Am I a Fundamentalist Christian? - Part II

Jaco wrote a comment on my previous post. Herewith my answers (and comments) on his gazillion questions.

You did not answer my question directly, but I guess I definitely qualify at least for the Wikipedia definition of a Fundamentalist Christian. The question that does stay unanswered though is whether I, as a "Fundamentalist Christian", poses a threat to Democracy, society and/or Freedom of Speech?

Now let me answer your questions to my best possible ability.

If any family follows the "family values" as defined by Jesus Christ in the New Testament of the Bible, I believe that they will have a very happy family, whether they believe in the Bible or not. This includes Atheist families, Christian families, Muslim families or whoever. Abusing a child (mentally, physically, sexually, etc.) is not what Jesus Christ preached. Regarding the wife (and women in general) as inferior in some way, is definitely not what Jesus Christ intended, not by any stretch of his Word. Just as a family bound by immorality and pornography cannot prosper as Jesus intended, I believe a same sex marriage cannot either.

Regarding abortion, which of the reasons or motivations to allow Abortion, becomes invalid once the child is born? If a woman gets raped and for some reason she carries the baby until the baby is born, should we allow the baby to be killed? In general, liberal governments (like ours), will kill the innocent baby, but protect the rapist's life. Does that make ANY sense to ANYBODY?

Regarding Euthanasia, I believe God's will for terminally ill patients is that they get healed. That those people, or their relatives has enough faith in His abilities to heal that person. The Bible states clearly what should be done to any ill persons. They should be prayed for, so that they can be healed. So what should be done in the absence of such belief? Personally I do not condone Euthanasia, but I am not dogmatic about it. I am open to debate using the Bible as reference.

I believe that it is never God's intention for someone to become Terminally ill, but there are many Christians that disagrees with me on this. This is based on how I interpret the New Testament and on my personal experiences with God as a Loving Father. He did in fact not create illnesses, these came about because of Adam's sin.

I do not believe it is realistic to expect Buddhists, gnostics, pagans, atheists and Hindus to abandon their beliefs in favor of a god that created billions of human beings for the purpose of spending eternity in a “lake of fire”. I also don't believe that the God that I worship is this god you mention, neither do I believe His love is EVER conditional. The God that I came to know from personal experience and from His Word, the Bible, is a perfect Father. Someone that loves ALL people even more than ANY earthly mother or father can hope to love their children. I believe He weeps for each and every person that dies unsaved. Why is there still evil in the world? That is something I would want to know as well. One day I would like to know from my Heavenly Father why the long time between Christ's victory over Death and Evil and his Second Coming when we will finally be rid of ALL evil. I think it has something to do with people having to still consciously make a decision to believe in Him, but I am not sure myself.

He is however a God of unimaginable Integrity. He will not even bend or break His own laws. He made a law that sin leads to death, eternal death. Unfortunately Man sinned against Him and thus deserves eternal condemnation. Bound by His own laws (even though He is omnipotent), He did the incredible by sending His own Son, Jesus Christ, to degrade himself to be born as a mere human being, and to die the most terrible death imaginable, even though His life was flawless. This perfect Sacrifice paid for Everyone's sins, including the worst sinners of this world. Even the ones that used to scoff at His Word. The only thing man needs to do (and can do) to be saved from eternal death, is to accept His Death and Resurrection, accept what He did for us. This is what I call Unconditional Love.

I do not believe any government should force its citizens to be Christians. God Himself does not even force them to be Christians. That is the beauty of His Love, He lets us decide for ourselves. I do however believe a government should promote a healthy and happy society. Pornography (and immorality in general) does not promote this. How can a husband love and cherish his wife, if he indulges in pornography? How can a woman feel loved and special, if she knows her husband is looking at other naked women? How will children ever feel safe, if they know that their parent's relationship is constantly at risk because of their parents' engaging in immorality? Have you ever had to help a young child that was exposed to pornography? Have you ever had to comfort a child that fears that his parents are going to have a divorce?

You look at the (many times permanent) effects of divorce on any person, and you tell me that pornography and sex outside of marriage should be regarded as a Democratic Right. Freedom of speech as in your right to raise your opinion about politics, or even God and His Bible, should definitely be allowed. I do not however regard Pornography as "Freedom of Speech".

With regards to "healthy societies" or countries. I believe that any country that respects the guidelines for prosperous life given by Jesus Christ, will be healthy. I know that my children will be a lot better protected from the trauma of being exposed to pornography at a young age in a country like Saudi Arabia. I do not however believe that they'll have a better life there, as they will not be allowed to worship their Lord and Saviour as they want. Many countries and societies claim to be religious and followers of Jesus Christ, but they don't practice what Jesus Christ preached. I believe even Gandhi said that he'll be a Christian, if Christians followed what Jesus Christ preached. I have seen so many Christians not practicing the love for each other that Jesus preached. I believe that these Christians (as myself) will still be saved, but one day they'll appear before an Almighty Wonderful Loving God, and they'll know what they did to His children, and they'll repent for it.

For the questions regarding Evolution and the Young Age of the Earth, I have so much to say that I'll rather reserve it for a separate posting.

Am I a Fundamentalist Christian?

Firstly I should ask, what is a "Fundamentalist Christian?". The word "Fundamentalist Muslim" sometimes brings thoughts of terrorism, Jihad, and other to mind. At least in some cases I think it is unfair and the West tends to judge far too quickly based on emotions and also tend to generalize.

But what does a non-Christian or perhaps a less active / charismatic Christian think about someone labelled as a "Fundamentalist Christian?" Is a "Fundamentalist Christian" a threat to Democracy? To Capitalism?

What are the traits that will make someone a "Fundamentalist Christian?"

Now let me perhaps describe some of my views on Government, Religious Freedom, Freedom of Speech, etc. Then, if someone would like, decide if you think I am a "Fundamentalist Christian" and which of my views may be a treat to the previously mentioned concepts.

I believe the Bible of the Protestant Churches (Genesis - Malachi and Matthew - Revelation) to be 100% inspired by God and 100% true. I believe that by my own doings I deserve to be wiped off the face of the earth and thrown into hell and that there is nothing I can do to escape this fate, except to accept Jesus Christ of Nazareth, the only Son of God (of Abraham, Isaac and Israel), that died innocently on the cross, was resurrected and will return again one day, as my Saviour and Redeemer. I believe that because of His death and resurrection, I am saved and will not go to hell, no matter what I did or what I'm still going to do wrong.

This I believe makes be a Christian. Does this make me a "Fundamentalist Christian?"

How about my views on Government, Religious Freedom and Freedom of Speech?

I believe that the building blocks of a successful and healthy society are strong and healthy families where children feel loved and cherished, but also has great respect for rules, discipline and their parents. Where parents lead by example and also respect rules and authority. I believe that any society build on these building blocks will be very productive, content and will contribute positively to the country. Are these views "Fundamentalist?"

I also believe the Bible to be the best Manual for guidelines of such a prosperous society and a life of abundance and contentment in general.

I see things like Pornography as a threat to a healthy family and thus a threat to a healthy society and country. Some people regard the "right" to view or use Pornography as a democratic right. I feel this is utter nonsense (Afr:soos in "k@k man!"). Can Pornography be qualified as "Freedom of Speech?" I don't think so at all. There is a huge difference between the right to state an opinion regarding a politician, a political party, a government, a certain law or whatever and the "right" to allow Pornography.

Therefore I believe Pornography (and even less explicit erotica) should be censored and not allowed on ANY television, film, video or book. I feel that other views, especially political should never be censored, unless of course some extreme cases that incites hatred and violence. Does this make me a "Fundamentalist Christian?" Does this make me a threat to Democracy?

What about Homosexual people, relationships and same sex marriages? I believe God gave us guidelines for a happy life and a life of abundance. I believe that a healthy (Heterosexual) family is one of the vehicles God designed for such a life. Just as I believe (heterosexual) pornography, fornication and adultery is a big threat to healthy families and robs individuals of a happy and content life, I also believe that it is impossible to have such a life if both partners are of the same sex. Before I get crucified for saying this, I have to add, that I do believe God loves Homosexual people just as he loves all other sinners. He does however want them to be healed from what I believe to be a psychological disorder. The same way He wants the fornicators and adulterers to be healed of their lusts. I do not know the Bible that well, but I have noticed that almost everywhere Homosexual behaviour is mentioned in the Bible, adultery and fornication is also mentioned (usually along with love of money as well).

Thus, just as I don't think a person that proclaims to be a unrepentant fornicator or adulterer is fit to serve in any position in the Christian church, especially if he claims his lusts not to be wrong - I also believe that unrepentant homosexual people should also not be allowed to serve in any influential position in the Church, especially if such a person proclaims homosexual life to not be wrong. I do however believe that all sinners (as I am still one) are welcome in the Church, including the Adulterer, Fornicator and the Homosexual.

Does this make me a "Fundamentalist Christian?" Are these views a threat to Democracy?

How about same sex marriages? I personally won't have too much of an issue if to persons of the same sex wants to be life time partners, even if this robs them from a truly happy and content life. I don't think it is that wrong to even give some sort of legal recognition of such a long and close relationship. I do however think same sex relationships does stretch the definition of a "Marriage" beyond the reasonable.

Does this make me a "Fundamentalist Christian?" or a threat to Democracy?

Furthermore I believe Abortion to be murder of an unborn child. I cannot see the ethical difference between killing a baby in his mother's womb and/or killing him after he has been born. Does all those arguments for abortion stop being valid the moment a child is born? If the mother realizes she cannot look after the child three months after the child is born, is it ethically any different to allow the baby to be killed now as opposed to allow the baby to be killed three months before birth?

I realize the debate is very complex, but I do believe that an alternative solution should be sought by Government and society than murdering unborn children.

Does this make me a "Fundamentalist Christian?" or a threat to Democracy?

What about religious freedom? I believe that no one should be forced to practice a particular religion. I don't think God wants anyone to be forced to follow Him. He is Almighty and nothing is impossible for Him, yet he never forces anyone to be a follower. Hence I believe all religions should be allowed and all religious practices, except the ones that breaks the law and threatens a healthy society.

I do however think it is good to have one day of rest for everybody. It will be better for everyone if most businesses were not open on this one day of rest and if families spend this time together, build relationships and spent some time enriching their personal lives. In the Western world we choose Sundays to be the day of rest. I am not even 100% sure if God intended us to rest on Sundays or rather the Sabbath, which is Saturday. I don't think it is that important either. As long as we spend one day away from work, with our families and at least dedicate some time to God and fellowship with other believers. For those who does not believe in God, it will still be good to spend time away from work with their loved ones, family and/or relatives.

I am not entirely sure how religious public holidays, like Easter, Christmas and others should be handled. I think a solution that is practical and fair should be found.

I think of all my views listed so far, the above should not be any threat to Democracy at least, what do you think? Are these views "Fundamentalist?"

The last view I have probably carries the highest risk of being labelled as "Fundamentalist" and in some cases even a threat to Democracy. This is regarding the age of the Earth, Universe and the general Theory of Evolution as portrayed in the belief that all live evolved from a common ancestor that was a very primitive life form.

Firstly I believe that school children as well as university students should at least be exposed to both the Long Age Evolution Theory as well as the Young Earth Creationist Theory. The same way many other opposing theories are accommodated in most sciences today.

I think students should be made aware of which components are scientific fact and which are unproven theories and/or religious bias. They should also be made aware of the difference between Experimental Science and Historical Science.

Mostly because I believe that Historical Science, that what we believe to be true many ages ago, has little or any value in innovations and understanding Experimental Science.

As one example. We know that the reproductive behaviour of most animals causes the ones with the best genes to have the best chance of producing the most offspring. We also know that this causes Natural Selection and assists in a kind of animal to adapt to his environment.

Evolutionists believes that this and some random mutations are the mechanism that causes primitive life to be able to evolve into more complex life, over millions of years. They believe this to be proof that Man, Monkey, Dog, Cat, Lizard, Dinosaur, Fish, Amoeba, Tree, Algae, etc. all has the same common ancestor.

Creationists believes that this shows that Man, Monkey, Dog, Cat, Lizard, Dinosaur, Fish, Amoeba, Tree, Algae, etc. all has the same Creator that has designed features in his creation that will give us the best chance of surviving as long and as best possible, despite our degrading DNA.

Thus the Evolutionist believes that every generation is statistically slightly better off than the previous generation. Creationists believes that every generation is statistically slightly worse off than the previous generation, even though the best one of the generation has the best chance of producing the most offspring.

Am I being a "Fundamentalist Religious Type" to think that it will be good for children and students to learn about both these views? To look at the evidence as objectively as possible and keep both in mind when designing a better cure for some disease or trying to achieve some great scientific breakthrough?

Should not all Scientific theories be exposed to reason and scrutiny?

My experience is that ANY scientist that dares question Darwinism or long ages (Billions and Millions of years), is immediately sidelined and ridiculed. That the Long Age Evolution Theory is called "Science" and Youth Earth Creationism is called "Religion" or "Fundamentalism" or anything other than "Science", no matter how much scientific method or evidence is produced.

Am I a "Fundamentalist Christian" for thinking this way? Am I a threat to Democracy and/or Religious Freedom for wanting at least both theories to be included in curricula?

Please feel free to air your views on ANY of the above subjects and let me know what you think a "Fundamentalist Christian" is? Also which "Fundamentalist Christian" traits are a treat to Democracy or society. Do you think I am a Fundamentalist Christian?