So they want to execute the Afghani who converted to Christianity...

[roo_ster]

RevDisk:
Are those verses you list enforced by law in any majority Christian or majority Jewish country in the world?  If my memory does not fail me, the last person killed by the Spanish (or any Roman Catholic country's) Inquisition was in 1800.  

I think what we are dealing with, at its essence, is a desert nomad moon-cult which was considered bloody & savage even for the time it came onto the world stage.

One day, we may yet again take the threat seriously.  Maybe when they succeed (in part) in their stated efforts to impose sharia law on us, here in the USA, UK, & the rest of the House of War.

[Perd Hapley]

Amish and Mennonite churches are some of the most 'fundamentalist' churches you could find

What is so fundamental about them?

[RevDisk]

RevDisk:
Are those verses you list enforced by law in any majority Christian or majority Jewish country in the world?  If my memory does not fail me, the last person killed by the Spanish (or any Roman Catholic country's) Inquisition was in 1800.  

I think what we are dealing with, at its essence, is a desert nomad moon-cult which was considered bloody & savage even for the time it came onto the world stage.

One day, we may yet again take the threat seriously.  Maybe when they succeed (in part) in their stated efforts to impose sharia law on us, here in the USA, UK, & the rest of the House of War.

The last mass grave I stood on was about 2 years ago.  I believe it was 3-5 years old, reports vary.   It was a bunch of Christians executed by Muslims.  As such, I have no illusions of the capabilities of followers of Islam.  Of course, it was a stone's throw from a mass grave of Muslims executed by Christians.  

Call it an instructive experience.


But yea, undue theological influence on the legal system in the USA is rather worrisome.  I suppose we're in agreement on that point.  Novus ordo seclorum.

[Perd Hapley]

anyway back to the topic going to hell or being killed here...both unpleaseant...why do religions do this to people?

Different religions will have different reasons, but I would like to answer you from a Christian perspective.  Killing unbelievers is something commanded, in some situations, by the Hebrew scriptures (the Old Testament), but superseded by Christ, who fulfilled and completed the civil and ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic Law.  An interesting question is, would you even think this was wrong, had you not been influenced by the Protestant notion of a seperation of spiritual and secular authority?  

Going to hell?  Well, if you refer to actually sending sinners to hell, that is not something mere men can do to you.  If, as I suspect, you mean threatening people with hell, that is more interesting.  Naturally, some people do like to threaten others to bring them into line.  However, from a Christian point of view, human beings are already heading towards hell.  You cannot threaten someone with the consequence he is already heading for.  We can warn people of hell, and show them the way to heaven, but threats are above our paygrade, as we can't send souls to one place or the other.

[Perd Hapley]

Deuteronomy 18:10-11, Exodus 22:18, etc

RevDisk:
Are those verses you list enforced by law in any majority Christian or majority Jewish country in the world?

RevDisk, you didn't answer the question.  Which is; are there any Christian or Jewish countries that punish witches with the death penalty?  

As far as the mass graves you're talking about (Bosnia?), do you believe people filled those graves through actual religious fervor or did they have other motives for which religion is mere window dressing?

[Gewehr98]

I've also been to those mass graves in Bosnia, and got my pretty blue UN ribbon for my troubles.  My team installed and monitored intrusion detection devices on the gravesites, because they kept adding more bodies under cover of darkness.  Amazing what carnage is accomplished under the auspices of religion.

[RevDisk]

Do you have reason to believe these people were Christians?  Drunkeness, assault and destruction of property (your necklace) are all forbidden by the Christian scriptures, so this redneck doesn't sound like a Christian to me.  What charges were threatened due to your religion?

I know I'm wasting my time here, but a "fundimentalist" is one who believes literally in certain fundamental doctrines.  I am such a person.  Fundamentalism is not militancy or theocracy, unless that is fundamental to that person's belief system.  And, no, Christianity is neither violent nor theocratic.  As Christ said, "My kingdom is not of this world."

In case you missed my question, Reverend Disk

The beered up redneck has a cross around his neck.  So I suppose it's an assumption, but I didn't have sufficient time to question him in detail.   As for his actions making him "not sound like a Christian", I'll have to defer to C.S. Lewis' 'Mere Christianity' (Pg 10).  A rather good book, I highly recommend it.

Now if once we allow people to start spiritualising and refining, or as they might say "deepening," the sense of the word Christian, it too will speedily become a useless word [as gentlemen did]. In the first place, Christians themselves will never be able to apply it to anyone. It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men's hearts. We cannot judge, and indeed are forbidden to judge. It would be wicked arrogance for us to say any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense. And obviously a word that we can never apply is not going to be a very useful word. As for the unbelievers, they will no doubt cheerfully use the word in the refined sense. It will become in their mouth's simply a term of praise. In calling anyone a Christian they will mean that they think him a good man. But that way of using the word will be no enrichment of the language, for we already have the word good. Meanwhile, the word Christian will have been spoiled for any really useful purpose it might have served.

We must therefore stick to the original, obvious meaning. The name Christian was first given at Antioch (Acts 11:26) to "the disciples," to those who accepted the teaching of the apostles. There is no question of its being restricted to those who profited by that teaching as much as they should have. There is no question of its being extended to those who in some refined, spiritual, inward fashion were "far closer to the spirit of Christ" than the less satisfactory of the disciples. The point is not a theological, or moral one. It is only a questions of words so that we can all understand what is being said. When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian.

According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Fourth Edition), Fundamentalism is "A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism."   Fundamentalism is not inheriently militant, per se.  But the "often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism" all too often leads to militancy.  


I would agree, as would anyone who's read the four Gospels, that Jesus did not advocate violence (Turn the cheek, et al) nor theocratic rule (Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, et al).   There is a vast difference between his teachings and the actions of each of his followers.  He acknowledged more than once that no one is perfect and no one is without sin.    Just because Jesus advocated something does not mean all of his followers will follow his message completely.   It's called "human nature".

[gunsmith]

fistful....."but threats are above our paygrade"

your right!  

Thank you very much sir.

[RevDisk]

Deuteronomy 18:10-11, Exodus 22:18, etc

RevDisk:
Are those verses you list enforced by law in any majority Christian or majority Jewish country in the world?

RevDisk, you didn't answer the question.  Which is; are there any Christian or Jewish countries that punish witches with the death penalty?  

As far as the mass graves you're talking about (Bosnia?), do you believe people filled those graves through actual religious fervor or did they have other motives for which religion is mere window dressing?

I will answer questions in my own good time, or not at all, when I feel like it and not a moment before.   Clear enough?  

I'm watching the second season of Battlestar Galactica and Col Tigh just declared martial law, as well as disbanded the Quorum.  I'm sure you can understand the priority of this in relation to your questions.  

As far as I know, no current Christian or Jewish country are enforcing any state-sponsored death penalty on witches.   As for the mass graves, the answer is "Yes".   I suspect the Serb politicians that started the mess were motivated for a desire to remain in power and played the religion/nationalist card.  I merely suspect this, I have no firsthand proof or experience to justify this suspicion.  The people that tossed the bodies into the graves were largely acting with actual religious fervor, according to the ones I spoke with.  They fully believed they were doing the morally correct thing, with the support of their political and religious leaders.

[Stand_watie]

Amish and Mennonite churches are some of the most 'fundamentalist' churches you could find. Not exactly hotbeds of personal assault on unwary strangers passing by, pentacle or not. I'd tuck that thing away out of sight though in a lot of Muslim parts of the world.

I've worn my pentacle pretty much anywhere I go, that includes Muslim parts of the world.

Specifically where?

And ironically enough, I do know someone that was attacked by an Amish man with a shovel, I believe, because he was wearing pagan jewelry.    I live in Lancaster PA, plenty of Amish and Mennonites.  But they mostly avoid non-commercial contact with all infidels, including other Christian sects.   I believe you might be confusing the Amish/Mennonites with the Quakers, who are known for being militantly anti-violent.  

That would be terrifically ironic. So ironic that I'd require evidence of anyone who made that claim to me that I didn't trust implicitly already, before taking it at face value. And I can't speak for Lancaster Mennonites, but north Indiana Amish and east Texas Mennonites don't try to avoid contact with anyone, even us non pacifist types. My Mennonite neighbors have no problem breaking bread with my family in my home or theirs - and I've had invites into Indiana farmhouses and barns to get a better look at a particular farming operation or procedure that caught my eye and invited a roadside conversation.

And no, I'm not confusing Quakers with Amish. I know what the Amish and Mennonites believe, and other than sharing pacifist ideals and having shared some anti-retaliatory Indian treaties with the Quakers they are doctrinally quite disimilar

Oh, and Stand_watie ?   Deuteronomy 18:10-11, Exodus 22:18, etc

And that commandment to the Jews in the wilderness is currently being employed by which government?

[Stand_watie]

Amish and Mennonite churches are some of the most 'fundamentalist' churches you could find

What is so fundamental about them?

The answer to that of course lies in your own personal definition of fundamentalism, and rather than try to give the really long version, explaining my definition of fundamentalism, I'll refer you to the Menno doctrinal statement which I believe is the most current, and let you decide for yourself whether you agree with me or not.

http://www.mennolink.org/doc/cof/

The index is on the right side of the page, with 24 articles of doctrine. As a sample, article 8, Salvation

We believe that, through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, God offers salvation from sin and a new way of life to all people. We receive God's salvation when we repent of sin and accept Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. In Christ, we are reconciled with God and brought into the reconciling community of God's people. We place our faith in God that, by the same power that raised Christ from the dead, we may be saved from sin to follow Christ in this life and to know the fullness of salvation in the age to come.
From the beginning, God has acted with grace and mercy to bring about salvation--through signs and wonders, by delivering God's people, and by making a covenant with Israel. 1 God so loved the world that, in the fullness of time, God sent his Son, whose faithfulness unto death on the cross has provided the way of salvation for all people. 2 By his blood shed for us, Christ inaugurated the new covenant. 3 He heals us, forgives our sins, and delivers us from the bondage of evil and from those who do evil against us. 4 By his death and resurrection, he breaks the powers of sin and death, 5 cancels our debt of sin, 6 and opens the way to new life. 7 We are saved by God's grace, not by our own merits. 8

When we hear the good news of the love of God, the Holy Spirit moves us to accept the gift of salvation. God brings us into right relationship without coercion. Our response includes yielding to God's grace, placing full trust in God alone, repenting of sin, turning from evil, joining the fellowship of the redeemed, and showing forth the obedience of faith in word and deed. 9 When we who once were God's enemies are reconciled with God through Christ, we also experience reconciliation with others, especially within the church. 10 In baptism we publicly testify to our salvation and pledge allegiance to the one true God and to the people of God, the church. As we experience grace and the new birth, we are adopted into the family of God and become more and more transformed into the image of Christ. 11 We thus respond in faith to Christ and seek to walk faithfully in the way of Christ.

We believe that the salvation we already experience is but a foretaste of the salvation yet to come, when Christ will vanquish sin and death, and the redeemed will live in eternal communion with God.

Perhaps the least "Fundamental", in my opinion, of their doctrines is found in Article 22, Peace, Justice, and Nonresistance

...As disciples of Christ, we do not prepare for war, or participate in war or military service. The same Spirit that empowered Jesus also empowers us to love enemies, to forgive rather than to seek revenge, to practice right relationships, to rely on the community of faith to settle disputes, and to resist evil without violence. Led by the Spirit, and beginning in the church, we witness to all people that violence is not the will of God. We witness against all forms of violence, including war among nations...

[Perd Hapley]

The beered up redneck has a cross around his neck.  So I suppose it's an assumption, but I didn't have sufficient time to question him in detail.   As for his actions making him "not sound like a Christian", I'll have to defer to C.S. Lewis' 'Mere Christianity' (Pg 10).  A rather good book, I highly recommend it.

It is good!  I'm in the middle of reading for the first time.  Actually, Lewis isn't addressing my statements.  Whereas the wearing of crosses means precisely nothing in 20th/21st century America, I am asking if there is any reason to believe that he would describe himself as a Christian, or that his motives were religious.

Just because Jesus advocated something does not mean all of his followers will follow his message completely.   It's called "human nature".

Of course.  Did I say otherwise?

[RevDisk]

It is good!  I'm in the middle of reading for the first time.  Actually, Lewis isn't addressing my statements.  Whereas the wearing of crosses means precisely nothing in 20th/21st century America, I am asking if there is any reason to believe that he would describe himself as a Christian, or that his motives were religious.


Of course.  Did I say otherwise?

As I stated, it's not like we had a couple hour theological discussion on qualifications to being a Christian.   As far as I know, to be a Christian, you just have to worship Jesus and believe that he is your savior.  Different Christian sects have their own qualifications beyond that, I suppose.  I suppose we could ask Preacherman to be our ref?  

I believe his motives were too much alcohol and the famous last words "Hey watch this".   But I don't think I was randomly selected for his attention, as I was standing outside Wal-mart smoking a cigarette, waiting for a bunch of my fellow soldiers to finish their shopping because the freakin PX prices are much higher than Wal-mart.   As I didn't utter a single word (I'm a very focused smoker) and I was wearing all PX clothing, he couldn't have pegged me as a Yank, damn dirty liberal, or any other group he might have disliked.  As his attention was focused on the religious symbol hanging from a dog tag chain around my neck.  It's not expensive looking (stainless steel), it's not oversized, and it makes no tactical sense to grab a dog tag chain (they're designed to break rather than strangle you).   What would you infer his motivations were?

Unfortunately, said gentleman slipped on a rock before I could fully question him to his motives.  Very tragic accident, terrible really.   Said gentleman should not have err, 'slipped on a rock' that spent the entire day being poked and prod'd by quacks for a damn SRP he'd been given THREE times already, in addition to a billion useless other 'stations' that need to rubber stamp a damn paper so that he could spend a year in a gorram third world country that 99.99% of Americans couldn't find on a map with a gun held to their heads.  As I said, darn shame, 'em loose rocks underfoot.


Edit : Lemme know how you like the book.  It's been a couple of years since I've last fully read it, still skim a couple sections from time to time.   I'm a fan of a good part of his work, but he can be 'hit or miss' at times.  This book is one of his better.  

Respectfully tho, you might want to re-read the section I addressed above.  Lewis (rightly so) warns against attempting to redefine the term "Christian" to exclude those who live unworthy of Christian doctrine.  Rightly so, because if one were to do so, there would be zero "Christians", as a core tenet of Christian doctrine (Jesus' teachings) is that no man is without sin and is never the less worthy of redemption through faith in spite of this.   I might be misunderstanding you, but you're suspicious of the idiot's true faith because of his actions?  Tis the entire point Lewis was warning against!

[Guest]

Deuteronomy 18:10-11, Exodus 22:18, etc

RevDisk:
Are those verses you list enforced by law in any majority Christian or majority Jewish country in the world?

RevDisk, you didn't answer the question.  Which is; are there any Christian or Jewish countries that punish witches with the death penalty?

Well, if Pat Robertson ever gets his druthers...

[Matthew Carberry]

Rev,

The yahoo in question may fall outside even Lewis' caution if he is a "Christian" only by being born into a American household and is not actively anything else.  

Most Americans or Western Europeans (who are not actually active believers in anything) will generically describe themselves as Christian if asked.  Christian simply because they are not Hindu, or Muslim, or Buddhist.

To be a Christian, even a bad one, requires that one have once made a real step of faith, that one has at some point actively accepted the Lordship of Christ in one's life.  You may stray away after (which is partly where varying doctrine comes in) but you have to sincerely and actively sign the papers first.

I couldn't accuse you of being even a bad soldier nor you accuse me of being a bad Marine if either of us had not first actively signed on the line and taken the oath.

Just cause some yahoo is born in a predominantly Christian society and wears its commonplace symbols doesn't mean he's paid his dues to earn the title.  

Paul said (not a quote) that a believer will be identifiable by their actions.  If the only Christian identity that guy showed was a cross on a chain, his ID was pretty weak.  

Oh, either way, "slipping on a rock" is, like Scripture, suitable for correction and instruction.

Blessed be.

[Perd Hapley]

According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Fourth Edition), Fundamentalism is "A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism."   Fundamentalism is not inheriently militant, per se.  But the "often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism" all too often leads to militancy.

So, will you admit that you should have said, "I know to keep my eyes peeled in areas that I suspect contain militants," instead of using the word, "fundamentalist"?  The problem here is that, although you do not mean to, you imply that beating up pagan bystanders is a foundational teaching of Christianity.  I know you are only using the word in the way it is commonly used, but I would like to persuade you that the popular definition is wrong.

The people that tossed the bodies into the graves were largely acting with actual religious fervor, according to the ones I spoke with.  They fully believed they were doing the morally correct thing, with the support of their political and religious leaders.

I must admit, this surprises me.  If people are claiming to do such things from Christian motives, that is pretty sad.  Then again, in my point of view, many Christian denominations teach what is un- or anti-Biblical.

[Perd Hapley]

Standwatie, that's the least fundamental?  The first quotation was all standard Christian doctrine, more or less.  The second was most certainly fundamentalist, to the point of resisting the draft.  Disobeying the law in the belief that it contradicts the higher law of God should most certainly be regarded as fundamentalist.  Which is why I applaud them for having the courage of their convictions, though I disagree on the particular point.

[Stand_watie]

Standwatie, that's the least fundamental?  The first quotation was all standard Christian doctrine, more or less.  The second was most certainly fundamentalist, to the point of resisting the draft.  Disobeying the law in the belief that it contradicts the higher law of God should most certainly be regarded as fundamentalist.  Which is why I applaud them for having the courage of their convictions, though I disagree on the particular point.

Most fundamental my friend, most. I agree with your asessment, and am happy to call Mennonites and Amish 'brother' even if I find they have some peculiar quirks.

[Perd Hapley]

The answer to that of course lies in your own personal definition of fundamentalism, and rather than try to give the really long version, explaining my definition of fundamentalism, I'll refer you to the Menno doctrinal statement which I believe is the most current, and let you decide for yourself whether you agree with me or not.

I don't have a personal definition for "fundamentalist."  I use the term as it was originally used in 1909 to describe the authors of The Fundamentals, and which may be easily inferred from the face value of the word itself.  Fundamental means foundational, basic, essential.  Therefore a fundamentalist is one who holds to what he views as the endangered fundamentals of his professed belief system.  Look up "fundamentalism" on Wiki - their entry is rather informative.

I would be pleased to hear how you define it.  And no, I don't accept the idea that words are defined soley by current usage.

[Perd Hapley]

Warning:  This thread has gotten so out of hand, there are even scriptures being quoted!

spent the entire day being poked and prod'd by quacks for a damn SRP he'd been given THREE times already, in addition to a billion useless other 'stations' that need to rubber stamp a damn paper....

Four SRP's!!!  I am truly sorry.  I've had two or three myself.  

Given that the fellow was wearing a cross and attacked your own religious symbol, I can see where you're coming from.  But as I tried to explain earlier; it is not as if the guy told me he was a Christian and I'm trying to say that he isn't.  I'm just saying that the evidence doesn't give me reason to believe so without his direct claim to be a Christian.  

Mere Christianity is so called because Lewis wanted to talk about Christianity without getting sectarian.  Unfortunately, that is hard to do and Lewis failed.  My own pastor likes the book, but I am sure he would disagree strenuously with much of the passage you quoted.  He represents a large segment of Christianity that would say that faith is demonstrated by works (see the book of James) and a lack of faith is also demonstrated by works.  I tend to lean in that direction myself.  That said, I can't know with certainty, but Christ did tell us to judge on the basis of fruits.  To wit,

Mat 7:15-20
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.  Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?  Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.  A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.  Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.  Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

I grant the man was no prophet, but the principle remains as does this one.

If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?

I believe his motives were too much alcohol....What would you infer his motivations were?

I would say you nailed it.  


I find the book very readable, enjoyable, and profound.  My previous experience with Lewis is from reading the Chronicles as a kid, which I barely remember, and the ubiquitous Lewis quotations one finds so frequently in Christian media.  He certainly writes up to his reputation.  Also, I recently read "Till We Have Faces."  In case you are unfamiliar with it, it is a novelization of the Cupid/Psyche myth which ends up supporting the Christian worldview.  Oh, I don't know how to explain what the book does, but I liked it.  Have you read that one?

[Perd Hapley]

Blackburn, you're back home?  Good, now go post more of your novel, you Czech bandit.

Ungit so wills it.

[grampster]

I called the Used Christian Bookstore and got my hands on several of C.S. Lewis' non fiction paperbacks over the years.  I have copies of different themes, thoughts and radio broadcasts.  Read the Screwtape Letters if you really want to scramble your brain.
He wrote that he reasoned his way out of atheism to ultimately making the leap of faith to Christianity.  Some have said that he, had he lived longer, would have become affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church.  Be that as it may, the man had a unique ability to write about weighty matters of faith and yet be able to easily convey the point to someone not as intellectualy gifted as he; many times by explaining how the spiritual man is so entwined in everyday mundane life.  In my opinion, that was Lewis' gift.

[Perd Hapley]

Some have said that he, had he lived longer, would have become affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church.

I have heard that his Anglicanism was tinted with certain Catholic ideas.  Just goes to show that even great intellects can be wrong.    C'mon, folks, just teasin'.

[grampster]

Mea Culpa would be the proper response, fistful.  

[Stand_watie]

Lewis's political treatises make excellent reading as well if you're inclined toward small 'l' libertarianism or small governmentism. Start with "God in the dock" if you have only read hs theological work, you enjoy it. I think it's available online.

Back to topic. I'd describe 'fundamentalism' as traditional Christian doctrine I guess. For that you'd start with the teachings of Christ, and continue particularly with Pauline doctrine and then the doctrines taught by early church fathers up until the time the church began (IMHO) straying wide of the mark somewhere around the 5th century (again IMHO), and then doctrine of the early reformation. I'd reject the notion that state level pacificism, or even the ideologically purest variety of personal pacifism is taught anywhere in the New Testament, and even rejected specifically in words and actions by Christ

36Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."

John 18

13When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!"

John 2


and specifically in doctrine by Saul

3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

Romans 13