I'm a Fundamentalist Christian..

[1awake]

I'm a Fundamentalist Christian.. or so I thought. I believe in what the bible says, some of course in context of the times it was written and other parts directly as written. I try and live my life by those standards and of course, I fail miserably. But my question is, when did being a Fundamentalist Christian begin to take on tones of such hate and loathing.

I do not see, nor can I find any reference in the bible where it tells to hate Gay people. I do not see where it says to take away from people basic rights afforded to others because of sexual orientation. Can anyone tell me where in there it states it make's someone a bad parent because of their attraction to another human being? Why do so many christians, and non-christians seem to believe those of us who have different orientations are somehow sub-human and then attempt to treat them accordingly. Aren't these things the exact opposite as to the basic tenets of most religions? Maybe I'm confused. All I know is being a heterosexual male, I am sickened by the things I see and hear about on a daily basis to the point it makes me want to cry.

Human rights.. and that is what I see these things as, should be the lead issue in this country ahead of anything else. It makes us a fucking joke to talk about how our ideals are so great when sitting in the corner is the unspoken monster we love to ignore unless its election time. every election I hear grand speeches or lofty statements of how we are going to change things, and every year not a thing of any meaning gets done. Those directly involved in the LGBT community raise these issues, and most of us give them lip-service, or find ways to politely tell them to sit down and shut up.

Why am I writing this.. a rant I suppose. But maybe more people need to have afew more rants on these subjects, especially when its not election time. If this makes no sense, I apologize, but I needed to get it out, and this is how it came.


~1awake

[crimsonblue]

1. modern fundies would probably ask to free Barrabas again...

instead of Jesus. Jesus would be on the front lines for universal health care, equality, and opposition to war. It's crazy that the right has hijacked Jesus into being "Rambo Jesus." He was the inspiration for Ghandi, Mandela, and MLK. That's why Jesus was such a great figure, not because he supposedly died and then came back to life. WWJD? Not war. Not oppression. Not lynchings and gaybashing. Jesus would accept all that come to him as they are.

[jmowreader]

4. Modern fundies would get sponsorship for the Crucifixion

Not only would they nail that long-haired, peace-lovin' hippie who won't condemn Those Hayul-Bound Faggits to the tallest tree they could find, they'd get Bostitch to supply the nail guns, Gerber Legendary Blades would make the sword that delivered the coup de grace, Brooks Brothers would manufacture the Centurions' robes, 3M would provide the sponge they moistened Jesus' lips with, and RR Donnelley would print tens of thousands of programs marking the event.

[crimsonblue]

5. don't forget the blackwater guards...

they need to keep the angry mob at bay, and all.

[Elspeth]

11. Nah, more like WalMart would supply the cheap Chinese nail guns, the wardrobe, and

the big cheapo steak knife.

[jmowreader]

17. WalMart? Nay!

You guys keep saying Home Depot is such a big Repuke donor...you know they'd be first in line to provide nailers for the Recrucifixion.

As for the sword...in the heating-duct department at Home Depot is sold a "duct knife." Thing's a fucking dagger, man; there's a warning on the package "know the weapons laws in your area." I think it's illegal in half the jurisdictions in the United States. That would work on Jesus.

But I'll agree about the wardrobe: WalMart sells bathrobes, right?

[Elspeth]

21. I've never been in a Wal Mart, but I assume they do.

The Home Depot-GOP connection just breaks my heart, though.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. By some fundamentalist standards, you are a heretic,

because you say that you interpret some biblical texts "in the context of its time". Some say they don't, but then I don't see them running around town in robes, either. :)

I've never understood how someone who says they are Christian could judge so, since Jesus Himself said, "Judge not, lest ye be judged". You know, I have to laugh at the folks who seem to take great interest in the shortcomings of others while ignoring what they themselves are doing--Jesus also said something about this, using the terms "mote" and "beam".

Personally, I think Jesus would have had no trouble having a gay or lesbian person as a follower. But I also think that many so-called "Christian fundamentalists" nowadays wouldn't recognize Jesus if they saw Him.

[roguevalley]

14. you aren't alone. a lot of fundamental/evangelicals are leaving

the hate behind.

[nichomachus]

3. The problem is

that what you call The Bible is not a single book. It's actually a compilation of many different texts. They contain a lot of orders, commands, etc. which people can interpret any way they want. You can prove almost any point -- even contradictory ones -- with biblical "authority."

I can, for example, "prove" from the New Testament, that embezzlement and insider trading were not only condoned, but recommended by Jesus.

Basically, if you can't read and understand Greek, you can't "prove" anything from the New Testamant. There isn't an English translation that is worth the paper it's printed on. The King James version alone has some 30,000 known mistranslations.

[ismnotwasm]

6. I've never understood that either

I always use this website for reference,
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm

It goes over as many POV as it can.

I'm agnostic, but my personal view about Jesus, is that he had plenty of opportunity to "condemn" homosexuality if it was so important to condemn it, but he didn't.

[rateyes]

7. Are you pro-choice when it comes to abortion?

[1awake]

37. Now here's the question it usually boils down to....

Am I pro-life or am I pro-women's rights. My answer is yes. :hide:

[rateyes]

40. I'm trying to determine if you really are a fundamentalist...

if you are pro-choice, and not homophobic, you're not a fundamentalist. You might be an evangelical, but you're not a fundamentalist.

For all the talk fundies do about "freedom," they want to enslave everyone to their own religious (im)moral system.

[1awake]

42. I know,

and I wasn't really trying to be evasive per say. It should be the absolute last option on the table. Having said that, it still should be on the table.

[Beregond2]

8. You aren't a fundamentalist.

The very fact that you are willing to look at some things in the Bible "in the context of their times" disqualifies you.

Fundamentalsim is NOT traditional Christianity, which has always acknowledged the need for interpretation, and places the continuing guidance of the Spirit above the dead letter of scripture.

Fundamentalism is a movement that began in 19th century America as a reaction to the theory of evolution. It promoted itself as a return to "fundamentals," but in fact what it advocates for is "innerrancy," the idea that every word of scripture is to be taken literally, with no need for exegesis. Nothing could be less traditional.

In fact, they "interpret" all the time, cherry-picking lines from the Bible to support whatever vile, un-Christian doctrine they want to promote this year.

No, you are not a Fundamentalist. Take pride in that!

[Beregond2]

12. P.S.

Two recommended books:

"Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism." - Spong

"Stealing Jesus" - Bawer

[satireV]

15. P.P.S.

One more

"The End of Faith" by Sam Harris

The End of Faith provides a harrowing glimpse of mankind’s willingness to suspend reason in favor of religious beliefs, even when these beliefs inspire the worst of human atrocities. Harris argues that in the presence of weapons of mass destruction, we can no longer expect to survive our religious differences indefinitely. Most controversially, he maintains that “moderation” in religion poses considerable dangers of its own: as the accommodation we have made to religious faith in our society now blinds us to the role that faith plays in perpetuating human conflict.

[Prophet 451]

9. You're not a fundementalist

...at least, not in the modern sense. I work for Beliefnet and I must have had this discussion a dozen times.

The name originally came from a series of pamphlets published in the early 1900s called The Fundementals Of Faith (sometimes "of the faith). Now, in some respects, there points were similar to what you'd find today, Biblical literalism for example but in economic matters, the first fundementalists were very nearly socialists. At around the same time, Rapture Theology was being popularised (and to my mind, invented from whole cloth) by John Darby and the two movements gradually became synonymous.

With me so far? OK, now forget all that because modern fundementalism has very little to do with that history. Modern fundementalism took the beliefs of the fundementalist movement and grafted it onto an extreme-right political ideaology to create a fairly unique form of politicised religion. The modern form of fundementalism exists because of and in symbiosis with, extreme-right politics. It's less faith than revenge fantasy. One of the early Christian martyrs (Augustine?) once said that the greatest pleasure of heaven was watching the torments of those in hell. That is the very essence of modern fundementalism, it is a poisonous toxin in the body politic, build on sadism, revenge fantasy and control. To the adherents, it provides a handy justification for feeling superior to others cloaked with protestations of "we're all sinners" (want to talk about elitism? Ask small-town fundies about their views of city dwellers sometime) but modern fundementalism is not, repeat NOT, about the kingdom of heaven, it's about controlling teh earth.

[yardwork]

10. Very good post!

I'm glad to see a fundamentalist Christian standing up for what Jesus said. Thank you.

[gatorboy]

13. Don't think the fear and loathing applies just to you.

There's a staunch group here that loath all Christianity.

[Evoman]

24. Yup, like me. Loath it. Christians are okay. But christianity sucks balls.

okay, maybe thats a little harsh. But I really dislike religion and theology.

However, most christians I know are great people. One of my best friends is a fundie.

[1awake]

35. I would argue with you

on only this... maybe it's not Christianity that "sucks ball's" (lol.. nice visuals), but the manner in which "men" have chosen to organize and interpret this religion?

[Evoman]

38. Nah...the god concept itself is bankrupt. Religion sucks salty balls.

[bobbolink]

16. You're a fundamentalist? GOOD! Then poverty is your priority, right?

Cuz there's sure a LOT more references to poverty than the other divisive issues!

Like, somewhere between 2,000 and 3,000 references to poverty.

So, take ACTION!

[1awake]

34. I have, and I do,

as do many. The how is the question on that one. But who is taking up the cause of individual basic rights such as those still denied to the GLBT community?

[bobbolink]

46. I thank you for your efforts. As Jim Wallis says, it's time for everyone to speak up!

As for gay rights, yes, that is important. HOWEVER, there are MANY more voices for that than for poverty.

I know I"ll get blasted for that (yet again), but it's true.

Tell ya what.... how 'bout working for a "coalition" of sorts between gay folk and poor folk? Help each other on our needs?

[timtom]

18. Thanks for weighing in on these issues.

What a lot of people don't get is that there are many Christians who have pretty much the same priorities as Jesus Christ.

They want to keep their eyes on those who come in the name of Christianity to take, steal, debase, kill and deny comfort to the poor and distressed.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

19. Fundamentalist churches used to be determinedly non-political

but the Republican Party has steadily infiltrated them and tried to sell them the whole party platform (low taxes, starving public serves, fattening the military, waging war) based on a few behavioral issues.

I call it "waving flags and Bibles in front of people's faces so you can pick their pockets."

[Help_I_Live_In_Idaho]

20. Labels get Recycled

I admire the candor of 1awake. I don't think you fall into the category known as fundamentalist christian. I am a pantheist, but a great admirer of christ. What he brought to mankind were the same values most liberal democrats espouse - kindness, forgiveness and sacrifice of the self (and the ego) to the betterment of living and being. The whole thing got perverted by the instant salvation movement. What we are trying to achieve is to be as christ was and not to get some instant ticket to paradise.

Even christ said that the "kingdom of heaven is neither here nor there but within you." So, what you believe is not as important as how you behave.

So realize that the other (mankind universe and nature) is literally you and therefore to be kind to others is to be kind to yourself and by doing so God. Your life won't change; you won't go to any place; you will just be - and that is a good as it gets.
Get it?

[seabeyond]

22. Leviticus and paul i believe. Leviticus also says no shell fish or blended material and much

more. paul was more angry at divorce than gay and there is a whole issue with paul.

there are also places in the bible where interpretation can make interracial marriages a sin, raping, beating, murdering your wife not a big deal and validate slavery.

i am a christian

i do not take the bible literallythe hate began in 2003. started really escalating amongst the right wing churches like i have never seen. i live in the bible belt. my kids were going to a christian private since late 90's. i watched it happened. finally had to pull kids out nov '04. remember the movie passion. another tool to stroke the anger. not a nice way to use jesus, his pain and suffering.

[dgibby]

23. Jesus

I have no problem with Jesus, but some of his followers REALLY scare me!

[1awake]

33. almost a direct quote from Gandhi,

and a very good one.

[lonestarnot]

25. You are not a deceiving, lying, cheating, complicit killer. Guess you aren't what you thought you

were. Labels are just labels and people don't have to live up to them if they don't want to.

[defendandprotect]

26. As awakened as you are to real spirituality now . . .

you're not asking one of the major questions about all religions which is ...

"Why organized patriarchal religions--??" --- that's the first betrayal of the majority of people on the planet/women -- and the first thing you should be looking at.

The Bible, in fact, was written to cement patriarchy.
Organized patriarchal religions are the underpinning for patriarchy, itself ---


You should also look at "Manifest Destiny" and "Man's Dominion Over Nature" which epitomize
the lack of respect for nature/the creation, animal-life -- and the exploitative nature of
those dogmas. In fact, this religious exploitation goes on from nature to exploit even other
human beings, according to various myths of inferiority.

Racism, sexism, homophobia are the lingering symptoms of this exploitation ---
but the discrimination begins because of the desire to EXPLOIT for profit and power of the few.
Organized patriarchal religions have granted that license to the few.

Best wishes ---

[Hekate]

27. Psst. Check out Rev. Jim Wallis and Sojourners, my very favorite Evangelical

Sorry things at DU are sometimes a bit over the top with the fundie-bashing -- I try to encourage people to be as specific as possible about which people, group, and behaviors they are disgusted by, because not all Christians are Falwell/Robertson.

You, for instance. :hug:

Thanks for your post.

Hekate

[1awake]

32. It's fine,

but thank you for your thoughts. I am more concerned with individual rights being denied to others than what people think about my religious views. They can think what they wish; it does no harm to me, but denying others the very same rights most of us have does hurt others and needs to be addressed.

Thanks again.

1awake~

[struggle4progress]

36. Yes, I think so too

[w8liftinglady]

28. I thought i believed in the sanctity of all man

[spin]

29. Homosexuality doesn't produce children...

The ancient Israelites considered having children important. Therefore they opposed homosexuality.

Consider the Sodom and Gomorrah story. One of the biblical justifications against homosexuality.

God sends angels to Lot's house. The men of Sodom want to know the strangers in an intimate fashion. Lot goes so far as to offer his two virgin daughters to the crowd.

The angels tell Lot to "beat feet" because Sodom is about to be destroyed. He leaves with his wife and the two daughters and the two angels. Both Sodom and Gomorrah are destroyed. Lot's wife looks back despite warnings and is turned into a pillar of salt.

The part they don't teach you in Sunday school is that the two daughters, finding themselves isolated in the middle of nowhere without men, get Lot drunk and engage in sex. Both get pregnant.

But he urged them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.”
—Genesis 19:3-5, RSV

Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Behold, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men; for they have come under the shelter of my roof.”
—Genesis 19:6-8, RSV

******

"One day the older daughter said to her sister, "There isn’t a man anywhere in this entire area for us to marry. And our father will soon be too old to have children. Come, let’s get him drunk with wine, and then we will sleep with him. That way we will preserve our family line through our father." So that night they got him drunk, and the older daughter went in and slept with her father. He was unaware of her lying down or getting up again.

"The next morning the older daughter said to her younger sister, "I slept with our father last night. Let’s get him drunk with wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him. That way our family line will be preserved." So that night they got him drunk again, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. As before, he was unaware of her lying down or getting up again. So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father." (Genesis 19:23-25, 30-36 , NLT)

The Bible is a very interesting book if you bother to read it. The whole topic of mythology and religion and how they developed is fascinating.

[1awake]

30. I have read it many times,

and if you know your history and custom, none of those are about sexual orientation in the slightest. Not sure what the purpose of the last two verses were placed for though.

And drawing a conclusion that because having children was important translates into opposing homosexuality is a very big stretch.

[spin]

41. Biblical stories can be viewed in many different ways...

I'll provide some justification for my view of the story of Lot and answer your response. Remember, your opinion may well be as valid as mine. I am always open to consider other viewpoints. (Note: Most Christians especially Fundamentalists tell me that I'm on a path to Hell. I tend to question far too much and I don't accept things merely on faith or because they're the "literal word of God".

and if you know your history and custom, none of those are about sexual orientation in the slightest.

The stories of Sodom and Gibeah may be better understood against this background. As commentators have realized the demand to 'know' the visitors to Sodom must be a demand that they submit to homosexual intercourse.19 That Lot offers his daughters instead and the Levite his concubine shows that the demand was for sexual intercourse (Gen 19:5-8; Jdg 19:22-26). Given ancient oriental attitudes it is by no means strange that the men of Sodom asked to have intercourse with men in Lot's household. What is surprising and deeply shocking is their total disregard for the accepted principles of eastern hospitality. Visitors, whether anticipated or not, must be treated with the utmost courtesy and kindness. Here the men of Sodom show utter disregard for the rules of hospitality, and suggest Lot's visitors submit to the most demeaning treatment they can devise, a treatment elsewhere used on prisoners of war.20 So the sin of Sodom is not primarily homosexuality as such, but an assault on weak and helpless visitors who according to justice and tradition they ought rather to have protected (Ezk 16:49).

Yet having said this, undoubtedly the homosexual intentions of the inhabitants of Sodom adds a special piquancy to their crime. In the eyes of the writer of Genesis and his readers it showed that they fully deserve to be described as 'wicked, great sinners before the LORD' (13:13) and that the consequent total overthrow of their city was quite to be expected. It is often noted by commentators that the destruction of Sodom parallels the destruction of the world by Noah's flood. In both cases we have a complete population being obliterated and only one family escaping thanks to divine intervention. There are many verbal parallels between the stories too. It may also be noted that the motive for divine judgment is similar in both cases. The flood was sent because of the great wickedness of man demonstrated by the illicit union of women with supernatural beings, 'the sons of God'. In the case of Sodom another type of illicit sexual intercourse is at least contributory in showing it deserves its destruction.
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_attitude_wenham.html

************************************************
And drawing a conclusion that because having children was important translates into opposing homosexuality is a very big stretch.


It therefore seems most likely that Israel's repudiation of homosexual intercourse arises out of its doctrine of creation. God created humanity in two sexes, so that they could be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. Woman was man's perfect companion, like man created in the divine image. To allow the legitimacy of homosexual acts would frustrate the divine purpose and deny the perfection of God's provision of two sexes to support and complement one another.
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_attitude_wenham.html

Not sure what the purpose of the last two verses were placed for though.

The Bible is full of stories with many twists and turns. Did the Old Testament God disapprove of homosexuality but hold a different view of incest? I find it interesting that Lot wasn't at fault, the blame was placed on the daughters. There is the excuse that they believe there were no other men left on earth. Women must not have had much education in those days. Lot's uncle, Abraham was only a days walk away and there was the nearby town of Tzo'ar.

Perhaps the first report of father-daughter incest appears in the Bible in the book of Genesis 19. The seducer this time, however, is not the father, Lot, whose wife had crystallised into a pillar of salt, but rather the daughters, who conspire to extract their father's seed. Their unconventional manoeuvre, today it would be labelled "drug rape," is implicitly and partially excused by the Bible by their desire to fulfil the first divine/evolutionary decree, procreation: "Our father is old and there is no man to lie with us as is the way all over the earth" (Genesis 19, 31). Capitalising on his fondness for wine, "they got their father to drink wine on that night, and the elder one came, and lay with her father, and he knew nothing of her lying down or her rising up." The following night the scene repeats itself, this time with the younger sister, while Lot remains in his inebriated ignorant stupor. Both liaisons resulted in pregnancies. "And the older one gave birth to a boy, and she named him Moab, he is the father of the Moabites of this day. And the younger also gave birth to a boy, and she named him Ben Ami, he is the father of the Ammonites of this day" (Genesis 19, 37-38).
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/331/7531/1507

[Rex]

31. Well folks love to take the NT and the OT all out of 'context' and

sometimes these groups will act more like a cult than a religion. Most love to talk about the End Times in their various versions. For some reason, they love to hate other groups of people with views easily attackable. I think it is due to the addiction they spend on the End Times. Most who come to mind are flim-flam men and con artists who usually get caught. I think Pat Robertson and Jim and Tammy and Jan and Paul helped create a Christian Media Empire that lost the meaning in their huge riches.

Rexella and Jack Van Impe would be perfect examples IMO. Fakes always take advantage of those with faith.

[Wizard777]

39. I agree you are not a fundamentalist. You are an Orthodox Christian.

You believe in the old ways but also believe they are open to interpretation. That makes you Orthodox. As for homosexuality and the Bible. Christ never said one word for or against it.

[AnnieBW]

43. Where do you stand on non-Christians?

Do you feel that they need to be "converted" to Fundamentalist Christianity, or do you believe in "live and let live"?

If it's the latter (which I am assuming), then you're a good Christian, not a "Christianist".

Hugs from this Pagan chyk!

[1awake]

44. Hugs back at ya!

The honest answer would be I wish they would convert, but in the same breath I do not believe I have a right to try to indoctrinate them, tell them the error of their ways, or any other form of attempted "forced" conversion. Faith is something we each must find mainly on our own, and in which way seems best to ourselves. Yes, sometimes we need to help each other out or answer questions, but to me its a very personal path. Just because I am who I am or believe what I believe, does not make me a better person, and it sure as heck doesn't make me right.

If true Christians actually practiced what Jesus told them to do, there wouldn't be nearly as many problems in the world, and there surely wouldn't be as much dislike by those who by all rights, should be our friends and brothers (sisters to!).


So, yes, live and let live without preconditions.


:+

[anonymous171]

45. We Christians need to take back Christianity from the far-right.

[seabeyond]

47. i oculdnt agree more. i have been saying since about 2003. and

i work really hard and do my part in this little part of the religious belt. but yes. we do. and not timidly. though talking to the fundamentalist in this area, as brazen as i have been, they are receptive.

i agree with you