[R. S. Martin]

• Christian claims to be smarter than nonChristians.
  
• Homosexuality is condemned in the Bible.

I was trying to tell my prof that Jerry Falwell would have drawn on Romans chapter 1 for his condemnation of homosexuals for the 9/11 attack and my prof said, no-no, Jerry just heard other fundamentalists say homosexuality is wrong so he believed it too.

Folks, I don't think so! I think Reverend Jerry Falwell had solid scriptural basis for what he said on the air about God allowing the attack because of what he (Falwell) considered to be the sinners of the country. And I think this scriptural basis can be found in Romans 1:16-32. But it seems I need it on the authority of fundamentalists themselves, or exfundamentalists--people who either heard Falwell preach or who heard sermons of the same theological brand as Falwell preached. Southern Baptist would probably suffice. Written sermons or apologetics with scripture references would be better. Something written by Falwell himself would be best.

This is important because it's for my MA thesis. My deepest appreciation to anyone who can lead me to anything Jerry wrote or preached that proves what scripture he based these beliefs on. Thank you!

[Mongo]

Normally I'd let the more scholared tackle such questions but in absence of their input, here is what I found...

A review of a book on the topic:
http://www.christian...gust/24.55.html

Per the link: Amos3:6 says "When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it?"

In order to put these words directly into Falwell's mouth you have to invoke the fundamentalist argument that the OT is as valid today as it was before Jesus.

One approach would be to argue backward from Falwell's escatolological views back to the underpinnings of those views which derrive (as most modern fundies) from Hal Lindsay who wrote "The Late Great Planet Earth".

This pre-millenial theology requires literal interpretation of scripture unless it is "obviously" metaphorical.

In his early chapters of his book, The Road to Holocaust, I believe Hal expounds on this and argues how OT scripture applies today.

There may be quicker way to establish that Falwell would have considered Amos 3:6 a current and legitemate explanation for 9/11.

Perhaps their basic arguments on why they honour some OT rituals like church on Sunday and not others might serve to place Amos 3:6 into the "still holds today" category for Falwell and his camp.

From a scriptural point of view, god the judge is clearly seen in the OT - surely the prof knows that.

Mongo

This post has been edited by Mongo: 26 September 2007 - 02:08 PM

[Deva]

You are correct Ruby. These professors you describe seem to be in an ivory tower somewhere when it comes to the fundamentalists. The real fundie would be able to quote you chapter and verse by memory for any position they would take with regard to judgement or any other matter they would sermonize about. I do think they would draw heavily from Romans, as you said.

I was raised in an Independent Baptist Church in the 70's that would make the Southern Baptists of today look progressive. The hard core fundy material of the kind I am talking about may be found at "The Sword of the Lord" http://www.swordofthelord.com/
Unfortunately, I think you need to subscribe to read it. Even so, it is probably watered down today from the newspaper my folks subscribed to in the 70's. If you ever heard of John R. Rice and Bob Jones University, this is the type of stuff I am talking about. A heady mix of premillenial eschatology and racism.

I can't recall ever hearing about Falwell until he started the Moral Majority and I guess that was late 70's. His contribution was to mix politics with the fundie xianity. There was a lot of history before him. The fundamentalists were most concerned with "soul winning." The government and politics, being wicked and "of this world" was something they wanted to stay apart from, until Falwell and then I guess Robertson. I don't have any specific sermons of Falwell I can point you to, because he was largely after my time, when I had already left the scene.

The only version of the Bible that was true for the fundie was the King James Version and preferably the Scofield Reference Edition. If you can get ahold of a Scofield Reference Bible and read the notes at the bottom of each page, that might really be helpful to you Ruby. They really did use this as an interpretation of the text. It is particularly interesting in the books of Daniel and Revelation. Before I ever heard of Hal Lindsey, the eschatology was already outlined in those notes. Lindsey popularized it in an easy to read, sesationalist style.

Fundies can quote you large sections of scripture for any kind of issue you might imagine and believe me, that is all the justification they need.

As far as Christian claims to be smarter than nonchristians - I don't know where that comes from unless it is some take on "when you are saved you are a new creature" and (supposedly) better in all ways.

[Mythra]

Here you go, RubySera.

From a PBS Frontline interview with Jerry Falwell:

Do you believe that it's a choice for everyone? Do you believe there may be some people for whom it's not a choice, that it's their sexual orientation?

No, I don't believe that. I believe that all of us are born heterosexual, physically created with a plumbing that's heterosexual, and created with the instincts and desires that are basically, fundamentally, heterosexual. But I believe that we have the ability to experiment in every direction. Experimentation can lead to habitual practice, and then to a lifestyle. But I don't believe anyone begins a homosexual. They begin the way God made them: male, female, with all the dispositions that are built in. If they choose to be bisexual or transgendered or homosexual, they're human beings, and they have the ability to do it. But as a Christian, biblically, scripture makes very clear that it's an immoral position. Even Romans I says that at some point, when they finally are just so committed to doing that. The quote from the King James is, "God gives them over to a reprobate mind," or a malformed mind.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...ws/falwell.html

[R. S. Martin]

Mythra, thank you! That is exactly what I need! My internet connection was very sporadic yesterday. I wrote a response to Mongo and DevaLight but couldn't post it. I think I saved it on Word. Let me see if I can find it.

Yep, here it is:

Thank you Mongo and DevaLight. I would have been seriously disappointed if no one had responded. I was not looking for scholarly treatises and maybe I scared people off by saying what it’s for. Sorry about that. What I wanted is some good ol’ religion—solid Bible passages—sermons if you will—something I can carry into that ivory tower and hand the prof and say, “Here’s the real stuff, Sir, the unsanitized version. From the country bumpkins themselves.” No, not quite like that. But I am beginning to wonder exactly how much he really knows about the realities of fundamentalism. I learned MUCH from forums like this one, Mongo. Most of it was from folks far more “unlearned” or “unscholared” than yourself. You are really good with words and ideas. If you hadn’t said so yourself, I would never have guessed that you don’t have at least one university degree.



I know one scholar in town who does take fundamentalism very seriously, just not this one. I will also be reading a few books Falwell wrote and I did find sermons online while he was still alive if I can figure out how to download them. Maybe I’m just being lazy in asking people here for help. One of my committee members is an evangelical and he told me a long time ago how to make the computer give those sermons to me.



I really love what you said, Devalight, about fundies being able to quote long passages of the Bible and not needing any other authority. I could almost hear a preacher’s voice behind those words.

[kellyb]

Just out of curiosity...what is your prof a professor of?

What a ding dong...

[Mythra]

kellyb, on Sep 28 2007, 06:35 PM, said:

Just out of curiosity...what is your prof a professor of?

Yeah - I was going to ask the same thing.

It seems this professor has confused a fundamental christian with a cultural christian, like you might see in catholicism.

Most fundies know their bibles inside out and backwards and refuse to entertain a single thought that isn't scriptural.

[R. S. Martin]

Systematic theology and Christian ethics is what he teaches. Religiously and culturally: White, male. Ordained clergy of Evangelical Lutheran Church of Canada. Born Lutheran into Missouri Synod in California. He must be getting close to age 60, married, has grandkids. That's about all I know about him.

Quote

It seems this professor has confused a fundamental christian with a cultural christian, like you might see in catholicism.

Most fundies know their bibles inside out and backwards and refuse to entertain a single thought that isn't scriptural.

He is a very intelligent man. I wouldn't be studying with him if he weren't. But we all have blind spots. Obviously, this is one of his. I think the Christianity I come from is more cultural, too, than real fundamentalism. It may be that my prof has never been exposed to true mainstream fundamentalist Christianity. I've been talking about it and doing presentations over the past year or two, but he keeps saying there are extremists in every cult.

For my thesis, I want to learn about/understand the roots of fundamentalism so I am studying three leaders. My prof chose the leaders: Charles Hodge (1797-1878) of Princeton Seminary, Oswald J. Smith (1889-1986) who started a mega church in Toronto, and Jerry Falwell of whom we are all so "fond." Since my prof chose the leaders I would guess they are fairly mainstream. I list them here in case anyone wants to discuss any of them or has any further information they want to share.

While my professor may know more about the finer details of theology on the academic level such as pietism, soteriology, etc., people here are probably more knowledgeable about the heroes of the religion in which they were raised or converted to, and the proof texts of that religion. Hopefully, by the time my thesis is done my prof will see that fundamentalism really is a power to be reckoned with, not just some backwater movement that will go away with the next election.

It is based solidly in scripture, has always been, and will always be. Thanks for all your contributions to this thread so far. It's been really helpful. I might be able to make the argument that fundamentalism is based on the first part of Romans 1:28 KJV: And even as they did not like to retain^#_ftn1 God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind.

Jerry Falwell quoted that in the speech Mythra copied above, and I found it in a sermon preached by Charles Hodge's teacher in 1829 (reprinted in a modern book; I am not digging in fragile old paper in American churches; I'm not advanced enough for that ).

The things that come along with this so-called "reprobate mind" are anything and everything they disagree with, it seems, huh?

[R. S. Martin]

I'm not sure if I found the right scriptures or not but on another forum where the atheist manager kicked me off for unclear and unstated reasons (as she was in the habit of doing depending on her mood) there were fundies who would claim to know mysteries we nonfundies could never hope to understand.

1 Cor. chapters 2 and 3 are pretty demeaning of anyone who rejects Paul's message.

Chapter 2; bits and pieces:

⁷ But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
¹⁰ But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit
¹² Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

Here's the slammer that puts Christians above all other humans:

¹⁴ But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. ¹⁵ But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.  ¹⁶ For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. 

**************************

So, I guess if anyone pretends to understand what these verses are saying, that person can imagine he/she is pretty smart and for no other reason than that he/she has the mind of Christ. Even as a Christian I felt these verses were above my comprehension. The people who claimed to have superior knowledge of the spirit were invariably people who in my opinion were only a few IQ points short of being retards.

In real life I still identified as a Christian at the time but very definitely not as a fundy. I'm not sure what the fundies thought I was but I was always siding with the gay rights people. For black and white thinkers that automatically put you among the goats in the Last Judgment.

Chapter 3 is somewhat clearer. Here are bits and pieces from it:

¹ And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
¹⁹ For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.
(That's a big one used against education beyond Grade 8.)

There's more, all of it proving that if you believe the right things you're smart but if you believe the wrong things you're stupid. I assume everyone has access to a bible (there's lots online) so I won't copy the entire chapter.

(As an aside, is this what evil atheists are supposed to be doing on a beautiful Sunday afternoon--studying the Bible?)

[R. S. Martin]

This stuff is almost going to my head. Don't know if I can handle it. Maybe someone can pull me back to earth before I blow it. I'm sensing I know more about this stuff than my prof does.

Two years ago I met another Mennonite student at another school who is studying the same kind of stuff I am.

1. We are not from the same church but very seriously similar. He is from a car church that dresses almost the same as the horse and buggy people where I come from.

2. He is now modern Mennonite and I don't go to any church; basically deconverted but still culturally Mennonite.

3. Both of us are studying theology. He is studying at a Mennonite school and I am studying at a Lutheran school. Both schools are in the same city about a 20 minute walk apart from each other. Two years ago I cross registered one course, which is how we met. We have been in contact ever since.

This fall he started work on his doctorate but we are still in touch. Recently he has been of more help to me than my prof, mainly because we are of similar background. I will refer to him as my colleague. Through my colleague's guidance I stumbled onto a topic I never thought of looking at. And it may be exactly what I need to tie things together. Dispensationalism. Anybody here know anything about it? I didn't until I started reading this week. Apparently it's the root of fundamentalism.

I mentioned it in an email to my prof and he acknowledged that I've been doing some serious reading but pointed out that Charles Hodge was totally against it. Right. But some of the other characters I'm supposed to be studying were all for it. And one respected author shows how to tie all of this together. Prof said he'll look at my email more closely another day, which sounds realistic, given that I only sent it last night.

I'm thinking my prof: a) probably doesn't know a thing about dispensationalism apart from "it's a heretical doctrine" and I'm reading fundamentalist authors to learn more about it. Prof is probably prejudiced that fundy scholars know anything. One got his PhD at Dallas Theological Seminary. I'm not sure where the other one is from.

I've got my own prejudices about what comes out of that school. But I think I know something about the marks of scholarship. And I have been reading standard mainstream authors. If what the fundies say agrees with what the mainstream scholars say, then it should be reliable.

Anyway, this is probably a specialized rant that nobody can make head or tails of. The point is, I will be meeting with my prof next week. He has already pointed out that I should not make Christians out to be stupid. (I try very hard not to, but he thinks I do.) As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, I suspect that he is not aware of the strong scriptural foundation fundies have for their beliefs--point: maybe he is somewhat ignorant on the topic but that is different from stupid. And now this dispensationalist stuff that does not even relate to the topic the way he probably thinks it should.

I'm scared.

[Ouroboros]

Mythra, on Sep 27 2007, 03:19 PM, said:

... [Jerry Falwell] "No, I don't believe that. I believe that all of us are born heterosexual, physically created with a plumbing that's heterosexual, and created with the instincts and desires that are basically, fundamentally, heterosexual."

With a "plumbing that is heterosexual"? What about true hermaphrodites (intersexual) who got both plumbings simultaneous? Are they homosexual regardless who they have sex with, or are they always heterosexual regardless who they have sex with? I just wonder...

[R. S. Martin]

HanSolo, on Oct 10 2007, 07:07 PM, said:

Mythra, on Sep 27 2007, 03:19 PM, said:

... [Jerry Falwell] "No, I don't believe that. I believe that all of us are born heterosexual, physically created with a plumbing that's heterosexual, and created with the instincts and desires that are basically, fundamentally, heterosexual."

With a "plumbing that is heterosexual"? What about true hermaphrodites (intersexual) who got both plumbings simultaneous? Are they homosexual regardless who they have sex with, or are they always heterosexual regardless who they have sex with? I just wonder...

That's the kind of thing I mean when I say:

Fundamentalists are more concerned with believing the right thing than with being factually accurate.

Prof said: Don't assume they are stupid.

Me: Huh?

This would be an excellent example to show him what I mean. Thanks for pointing it out, Hans.

[Ex-COG]

RubySera, on Sep 29 2007, 08:31 PM, said:

Systematic theology and Christian ethics is what he teaches. Religiously and culturally: White, male. Ordained clergy of Evangelical Lutheran Church of Canada. Born Lutheran into Missouri Synod in California. He must be getting close to age 60, married, has grandkids. That's about all I know about him.

The Missouri Synod is one of the more conservative branches of the Lutheran Church; some people have refered to them as fundamentalist. Would you label him as appearing fundamentalist?

[Ex-COG]

RubySera, on Oct 10 2007, 06:58 PM, said:

This fall he started work on his doctorate but we are still in touch. Recently he has been of more help to me than my prof, mainly because we are of similar background. I will refer to him as my colleague. Through my colleague's guidance I stumbled onto a topic I never thought of looking at. And it may be exactly what I need to tie things together. Dispensationalism. Anybody here know anything about it? I didn't until I started reading this week. Apparently it's the root of fundamentalism.

A church does not have to believe in dispensationalism in order to be fundamentalist. My former church denomination taught amillennialism, not premillennialism of which dispensationalism is part of.

[R. S. Martin]

Ex-COG, on Oct 11 2007, 06:53 PM, said:

RubySera, on Oct 10 2007, 06:58 PM, said:

This fall he started work on his doctorate but we are still in touch. Recently he has been of more help to me than my prof, mainly because we are of similar background. I will refer to him as my colleague. Through my colleague's guidance I stumbled onto a topic I never thought of looking at. And it may be exactly what I need to tie things together. Dispensationalism. Anybody here know anything about it? I didn't until I started reading this week. Apparently it's the root of fundamentalism.

A church does not have to believe in dispensationalism in order to be fundamentalist. My former church denomination taught amillennialism, not premillennialism of which dispensationalism is part of.

Thanks for this information, Ex-COG. (BTW, today I was in a part of town I seldom go to and I saw a sign pointing to Church of God. I searched my brain--what's that in initials? C-O-G...Hey! I know somebody by that name!!! )

My colleague mentioned in one of his emails that my group of Mennonites (where I come from) are amillenial. I had no idea what that meant. Thus, when I followed your link just now I read up on amillenialism instead. THAT was enlightening! It's exactly what I was taught. I just didn't know it had a name. I thought it was "end of the world teachings" but minus all the fancy stuff some other people believed. Actually, I never heard too much about how the world would end. My mother would never talk about it. She just said the world would end but we don't know exactly how it will happen. I was left pretty much to my own imagination which, as I am sure people here are well aware, is something to be reckoned with.

Me and the NT and a few bits of literature I was able to scare up, were pretty much what I had. That, and what my sisters and I mulled in our brains when no adults were around to edit our conversation. We assumed Jesus would come as a flash of lightening (as unexpectedly as a thief in the night) and instantly everyone would be judged, the dead as well as the living, because that is how it is described in Matthew 24. Nobody ever told me that this chapter actually was about the end of the world, but I knew without being told. Then when my teacher skipped over it for the morning Bible reading in school, I knew for sure. Later, my younger siblings learned a song in school about Matthew 24 and any remaining doubts in my mind were forever removed.

My mother did say we lived in the dispensation of grace, that the laws of the OT do not apply today, but the Ten Commandments do apply. I don't think she told me these two things at the same time. One day I pointed out that the Ten Commandments are not in the NT. She said Jesus repeated them all in the NT. I've checked it out and I think she may be right on all except the one about keeping the Sabbath holy. Jesus violated that one (and justified it to the Pharisees) and Paul said not to worry about Sabbaths and other holy days (Col 2:16, KJV Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days).

The term "dispensation of grace" includes the word "dispensation," so I am not sure whether that is dispensationalism or not. According to the things I've been reading, dispensationalism values the NT much higher than the OT. That is exactly how my people did. The official text for a Sunday morning service was NEVER from the OT. Nor was it ever from Revelation. In fact, the OT was preached about more regularly than Revelation, except the part about Jesus spewing the lukewarm people out of his mouth and a few other choice bits like that (but these were never read as the official text). I don't remember any sermons on the Judgment, either, outside that it would definitely happen and that it wouldn't be pretty.

Sermons focused on repentance, on the depravity and sinfulness of humanity and the great sacrifice of Jesus on the cross--as though what Jesus suffered was more than than any other human has ever suffered, and the great relief or "rest in the sweet bye and bye" IF we manage to be accepted. And to be accepted we depend on God's boundless mercy and grace for us ugly deplorable worthless sinners who deserve to spend eternity in hell. Were it not for Jesus' overwhelming sacrifice we would languish in hell forever. I've read about his sacred suffering as understood in medieval times. I guess there was a tradition of this. The OT stories were made to reflect these messages. So that's pretty much the kind of theology I was raised with. I don't know if that is dispensationalism or not.

(The word "sensationalism" inside the larger word "dispensationalism" keeps jumping out at me. Any analogy in there, do you think? )

[R. S. Martin]

Ex-COG, on Oct 11 2007, 06:44 PM, said:

RubySera, on Sep 29 2007, 08:31 PM, said:

Systematic theology and Christian ethics is what he teaches. Religiously and culturally: White, male. Ordained clergy of Evangelical Lutheran Church of Canada. Born Lutheran into Missouri Synod in California. He must be getting close to age 60, married, has grandkids. That's about all I know about him.

The Missouri Synod is one of the more conservative branches of the Lutheran Church; some people have refered to them as fundamentalist. Would you label him as appearing fundamentalist?

He has described himself as fairly conservative but he is my model of liberal. He left Missouri Synod long ago because too many people were getting hurt. Evangelical Lutheran Church of Canada ordains women. I am not sure where they stand on the gay marriage issue. I take it they are on a par with the other mainline churches of the day. He does not think there is an afterlife and he has helped me work through some issues, esp. on hell. It's only this last little while that there seems to have been this little problem and it may have passed.

I had a fairly serious run-in with another prof a year ago. This summer I had an email exchange with that prof. In my mind that email was totally innocent but he may have taken it otherwise. I was asking for information, which he gave, but he made a comment that didn't sit quite right with me. I let it pass and I don't think I could have handled it any differently (except not ask for the information). However, I wonder if perhaps he took my request for information as me making fun of Christians. And he may have shared this feeling with my supervisor. This may have caused my supervisor's charges that I am calling Christians stupid.

The information I asked for was a definition on faith. I asked him because he had made a lot of statements in his class about what faith is. I had come across a statement in my readings that "threw me for a loop"--it seemed so totally "out there" in a way that I could not imagine any sane human being would think. So I wanted to check it out. Maybe I should have asked my supervisor because it was for his course that I was reading. However, it seemed logical to ask the man who seemed to be an authority on the matter, so I did. I cited Heb. 11:1 as my basis for a definition on faith, but did not give the reference. I wasn't sure of it at the time. He informed me that there is much more to faith than that one verse, and that it is a very large topic. He named a few sources and said he could refer me to some books if I was really interested.

It was his suggestion that I was not seriously interested that seemed out of line. Why would I have asked if I was not interested? Was it not legitimate to be interested in a brief discussion and not be interested in reading two or three books? I did not know how, or whether, to respond to his email. Eventually I did respond. I explained that I did not know that it was such a large topic and that I did not have time to read that much. I am quite sure I thanked him for the info he gave. I have no idea how he took it. But I do know that I have been charged with calling Christians stupid.

It really bothered me. I made an extra call to my supervisor asking what I was doing wrong. In an earlier call I had read part of my paper to him to see if I am doing it right. He felt I was making fun of fundamentalists. After thinking it over it really bothered me. I did not know what I was saying wrong. And it was not his first charge that I was saying they are stupid. It was the second charge this fall. It's all been since that email exchange with the other prof but that did not occur to me until much later. I have not talked to him since that occurred to me. When I made that special call asking what I was doing wrong, I think he could tell that I was genuinely concerned and that I had NOT meant to denigrate anyone. I was practically in tears. I think he could tell.

But he didn't just give in because of that. He said, "Sometimes there's something in your voice. You know...don't you?" I said, "Depends if I'm venting." He said, "Yes, yes, we have to make sure we keep everything in its right place." I said, "But I thought that was a good solid scholarly piece of writing." He said, "It was good." We decided that I would send it in to him and he would get back to me about it. A day or two later he had not replied so I called to see if he had recieved it. He had received it but said he hadn't had time to go over it. I was concerned about continuing work; I didn't want to do all of it wrong. He assured me it wasn't that level of problem so I let it go. He has not yet gotten back to me.

I am meeting with him on Monday. I am keeping that sentence that he had problems with. I just don't know how not to keep it. I did mention to my colleague about my prof not knowing too much about fundies. You know what my colleague said? He said his prof didn't know too much, either. He saw that as positive because he didn't have to work against a bias. He said my prof would still be able to ask the big questions to guide my research. Somehow, I found it encouraging.

I don't know exactly what my colleague believes. He's modern Mennonite but that says very little. My venture into modern Mennonitism showed that they range all the way from hard-core fundy to "way out there" liberal where Christ is more a symbol than a historical person born of a virgin laid in a manger who died to save us from our sins. You can have the two kinds in the same congregation if you work it right.

Regarding my prof and liberal. The way he teaches theology is not this liberal. He won't share his very personal beliefs very openly but it's his job to teach official ECLC theology. They believe that Jesus was a historical person who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. The resurrection and ascension are not taught as history. When pressed with the question: Why did Jesus have to die, this prof said, "To show what kind of God we have." He says God is in the cross. It's cross theology as opposed to glory theology. I've heard those lines so often I can recite them off by heart, but I can never get it into my head exactly what they mean. As stated, he does not think there is an afterlife. He does not think it is his job to convert anybody.

He does not believe the Bible is the literal Word of God; rather, the Word of God is in the Bible. I am not sure that he would say the Bible contains all of the Word because Jesus is the Word, too. And maybe the Sacraments. It gets confusing to me when we talk about the sacraments being the Word. My background is Mennonite and for Mennonites, the bread and wine is symbolic; it is NOT the very presence of Christ, or the body of Christ. I find it so gross that I try not to think of it in those terms but it's hard being among Lutherans so long without learning to think like that.

Do you consider him fundy? If so, would you define what you mean by fundamentalist?

It is the school's policy to accept students of all faiths or of no faith, so long as the student demonstrates a comprehensive value/belief system.

[Ex-COG]

RubySera, on Oct 11 2007, 10:51 PM, said:

Do you consider him fundy? If so, would you define what you mean by fundamentalist?

I would say no. He doesn't believe in the literal truth of the Bible, doesn't believe in an afterlife, or in converting others. Of course, the term "fundamentalism" is fuzzy, and can hold different meanings to different people.

[R. S. Martin]

Ex-COG, on Oct 12 2007, 04:59 PM, said:

RubySera, on Oct 11 2007, 10:51 PM, said:

Do you consider him fundy? If so, would you define what you mean by fundamentalist?

I would say no. He doesn't believe in the literal truth of the Bible, doesn't believe in an afterlife, or in converting others. Of course, the term "fundamentalism" is fuzzy, and can hold different meanings to different people.

I think in Canada and the US those three items combined probably define nonfundamentalism when viewed theologically. When viewed sociologically or psychologically we might have a different criteria. Also, that would apply only for Christians. It would be different for other religions. I better stop. This could grow into an article.

[Oldjew]

Quote

No, I don't believe that. I believe that all of us are born heterosexual, physically created with a plumbing that's heterosexual, and created with the instincts and desires that are basically, fundamentally, heterosexual. But I believe that we have the ability to experiment in every direction. Experimentation can lead to habitual practice, and then to a lifestyle. But I don't believe anyone begins a homosexual. They begin the way God made them: male, female, with all the dispositions that are built in. If they choose to be bisexual or transgendered or homosexual, they're human beings, and they have the ability to do it. But as a Christian, biblically, scripture makes very clear that it's an immoral position. Even Romans I says that at some point, when they finally are just so committed to doing that. The quote from the King James is, "God gives them over to a reprobate mind," or a malformed mind.

Sounds more like a closeted gay person made this up in order to make people believe they were not gay.

If this is true that that individuals more or less choose to experiment in homosexuality, then how does one explain animal behavior in homosexuality?

Or what about five year olds falling in love with other little boys and not being interested in little girls, then as the grow older they are only attracted to their own sex and were never ever attracted to the opposite sex, but wished they could be?

And how could anyone that is heterosexual be attracted to their own sex? But then why am I questioning anyone who believes that a book of fiction is a book of truth written by men with crap for brains who were closeted gay persons who hated them selves because they were fat ugly slobs that no man wanted?

It is not possible. This is all idiotic to even suggest it.

[R. S. Martin]

Oldjew, on Oct 13 2007, 02:43 AM, said:

Quote

No, I don't believe that. I believe that all of us are born heterosexual, physically created with a plumbing that's heterosexual, and created with the instincts and desires that are basically, fundamentally, heterosexual. But I believe that we have the ability to experiment in every direction. Experimentation can lead to habitual practice, and then to a lifestyle. But I don't believe anyone begins a homosexual. They begin the way God made them: male, female, with all the dispositions that are built in. If they choose to be bisexual or transgendered or homosexual, they're human beings, and they have the ability to do it. But as a Christian, biblically, scripture makes very clear that it's an immoral position. Even Romans I says that at some point, when they finally are just so committed to doing that. The quote from the King James is, "God gives them over to a reprobate mind," or a malformed mind.

Sounds more like a closeted gay person made this up in order to make people believe they were not gay.

If this is true that that individuals more or less choose to experiment in homosexuality, then how does one explain animal behavior in homosexuality?

The same occurred to me. If it were totally against his nature and desire, why would he come up with such a detailed argument against it? If the people who preach loudest against it found it totally repulsive, why would they fear it taking over the land? Only if it is a strong desire can it possibly "spread." People who experience no personal homosexual desire would hardly see the sense in promoting the theory that it would spread and take over the land and "seriously decrease the population," to quote one of our less brilliant members who got laughed out of the house.

His arguments against Mel White don't even make sense. If you go to the website Mythra linked you will see the arguments. Falwell says it's unfortunate if a man divorces his wife and breaks his commitment for another woman, but breaking his commitment and breaking up his family--wife, kids, and grandkids all for the sake of sex and self-gratification with a man--that, in Falwell's mind, it totally unacceptable.

I'm thinking: Wait a minute! Why is it so different doing it for sex with a woman other than your wife than doing it for sex with a man if you are already married? Divorce is condemned in the NT. Period. Extramarital sex is banned in the NT. Period. Who does Jerry Falwell think he is in making a difference whether a person breaks his commitment to have sex with a man or a woman outside his marriage? If you're going to annul the laws of the NT, who are you to decide that one law is more dispensible than another?

The one about adultry was laid down by Jesus, Son of God himself. And Jerry makes light of it. The other was just a rant by a mere man Paul, self-appointed apostle. And Jerry makes it out to be a law the breaking of which will cause the sky to fall. Only it hasn't. Jerry just got a heart attack some years later.