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

"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?

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

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.

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?

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.