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?
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?
Labels: capatilism, christian, creation, creationism, democracy, evolution, freedom of speach, fundementalism, pornography, religion
posted by Danie Loots | 11:26
1 Comments:
I found these two descriptions of “fundamentalism” and “Fundamentalist Christianity” on the web:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity:
Fundamentalist Christianity, also known as Christian Fundamentalism or Fundamentalist Evangelicalism, is a movement that arose mainly within British and American Protestantism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries among conservative evangelical Christians, who, in a reaction to modernism, actively affirmed a fundamental set of Christian beliefs: the inerrancy of the Bible, Sola Scriptura, the virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the imminent personal return of Jesus Christ. Some who hold these beliefs reject the label of "fundamentalism," seeing it as a pejorative term for historic Christian doctrine while to others it has become a banner of pride.
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/fundamentalism?view=uk:
fundamentalism
• noun 1 a form of Protestant Christianity which upholds belief in the strict and literal interpretation of the Bible. 2 the strict maintenance of the ancient or fundamental doctrines of any religion or ideology.
Many Christians refer to themselves as “fundamentalist” and don’t see it as a derogatory term.
Many fundamentalist Muslim societies also implement the importance of “family values”, but I’m not so sure if members of these societies are content and happy, nor do I believe that they have proper spiritual values or freedom of expression. Many people who have been brought up in a heterosexual family unit have been traumatized by their experiences with abusive parents. Could it be that some homosexual couples are more content in their relationships than many people involved in heterosexual relationships? Is there any evidence that gay people cannot be content and happy in a same-sex relationship?
There is a difference between what is conventionally accepted as being “good” and the Biblical understanding of moral values. Perhaps the Bible condemns any form of abortion, even in cases of rape or if the mother is not able to take proper care of the baby. Most secular people believe quality of life to be more important than the continuation of life just for the sake of living. What is your opinion on euthanasia? Do you believe that terminally ill patients should be kept alive even though their illness causes immense suffering? Does euthanasia interfere with God’s plan for that particular individual’s life?
If the Biblical God doesn’t want to force anybody to follow Him, why does He send most of the human populace on earth to hell because of their refusal to believe in the doctrine of substitutionary atonement or the bodily resurrection of Jesus? If He loves everybody, even the adulterers and gays, and if He is omnipotent, why doesn’t He save everybody on earth? Why is there still evil in the world? His Love is obviously conditional. Unconditional love is the love that a mother has for her child even if the child is naughty. Causing somebody to spend the rest of eternity in hell obviously means that you hate that particular person. The God of the fundamentalist Christian created billions of human beings for the purpose of spending eternity in a “lake of fire”. Is it reasonable to expect Buddhists, gnostics, pagans, atheists and Hindus to abandon their beliefs in favor of the God of the Bible?
Should the laws of all countries force people to follow a specific religion or should religious freedom be allowed if the God of the Bible doesn’t believe in religious freedom? Do you believe that the laws of all countries should be consistent with Biblical laws? You say that God doesn’t want to “force” people to follow Him. How is this consistent with the belief that the God of the Old Testament is a jealous God? I don’t think the Israelites who lived more than two thousand years ago were firm believers in “freedom of expression”.
What is your understanding of a “healthy society” ? Are Zimbabwe and Nigeria examples of healthy societies because they suppress gay people and have a corrupt elite governing the poor? Would you rather live in a predominantly fundamentalist country, e.g. Saudi-Arabia and Nigeria, or in a more secular society, e.g. Sweden or Japan. Which one of these countries will be best suited for the education and psychological welfare of young children? Which of these countries are “healthy” and which are not so “healthy”?
If there is so much evidence for the truth of “Young-Earth Creationism” why is it not accepted by most members of the international scientific community? Are most of these scientists “militant” atheists who allow their emotions to interfere with objective science? Are they simply not interested in considering alternative theories which attempt to explain the origin of the cosmos? Even though most middle-aged Afrikaners were brought up in a conservative, “healthy”, Calvinist protestant environment, we were taught evolutionary theory in biology classes at school. Why wasn’t creationism also taught in Afrikaans schools in the old “Apartheid” days? Could it be that creationism wasn’t taken seriously by even Afrikaner fundamentalist Christian biology teachers and lecturers?
Post a Comment
<< Home