All Scripture is inspired by God ?

[Saltmeister]

Ummm, what are you basing this on, Wil? I've been a member of Presbyterian, Baptist, Charasmatic Anglican, Alliance, and non-denominational churches, and the beliefs are all basically the same: one God, Jesus as saviour, Bible as scripture, etc. Do the theological differences between denominations differ as much as, oh, I don't know, perhaps HUMAN SACRIFICE?

Marsh, these factions you listed don't represent the totality or entirety of Christianity, let-alone even a quarter of it. I noticed that you didn't mention Quakers nor did you mention socialist Christians or Christians engaged in fighting poverty. You seemed to be limiting your concept of what was considered "inside of Christianity."

One thing Presbyterian, Baptist, Charismatic and Anglican all have in common is that they are all based on a set of fundamentals. Their dogma and doctrine have a well-defined structure and this allows them to fit neatly into the categories we call denominations. They have a lot in common because they base their beliefs on fundamentals. They simply disagree on certain technicalities regarding these fundamentals.

Anyone who adheres to this kind of Christianity believes that you can't connect with the kingdom of God/heaven without fundamentals, and this to me leads to a very legalistic approach to Christianity. If you linger around fundamentals-based Christianity and think that this is the only meaningful form of Christianity you can ever have, you may well think that there is very little variety in Christendom. Belief in a fundamentals-based Christianity leads to a very narrow definition of Christianity.

Have you not seen the world outside fundamentals-based Christianity? Is Christianity all driven by fundamentals? Is that the only way to live out the Christian spiritual life?

Dream makes a very good point in pointing us toward the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus where Jesus says that the Spirit of God is a like a wind you can't see, but you can see what it does. It was one or two years back that I came across the conversation and it got me thinking. John 4:24 says that God is Spirit and that we must worship in Spirit. It made me wonder what it meant to be spiritual.

A spirit is a fluid, not a solid entity. It is flexible, capable of taking the shape of its surroundings and changing as they change. Christianity cannot be based on fundamentals, because if it were, it would not be spiritual. For Christians to be spiritual, they must allow their thinking to be fluid like a spirit. The world is changing and we must be constantly adapting to change. We cannot adhere to the old ways of living, but must continually adapt to the new.

I would agree with wil that there is variety, because not all Christians actually believe in fundamentals. Not all of them believe you have to belong to a denomination and that you must fellow a creed, to be Presbyterian, Baptist, Charismatic, Anglican, etc. This kind of Christianity is about interpretation of the sacred texts but have no social or political agenda. They could very well be thought of as lazy and aimless contemplation. This is the kind of Christianity that could very well make Jesus into little more than just a myth rather than a reality.

I think there are a lot of Christian spiritual leaders who realise the pointlessness of bickering over dogma, or the mere adhesion to dogma and ideology without socio-political benefits and progress. As a result, many churches have started to pursue a more socio-political and socio-economic agenda -- because what is the point of "believing" in something if you're not going to do something about it? What is the point of conforming to technical definitions and boundaries if it doesn't make the world a better place?

The variety is outside the confines of fundamentals-based Christianity. There is no life in the fundamentals. They are powerless. They are structures with no energy or vitality in them. The energy and vitality is in the human soul, not in creeds written on paper. It is in our humanity. This is the part of Christianity that is fluid and spiritual. This is where we can be creative and imaginative and that is where we will be able to generate variety and diversity.

I have no problem being in a room with a Mayan or member of Presbyterian, Baptist, Charasmatic Anglican, Alliance, and non-denominational churches. In my discussions with various Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Bahai, Jains, Sikhs, Sufis, and Native Americans I find enough common ground to believe that we are all connected thru the same creator...and we all believe our stories...

I think the similarity is that they all explore our humanity in ways that prime or prepare us either for an experience or understanding of God. But it would be ridiculous to say that all meant the same thing. Belief in God isn't essential to Buddhism. Muslims acknowledge that Mohammed is a prophet. Christians make themselves disciples of Jesus. Hindus believe in more than one God. Jews, Christians and Muslims seek a relationship only with one God.

The consequences and implications for these differing beliefs would cause an internal, intrapersonal conflict.

I can accept that others may follow different religions, but I cannot personally follow two religions with contradictory concepts. I am incapable of that and I believe everybody else is also incapable of that.

I can agree that many of these religions teach peace and love. But it isn't peace and love by itself. It's peace and love with a context. It's peace and love under the inspiration of one God, or peace and love by not being attached to wealth, riches or pleasure, peace and love by following the teachings of a prophet, or peace and love by living like Jesus.

Maybe all you care about is peace and love, but then you are no longer a Muslim, Christian, Jew, Hindu, etc., but just a tourist and explorer who aims for peace and love above all else without belonging to any particular tradition.

Now I'm not going there but if I were I'd could argue that the basis of Christianity is HUMAN SACRIFICE...we all it the crucifiction....but I'm not.

It believe it's humanity, and that everything else derives from it.

The value of your life is measured by how much you are willing to lose it, because if you are not willing to give it up, it means you aren't truly free. You are not free to do as you please, and if you were asked to die, you would not be able to do it. Your unwillingness to lose your life is an indication of how little of it you are capable of controlling.

This was why dying in war was valued so highly in past generations. This is the significance of a martyr. Your blood is spilled to show how important it is, your life is given up to show that your enemy and adversary has no power over you.

Hence Braveheart's words that they may take your life but they can never take your freedom.

Giving your life up doesn't mean you're degrading yourself. Actually it's the reverse. Think about the boldness and audacity of the person you need to be to do it. How about we all commit suicide tomorrow as a demonstration of our faith?

Disclaimer: I absolve myself of the responsibility of any social damage caused by my comments above. Anyone who engages in dangerous behaviour after reading my words is doing it of their own volition. I didn't force them into it. They were not obliged to obey.

 

[Marsh]

Marsh, these factions you listed don't represent the totality or entirety of Christianity, let-alone even a quarter of it. I noticed that you didn't mention Quakers nor did you mention socialist Christians or Christians engaged in fighting poverty. You seemed to be limiting your concept of what was considered "inside of Christianity."

One thing Presbyterian, Baptist, Charismatic and Anglican all have in common is that they are all based on a set of fundamentals. Their dogma and doctrine have a well-defined structure and this allows them to fit neatly into the categories we call denominations. They have a lot in common because they base their beliefs on fundamentals. They simply disagree on certain technicalities regarding these fundamentals.

Anyone who adheres to this kind of Christianity believes that you can't connect with the kingdom of God/heaven without fundamentals, and this to me leads to a very legalistic approach to Christianity.

Tell me, did you get that axe ground right down to the handle, Saltmeister?

I don't think you've been paying attention to the conversation, because your reply is completely off-topic. The point of contention is that, in my opinion, all scripture could not have been inspired by God. My evidence is that, even though there are differences within denominations and sects of different religions, these differences are very small in comparison with the differences between religions.

Apparently, what you heard me say was "mwaamp mwaamp mwa-mwa-mwa waamp waamp" (a la Charlie Brown's teacher), and then weighed in with a pent-up rant about Christians with fundamentals.

By the way, I'm pretty sure that being a member of a non-denominational church (which you so cleverly disregarded in your response) gives me a bit more perspective than you've given me credit for.

I would also like to go on record that even though I'm a member of a denominational church right now, I don't believe that fundamentals are a prerequisite for connecting to God. Ironically, the one preaching about the dangers of legalism is the one holding the branding iron.

 

[Marsh]

But put a Jehovah's Witness, a Mormon, a Catholic, a Methodist, and a Pentacostal in the same room and have them discuss Christianity...

and then ask them what they think about ritual human sacrifice. They will say that it's wrong. Ask them if Jesus was the son of God. They will say that he is. Ask them if we should listen to what Jesus said. They will say that we should. Ask them if we should listen to what Buddha said. They will say that we shouldn't take his word as God's authority. Ask them if we should worship spirits of trees and rivers and the sky as the animists do. They will say that we should not, because doing so makes no sense. And so on.

You are straining out a gnat, and swallowing a camel, Wil. You too, Saltmeister.

 

[wil]

Namaste Marsh,

You can see and understand the similarities between different denominations of Christianity yet are completely closed to any similarities between various religions? I am not saying they are all the same, I am saying they have similarities and do believe most of them are divinely inspired.

You seem to harp on human sacrifice, but Christianity is the only religion I know of today that is based on it. Do you know another?

 

[shawn]

The scripture we call the Bible has been compiled over a very long span of time.
The original portion (the first part) was a compilation of much earlier Sumerian/Mesopotamian scripture which went through a curious change.
All the "gods" became just one "G*d", echoes of which we can see in Genesis in the curious usage of the word Elohim. (which implies more than one)

 

[taijasi]

Hmmm. I know, let's take Marsh to the airport, and leave him with the Hare Krishnas. He can have his precious Bible, and if he must, let him bury his face in it all day. In the evening, while the Vaishnavas are giving thanks, preparing their meal and practicing living cooperatively, let Marsh do his (or her) own thing. Let him pretend he knows better, and is better, than the Vaishnavas.

Then, when they offer him some food that does not LOOK like what he's used to eating, let him go hungry.

Then, the next day, after his Bible studies, after he has said all of his morning prayers, we will see how s/he does. The Vaishnavas will again attempt to be friendly, to SHARE what they have, what they believe, and how they understand God. They will not, however, forcefeed our proud friend, neither literally nor figuratively. They may, if as zealous as some of the fundamentalist Christians I know, do their best to convince Marsh that Sri Krishna is the one he should direct his prayers to, the ONE who can and will save him from his own, self-created misery. They will NOT, however, force Marsh to EAT ... nor to chew, let alone digest, the intellectual and inspirational content of the Bhagavad Gita, Mahabharata, Vedas, Puranas, etc.

And on the third day, will Marsh be so bold, will Marsh insist that NO FOOD is better than Hare Krishna food? Will s/he cling to this book, and say, "I don't NEED what you have to offer, my Bible, my God, my beliefs, will save me?"

Perhaps. And, if s/he is quite stubborn, this ridiculous hunger strike could even go on for several more days. Eventually, however, even a Marsh will finally cave in. Even the proudest of fools must recognize that starving oneself (literally, or figuratively) is not prudent. When food is offered, the hungry man does not refuse it because it was prepared by just such and such a person, or because it is not what he is used to. He EATS it. And when it is offered by friends, who have his own well-being in mind, he would do well to be grateful.

Marsh, what you don't know CAN hurt you. It can hurt you because God's Wisdom is made available for YOU, just as for every other. If you find some of that Wisdom within the Christian Scriptures, good for you! You are incredibly short-sighted and naïve, however, if you believe you have found it all. I would be the first to affirm that everything you need IS actually between the pages of Matthew and Revelation, yet none of us - not you, nor I - is properly qualified to decipher the profound Truths that are therein presented.

What you reveal - and all you really reveal - to me, when you say, "I know that other scriptures besides the Christian are not inspired by God," is how much you have left to learn. Not only are you completely in error, you are apparently somewhat sheltered. All that you are really qualified to speak to, on this matter, is that perhaps in your experience, you have found some degree of inspiration, guidance and meaning within the Christian Scriptures. If you wish to add to this: "And further, I have not discovered such inspiration, guidance and meaning within other religious texts and teachings," then by all means, toss in your two cents. It is worth no more, no less.

My own two cents came to signify for me, long ago, that I really have a very limited understanding ... yet I sometimes wonder how blind a person can be, that he or she does not grasp this simple fact: That the Voice of God speaks EVERY language, has revealed Truth(s) to EVERY nation and EVERY people, and that indeed, there ARE NO FAVORITES before the One God. God does not care in the least what name you use in your prayers, so long as your heart is sincere and so long as you pray unselfishly.

Try picking up a copy of some of Huston Smith's writings, as clearly your worldview could stand a bit of EXPANDING. Believe what you will, but try being honest about what you don't know. If I started kicking your crutches out from under you, and saw you fall on your face, flat, it wouldn't take long before I realized what a fool I'd been. Some people do this and laugh, while others - with the best of intentions - really just want to help us to understand that every single person has the "Power of God" and the "Love of Christ" as well as the "Inspiration of the Holy Spirit" within them. All three of these Aspects, however, has dozens, scores, HUNDREDS of different labels that can be applied. Try a bit of comparative religious study; soon you will see what I mean.

But I won't try and wrest your precious Jesus from you, even if I do happen to know - better. It is arrogant, presumptuous and really quite out of line for me to go around saying, "Ah-haaaa ... you believe what!?! How silly you are! Your holy books could never compare to MINE!!!"

Don't say that, don't suggest that, to others. One of these days, you're going to WISH you were so fortunate ... as to meet a group of Hare Krishnas, get introduced to the beautiful Wisdom of the Gita, and MAYBE be so lucky as to spend some time with such caring, loving folks - and break bread with them. How long, before you learn to swallow your pride, and with humility, approach ... your God?

And just for the record, I am not a Vaishnava, at least not this time around!

P.S. - Shawn's right, btw. Elohim is plural.

 

[Saltmeister]

I don't think you've been paying attention to the conversation, because your reply is completely off-topic. The point of contention is that, in my opinion, all scripture could not have been inspired by God. My evidence is that, even though there are differences within denominations and sects of different religions, these differences are very small in comparison with the differences between religions.

What criteria or method do you use to decide whether or not something is off-topic? Is this you calling me a "thread heretic"?

As far as I'm concerned, a concept or idea cannot be off-topic to a thread if you can understand how it was introduced into the discussion, even if it wanders very far from the original focus of the topic. Your second paragraph here seems to explain quite well how the discussion led to talking about differences between factions in a religion, so I think it's quite relevant. To call it completely off-topic, I think is going a bit too far. I think considering differences between religions and denominations might help us to decide whether all scripture should be thought of as inspired by God.

The idea of discussing differences between religions and denominations was not introduced by me, but by you and wil, so obviously you both thought it was important, relevant and conducive for deciding whether all scripture was, or should be thought of as inspired by God. I was just playing along and following the leader. Somehow you are not even proud to have me as your disciple!

My reply was no more off-topic than your discussion on the differences between religions and denominations. I can definitely understand that you were trying to make a distinction between religions and denominations. But even if I was to express disagreement with you about the "variety in Christian teachings" which wil was talking about, it would be a way of probing into how you understood Christianity so that I could better understand your opinions in general. This would allow me to decide whether I think you are a good contributor to the thread, so it was actually in the interests of the thread for me to post that reply.

I think it's interesting how the same "scripture" can "inspire" people to go off in different directions and then disagree on what is "important" or "fundamental." An interesting question might be whether these people who go off in different directions are also inspired by God to do what they do. If they were then required to write their beliefs down, would they then write down the same "scripture?"

I think it would be ridiculous if they simply memorised what they remembered reading and then wrote it all back verbatim. This leads me to ask why it is important to think of something as "inspired by God?" It is where people believe that the words of a certain "scripture" have some magical aspect or power associated with it.

It is like going to a movie with a friend and asking him/her if it was a good movie. The irony is that in Christianity, the criteria or method for deciding whether a text is inspired by God is inspired by the Text itself. It's a bit like circular definitions in a dictionary. You look up a word that is defined by a word, that is defined by another word, and then a whole chain of word dependencies that lead back to the same word you were originally looking up. In this sense Christianity is a bit like a language in that to understand the meaning of a word/religion you have to be sufficiently well-versed in the language/religion.

So Marsh, how am I doing? Is this all relevant? I took it personally that you rebuked me for going off on tangents about differences between denominations that may or may not resolve the issue posed by the topic and this is my attempt at redemption.

Going on . . . Christians are popularly known to say the New Testament was inspired by God. But for what reason? What's the justification and why is there a need to think, say or believe that? Maybe it's because those who advocate the idea believe Christianity was the most rational philosophy on God. It's the idea that God would send a man to show human beings the way to heaven and then give himself up as a martyr and make that the basis for a relationship.

The part where I disagree with the idea of scripture being inspired by God is God needing or wanting an inerrant text as a means for fulfilling his agenda on earth. If Christianity is about the life and sayings of Jesus, then surely, wouldn't it be enough just to hear about this great man? The moment you hear or read about him, the importance of an inerrant and/or inspired Text becomes insignificant. The words have fulfilled their mission and purpose. They have survived long enough for you to be able to read them. Furthermore, it was more important that people could remember or be reminded of what Jesus said and did. I think it is more correct to say that Jesus inspired the Text by what he said and did.

By the way, I'm pretty sure that being a member of a non-denominational church (which you so cleverly disregarded in your response) gives me a bit more perspective than you've given me credit for.

I just assumed that the non-denominational church you were part of still had beliefs driven by fundamentals as you didn't explain much further what made them the same or different. I was simply responding to what you regarded as "the same" in Christianity. To list denominations is to imply that you think Christianity is driven by fundamentals, because what divides the denominations is fundamentals. That is what makes them similar to me. Mentioning non-denominational churches didn't change my perception that your idea of similarities and differences was driven by fundamentals.

 

[Saltmeister]

You are straining out a gnat, and swallowing a camel, Wil. You too, Saltmeister.

How is that so?

 

[Dream]

From what I gather 'Straining out the gnat' means that Marsh is in partial agreement. Agreement that there is a gnat which it is technically right to strain out, but simultaneously not as important as something else we're overlooking. The camel he refers to is the proclamation of the gospel, which he fears is somehow being watered down or lost in the process of straining out the gnat. It is a charged issue.

In faith, I accept and suggest we all accept that what Marsh says is something that has been revealed to him, and it is therefore important to me and to all. It is important to all Christians to value the revelation given to another, and that is part of the gospel. As I see it, the gospel can never be watered down and is being proclaimed; however if Marsh disagrees then I understand why he is talking about camels. The gospel is the central concept in the NT, so it would be a very big deal to overlook it. Maybe we are not overlooking it, however. Maybe it is being proclaimed this way.

 

[wil]

The Christ has many names. We may call him Jesus.

 

[taijasi]

Here's the short version of the response to the person who says that by picking up the Bible, he can read the inspired Word of - and thus a Revelation from - G*d ...

Yes, but do you have the Key(s)?

 

[Marsh]

Namaste Marsh,

You can see and understand the similarities between different denominations of Christianity yet are completely closed to any similarities between various religions? I am not saying they are all the same, I am saying they have similarities and do believe most of them are divinely inspired.

You seem to harp on human sacrifice, but Christianity is the only religion I know of today that is based on it. Do you know another?

Oh my God, does anyone actually listen to what others say, or do they just wait for their turn to talk?

My ENTIRE PREMISE was that there are similiarities between religions due to the innate similarity between human beings, but that does not mean that all religions have a common source.

And I'm the one who's closed off to other ideas?

 

[Marsh]

Marsh, what you don't know CAN hurt you. It can hurt you because God's Wisdom is made available for YOU, just as for every other. If you find some of that Wisdom within the Christian Scriptures, good for you! You are incredibly short-sighted and naïve, however, if you believe you have found it all. I would be the first to affirm that everything you need IS actually between the pages of Matthew and Revelation, yet none of us - not you, nor I - is properly qualified to decipher the profound Truths that are therein presented.

What? You think you know me? Who the bloody hell do you think you are, pal? You're going to come on here and slander me like this? Based on what? What I don't know? You're a fool! You think I don't know what's out there? Even more, you think that YOU know what's out there, and I'm naive and sheltered. I've got over thirty aunts and uncles and cousins who are Taoists and Buddhists. I spent four years living side-by-side with Muslims and Brahmin Hindus. You think you know me? Here's some advice buddy: actually read what I said and actually know who I am before you flush the handle on your mouth again, because right now-- despite your attempt to sound like you are the enlightened and I am the fundamentalist bigot-- you sound like a braying mule.

 

[Marsh]

What criteria or method do you use to decide whether or not something is off-topic? Is this you calling me a "thread heretic"?

This is you prefacing everything you're about to say with a cheap shot. Why would I bother reading what follows?

My, how they've come out of the woodwork today...

 

[Faithfulservant]

This is you prefacing everything you're about to say with a cheap shot. Why would I bother reading what follows?

My, how they've come out of the woodwork today...

yes they do that.. I lurk and read but its not worth it it to engage here in dialogue. Too many people have a chip on their shoulder about the kind of Christian you and I claim to be. It gets negative and hurtful and we move from spirit walking to the world that doesnt understand where we are coming from with hearts too hardened to get how we think. We stop loving the world and our old man gets the best of us. I dont want to stop loving people because Im mad that they hate the very thing I stand for. I want to understand it and be compassionate and love them despite the anger and resentment. So I lurk.

but let me tell you.. its very hard for me when I see ganging up on individuals.. we get the hint guys you dont all need to swarm down and attack at one time..letting him know you think hes full of merde. Its bullying you all know it.

 

[Dream]

It is difficult to respond to many posters at once, and it does look a little bit like bullying.

 

[wil]

My ENTIRE PREMISE was that there are similiarities between religions due to the innate similarity between human beings, but that does not mean that all religions have a common source.

Let's think here. In Christianity man is made in G!ds image? So is it possible that there is a divine connection that is the similarity between human beings, and the common denominator is G!d? So all religions are man made except which one?? Do I really have to guess?

....I'm mad that they hate the very thing I stand for. I want to understand it and be compassionate and love them despite the anger and resentment.

Namaste Faithful Servant,

What I'm hearing is the old saw that is bantied about now that everyone hates the US because of our freedom....it isn't true and we know it. And no one hates what you stand for....we have issues putting up with anyone that thinks they have all the answers and everyone else is wrong. I'm not putting you in that category unless you choose to be, Marsh is indicating that is where Tai is and that he is indicating that is where she is. Anyone who decides to climb the pedestal is likely to get knocked off, it is their choice.

However it is through these discussions we find out about each other. And if folks have the courage to stand up and defend their beliefs we learn a lot. We gain nothing by folks huffing off into corners.

 

[taijasi]

Some of you people prove that Jesus failed.

wil (et al) proves that He succeeded.

Enough said.

 

[taijasi]

On a more serious note, if you really want to discuss whether all Scriptures are possibly inspired by (One, or "the") G*d, why not take this to the forum `Belief and Spirituality?' That way, regardless as to how people might happen to understand or imagine the Divine, they are free - both within Abrahamic traditions and also as members of any other Spiritual path - to share their perspective.

Here, as seems so often the case, there is a nice, sheltered little bubble ... but no opportunity for anyone except dyed-in-the-wool Christians to have their say.

Perhaps someone (like me, or another) will take the initiative and start a parallel thread.

Pity that there are so many topics that truly do, by their very nature, bridge the world's religious traditions ... yet because of how the question gets asked, couched as it may be within our OWN, particular faith, that bridge never gets properly created.

This is certainly such an instance, but it need not end this way.

Marsh, Faithfulservant, anyone else ... feel free to weigh in where a true discussion of this question can place. As I posted originally, it's a valuable contribution to say that you find inspiration in X religious teachings, that such'n'such has never particularly impressed you, and that you do, or do not see certain similarities amongst the faiths.

If that can't happen on this board, I will let myself back out the way I came, and see if there are other folks who want to discuss it.

 

[Saltmeister]

This is you prefacing everything you're about to say with a cheap shot. Why would I bother reading what follows?

My, how they've come out of the woodwork today...

In any conflict, there are two sides to the story. I think you should try to understand why I said what I did.

I'm not trying to make "cheap shots" on you. Saying that I am doing that may actually sound like a cheap shot on me and the blame game often doesn't improve. I don't like it any more than you do.

If you don't reply to me, I'd have less work to do. That's a bit of discussion we don't have to have. It's another post I don't have to write. At the moment I'm fairly satisfied with what I said, having said what I wanted to say. I would like your opinion but it is entirely your decision to reply.

One thing that may concern me, however, is that by choosing not to respond to my post because it contains "cheap shots" against you, it may seem to me that all you cared about were the cheap shots in my post. I am sure they're conspicuous and highly visible. I just think you'd be attaching more significance to them than they actually deserve. I care less about them than everything else I said, meaning that I would rather that you looked at what else I had to say than the cheap shots I put in there.

Isn't that the point of a cheap shot? Something that allows me to move on to what I really want to say? I hope that helps you understand that it was really hard to get back into meaningful discussion after you told me what I posted was "completely off-topic." (I took it personally) My brain had to work really hard to get there because of the emotional damage I suffered so I decided to use a "cheap shot" to get there faster.

Honestly, I didn't take kindly to being told that my post was "completely off-topic."

BTW, my comment on the "thread heretic" was supposed to be a joke.

but let me tell you.. its very hard for me when I see ganging up on individuals.. we get the hint guys you dont all need to swarm down and attack at one time..letting him know you think hes full of merde. Its bullying you all know it.

Nobody is ganging up on anyone here. There is no conspiracy here. We're all acting individually and independently and we all have completely different agendas. I didn't even agree with wil here on a number of things, and I told him about it.

I have got myself into plenty of conflicts here and felt like a minority. That shouldn't be a reason to shut down dialogue, withdraw or to blame the opposition for not playing fairly. They are supposed to disagree with you. That's what I have had to accept, and I have had to find a way around that. Don't try and change the opposition. Accept that they're not going to change their minds.

So you've been cornered. Now it's time to find a way to get out. The way to get out of this sticky situation is to accept that your opponents have perhaps made up their minds on what they have said, to find out what they want and to state your views in a way that you know will satisfy them.

yes they do that.. I lurk and read but its not worth it it to engage here in dialogue. Too many people have a chip on their shoulder about the kind of Christian you and I claim to be. It gets negative and hurtful and we move from spirit walking to the world that doesnt understand where we are coming from with hearts too hardened to get how we think. We stop loving the world and our old man gets the best of us. I dont want to stop loving people because Im mad that they hate the very thing I stand for. I want to understand it and be compassionate and love them despite the anger and resentment. So I lurk.

Faithfulservant, you need to speak up more. I think you've been in self-imposed exile for too long.

I think you're greatly overestimating the opposition to fundamentalist thinking here. I think it's just me here that does it. Everyone else just does whatever they do. We're all acting independently and individually.

I'm against fundamentalism but that doesn't mean I'm against you. You're an individual. I don't approve of a lot of American foreign policy but that doesn't mean I hate Americans. I don't agree with the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church but that doesn't mean I think individual Catholics don't have their spiritual merits. You've already said you're not a fundamentalist. It's not that I'll automatically take your word for it. But for now, the statement of intention is enough.

You may face a lot of opposition but when you do, I think it's important to understand what your opposition wants or values. When people on the Christianity forum respond with disgust at popular Christian dogma, it's because they've heard it all before and are tired of it. You might be right that maybe there's no point talking about it, but it doesn't mean there's nothing you can contribute to the forum. If you know what the people here value, there's a way around it. There's a way to get around this sticky situation.

I'm against fundamentalism because very often I feel that it clings to heartless dogma. Very often I feel that it undervalues our humanity and that it isn't open-minded about our human needs. I don't know if you meant I was heartless but heartlessness is exactly what I am against. A lot of so-called "fundamentals" aren't about our humanity. What I mean by "fundamentals" are things like the virgin birth, inerrancy of the Bible, Trinity, salvation, Jesus being Son of God, Jesus being God, etc.

I've been here since 2005 and I think back then we were closer in our thinking. What made me remember was a post I made back then where you expressed your agreement that a certain form of Christianity was undervalued and under-appreciated (and I think you know what I am talking about here). I remember making all those weird posts. I remember the journey.

I understand now why that form of Christianity isn't appreciated, because I have now practically become "the enemy." I'm not calling it fundamentalism, because I believe that when I'm dealing with you, I'm not dealing with the fundamentalism I abhor. I can't be "the enemy" we were against. We were both always looking for what was right for Christianity. I just have a different view now for what is and isn't good for Christianity.

There's one thing that got me thinking when you started talking about love and loving people (that was before this post). I never ever heard anyone say that love was a "fundamental" in Christianity. People may imply by what they say that they think salvation is fundamental, by making it the centre and focus of their beliefs. Everything begins to revolve around salvation. But when you insist that "salvation" is essential, that's when you can start being "heartless" because not everyone wants it and that undervalues your humanity and individuality.

The irony is that love is so important even though it isn't considered fundamental. How can that be? The concepts people have made fundamental include the virgin birth, inerrancy of the Bible, Trinity, salvation, Jesus being Son of God, Jesus being God, etc., but not love.

It's not that love should be fundamental. Actually I would prefer to move away from this fixation with fundamentals, as if Christianity has any fundamentals at all, as if it needs to be driven by fundamentals. By speaking of love you showed that you believed our humanity was important. You didn't appeal to fundamentals or dogma in expressing your devotion to Christianity. You appealed directly to our humanity.

This is perhaps one thing that we probably still have in common. You value humanity just like I do. Maybe Christianity should be based on what is good, right or important for our humanity rather than fundamentals.

I still don't know specifically what kind of Christianity you represent, but whatever it is, I value the part that values our humanity.