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.
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.
Labels: capatilism, christian, creation, creationism, democracy, evolution, freedom of speach, fundementalism, pornography, religion
posted by Danie Loots | 14:05
1 Comments:
I wouldn’t say that Christian Fundamentalism poses a threat to either “democracy” or so-called “Freedom of Speech”. Both concepts are used by the owners of the mainstream media to create the impression that the populace is somehow free to decide who governs them, as well as free to express their opinions. The fact is that the vast majority of the people of these so-called “liberal” countries accept the religious and political values expressed by the owners of the mainstream television channels, newspapers and radio stations, without questioning the validity of these values. Barack Obama won the American presidential election, mainly because of the support he received from the mainstream media. Perhaps he was a better choice for the American people than his opponent, the neoconservative warmonger John McCain with his “Young-Earth Creationist” vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin?
The owners of the mainstream media (partners of the transnational companies and the Global Elite) use sport and sensational news to divert the attention of the populace away from the real problems in the world. Organized religion uses the same strategy to divert the attention of the people away from the real problems - the possibility of a coming One-World totalitarian dictatorship, neocolonialism in Africa, corrupt African governments, consumerism, overpopulation, etc. They try to focus their followers’ attention on other aspects of their lives, such as homosexuality, pornography, abortion and euthanasia. They consider these aspects to be the real cause of the problems and suffering in the world. In this way the partnership between organized religion and the Global Elite perpetuates the exploitation and suffering in all countries under their influence. I therefore also believe that fundamentalist religion poses a threat to the welfare and progress of society.
Even though you believe that there is a difference between your beliefs and most organized religious institutions’ beliefs, the fact is that there is a remarkable similarity between what you consider to be real problems in the world, and organized religions’ ideas about the major “evils” in the world. If you need any additional information regarding the partnership between organized religion and the Global Elite, I would recommend the books and DVD’s of Jordan Maxwell, David Icke and Michael Tsarion.
We should ask ourselves if the world could have been a better place without the influence of people believing in the literal truth of the Bible. Could the people of Europe have been more spiritual and less materialist if their ancient pagan beliefs were not replaced by organized Christianity? Could people all over the world have been more content and peaceful, if the consumer culture of the (mainly “conservative” Christian) population of the United States hadn’t replaced the “heathen” cultures of the Native Americans?
If the God of the Bible is all-powerful, He is still ultimately responsible for everything that happens in all of His creation. The Devil is described as an evil being in the Bible, but his Creator is more powerful than him. If the vast majority of humanity is destined to spend eternity in hell, because they didn’t accept Jesus Christ as their personal Savior, who’s decision was it to send them to hell? The God of the Bible is only willing to save people on “condition” that they accept His Son as their Savior. If He weeps for every person who dies “unsaved”, He must have a split-personality, or perhaps He is not that all-powerful?
I found this interesting paragraph on the web concerning the all-goodness (omnibenevolence) of a theistic God:
http://atheism.about.com/od/whatisgod/a/omnibenevolent.htm:
Another understanding of the concept of omnibenevolence focuses upon a more literal reading of the word: a perfect and complete desire for goodness. Under this explanation of omnibenevolence, God always desires what is good, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that God ever actually tries to actualize the good. This understanding of omnibenevolence is often used to counter arguments that evil is incompatible with a God which is omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent; however, it is unclear how and why a God who desires the good would not also work to actualize the good. It is also difficult to understand how we can label God as “morally good” when God desires the good and is capable of achieving good but doesn’t bother to actually try.
Also consider this classic atheists’ “argument from evil” for the non-existence of a personal God:
(1) If God exists then he is omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good.
(2) If God were omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good then the world would not contain evil.
(3) The world contains evil.
Therefore:
(4) It is not the case that God exists.
God, as described in the Old Testament, doesn’t force people to become Christians, but He forces them to go to hell if they don’t become Christians.
If a husband cannot love his wife if he likes to look at or fantasize about other naked women, it implies that the majority of the married men I whom I know, don’t really love their wives. I was exposed to pornography as a child, but I wouldn’t say that I was “traumatized” by it. It is not clear to me what Jesus’ family values were. It seems that He supported the Ten Commandments concerning marriage and divorce (Mark 10:5-9). He says that a “man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife”, but He doesn’t say a man must leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife. Elsewhere He insinuates that He came to break families apart and that whoever loves his family more than He loves Jesus, is not worthy of Him (Matthew 10:35-37; Luke 12:51-53). He also seems to insinuate that being a father of a “traditional” nuclear family is acceptable, but not as commendable as having a celibate lifestyle. When Christian preachers promote the “traditional” nuclear family, are they following Jesus’ family values, or is it a matter of promoting traditional cultural values?
Post a Comment
<< Home