Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion

I'm political right, but middle of-the-road when it comes to Christianity. As such, as the song says, I've got "clowns to the left of me and jokers to the right? Both wings may start out believing in Jesus as written in the Gospel, but move to a position where their new colleagues choke them like weeds in the parable of the sower. Let's first take the clowns. Generally these come from a liberal worldview where "anything goes". Unfortunately, that outlook likely leads to bad decisions with serious consequences for all involved. Guilt takes over and they wish support and absolution from this Jesus fellow who is just full of love and compassion. He's so full of love and compassion he doesn't even require repentance of sins. In fact sin doesn't exist! After all, a loving God would never banish those subjects who worship (read: sing hymns all service and throw money into the collection plate to flatter and bribe) Him, would He?
The jokers also start out with Jesus, but quickly regard him as too mamby-pamby with his forgiveness of sins, bit. They regard their sins as insignificant and now that they are so righteous, nonexistent. But the rest of the world deserves burning at the stake which they would be only too glad to provide, but will grudgingly settle for eternal hell for all but their cult members. If someone isn't guilty of the sins defined by God, they'll incorporate new ones sure to catch everyone. Unlike the liberal Christians, they have no use for Jesus at all but throw their allegiance to the vindictive God of OT.

Either God is pure and Holy and Sovereign---- or he isn't.

Robert wrote: "...believing in Jesus as written in the Gospel..."

Well, at least you've finally realized there's only one Gospel, but still seem to not know what the Gospel actually is.

"If someone isn't guilty of the sins defined by God..."

Interesting. So, according to you, there are people who are not guilty of sin, as "defined by God."

Do you believe you are one of these sinless people?

OK, Alexandra, you got me there but it was more of a literary slipup than an ideological one. What I meant is that if a Fundamental Christian was not aware of the hidden sins we all possess, then he could condemn us to hell on the visible sins his cult invented.

Robert wrote: "What I meant is that if a Fundamental Christian was not aware of the hidden sins we all possess, then he could condemn us to hell on the visible sins his cult invented. "

As I've already pointed out, "Fundamentalists" are simply those who affirm the fundamentals. That you consider Christians who affirm the fundamentals of the faith part of a "cult", as well as elsewhere declaring them "extreme", "extremist" and "dangerous", says quite a lot about you indeed.

At the very least it calls into question your knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals of Christianity.

Doing so has become shorthand to asserting moral equivalency between the fundamental teachings of Christianity and the fundamental teachings of Islam. Which is the PC thing to do these days, but isn't reflective of actual facts.

I've asked you before, but you failed to answer, do you know what the fundamentals of Christianity are?

Because from what I see in the OP, you're seriously confused.

I enjoy telling people that i'm a Christian Fundamentalist (it Triggers their insecurities and fears... I find that amusing.)

Sadly, the fundamentalist term is poorly applied in these days. The Westboro Baptists have ruined a fun thing.
Honestly, there's nothing fundamentalist about REAL loving Christians who desire to share the truth and warn others of a very real Hellish eternity.

There are some brutal fundamentals to Christianity. Our Savior would die for nothing less. But we should have joy about it. Not self-righteousness or venom.

Of course, if somebody doesn't accept the ENTIRE bible: how do they know what a Sin is? Or the Law? OR God's Truth, Or His plan?
The worst liberals i've met recently are those who claim to be Red Letter Christians. They embrace the New Testament words of Christ --- while removing them from the setting of the Old Testament foundation. They've removed most of the context.

Rod wrote: "Sadly, the fundamentalist term is poorly applied in these days. The Westboro Baptists have ruined a fun thing. "

It's not just due to the Westboro Baptist wackos that the term is misapplied. But, as I've pointed out, an attempt to assert moral equivalency between the fundamental teachings of Christianity and the fundamental teachings of Islam.

It's used as propaganda by leftists, and parroted by the ignorant.

Bottom line, a "Fundamentalist" is simply one who affirms the fundamentals.

Whether Robert C. is a propagandist (intentionally misusing the term), or parroting the misuse out of ignorance (not knowing what the fundamentals of Christianity actually are), I cannot say.

"The worst liberals i've met recently are those who claim to be Red Letter Christians.

Robert C. is pretty close to that camp. One of the ironies of those "Red Letter Christians" is they claim to believe in Jesus, yet declare Jesus a liar.

It's really no different than any who pick and choose which parts they like and dismiss the rest. Many self-proclaimed "Christians" do it. So do Mormons, so do Muslims. And none can provide any authoritative reason why their preferences are correct, while those of others are not.

Robert C.'s god is a screw up, his "Jesus" a liar. If he were actually correct, he's showing such beings aren't worthy of anything but contempt. And yet he desires, for some reason I cannot fathom, to "recruit" people into following him.

We should discuss this: what could go wrong with Only having the Gospels?
Honestly, I think they are enough. But if people are honest--- if you dismiss the Old Testament: then you really have to dispose of significant portions of the Gospels. You'll have no Messiah left.

Rod wrote: "We should discuss this: what could go wrong with Only having the Gospels?
Honestly, I think they are enough. But if people are honest--- if you dismiss the Old Testament: then you really have to di..."

Argh, you too! There's only one Gospel ;)

"what could go wrong with Only having the Gospels?"

I think that's the wrong question. It's not a matter of what might go wrong, it's a matter of what is actually true.

If something isn't true, or is untrustworthy, then it should be dismissed. If it's true, then it should not. Regardless of what we think of it, or what we think "could go wrong."

"if you dismiss the Old Testament: then you really have to dispose of significant portions of the Gospels. You'll have no Messiah left.

Without the OT, then the Gospel really has little meaning. It certainly would have nothing substantive or authoritative to support it.

I was reading up on Tony Campolo recently, he can't make liberal sense of the Old Testament... His God would never do things like that!
Who is his God then???

Rod wrote: "I was reading up on Tony Campolo recently, he can't make liberal sense of the Old Testament... His God would never do things like that!
Who is his God then???"

One of his own making most likely, it's what people typically do when they want a god, but don't like the one the Bible teaches of.

Yep. That sums up world religions.

Rod wrote: "Yep. That sums up world religions."

Indeed it does.

Alexandra, Rod - you 2 sure have a problem with truth. Jesus said he was the truth, God did not. The trouble with talking with knowledge compromised individuals who only know the Arts side of the Arts/Sciences continuum is that they are completely ignorant of the Natural Law considering the Universe GOD himself laid down and is so complex the best minds have trouble unraveling it. But any fool can read the OT and most children know to take their parent's word literally or invite punishment. I feel the only reason you cling to OT fables is because you are basically ignorant children. Truth is a lifelong search is a lifelong endeavor involving ALL disciplines. The OT is a great behavioral primer and outlines the perils of disobedience to God, but is otherwise useless for discovering great truths.

Robert wrote: "Alexandra, Rod - you 2 sure have a problem with truth. "

I've been repeatedly asking you to show what you claim is actually true and you repeatedly have failed to do so, instead appealing to your own authority - when you're not authoritative, appealing to science for claims which science neither has nor can address, and trying to appeal to your own "pick and chose what I personally trust" claims of the Bible.

So, it's quite obvious it is you have a big issue with truth. All you have so far is "I say it therefore you should believe it."

That doesn't fly, nor is it any indication whatsoever regarding truth.

As far as the rest, it's more ad homiem deflection, as well as once again your assumptions about what I believe and think.

But keep digging that hole, Robert. All you're doing is continuing to demonstrate you have nothing valid by which to back up your claims.

Even if they did actually exist (which you've given no valid reason to believe), your god is a screw up, and your "Jesus" a liar. Such beings aren't worthy of anything but contempt.

Alexandra - until you bare your own soul; I have nothing more to say to you.

Robert wrote: "Alexandra - until you bare your own soul; I have nothing more to say to you."

Until/unless you can demonstrate, with something actually authoritative, that what you claim is actually true, you have nothing of any real value or merit to say.

But I am not at all surprised you desire to deflect away from the poverty of your position and desperately want to try to get off that topic.

Alexandra - reveal your cards, the anteing phase is over.

Robert wrote: "Alexandra - reveal your cards, the anteing phase is over."

You're in no position whatsoever to make any demands of me. I'm still waiting for you to actually provide authoritative evidence to YOUR claims.

Until/unless you do so, the ball remains in YOUR court, no matter how much you'd wish to deflect away from that topic.

Robert, many sciences ARE arts. There's practical applicable sciences that actually honestly use the scientific method. Are you sure you know the difference? You haven't convinced me.

If the textbooks need to be changed every few years- that's just fantasy.

Rod - the hard sciences are where they belong in the science curriculum. If you're talking about psychology, sociology, or economics as sciences I'll just advance this. My standard in genetics for using experimental statistics as a quantitative yardstick to measure the efficacy of my hypothesis is .95. That means I must demonstrate that ALL the conclusions in my experiment must show a 95% threshold of being true by the rigorous measurement of SAS. Unless this threshold is met - I CANNOT GET PUBLISHED in a scientific journal. By contrast the other 3 disciplines only require a .65 accuracy readout. You make the decision about their true scientific merit.
With regards to textbooks changing - of course they do as exciting new breakthroughs are occurring daily in my field as they are in chemistry and physics. The Bible is static, as it should be. Regarding faith: it's the same yesterday, today, forever.

Liberal Christians are in the weeds. But ultra-conservatives are too busy looking at the length of the grass on the green.

Jeffrey wrote: "Liberal Christians are in the weeds. But ultra-conservatives are too busy looking at the length of the grass on the green."

Truth.