The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The polarisation of the church: liberalism and fundamentalism > Comments

The polarisation of the church: liberalism and fundamentalism : Comments

By Peter Sellick, published 3/2/2006

Peter Sellick argues liberal and fundamentalist theologies are both fatally flawed, and a synthesis is needed for the health of the church.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
What has Israel got to do with the here and now?
What do we really know?
The three fundamental realities are that we are conscious beings and that there is a beginningless and endless process of beings, things, thoughts etc etc arising to our conscious awareness.
True Religion begins with a profound investigation into these two fundamental realities.
It has nothing whastsoever to do with a mythological Israel or any other place in the past.

And the third fundamental reality is that we inevitably die and ALL of our knowings disappear in an instant. See The Dual Sensitivity at: www.dabase.net/dualsens.htm

This essay titled Real God Cannot Be "Proved" or Believed or "Known" or Perceived or Even Doubted www.dabase.net/rgcbpobk.htm addresses the nievity of belief in historical god-ideas.
Posted by Tigerlily, Friday, 3 February 2006 10:01:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Peter (& Tigerlily)

Tigerlily (post 10:01:38 AM 3/2/06)

Now here's a typical example of someone who doesn't know what the definition of "religion" is. Whatsmore, there is blatant intolerance in accepting & understanding another point of view. "Religion" is a "belief". You obviously haven't studied any other beliefs.

Israel may have very little to do with your Eastern & Humanistic philosophies, but the Jews & Israel have much significance to the Judaic, Christian & Islamic cultures & religious beliefs.

Who said that "True Religion begins with .." anything that you said? You do, that's obvious. So do those who think as you do. But those who disagree with you have a whole different slant on life & thinking. There are over 9000 worldwide religions to investigate. Maybe you ought to go into a study of a dozen or so who don't think as you do.

As to Israel: 2-billion Christians varyingly see Israel as integral to the "end times". The 1.8-billion Muslims hate Judaism & Christianity & see a different outcome through Islam.

Hinduism has about 800-million practitioners; Buddhism, under its two basic sects, about the same number; then you have Taoism, Confusionism, Jainism with about 3-million adherents, Sikhism with maybe 12-million, Parsism with 150,000, secular Humanism, Marxism, Nazism, etc. And don't forget to investigate the "Shark-god religion" of New Zealand. Once you've looked at the outer 'shell'of say one of these worldwide goliaths, then you could investigate the doctrines & dogmas which delineate the various denominations that have sprouted from the main observances.

With a more rounded understanding of worldwide philosophies you might not then make narrowistic generalisations which are denied by most of the world's population.

Finally, the tendency for globalistic relativism has created many of the 'problems' that we have currently on earth. Rarely do we acknowledge absolutes, preferring to postulate over 'subjective' values. Someone has to be wrong in all this. Maybe it's you?

Cheers to all (who join this posting)
Posted by LittleAgreeableBuddy, Friday, 3 February 2006 10:42:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello whoever is reading this

Just some thoughts. Are Catholics liberal or fundamentalists (they do not belive in a literal interpretation of the bible but are seen as arch conservative).


In the times before the words liberal and fundamentalist were invented what were people who held corollary positions called and how were they viewed by contempary society.

How far is too far when it comes to asserting dogma?

Surely any attitude or behaviour that threatens to overide the two greatest commandments must be held suspect.
Posted by Jellyback, Friday, 3 February 2006 11:21:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wonder if Buddy actually read the two essays that I pointed to on my first posting.

The Dual Sensitivity 1. www.dabase.net/dualsens.htm

Real God Cannot Be Proven 2. wwww.dabase.net/rgcbpobk.htm

The "experience" of "israel" is as real as the experience of living in Springfield where Homer Simpson "lives" or the "place" that the participants of "reality" TV "live".
Posted by Tigerlily, Friday, 3 February 2006 1:37:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Catholics are both (either/or). It is only in the continually splitting sects of Protestantism where we find the real radicals.

TigerLilly, your post was so boring and trivial that I doubt anyone will go to any website you suggest.

The reletivism spoken about above refers to liberals, we should remember that it is these post-modern ideas that are a threat to the whole world (witness the view that equal time is given to scientists who say no as to scientists who say yes to global warming, despite a huge majority ascribing to the yes, the post-modern media sees its responsibilities as to show all viewpoints equally, no matter how likely they are).

The fundamentalists are often just really stupid people. The american fundamentalists for example do not even notice thier idolotrous notions about thier supposedly god-like country. They should be termed followers of Americanity, not christianity. But I say again they do not threaten our whole world as the reletivism of the liberals does. They may kill a few, for a few years, but they will fade away like all the other idiot based ideologies of the past. How could you believe that america is such a great country anyway?

What this discussion does show, is the need for a moderating, stability encouraging hierarchy for the church (as in catholicism). Ps. I am not a catholic.

The actual article is alright, I think his point about education is correct. All Christians should be expected to obtain a degree (at least) in theology so thier views are not damaging to the rest of the church. Just as I believe that all citizens should have to prove they understand democracy to an acceptable level before becoming citizens.
Posted by fide mae, Friday, 3 February 2006 2:45:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Liberal/Fundamentalism is a simple dichotomy. Too simple. A sixfold division of Christians is much more informative. (1) Fundamentalist (2)Evangelical (3) Liberal (4) Charismatic (5) Sacramental (6) Orthodox/Eastern. That is a spectrum as each category shades gradually into the next. It is useful becuase only in the last category does it approach the issue on a denominational basis.
Many controversies are generated by oversimplistic labelling; eg it is entirely wrong to consider the Anglican Diocese of Sydney as "fundamentalist" as critics from within that denomination (and others)claim- the most recent being Muriel Porter in the Griffith Review. Fundamentalism reads a text without any cultural sensitivity and applies it dogmatically and simplistically to the present situation. You only have to look at the distinguished evangelical scholarship coming out in the tradition of Karl Barth showing and developing the proposition that revealed truth stands on an altogether different footing to rational truth, to distinguish fundamentalism and evangelicalism. This article seems to take an intellectual divide from philosophy, rational truth, and apply it to divisions in Christianity, revealed truth. It's not comparing like with like and this is the basic (not "fundamental"!) flaw in the article.
Posted by Remote centreman, Friday, 3 February 2006 3:38:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi all

Jellyback (post 11:21:54 AM 3/2/06)
Not totally true of Roman Catholics. Whilst broadly Amillennial, Catholics are divided into 'clans' - better not say sects - who, whilst acknowledging the Pope's divine authority, don't all ascribe to the same thinking on all matters. I've encountered many Bible-believing Catholics who say of some priests, "He's a crook!" [actual quote.]
I can't specifically answer your second question - maybe Peter can. However, I could out-source it? Anyone else know?
Christ was certainly emphatic about Matt 22:37-39. But at no stage did He think we'd lose sight of Exod 20. The Fruits of the Spirit were not to be ignored either, but love is always central. But love is shallow & meaningless without holiness, righteousness & truth.
Dogma is difficult. But Scripture is confirmed by Scripture - taking multiple examples, not in isolation.
Sadly some modern-day interpreters have been deceived & influenced by Humanism, Post-modernism, Eastern philosophies, & a myriad of non-Christian thinking. Krishna is not Christ anymore than Allah is Yahweh.
A great quote comes from Meic PEARCE: "The only things that are never invulnerable are those things which never claimed objective value, such as entertainment & fashion, which are taken with unprecedented seriousness & are at the heart of the infantilisation of the Western culture." (personal communication RML 96/3684, 11/4/1996.)
Good questions! I need to be challenged, too. Divergent opinions inspire. [But remember: opinions are only just that - opinions. Opinions aren't necessarily facts.]
"I am the Way, the Truth & the Life .." & "You will know the Truth, & the Truth will set you free."
(3/2/06)

Tigerlily (post 1:37:51 PM 3/2/06)
I must admit that I didn't read the hyperlinks. I encountered the thinking of "god can't be proven or disproven" when I first did my studies. I can't prove that I ate a chicken sandwich at 12:15pm on the 15th June 1953, but who cares.
If you promise that you're not a Hindu or a Rastafarian, "Tigerlily", I'll read the links that you included.
(3/2/06)

Cheers all
Posted by LittleAgreeableBuddy, Friday, 3 February 2006 5:31:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi all,

Interesting article Peter.

Fide mae, I mean no offence… you suggest that fundamentalists ideology will eventually vanish, yet you suggest that all Christians get a degree in theology. I point out that with so many Christians it is inevitable that some people teaching that degree will be fundamentalists who will make even more fundamentalists.

As for equal time given to global warming sceptics... most of the news channels I've seen don't question global warming at all. In fact it wasn't until two years ago that I first heard that some people disagreed with global warming, that's after 10 years of watching the 6 o'clock news. Again, no offence I just don’t see much supporting evidence
Posted by Sparky, Friday, 3 February 2006 8:44:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I believe any intellectualising analysis of Christian perspectives is a waste of time. What we should be about is building character, attitudes in relationships, serving the poor, sick, and opressed etc. The aspects of theological doctrine and eschatology are side issues to the main plan. Our lives are evaluated on our attitudes and actions not on our doctrine.
Posted by Philo, Friday, 3 February 2006 10:52:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Peter.

You've given me some tools to classify and so analyse a topic I'm interested in.

Keep up the good articles.

P.s I bought Theopolitical Imagination, just waiting for it to arrive.
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Saturday, 4 February 2006 8:13:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tiger....I had a look at the links you gave.. not very helpful, just another 'Indian guru' type woffle I feel. (Does this one have his own 747 ? :)

On 'Proof' of God, I rest in Romans 1

19 "since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

Then, there is the idea of 'legal' proof as opposed to scientific proof. The Gospels and Pauls writings are compelling, but probably dont all fit the category of 'legal' proof stictly. (Not being a Lawyer I can't say for sure)

REMOTE CENTREMAN I think your summary of the main positions is a good observation. I would just add that within those various 'camps' you will also have a spread of fundamentalism and liberalism on an individual basis. The simple fact is, most evangelical Christians don't 'codify' their beliefs as rigidly as your analysis suggests.

At their heart though, the firm belief in Jesus as Lord and Saviour is common and that, is what counts. (along with the appropriate response of on-going repentance)

Fida is accurate about the main division being between Catholicism and Protestantism and within Protestants the spectrum is as RMCM mentioned. Though within Catholicism you get the 'Liberation Theology' movement and various others like Opus Dei etc..

As Billy Graham often said "I preach a simple Gospel for a sinful world"... and I pray we will all grasp that simple gospel, and let it transform our lives and hearts, such that we can say "The mind of Christ is in us"
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 4 February 2006 8:31:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Which God are we talking about here?
Some will say what God?
There is Ra the Sun God. No Bible needed there so there is no argument.
Posted by GlenWriter, Saturday, 4 February 2006 1:29:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi all

fide mae (post 2:45:59 PM 3/2/06)
Another partly inaccurate statement. Premillennial Catholics? Forefathers? Polycarp? He was most assuredly Premillennial. Most Catholics & some Protestants are Amillennial. Many Presbyterians are Postmillennialist.
Catholicism abounds with split 'sects' - like denominations within Protestantism. Catholicism doesn't admit it though. My move from Atheism to believing meant searching. A wide circle of friends showed that Catholics often disagreed with each other - on many issue, & some matters of dogma. They aren't as united as they appear.
In Tigerlily's defence his/her 'post' wasn't so much boring. It just failed to respond to the subject. The subject was & is " 'Polarisation of the church: liberalism & fundamentalism.', & that Peter Sellick argues liberal and fundamentalist theologies are both fatally flawed, and a synthesis is needed for the health of the church." I didn't take the answer to be focused on Christianity. Additionally, once someone relegates God's "chosen people" into obscurity I automatically switch off. That person is saying, "God (Yahweh) I don't care what you say, I'm going to ignore all the OT & Christ's Jewishness.
Fundamentalist? Lets read the definition of "fundamental". It means "to the foundations", "basic", "essential", "the rudiments" etc. It does not mean radical. Don't allow the media & the American-English to waylay actual English. If Fundamentalists are stupid people then:
(1) none of us are safe, because the the foundations must be wrong, &:
(2) you "Fide Mae" are in danger from judgement, because Christ warns us not to call anyone a "fool" (stupid). Matt 5:22
You then begin to make sense. Education is important. But so is the quality of the teacher, & our understanding of that individual's biases. There's plenty of wrong thinking out there - Professor Gary BOUMA being at the head of the queue.
(3/2/06)

Remote centreman (post 3:38:44 PM 3/2/06)
That's a better break-up. Don't know that I'd agree on your analysis of the Orthodox Church though. I'm considered to be a "fundamentalist". I place text within the confines of cultural surroundings. Guess I might be a mongrel?
(3/2/06)

Cheers all
Posted by LittleAgreeableBuddy, Saturday, 4 February 2006 2:26:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Fide mae, I mean no offence… you suggest that fundamentalists ideology will eventually vanish, yet you suggest that all Christians get a degree in theology. I point out that with so many Christians it is inevitable that some people teaching that degree will be fundamentalists who will make even more fundamentalists. "

I said/meant that each fundamentalist regime (as bush at the moment) will vanish as it loses all credibility. There are fundamentalist teachers, but not good ones, a basic course in Hebrew for example, or just simple logic (a prerequisite for teaching surely) will show clearly that the 'days' in Genisis 1 cannot be days as we understand them. there is no word, obviously, for the 24 hour day in Hebrew, just sunup to sunset. and the sun isn't even there for several of the so called days. what is clearly meant is 'a time period'. perhaps a vision which the author may have believed to be daylike timeperiods. Unless it is simply a monotheistic reaction to the Babylonian (where it was written) myths the Israelites were hearing. fundamentalism truly does vanish the more you learn about history, logic, and languages.

"As for equal time given to global warming sceptics... most of the news channels I've seen don't question global warming at all. In fact it wasn't until two years ago that I first heard that some people disagreed with global warming, that's after 10 years of watching the 6 o'clock news. Again, no offence I just don’t see much supporting evidence "

I too mean no offense, but the fact you watch the six oclock news means you either have a different starting time to my area or you watch infotainment (not real news) which hardly has any relevance to my statement, and these infotainment shows don't question anything at all, let alone global warming. but let me ask you this, since you have been hearing about the no-global warming group, have they been given equal time?
Posted by fide mae, Saturday, 4 February 2006 2:48:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi all

Sparky (post 8:44:14 PM 3/2/06)
To "fide mae": I hope that fundamentalism doesn't disappear otherwise we'll lose the fundamentals. That's like building a house with no foundations.
Weather conditions: I don't know whether anyone has kept independent weather statistics. I've kept mine since May 1981 after installing our in-ground pool. Twice daily, x 365-days, all pool statistics are recorded, including water temperature & outside temperature, whether it rained, & how much. My meticulous details don't correlate with 'expert(s)' records. Sure, it's only 1 suburb & only 25-years. But surely there ought to have been parallels?
Scientists are like others. They sometimes distort the facts. Surely theologians & academics wouldn't emulate scientists?
(3/2/06)

BOAZ_David (post 8:31:33 AM 4/3/06)
You've re-affirmed my suspicion about Tigerlily. But I have put a challenge to him/her.
Scientifically no one can prove that God exists - it isn't a beaker/laboratory experiment. But the degree of mathematical probability outweighs the likelihood of evolutionary chance. Romans 1 is indeed good, but so is Job 37 & Ps 8. Those early forefathers postulated over the dilemmas just as we have.
You partly espouse my comments to Fide Mae (refer my prior post). Opus Dei is just one example - the Masonic Lodge is another.
(4/2/06)

GlenWriter (post 1:29:27PM 4/2/06)
Think that we can safely say that it's the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob. But let's keep the subject 'open' for Muslims too - they claim that it's the same god, though that's impossible once one studies "the nature of God (Yahweh)" & compares it to Allah's attributes.
Peter, do you have any objection to our monotheist cousins submitting?
(4/2/06)

Cheers all
Posted by LittleAgreeableBuddy, Saturday, 4 February 2006 7:53:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with you Philo… our actions and compassion are what we contribute to others not the doctrine.
Fundamentalists can be as fundamental as they want, so long as they are legally restrained from imposing their fundamentalism those of us who do not share it.

Ultimately, “fundamentalists” sustain their religious extremes by indoctrinating an attitude of fear and unquestioning obedience into their children. Such views destroy the potential in individuals by stunting the inquisitive nature of those children.

Oh, and that goes for Muslim as well as Christian fundamentalists or any other real or pseudo religion or sect which preaches any superiority or exclusivity by virtue of membership to their sect.
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 5 February 2006 10:27:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't believe that Opus Dei are like Liberationists Theologists... the latter are a group influenced by socialist guerilla movements in South America - thus having their own theology, whilst the first are conservative and austere, but certainly not owners of a different brand of theology, just a different practice of it.

Much of the dichotomy between liberal and fundamental exists in protestantism because is lacks a central moderating heirarchy like Catholicism. Catholicism, home to both theologians and mystics, tends to avoid the extremities of liberal and fundamentalist when people operate within the heirarchy. That's not to say that there are not "factions" within the church, of which there are mainly three... 1) Traditionalists - pro-Latin mass and all that [weak since Vatican 2] 2) Conservatives - wishing to maintain the spirit of the early church [strongest since Vatican 2] 3) Liberals - doing what liberals do [vocal first-world minority].

The problem is for protestantism that it lacks a unified tradition, allowing groups to flourish without being criticised by the keepers of the keys to that tradition, and being duly shut down. Why do people complain about enforcing doctrine in the Catholic church when it could do so much good in the protestant churches?
Posted by DFXK, Sunday, 5 February 2006 10:42:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
On another note: the latest encyclical of the Pope nicely breaks down the liberal/conservative barrier. It refers to the biblical sources, and talks generally, engaging with others opinions (mainly to cut them down, but occasionally to give depth to the argument), thus avoiding either legalism on one hand, and relativism on the other. Both factions have tried to make ground off the encyclical, but in reality, both have been weakened by its refusal to engage with either.
Posted by DFXK, Sunday, 5 February 2006 10:45:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DFXK,
From reading your posts it indicates to me that the Roman Catholic Church is about doctrinal control, and authority over people. That is as I have always suspected. It is the difference between power residing in the Hierarchy and power residing in the Laity. That is the difference between the RC Church and the Reformation movement especially noted in the Church of England. The right to choose ones belief resides in the individual and not in the Church Hierarchy.

The laity in the RC Church must follow the teaching by the Hierarchy of the authorised line as head bowed worshippers. Sounds like fundamentalism to me. "Those that do not we will shut down."
Quote, "The problem is for Protestantism that it lacks a unified tradition, allowing groups to flourish without being criticised by the keepers of the keys to that tradition, and being duly shut down."

In Christian evangelical Churches there is no distinction of hierarchy and laity as everyone is recognised for their giftedness and ability they have to exercise in the service of God. The Church teaching should be focused in equipping people for their ministry in Church and community life.

There are no catechism schools in Evangelical Churches on Church indoctrination and lingering emphasis on preparation for the afterlife. These are preliminary to faith and are initial issues. The emphasis should be upon building character that demonstrates devotion to God and community, social attitudes that demonstrates repentance and forgiveness and behaviours that happily serve other people as was taught and demonstrated by Jesus Christ. People are not devoted to a Church doctrine but to the worship and expression of the character of God.
Posted by Philo, Sunday, 5 February 2006 12:39:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi all

fide mae (post 2:48:25 PM 4/2/06)
Hebrew? Messianic Jews understand Hebrew perfectly. They wouldn't agree with your analogy. Allegorical interpretation can distort Scripture. Variance to literal interpretation is risky. Scripture must be compared to Scripture & placed within its context.
If the text is 'isolated', literal is safer.
(5/2/06)

Col Rouge (post 10:27:43 AM 5/2/06)
My children aren't constrained. All six members think very independently.
Fundamentalists hopefully maintain the basics. Within my "study group" we actually have Pre-, A- & Postmillennial thinkers studying together. There's no attempt at 'control'. We openly discuss our differences.
Meanwhile, Islam is not so simple. Despite its claims, it is not very "tolerant" - even internally.
(5/2/06)

DFXK (post 10:42:07 AM & 10:45:08 AM 5/2/06
Personal dissatisfaction in Protestantism led to a study of Catholicism. I was just as disillusioned. So, I went on to the orthodoxy. Guess what? Again not content (Greek & Coptic) - though I cheered recently when the Greek Orthodox Jerusalem Patriarch sold some land back to the Jews for 10% of its value. He realised the Abrahamic Promise's irrevocability. He blessed the Jews - just as God demands.
On the Pope: I'm pleased to see a man who is uncompromising about the values of Christ ascend into the position. I may not always agree with him, but he's less likely to oscillate. A "yes" will mean a yes.
(5/2/06)

Philo (post 12:39:52 PM 5/2/06)
That's the Protestant dilemma. Who is right? It can't be everyone.
Anglicans in the UK 'accept' homosexuality. We have a similar 'problem' within the Uniting Church in Australia. So, whilst we might love non-heterosexuals, their sin is unaccepted to God. We shouldn't deviate from His perfect will.
The Anglican Church was the first to allow contraceptives & abortions. Abortions are clearly killing another life for lifestyle expediency. Most so-called contraceptives are actually abortifacients - foetus killers. Where's our adherence to God's sanctity of life here?
The Catholic Church has been unwavering on this issue since its inception. Why is Protestantism so silent?
Is it any wonder that Muslims see Christians as 'divided'?

Cheers all
Posted by LittleAgreeableBuddy, Sunday, 5 February 2006 11:15:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fundamentalists and Liberals essentially make the same mistake and go in different directions with it. Fundamentalists believe they're wise because they know the truth; liberals believe they're wise because they seek the truth. Both are proud and ego-driven.

The explanation for this, by the way, is that both are human. Pride is inescapable. Even those who would be humble are in fact acting out of pride. True humility, I think, is unachievable; it can only come as God's grace. Lacking it, we can at least TRY to strike a balance -- on the one hand to be open to the truth rather than always asserting it, to refrain from unnecessarily judgments and not place ourselves above others... but on the other to fight for what is right and not fall into a paralyzing self-doubt. Arrogance and self-doubt are equally dangerous traps, and it is hard to see sometimes how we can avoid falling in either one or the other. (This, I think, is similar to what Kierkegaard argues in "Fear and Trembling"... although as I recall he paints an excessively gloomy picture of the dilemma. Taking matters and particularly one's own position too seriously is an especially unappealing reflection of pride.)
Posted by gnosys, Monday, 6 February 2006 12:13:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fundamentalist are fundamentally flawed
Liberals are either lazy or lack courage.
This struggle will continue because the general trend is away from religion in general and organised religion in particular. Christians can either ignore all the scientific evidence that’s proves the bible to be a work of fiction. Or they can decide that the bible is full of parables and made up stories to tell a underlining truth. Trouble is once you start to do that you start to find that Christianity is much different to all other religion at it’s core values. From there it’s a short step to agnostic street and if the person has the moral courage Atheism.

I use to think that people are religious because they don’t question then I thought it was because they didn’t ask the right question’s now I know it’s because they don’t like the answers.
Posted by Kenny, Monday, 6 February 2006 9:12:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My typology tried to pick up on tradition reason and scripture as authoritative in the Church.
LittleAgreeableBuddy, I put Orthodoxy in a separate category as it really subordinates scripture and particularly reason to tradition. Tradition formally has a stronger part to play in Orthodoxy than in the other categories.
BOAZ_David I think there are a lot of people on that evangelical-fundamentalist borderline. If you listen to them, often you can't tell. In the end it comes down to whether people have a theory of interpretation: if people deny this, they are fundamentalists; if they accept that human reason has a part to play in the interpretation of scripture and that the context of that writing has to be established, then they are more likely to be evangelicals. Paul Barnett's latest book on the early church is a good example of the kind of interpretative process I'm talking about, without putting reason above scripture, which is the mark of liberalism. And of course some people self-label in a way that really is'nt objective, which can present problems or any categorisation.
If we emphasise the transcendence of God and his self-revelation(rather than try to assimilate him to human concerns and preoccupations including reason and tradition) then I think we are on the right track. As Barth said, "Let God be God!"
Posted by Remote centreman, Monday, 6 February 2006 10:33:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Isn't religion a nest of worms when you analyse it. In 2000 years more than 20,000 break away groups from the original that Christ proposed have developed. Can they all be right, Can any of them be right?

The first simple concept to understand in Christianity is this:

The first four books of the New Testament are Jesus' teachings = Christ = Christianity = The Son of God = The Messiah. Christianity is the following of Jesus' teachings and deeds so without him it is back to Judaism.

Anything after those are man's interpretations of Jesus' teachings, Yes even good old Revelations is only a man's words of what he saw allegedly after or during the visit of an angel.

The Old Testament = Judaism - not to be done away with but to be understood as Judaism in it's relationship with Christianity.

Once you accept that then you can look at religion more closely.

In Matthew Chapters 5 & 6 Jesus the son of God changes many of the traditional teachings of the OT. Read it carefully. It is at this point that he changes Christianity from an eye for an eye religion to a turn the other cheek religion.

People always can quote the reference to homosexuality in Leviticus but forget to read all the other rules in that chapter. If you believe Homosexuality is a sin then it is exactly the same as all sins including judging others... OOps now there is the beginning of trouble.

So if you aren't allowed to judge others you can't judge homosexuals... or you have sinned! and it is as bad a sin as homosexuality if all sin is equal.

Isn't this mind numbing stuff... Ha!

Chrsitianity will continue to break up into more sects/groups/denominations due to the fact that it's practitioners can't follow the simple rules themselves...

I wonder what it's founder would say - all these people have taken his ministry and "renamed it" to "The Fred Bloggsywhatsamaycallme Ministry" or any other name they could think off thereby taking Jesus Christ's name out of his own ministry. Amazing!
Posted by Opinionated2, Monday, 6 February 2006 3:40:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Opinionated,

Your suggestions are far from Christian Orthodoxy.

The prohibition against homosexual acts is much more nuanced than what you present and it extends beyond Leviticus to St Paul for example.

Christians must judge thoughts and deeds according to Christ's example. To be non-judgmental is to disapprove of nothing which is nonsense, and not loving. Christ was furious with the hypocrisy of the Religious caste, who piled heavy burdens (religious rules, judgments and regulations) on faithful Jews but did nothing to help them carry it. Christ judged their behaviour very negatively.

"How do you expect to avoid going to Hell!" He told them.

But at the same time Jesus teaches how important it is to take the log out of our own eye before we can see the speck in our brother's eye.

Hate the sin love the sinner. Sex before marriage is missing the mark - a sin i.e. self inflicted damage.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,17232182%255E5001167,00.html

If you would like clarification on how to read and interpret scripture, and in what relation each book of the New Testament has to the Good News of Christ read "Dei Verbum". An inter denominational document produced by expert theologians during Vatican 2.
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Monday, 6 February 2006 4:30:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
See Martin a Christian who already is going against Jesus' teachings.

Matthew 7:1 doesn't suit you... so you interpret Matthew 7:5 then to allow you to judge others and yet 7:1 says you shouldn't. Furthermore you then bring in Paul's teachings to justify Leviticus... Christianity = Jesus' teachings not Paul's interpretations. Please don't think I am knocking Paul but he was just a man.

Know Jesus' teachings first... then you need look no further or so I was taught.

"All sin is sin" Martin you have a dilemma. Can you judge whether you have a speck or a log in your own eye? Do that first then get back to me...Ha!

You stick to Catholicism... at times a noble denomination and I'll keep studying Jesus' words.

The word of man versus the word of Jesus Christ whose word would you choose Martin?
Posted by Opinionated2, Monday, 6 February 2006 6:00:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi all

Gnosys (post 12:13:25 AM 6/2/06)
A fundamentalist tries to abide by the fundamentals; a liberalist (often) denounces them by making them allegorical. What do you suggest as a 'replacement' to those views if we are to have faith in neither?
God's grace is sought. But what is His grace if it's not defined by Him? Scripture does that. What is truth? Scripture tells us. If Scripture isn't the ultimate determinator then we are indeed lost, for mankind certainly can't determine what is right for himself. When we assert our own values upon & above God's values then we fall into the dangers of Relativism (& Humanism). Isn't that why the world is so much divided now?
Interestingly, when involved in a debate on Kerri-anne KENNERLY's "Mornings" programme in May 2005, following the Macquarie Fields' Riot, it was she who suggested that "We (simply) ought to throw away the Qur'an & throw away the Bible, & just love one another." Well, I've known Kerri-anne for about 30-years, & I know George NEGUS' agenda, but I was surprised to 'witness' Rev Dr James HAIRE & Rev Bill CREWS in agreement. Meanwhile, Keysar TRAD remained silent about the proposal - he would never condescend to the destruction of the Noble Qur'an.
Is this where Christianity is heading? Are we becoming "Krishnas" or New Zealand Shark-god worshippers, prepared to accept any standard as long as it doesn't offend someone else? Christ indeed must be ashamed of us!
(6/2/06)

Martin ibn Warriq (post 4:30:57 PM 6/2/06)
Well said.
(6/2/06)

Cheers all
Posted by LittleAgreeableBuddy, Monday, 6 February 2006 6:56:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Then the fairies rushed out and stole all the children.
Man I hate to live in your world were a passage in a work of fiction counted as proof positive. When not a single piece of real proof demonstrates the reality of the supernatural.
Posted by Kenny, Monday, 6 February 2006 8:11:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Why do people complain about enforcing doctrine in the Catholic church when it could do so much good in the protestant churches?"

Sheesh, with that kind of dictorial attitude, no wonder the Catholic
numbers have gone down, down, down, and they have to turn to less educated believers in Africa, for new followers!

What % of Australians actually bother to go to a Catholic mass each week? I'd say such a small %, that they are fast becoming irrelevent, except in their own minds.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 6 February 2006 11:25:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi all

Opinated2 (post 3:40:15 PM 6/2/06)
Religion? That includes Humanism. If one reads Manifesto I & II then mankind is indeed 'lost'.
Jesus' teachings? He taught more than 4 disciples. Thus I wouldn't suggest that we relegate any of the other sections of the NT. Christ Himself said, ".. & the Scripture cannot be broken .." John 10:35, & Paul says "All Scripture is God-breathed & is useful for teaching .." 2 Tim 3:16. Moreover, during Christ's time on earth the NT hadn't yet been written, so Christ was referring to the OT.
The purpose of the OT should not be forgotten. It's foundational to Christianity. Without Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Daniel & the other prophets we would have less continuity & proof of who the Messiah was/is.
Christ's had not "come to abolish the Laws of the Prophets: (but) .. to fulfil them" Matt 5:17. Jesus gave the Law full meaning. He didn't abolish the Ten Commandments. He showed that grace & love are essential. But not without holiness, righteousness or truth.
Sins are supposed to be recognised, confessed - forgiveness sought - renounced & repented of.
The meaning of judgement must be clearly considered. Are you for instance suggesting that we don't make value decisions to avoid a confrontation as described in Matt 18:15? That's surely answered within the text itself but also from 1 Cor 6 (from memory).
Surely, you can't be serious that the penalty for say lying ought to be the same as murder. James in no way intimates that. What is meant is that all sin "hurts" God equally & demeans mankind. I'd most hope that someone would tell me if I did something which, according to the Scriptures, offended God. The responsibility is then mine because God's "trumpet" has been blown. Homosexuality doesn't contribute to God's plan to populate the earth. It is about self-gratification - there goes that Tenth Commandment again.
I often wonder what Yahweh & Christ discuss in consultation. Is the rain our blessing or God crying?
"The Fred Bloggsywhatsamaycallme Ministry"? That's shameful, I agree!
6/2/06)

Cheers all
Posted by LittleAgreeableBuddy, Tuesday, 7 February 2006 5:06:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gee LAB I politely requested more reader friendly layout of your posts on another thread, perhaps you missed it. Might I humbly suggest at least creating a paragraph or two?

Breaking up your post not only makes it easier to read but can provide emphasis on particular points you may wish to make.

1. You can make individual points.
2. Such as numbering or use of A, B, C etc.
3. Try http://www.drgrammar.org/faqs/ for guidelines.

I know I make many mistakes, however I do try to make my posts as legible as possible. While your posts are probably not an offense against God, I hope you will understand my reasons for this post.

Regards
Posted by Scout, Wednesday, 8 February 2006 9:49:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi all

Opinionated2 (posted 6:00:08 PM 6/2/06)

I'm not Catholic. But I can't say that Martin ibn Warriq is wrong either. Christ personally 'selected' Paul. Would you suggest that Christ then told the Holy Spirit to 'falsely' instruct Paul?

In Christ's time on earth He encountered the 'weakness' of all the Disciples. Paul had immense character - unwavering. That was his strength. Could it be that he was also selected to co-ordinate the other Apostles in Christ's absence? He appears to have been more successful at it than Peter.

If all Scripture is God-breathed, then I'll take it all. The Apocryphal & Deuterocanonical, the Complete Works of Josephus Flavius & the approx 40 ancient text which "support" Scripture only add to its richness.
(6/2/06)

Kenny (post 8:11:46 PM 6/2/06)

To which one of the "postees" are you addressing your questionable comments. You see, I came from a position of disbelief, but the unsurmountable evidence that was revealed to me over a decade of study proved that my previous thinking was wrong. If you're a mathematician then you'd enjoy the probability aspect.

Simplistically: you can't see the air, can you? But you can see what it does.
(7/2/06)

Scout (post 9:49:40 AM 8/2/06)

Thank you for your comment about layout & readability. I'm used to scanning large documents of well over 200-pages & whilst they might be set-out as you suggest I don't find the need to see separation lines between paragraphs - I just keep reading. I apologise if that's made it difficult for everyone. You're the only one who's made comment though. Lesson learnt - I'm new to chatrooms.
(9/2/06)

Cheers all
Posted by LittleAgreeableBuddy, Thursday, 9 February 2006 12:28:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LAB...I agree with scout :) about layout.. it does help me.

Your last one is excellent in that respect.. more pls :)

God bless
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 9 February 2006 1:08:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi all

Yabby (post 11:25:53 PM 6/2/06)

I'm not Catholic but I agree that Protestants have much to learn from Catholics & Orthodox practitioners. Mind you, Catholicism isn't perfect either - far from it.

Statistics are always interesting. Approx 70% of Australians claimed Christianity as their faith in the last census. That's grossly overstated - most wouldn't know what a Christian is. The general concensus seems to have been that "I believe in God, so that makes me a Christian." Well, not necessarily! Particularly if they practice a blend of Eastern philosophies or embrace concepts which don't make Christ the centre of their religious beliefs.

One of my cousins follows Buddhism & sees this as similar to Christianity. It says much about her lack of understanding of her own faith, as well as her ignorance of all other religions.

Anyway, if statistics mean anything then the reality may be encapsulated in the following:
(i) only about 3% of the population is active within a library;
(ii) only about 3% of the population consciously maintains good health/nutrition;
(iii) only about 3% retire with sufficient assets to independently maintain themselves beyond 5-7 years after retirement.
Maybe, just maybe only 3% of the population have a healthy relationship with God?

As to how many attend mass or church: that is not the issue. Scripture reveals it: it isn't about how many people meet in a building; it's about how many people honour God. As to how one honours God depends upon who that god is, & the interpretation of honour.

In Islam, honouring Allah is by unquestioning obedience. In Christianity it is not only loving Yahweh, but also in loving those whom Yahweh loves - all humanity. That doesn't mean that all adherents to any religion are 'perfect' in their practice of their religion.
(7/2/06)

BOAZ_David (post 1:08:04 PM 9/2/006)
Thanks for the positive comment(s). I am humble enough to take criticism. We learn from the correction of others - even if it is that sometimes/often we are right.
(9/2/06)

Cheers all
Posted by LittleAgreeableBuddy, Friday, 10 February 2006 9:33:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LAB

Thanks

Now I can read your posts with ease. While I may not always agree there is plenty that is worth my time in your posts.

Cheers
Posted by Scout, Friday, 10 February 2006 10:55:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What do I say, maybe I am from another planet, more than a decade studying religion/politics, My investigations came up with answers, firstly I believe the God being worshiped is in fact a antichrist disguised as God ,no one is aware of this antichrist, the truth is would the creator of the Universe bless tools to butcher humanbeings I dont think so, that is why I say a antichrist disguised as God is in Charge , thats why 100s of millions of human beings have been murdered for belonging to the wrong God Club, the Ten Commandments were once called The Ten Promises,King Solomon who invented the system of permission/justice sponsored the Commandments, to explain I would need 400 pages, think about what I have said, I have tried to prove otherwise always come up with the same answer, if all the people in the Middle East were to lose their memories overnight they would wake up not knowing which side of the fence they belonged on. their memories would have to be reprogrammed so they could hate each other, if their memories were reprogrammed to love each other they would wonder waht the hell has been going on for the past 2000yrs.
Posted by mangotreeone1, Saturday, 18 February 2006 1:47:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi all

Scout (post 10:55:01 AM 10/2/06)

My pleasure to make my writings more legible & intelligible. Thank you for your comments - before & subsequently.
(26/2/06)

mangotreeone 1 (post 1:47:08 PM 18/2/06)

".. I (mangotreeone) believe the God being worshiped is in fact a antichrist disguised ..": I partially agree. But that assumes that all gods are equal. I (LAB) most assuredly believe that many cultures worship false gods - anti-Christs. Judeo-Christian Scripture even warns us.

".. would the creator of the Universe bless tools ..?": I don't know. Ask Him! But again Judeo-Christian Scripture answers that question when it talks about a "righteous & holy god". God (Yahweh) says: "He who justifieth the guilty & he who condemneth the innocent; even they both are an abomination to the L'rd." However, notwithstnding, God doesn't necessarily punish singular, identifiable people. He allows the satanic pattern covering the whole nation to pay for the iniquities of the many. Moreover, with correct study of Christianity, you'd realise that Satan is in control in the hearts of most humans - "All man(kind) has [& continues to] sinned & falls short of the glory of God (Yahweh)."

".. King Solomon who invented the system ..": where do you get that information? It assuredly isn't contained within the Holy Bible. Moses received the Ten Commandments in about 1450BC. Solomon was the son of David. Solomon lived between 970BC-930BC.

Not all people from the Middle East ought to be treated the same. There are distinct races within this 'loose' ethnicities. The Arabs are not the same as the Egyptians or the Turks, for example. An 'in-context' study of Genesis 11:27; 19:37-38; 25:12-18; 28:9; Chptr 36; & Deuteronomy 25:17 will help. But only if you have a good comprehension of Genesis11:27,29; Chptr 21; 22:23; 25:21-34; 28:5; Chptr 29; 32:27-28; Chptr 29; 32:27-28; Chptr 49; & Matthew 1:1-16.

Sadly, the 'seeds' of Islam are Ishmael & Esau. Their treachery lay dormant until Mohammad began "to dream dreams" & subsequently spruiked his intolerance & untruths. World-wide society now has its 'problems' within & external of Islam.
(26/2/06)

Cheers all
Posted by LittleAgreeableBuddy, Sunday, 26 February 2006 4:28:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Both being fatally flawed, i guess they will eventually die (even though many heresies and sects tend to persist for a good while before running aground).

Its a good thing there is a Living Lord, 'walking' among the churches. What a mob to sort out! For like all good enemies - the liberals and fundamentalists find it very difficult to talk to each other for long. So do a lot of others - in camps - in between.

Just as well the Living Lord has commanded both camps to love one another (while they both take the log out of their eye), and has the ability to graciously deal with both camps in mercy and timely judgments.

As to that posting which suggested that every Christian get a theological degree before speaking on anything Christian... the first disciples would never have got launched (to use the fishing terminology) if they had needed one.

As to doctrine not being important, just getting among people. I say, no. We need people with brains to do some hard yards in the thinking department, and we need dynamic teaching, and doctrine does not have to be dry as chips - Paul imparted 'the whole counsel of God' to the Ephesians.

I think a more dynamic, biblical theology, with immediacy, together with sleeves rolled up to love few people in need - can help fill the void. If we wait for the 2 groups to start chatting a bit - hell might freeze over first.
Posted by tennyson's_one_far-off_divine_event, Monday, 17 April 2006 9:45:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy