In Reply to: My response to Allan (and the other fundamentalists on this chat board posted by Eva St John on January 02, 2004 at 17:47:20:
Dear Eva,
I did indeed re-read your original post. In fact, I read it three or four times, in order to make sure I wasn't misinterpreting what you had written. By the way: It has nothing to do with my reading comprehension, which is quite adequate, (in spite of having no eyesight) thank you very much. I re-read it to find certain passages to which I wanted to respond.
First let me say that this latest post from you is very well written, and provides a much more clearly defined explanation of your beliefs.
I am troubled, however, by your frequent reliance upon a term that has been used to stereotype members of various religious groups. You used the term "fundamentalist/s" a total of 15 times in your post. I think it is perfectly clear what you imply by the use of this loaded buzz-word.
In the context of your post, the term "fundamentalist Christian" paints the image of a narrow-minded, judge mental, foaming-at-the-mouth fanatic. The stereotype elicits an automatic reaction in the minds of your readers. They have a visceral reaction that makes them want to vilify anyone you stamp with this buzz-word. You almost made me want to react this way, and if what you call a fundamentalist Christian can have this reaction, I can just imagine how it affects people of varying degrees of faith. Your use of such inflammatory rhetoric is counterproductive, and only incites hostility from those on which you use it.
You have identified me as a fundamentalist Christian. Okay, I'll accept that identification, but not your definition of it. What the term used to mean before it was corrupted into a code word to conceal anti-Christian bigotry, is quite different.
What Fundamentalism used to mean, was a religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, and by faithful adherence to those principles. A real fundamentalist Christian is not a Protestant version of an Islamic Ayatollah, he or she isn't trying to create a theocracy or force people to believe in Christ. They believe in the fundamental principles taught by Christ, which are recorded in the Bible.
Now then, I understand that you believe that the Bible is unreliable, (although you make use of misquoted passages from it) and you feel it should not be used to guide one's religious beliefs or lifestyle. We do not agree with each other on this issue. If the Bible is to be ignored, then Christianity is chopped off at the knees. The Bible is the blueprint for the faith, and without it the foundation is missing.
Your post contains many accusations not only against the validity of the Bible, but against some of Christianity's greatest leaders. The inaccuracies are too numerous to deal with in this forum, but here are some examples:
You wrote:
"The spirit of Christ is available to anyone of any religion or cult, which is exactly what Paul’s big argument was with the Jerusalem apostles! ‘I go to the Gentiles (pagan religions).’"
That's a very clever modification of what really happened. God wanted Paul to take the Christian gospel to the Gentiles, which is anybody who is not of the seed of Abraham , Isaac, and Jacob, but you have changed the term "Gentiles" to mean "pagan religions."
I don't know where you studied theology, but the term "Gentile" has nothing to do with pagan religions. I am a Gentile. Does that make me a pagan? Of course not, it means I am not a Jew. Paul went to the nations outside of Israel to reach the people who lived there.
"The spirit of Christ is available to anyone of any religion or cult, which is exactly what Paul's big argument was with the Jerusalem apostles!"
Another clever and subtle distortion of the facts. The spirit of Christ is available to all people, but the above sentence implies that they can continue to belong to any religion or cult no matter how incompatible its core beliefs are with Christianity. Surely you don't mean that? If you do, then you're saying that the spirit of Christ is willing to reside in someone who practices, for example, child-sacrifice to a pagan god. I could quote plenty of Bible verses which clearly refute this claim, but you would simply call me a Bible-waving fundamentalist.
Paul's argument with the Jerusalem leadership was centered upon their cultural and religiously-based xenophobia. They incorrectly believed that only Jews could become Christians. They had forgotten the covenant God made with Abraham, which said that through Abraham's seed, all nations of the world would be blessed. That covenant was fulfilled by the coming of Christ.
Even after they agreed to allow Paul to proselytize the Gentiles, the Jerusalem leadership still tried to enforce some of the Mosaic law on Gentile converts. For example, they attempted to require that Gentiles be circumcised. They eventually realized that such requirements were no longer valid.
"Finally all the apostles agreed to let the people of pagan religions worship Jesus in whatever way they deemed fit, without them having to adhere to the Jerusalem apostles’ already established Judeo-Christian doctrines and practices, just as long as they refrained from polluting themselves spiritually by eating food offered to idols or having sex with cult prostitutes (which is the true meaning of the word translated as ‘fornication’ in the new testament)."
Okay, the above paragraph contains some major distortions and translation errors. First of all you wrote the following:
"Finally all the apostles agreed to let the people of pagan religions worship Jesus in whatever way they deemed fit, without them having to adhere to the Jerusalem apostles' already established Judeo-Christian doctrines and practices..."
This statement is not supported by the Bible or any other validated documentation. To assert that the early church leadership would give their blessing to any sort of paganized form of Christianity is preposterous. Are you not aware of the hideous acts performed in pagan rituals of that era? I'm sorry to be so adamant about this, but this claim cannot go unchallenged. If you can cite the documents that support these claims, then please do so, otherwise you should retract them.
Finally, your assertion that the word "fornication" as used in the New Testament of the Bible is also incorrect. Yes, within the context of a pagan temple, the term would apply to sexual intercourse with temple prostitutes, but as used elsewhere, it applies to sexual intercourse with someone who is not your spouse. Your definition of fornication also makes me wonder if you are implying that if an unmarried couple have sex, fornication has not been committed. If so, I must disagree with you.
I found many other disturbing accusations and historical revisions in your post, but I'll leave them for others to refute.