In Reply to: Re: My response to Eva posted by Alan on January 03, 2004 at 07:18:19:
Hi again. I’m super busy at present and it’s a challenge finding time to get on this chat board and reply at length in the way I’d like. Btw, I’m not very internet savvy as yet. This is the first chat board I’ve ever been on. (The MovingOn site – which I visited before this one – was my baptism of fire, being the first website I’ve ever posted anything on). So if some things I’ve said sound a little offensive, it may well have been playful stirring or dry humor, which I’m finding don’t always come across as such in written conversations.
Allan, you certainly took objection to my use of the word ‘fundamentalist’. I have several friends who identify as fundamentalist Christians with whom I have a good relationship and the occasional rousing debate. In good fun they call me 'a heretic' and I call them 'fundamentalists'- (although, come to think of it, most of them have let go of certain 'sacred cows' in their theology since knowing me).
My philosophy is kind of like the old saying 'Love the sinner, hate the sin' only turned around. 'Love the fundamentalist, hate fundamentalism'. Although 'hate' is a bit strong. In my case it's more of an open mistrust of any closed belief system which an individual insists is the 'official correct view'. (I also have friendly debates with fundamentalists of other religions).
I agree with you that "the (fundamentalist) stereotype elicits an automatic reaction in the minds of readers" and I'm glad that you are "perfectly clear" what I am implying by "the use of this loaded buzz-word". (Although I just picture a sincere person with a rigidly-defined belief system when I hear or use the term 'Christian fundamentalist'. I don't picture "a foaming-at-the-mouth fanatic", so if you do, that’s your issue).
I openly admit that my 'buzzword labeling' (while not meant to be taken personally) was calculated to confront those who identify as Christian fundamentalists with the same kind of spiritual bias which, in general, your camp manifests towards non-Christians and non-fundamentalists (ie: 'the spiritually damned' in your eyes). In other words, I was holding up the mirror.
If you want to talk about judgmentalism and loaded buzzwords, mainstream Christianity is packed full of both. It has also turned hundreds of Bible verses into nothing more than 'loaded buzzwords', thereby covering or distorting their true original meaning. And when it comes to "inflamatory rhetoric" which is "counterproductive" and "incites hostility", I think most outspoken Christian fundamentalists would win hands down against me in that department, any day.
I was not using 'fundamentalism' as a "code word to conceal anti-Christian bigotry". (You crack me up!) I identify as a Christian (just not a fundamentalist Christian) and I certainly don't feel bigoted towards those who worship the same Christ as myself. (Come to think of it, I don't feel bigoted against people of other religions either - unlike my fundamentalist brethren).
Again you are putting words in my mouth when you make the assumption “you feel (the Bible) should not be used to guide one's religious beliefs or lifestyle” and “is to be ignored”. How on earth could you get that impression when I stated that I’ve been an avid Bible studier and have been quoting the Bible to you? I’m saying exactly that – that it can be used as a guide, - but NOT as the ‘undisputed word of God’.
You appear to be saying that the Bible is wholly representative of all the thoughts of God toward humankind. I am saying that it could not possibly be. God is boundless and limitless. The Bible itself says he is far, far beyond our understanding. No way could only one little ancient book contain all his wisdom and all his truth and all of the mystery of Christ, which is eternal.
The Bible has many divinely-inspired passages that have helped me repeatedly, and it contains much good material for spiritual contemplation. (Many other spiritual texts have also inspired and nurtured my spirit). But speaking personally, my avid Bible studying brought me to the conclusion that it is actually ‘magical thinking’ and a dishonest form of ‘religious control’ to insist that the books making up the Bible are the final and only exclusive authority on anything and everything to do with God and Christ. I have concluded that the epistles of the NT are only one version of Christianity and not the whole picture, and therefore cannot be used as ‘the final authority’.
You said: “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.”
My point exactly! You perceive the foundation of your Christian faith to be the Bible, not Christ! Without the Bible you would have no ‘Christian faith’. You would only have the living Christ in your heart and nothing else. (You wouldn’t believe how liberating and powerful that can be!) You’re confirming to me that fundamentalist Christianity is NOT founded on Christ in all his fullness, it is founded on the epistles of a few apostles - a small selection of historical texts containing the limited understanding of men who knew maybe a hundredth of what we know about life and reality in this present day. Heck, they still believed the world was flat! And yet you limit your understanding of Christ to the understandings of this small group of Christ-oriented but relatively unaware ancients.
Where would your faith be without your Bible? What would your faith look like without your Bible? Is it a living faith, or is it co-dependent on ‘Bible doctrine’. Can it stand alone, free of all dogmas? Or does it need the crutch of (the fundamentalist interpretation of) the Bible for constant reinforcement?
You wrote that my account of Paul going to the Gentiles was “a very clever modification of what really happened.” No, I don’t believe it is. I believe your historical fundamentalist understanding of the story is the ‘clever modification’.
You wrote: “..the term "Gentile" has nothing to do with pagan religions”. Wrong! It may not now, but it did back then. This is an example of how current day understanding of Biblical semantics can be far removed from the understanding the same word evoked in the Jewish mind in the Jewish culture way back then. Back then, the word ‘Gentile’ was a ‘loaded buzzword’ if you like. In case you didn’t know, virtually all Gentiles of Paul’s day were seen as followers of pagan religions by the Jews (and Jewish apostles) because virtually everybody worshipped something back then, and if it wasn’t the Jewish God, it was pagan. Remember that whole scenario in Acts with Peter on the roof having the vision of unclean animals? The Jews considered the Gentiles ‘unclean’ because they worshipped ‘other gods’ (ie: pagan religions). Those same Gentiles were considered ‘clean’ if they converted to Judaism and became circumcised, proving that to the Jews being a Gentile and a religious pagan were synonymous.
Now if the Gentiles were meant to cease all their own cultural-spiritual practices once they accepted the revelation of Christ, then why did the Jerusalem apostles only give them two simple rules to follow? (We’ll have to leave the debate on the actual specifics of those rules till a later date. This is already getting too long). Once Gentiles had come to the revelation of Christ and the kingdom of God had been birthed (or ‘entered’) in them, they would obviously begin to understand their former beliefs and spiritual practices within a much greater context and, through their direct and ongoing experience of Christ, would modify them to align with a more enlightened understanding.
It was a given that they were going to be communing with God through ‘the living word in them’ from now on. Worshipping the false gods of their culture was not even an issue. And outside of that, it appears there were only two pagan religious practices which the apostles felt were incompatible with the worship of Christ. They were not required to follow any other Judeao-Christian practice or ‘course of theology’. – Until later when Paul started organizing his own religious structure for the churches he had started.
I don’t believe these Gentiles continued worshipping other gods, but I believe that they didn’t necessarily change all their spiritual practices overnight or suddenly come up with a very rigid set of rules about their worship of Christ. The birthing and growth of the kingdom of God (Christ) within is most often a slow process. As long as you stay true to it (even if you have no doctrinal teaching at all) it will lead you out of error and ‘into all truth’, just as we were eventually led out of TF in spite of all the false teaching, (and just as I believe I was eventually led out of the confines of fundamentalist Christianity). I believe the Gentiles worshipped Christ within the context of their current understanding of God and spirituality, which was often quite different to the Jewish apostles’ version (which was what all the fuss was about). But at the time, when the apostles prayed about it they realized their error in confining the gospel to only those in cultural and religious alignment with them.
I 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!" You responded: “Another clever and subtle distortion of the facts.” (Are you positive? Whose ‘facts’?) You said, “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.” There, you see? You’re doing it again. You’re marrying Christ with doctrinal Christianity as if doctrinal Christianity totally owns and has the monopoly on Christ – which is my whole contention.
If I understand correctly you’re saying that belonging to Christ is about adhering to a strict ‘doctrine of salvation’ to the exclusion of all other personal or collective spiritual experiences. You’re saying that someone accepting Christ cannot believe in or practice anything else but the doctrines of fundamentalist Christianity or they can’t be saved. How is it then that a drunk can get saved and still be a drunk?
I agree that most pagan religious practices are ‘incompatible with Christ’. Most of the world’s practices are incompatible with Christ. I believe a lot of church practices and doctrines are also incompatible with Christ. Many of TF’s beliefs and practices are incompatible with Christ. And yet I’m sure you’d agree that out in the world, and in ‘doctrinally unsound’ churches, and even in TF, there are probably people who would be ‘born again’ and have a sincere personal faith in Jesus, regardless of their ‘incompatible environment’ and regardless of what they think they believe.
What about people of other religions? Can they be experiencing this same mysterious stirring of the kingdom of God within and feel the presence of the ‘divine beloved’ without even yet knowing about Jesus in physical manifestation?
Have you gone around to every religion and cult and found beyond a shadow of a doubt that Christ is not at work in any heart? - That not one of these millions of people have growing in their hearts the seed of the kingdom of God (Christ) within them – regardless of their religious beliefs or practices? If you want to talk about ‘spiritual contradiction’, TF itself is clearly a Christian-pagan cult. Many of its most devoted members had personal experiences with Jesus and were ultimately ‘born again’, ‘spirit-filled’ Bible- believing whoremongers and child abusers.
And do you think cults and pagan religions have a monopoly on false doctrine, false prophets, and licentious activity? What about all the religiously abusive behavior, spiritual corruption, prejudice, wife beating and sexual abuse of children that continues to happen in Christian churches all over the world to this present day – amongst ‘practicing Christians’ who supposedly do have the ‘correct doctrinal theology of Christ’? I have witnessed many shocking and disgraceful things said and done in the name of Jesus by ‘doctrinally correct’ Christian fundamentalists. If the spirit of Christ can be alive and well in the midst of all the ignorance, spiritual arrogance and distortion in the mainstream churches, it can survive in any environment.
As mentioned earlier, this is already too long and I’m too busy at present to be able to take the time to do the ‘fornication’ subject justice here. I’d love to get into it, but it’s a whole nother can of worms, so I’ll have to come back to it at a later date when I have more time and can access some of my reference material which is currently in storage.
However, I noticed how adamant and indignant you got over the subject, saying, “This statement is not supported by the Bible or any other validated documentation.” Are you totally positive about that? Have you done an in depth study of the subject and weighed it all up yourself, as I have? Or are you merely relying on the above-mentioned so-called ‘validated documentation’? What is this ‘validated documentation’? Who validated it? What makes it more valid than other so-called ‘invalid’ documentation? The fact that it goes along with the rest of the fundamentalist party line? Has validated documentation ever been proven to be wrong? Is everything Jesus ever said or did published in the Bible? Then how can you be sure you know everything he ever taught on the subject?
You go on to use words and phrases like “preposterous”, “disturbing accusations”, and “you should retract them”. What accusations have I made? I’m merely stating my case. And why should I retract my statement about ‘fornication meaning sex with cult prostitutes’? Who has been slandered or harmed if I’m wrong? And who would be slandered or harmed if I’m right? Why do you find this statement so threatening? In actuality, the only thing that seems to be under threat here is the house of cards known as ‘fundamentalist Christian doctrine’ which I have found from personal experience can crumble under unbiased scrutiny. So why should I be so paranoid about ‘breaking faith’ with traditional ‘sacred cows’?
I believe we are all meant to have our own experience of Christ - and of the unfoldment of the kingdom of God within us - without needing to box it in and define it into a set of rigid doctrines. Our experience of Christ and spiritual unfoldment doesn’t have to follow any ‘rules’, and it doesn’t have to be the same as anyone elses. It can be completely unique, and that’s okay with God too.
I must end this. And I’m also going to have to make an apology in advance. I’m going into a very busy period now for the next couple of months and really need to be focusing my time and energy on more important stuff than debating on this chat board. (When I’m busy during the day I’m too tired to get on the internet at night. I go to bed early). So you may not hear from me for awhile, until other more important work has been taken care of. So until then, happy debating.
Love and peace, Eva