-worshipper) rather than an atheist, because strictly speaking the existence/non-existence of God(s) is not the defining characteristic of my relationship with any God.

The God of the Bible I consider a tyrant, and I won't worship a tyrant. As described, the God of the Bible contains too many internal contradictions, so His existence is moot in any case. However, should He prove to exist, He still is not worthy of worship.

There are gods whose existence I consider more likely, but don't see any point in worshipping them either. My position is summarised by the statement "no god exists worth worshipping".

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Blackhorse Slim wrote:

I'm getting a little confused here, and maybe out of my depth , so let's put some of this together.

We both agree that god issued a prohibition against the spilling of man's blood in the time of Noah. We also agree that god later instructed Abraham to kill his son.

And he [God] said, [Abraham] Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him [Isaac] there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I [God] will tell thee of. Gen22:2

Surely these instructions are contradictory? And given that we also agree that god's instructions are suspect if he contradicts himself, have we not proven that god instructions are, indeed, suspect?

It's convenient if you are correct that Abraham did not interpret scripture that way, or he would have been forced, like us, to question his god.

If God had indeed allowed Abraham to kill his son, then there certainly would be a contradiction. However, we know that God never intended for the boy to die and was simply testing Abraham's faith (but not, obviously, his interpretation of Gen 9:6). The test was not merely a case of, "Are you willing to do anything I ask of you, no matter how outlandish?", but rather focused on the specific aspect of God's promise to Abraham that his descendants would be numerous. Abraham had jumped the gun previously due to a lack of faith (producing an illegitimate son through Hagar) but now he demonstrated his faith by being willing to sacrifice the child of promise, but having the faith that God could still raise Isaac from the dead.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

Ok ...

You get hit by a bus, you die, you go to heaven, you meet God, he shows you around heaven and introduces you to all the angels, you see all your relatives, you have a big party. He then says "Son I'm sending you back to Earth for a special mission. I cannot tell you why, but I need to you shoot Wicknight. This may seem bad to you, but I assure you that it is of utmost importance that Wicknight is killed" You then appear beside me holding a gun.

Do you shoot me?

If someone who I thought was God told me to shoot you, to molest a child, or to commit any other act I consider immoral, then I would come to the conclusion that this was not God that was speaking to me. Such a being, in my opinion, would not be God but rather a devil. Seeing heaven and angels would not change this opinion.

And I have a sneaking suspicion what your next point will be.

Red Hand

PDN wrote:

If someone who I thought was God told me to shoot you, to molest a child, or to commit any other act I consider immoral, then I would come to the conclusion that this was not God that was speaking to me. Such a being, in my opinion, would not be God but rather a devil. Seeing heaven and angels would not change this opinion.

And I have a sneaking suspicion what your next point will be.

How did Abraham know that that was God speaking to him in the example back there about him being told to kill his son? Surely, he would have said..."this is not the God I know"?

Zombrex

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote:

How did Abraham know that that was God speaking to him in the example back there about him being told to kill his son? Surely, he would have said..."this is not the God I know"?

Was thinking the same thing .... God appears quite a lot in the Bible, if everyone walked away and said "Don't be stupid, you aren't God ..."

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

If someone who I thought was God told me to shoot you, to molest a child, or to commit any other act I consider immoral, then I would come to the conclusion that this was not God that was speaking to me. Such a being, in my opinion, would not be God but rather a devil. Seeing heaven and angels would not change this opinion.

And I have a sneaking suspicion what your next point will be.

How did Abraham know that that was God speaking to him in the example back there about him being told to kill his son? Surely, he would have said..."this is not the God I know"?

I'll bite. God appears in the Bible pretty often telling people to kill people (Midianites and the like), and people don't say "this is not the God I know" (or when they do it is made pretty clear that it is God).

I would say, then, that PDN has no Biblical justification for saying "this is not the God I know".

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

I'll bite. God appears in the Bible pretty often telling people to kill people (Midianites and the like), and people don't say "this is not the God I know" (or when they do it is made pretty clear that it is God).

I would say, then, that PDN has no Biblical justification for saying "this is not the God I know".

cordially,
Scofflaw

OK, I'll have a go at this, hope it doesn't get too complex.

First Abraham. He had a lot of direct face-to-face contact talking with God. Nobody I know today has that kind of regular experience. Each time he had this kind of face-to-face contact then subsequent events showed clearly that it was indeed God who had spoken (eg two cities destroyed by fire, his wife giving birth to a son when the 2 of them really belonged on the geriatric ward etc). Therefore Abraham did not have the luxury of saying (as I do) "Maybe this isn't really God who is speaking to me." That would be like my wife asking me to wash the dishes and me saying, "But how do I know it's really you asking me, and not a demon that looks like you?" Therefore Abraham would be much more likely to obey a command from God that looked outlandish. Also Abraham was obviously less averse than me to either killing people or offering sacrifices.

Also Abraham believed that God would raise Isaac from the dead (Hebrews 11:17-19) and, as a result of the miracles he had already experienced, and the cast iron promises he had received from God about Isaac, he was convinced that even if he killed Isaac then his son wouldn't stay dead. Of course if I thought similarly, then I would be checked into a secure psychiatric unit double quick - but I don't have the benefit of already having experienced many major miracles & face-to-face encounters with God. Therefore I think there is a fair argument that, since God never intended to actually allow Isaac to be killed, & since Abraham never thought that Isaac would stay dead, that this is a bit different ethically from killing someone in the normal course of events where you believe death is final.

Scofflaw's example about the Midianites is, of course, more problematic for me since we have no record of Gideon receiving any previous theophanies (face-to-face appearances of God). In fact the idea of people being killed in the Old Testament at God's command is one I have a lot of difficulty with as a Christian. However, that biggie can be saved for another thread, so I'll concentrate on the issue at hand. How come Gideon obeyed God when he believed God ordered him to kill the Midianites, but PDN would not obey such a command today?

I do believe that I have biblical justification for saying, "this is not the God I know". Gideon etc. received their orders before the coming of Jesus Christ. Since Christ's incarnation, death & resurrection we are clearly in an era where God commands His people to love their enemies rather than to kill them. The New Testament contains no commands for us to kill people, which is why the early Christians were predominantly pacifists. So, for God to suddenly order me to kill Wicknight would be to wipe out all the New Testament and to return me to Judaism rather than faith in Christ.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Gideon etc. received their orders before the coming of Jesus Christ. Since Christ's incarnation, death & resurrection we are clearly in an era where God commands His people to love their enemies rather than to kill them.

That works on the assumption that God is telling you to kill me because I'm your enemy (I hope I'm not )

The reason why God is telling you to kill me is not in the hypothetical, so I suppose a follow on question is; Would you ask God why you had to kill me, and if you didn't think it was a good enough reason (to save 100, or 1000 other people) you wouldn't do it?

The ultimate point of the question is not to try and trap you or anything, but instead to see if you can understand the view point where a persons internal morality is over ruled by the doctrine of their religion.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

The ultimate point of the question is not to try and trap you or anything, but instead to see if you can understand the view point where a persons internal morality is over ruled by the doctrine of their religion.

Personally, I think all the evidence suggests the reverse - that the vast majority of theists follow their internal morality, and seek an interpretation of their religion that allows them to claim sanction.

PDN wrote:

Scofflaw's example about the Midianites is, of course, more problematic for me since we have no record of Gideon receiving any previous theophanies (face-to-face appearances of God). In fact the idea of people being killed in the Old Testament at God's command is one I have a lot of difficulty with as a Christian. However, that biggie can be saved for another thread, so I'll concentrate on the issue at hand. How come Gideon obeyed God when he believed God ordered him to kill the Midianites, but PDN would not obey such a command today?

I do believe that I have biblical justification for saying, "this is not the God I know". Gideon etc. received their orders before the coming of Jesus Christ. Since Christ's incarnation, death & resurrection we are clearly in an era where God commands His people to love their enemies rather than to kill them. The New Testament contains no commands for us to kill people, which is why the early Christians were predominantly pacifists. So, for God to suddenly order me to kill Wicknight would be to wipe out all the New Testament and to return me to Judaism rather than faith in Christ.

Essentially, that's why I was interested in the Midianites rather than Abraham. There have always been plenty of 'Christians' who are willing to use the Old Testament examples of "God's Justice" to justify killing - and the Old Testament must have been extremely handy for states that wanted to accept Christianity...

By the way, given your position on NT/OT, does it not rather follow that Judaism is 'less' than Christianity?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Red Hand

PDN, how can God change his mind so easily? Genocide and favouritism is acceptable one minute (weren't many of the tribes that inhabited Canaan annilated by the Israelites, with the Israelites being God's chosen?), and then God decides to open the doors to us Gentiles (in the sense of us not being a tribe of Israel) and (through Jesus) says that people should sort of turn the other cheek rather than follow the "eye for an eye" system of doing things.

I guess, what I am asking, is why the Old Testament is accepted and read by most Christians when such a huge amount of it is at odds with the New Testament?

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

By the way, given your position on NT/OT, does it not rather follow that Judaism is 'less' than Christianity?

'Less' sounds very insulting to any Jew who might be reading this thread. I would say that the Old Testament was a staging post on the way to the New Testament. Paul uses the idea of the Jewish law being a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. Also, the Book of Hebrews appears to teach that Judaism was fulfilled in Christ.

Of course many Jews, particularly in Reformed Judaism, are more liberal and tolerant than many Christians. But some of the ultra-orthodox guys appear to be pretty happy to kill in the name of God.

PDN

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote:

PDN, how can God change his mind so easily? Genocide and favouritism is acceptable one minute (weren't many of the tribes that inhabited Canaan annilated by the Israelites, with the Israelites being God's chosen?), and then God decides to open the doors to us Gentiles (in the sense of us not being a tribe of Israel) and (through Jesus) says that people should sort of turn the other cheek rather than follow the "eye for an eye" system of doing things.

I guess, what I am asking, is why the Old Testament is accepted and read by most Christians when such a huge amount of it is at odds with the New Testament?

I wouldn't see it as changing his mind so much as different circumstances and different times. For example, I am in the US at the moment (hence my posting on threads so late at night). Some of my American friends are proud of their heritage, particularly the cowboys, the Wild West & all that stuff. However, they then go on to criticise George Bush for behaving like a cowboy in the arena of world politics & Iraq etc. What worked in Montana 200 years ago is not appropriate today, and we lionise heroes of the past for behaving in ways that would land them behind bars today.

The OT is accepted and read by Christians, but should, I believe, be interpreted in the light of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. It is noticeable that people who want to advance extremist agendas under the guise of Christianity (Ian Paisley, the Dutch Reformed Church in apartheid South Africa, etc) tend to major more on the Old Testament than the New.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

I wouldn't see it as changing his mind so much as different circumstances and different times.

Does that not hold equally for what is taught in the New Testament?

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

Does that not hold equally for what is taught in the New Testament?

I don't believe so. Christians see the Old Testament as preparation for the coming of Christ, hence the prophecies of and allusions to the coming Messiah. The New Testament gives Christians instructions that that are to be carried out until the return of Christ (which, obviously, hasn't happened yet).

Christian theology teaches that the incarnation, death & resurrection of Christ constitute the single most important action in history, not just another in a series of equally important events. Therefore it is entirely consistent and reasonable to believe that, while Christ's coming ushered in a radically different set of values & behaviour, that no other event is going to have the same effect.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

I don't believe so. Christians see the Old Testament as preparation for the coming of Christ, hence the prophecies of and allusions to the coming Messiah. The New Testament gives Christians instructions that that are to be carried out until the return of Christ (which, obviously, hasn't happened yet).

Christian theology teaches that the incarnation, death & resurrection of Christ constitute the single most important action in history, not just another in a series of equally important events. Therefore it is entirely consistent and reasonable to believe that, while Christ's coming ushered in a radically different set of values & behaviour, that no other event is going to have the same effect.

Fair enough ... is there actually much Biblical support for both these ideas (that the OT was culturally centered and the NT isn't)?

I ask because I often read (quite a lot) that one of the reasons the Jewish community/religion reject the very idea of Jesus as the Messiah is because he (and his followers such as Paul) altered far too many things with the New Testament (Christians claim he simply re-interpretative the same original message), things that were not supposed to be altered that way. That Gods law is timeless and universal as God is timeless and universal.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

Fair enough ... is there actually much Biblical support for both these ideas (that the OT was culturally centered and the NT isn't)?

I ask because I often read (quite a lot) that one of the reasons the Jewish community/religion reject the very idea of Jesus as the Messiah is because he (and his followers such as Paul) altered far too many things with the New Testament (Christians claim he simply re-interpretative the same original message), things that were not supposed to be altered that way. That Gods law is timeless and universal as God is timeless and universal.

I'm not saying that things commanded by God in the Old Testament were 'culturally centered', but more that they were temporary measures to prepare the way for the big event of Christ's coming. I don't think you would get this solely from the Old Testament (although there are some hints of it), but it is more explicitly stated in the New Testament - particularly in Galatians and Hebrews.

There is no Jewish forum on boards.ie - otherwise this would be an interesting question to ask there.

Interestingly, there are some Christians (dispensationalists) who argue that many New Testament characteristics were also temporary, only to be observed until the canon of Scripture was completed. They reject any present day claims of miracles, healing, speaking in tongues, prophecy, apostles etc.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

'Less' sounds very insulting to any Jew who might be reading this thread. I would say that the Old Testament was a staging post on the way to the New Testament. Paul uses the idea of the Jewish law being a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. Also, the Book of Hebrews appears to teach that Judaism was fulfilled in Christ.

Of course many Jews, particularly in Reformed Judaism, are more liberal and tolerant than many Christians. But some of the ultra-orthodox guys appear to be pretty happy to kill in the name of God.

I'm sure it would sound insulting, even though it was the least offensive term I could think of. It's hard to see how one can claim that Christianity supercedes Judaism without the implication that Judaism is a redundant religion.

On the other hand, the teaching of every religion is that other religions are false.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

I'm sure it would sound insulting, even though it was the least offensive term I could think of. It's hard to see how one can claim that Christianity supercedes Judaism without the implication that Judaism is a redundant religion.

On the other hand, the teaching of every religion is that other religions are false.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Messianic Jews (that have accepted Christ but still want to retain their Jewishness) do refer to themselves as "fulfilled Jews". I suppose that means that they feel ordinary Jews are unfulfilled.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

I'm not saying that things commanded by God in the Old Testament were 'culturally centered', but more that they were temporary measures to prepare the way for the big event of Christ's coming. I don't think you would get this solely from the Old Testament (although there are some hints of it), but it is more explicitly stated in the New Testament - particularly in Galatians and Hebrews.

One wonders why, though. It makes sense if you see humanity as on a path of spiritual development (after the Fall, perhaps), but not much otherwise. Why not just have sent Christ earlier?

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

One wonders why, though. It makes sense if you see humanity as on a path of spiritual development (after the Fall, perhaps), but not much otherwise. Why not just have sent Christ earlier?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Galatians 4:4 states that it was "when the fulness of time had come". That would suggest that the time was not right earlier, but I think God is the only one who can answer why.

Sometimes we don't know why stuff happens the way it does, we just have to make the best of what we've got. Faith.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Galatians 4:4 states that it was "when the fulness of time had come". That would suggest that the time was not right earlier, but I think God is the only one who can answer why.

Sometimes we don't know why stuff happens the way it does, we just have to make the best of what we've got. Faith.

You either got it, or ya don't!

cordially,
Scofflaw

karen3212

PDN wrote:

Galatians 4:4 states that it was "when the fulness of time had come". That would suggest that the time was not right earlier, but I think God is the only one who can answer why.

Sometimes we don't know why stuff happens the way it does, we just have to make the best of what we've got. Faith.

umm, or we keep asking why, until we find out

Naikon

LOL, very good stuff:D

Galvasean

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote:

Hmmm...continuing to reject or not to believe in a God even you are confronted with him? Outside of the possibility that you would obviously think you were suffering from a mental illness, you would...what? Continue rejecting/disbelieving him though confronted with reality?

As someone who does not believe in Gods I always ask myself this. If God did appear before me to lay the smackdown would i believe it was him or assume I had gone nuts? I'm not really sure at the moment. i'll let you know if/when it happens.

Just read the whole thread. Very interesting. Keep up the good work guys.

Zombrex

karen3212 wrote:

umm, or we keep asking why, until we find out

Its that kind of dangerous thinking that makes me want to bring back good old fashioned public heretic burnings!! Burn them I say, burn them all! :eek:

Húrin

I think that list was compiled by someone who does not understand the term fundamentalist.

"1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian."

Someone who has not studied the Bible cannot possibly be literalist, or fundamentalist about what it says.

estebancambias

I did not like this, however the final point is correct.