Bernie

One of the root problems IMHO in any progressive/fundamentalist dialog is where to correctly draw the line between true and false in faith. The fundamentalist assumes on some real level: a) the force of an inspired Bible the Deity of Christ c) the virgin birth d) the moral force which reasonably flows from a, b & c. The progressive assumes on some real level: a) the lack of authenticity to some degree of all the above the lack of moral force based on "a" c) the upholding of love as a primary operating moral force The point of view of most fundamentalists is that to dismiss the fundamentals results in a laxity in areas where discipline is called for, the further results of which are consequences for wrong thinking/behavior. The fundamentalist generally believes the progressive hides from the pressure of moral responsibility rather than embracing it. The point of view of most progressives seems to be that the embracing of religious fundamentals beyond love is unecessarily restrictive, causing social and moral disorders in varying degrees according to the degreee of harshness of fundamentalism practiced. The progressive believes that the fundamentalist's pressure of moral responsibility is largely or entirely self-produced and illusory. I see a lot of truth in both positions, though as the world's only esoteric fundamentalist, I admit my bias runs more strongly in favor of the fundamentalist position. Bottom line, though, is that each group has its own fundamental DOs and DON'Ts. This is important, I think, because it highlight's a fundamental (pun intended) difference in favor of the fundie, that the alleged non-adherence to a fundamentalist form of religious faithby the progressive is at bottom itself an illusion. The fundie typically recognizes that his/her faith is rule-based, and affirms this as a good, if imperfectly practiced, thing. The progressive stance by comparison seems based on a falsehood, that of claiming to reject DOs and DON'Ts while actually practicing them by raising sharp contradistinctions between fundamentalism (bad) and progressive faith (good). This is the reason of my occasional posting at prrogressive sites, to plumb the depths of what kinds of faith we really hold to and why. I've found that there's really what William James would call the same "cash value" in either position at the end of the day. We're really all a complex but fragmented (in terms of truth or falsity) mess, in the final analysis. Here, I'd have to side with my progressive brethren than God's love is the one thing that will eventually save the day. If the progressive can have a real faith in this, I suspect he'll find himself alongside the fundie who also places his faith in something beyond his own ability when the lights get turned out. I'll be glad when it's over, personally.

WF2k, I absolutely love to debate, but as I'm so often wont to do, I tend to get into discussions I really don't have time for. We can debate the points of fundamentalism vs. progressivism ad infinitum without convincing one another of the wisdom of his own position. Maybe in the future we can have a more robust dialog about the fine points, but I have to reign myself in for now. Bottom line IMO is that the content of goodness or badness is not in a theological, philosophical or political position, but seen in act (word and deed). Even then, these are just manifestations of good and evil's real existence, which I believe to be ontological properties intrinsic to human spirit. Like most other debaters, I tend to get lost in the same "liberal is bad" mindset, largely, I think, because language tends to be loose and inacurrate. I have to keep reminding myself that badness, to the extent it exists, is a product of the inner man. To the extent my fundamentalism is false, it's in some real sense 'bad', and same for the other guy. No easy answers....but then debate wouldn't be any fun, would it? Hi mfg50, I have to admit, panentheism has some exciting possibilities. I've come to believe that all theologies, be they fundamentalism, liberalism, Gnosticism, etc. are essentially all admixtures of truth and falsity which, for various reasons, different folks are attracted to. Ultimately, there must be some real truth in all positions in order to make a case for each. For instance, the progressive criticism that fundamentalists are generally less loving in their theology as well as their everyday life has some real basis in truth, though there are of course many loving fundies. The fundie may counter that the love the liberal contends for is to a degree superficial and tends to vanish when disagreement and controversy arises. The Gnostic errs, I think [from my fundamentalist view], in a number of ways, but there is a glue of truth underlying the Gnostic position generally which demands attention. David, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, says, "ye are gods" and Jesus confirms this. What sense we might be "gods" isn't clear, but I take comfort and rest in in the belief that we'll all become exactly what God has created us to be, eventually. When you identified your source as "here", I suspect you intended to supply a link, but there isn't one there. Sounds like an interesting read, and I'll see if I can Google the article.

Hi WF2k, Didn't mean to ignore your post on page 2....I missed it completely until browsing after my last post. Moderators typically don't interfere too much unless excessive name-calling starts taking place. I was more concerned that jerryb, the thread starter, might think that I'm hyjacking his post and leading it off in directions not of his choosing. Don't want to play the bully with someone else's thread. Fear definitely plays a role in Christianity and in the notion of an eternal hell. on the flip side of that coin, if, as I and other fundies believe, God did inspire the Bible as His message to man, then the exhortation to discipline in order to avoid consequence must have real meaning. Of course, this doesn't mean much to the progressive who rejects the fundamentals of the Bible as God's word, or the evil nature of man. Perhaps. At the very least, they would see Christianity, their relationship with God and their attitude toward others in a much different light. This topic could easily grow into a whole other thread. I'll just say that I see value in my own fundamentalism in finding the path to righteousness now in order to avoid some measure of hell fire. True. Interesting. Having not been party to these debates, I can't judge with certainty [pun intended], but to my own thinnking, there is often a very thin line between moral judgments and sociopoloitical ones. The prescriptive or spiritual attaches to all manner of the affairs of man. Prescript is induced by spirit, or attaches readily to the organic [things that have spirit or life force]. In other words, I'd bet that the judging you're talking about, though directed to non-religious matters, entailed prescriptive (and thus moral) arguments. Amen. Don't be too hard on evangelicals/fundies...these are for the most part trapped in a particular religious system and simply don't think too far outside the box for a variety of reasons. From the jist of this thread, many here can probably identify with this. I'd agree with them. If it's true that man exists in a fallen state, that God saw fit to take on the form of matter to die in place of fallen man, then it becomes important whether Jesus had a sin nature. The above is the traditional Christian message. I'm a trinitarian because it makes sense that if the above is true, Jesus had to be God because He stated that He could forgive sin. This is consistent with the apostle's testimony, especially Paul's of course. If God felt a perfect sacrifice was necessary to atone for fallen man, then if Christ was not perfect in essence, His sacrifice was insufficient to atone. To reject these premises is ceratinly within one's power to do. But if these things are true, then based on the Bible's agreement in both Testaments that evil is condemned and righteousness acceptable, it's reasonable to assume there will be consequences for the one who does not believe because the one who does not beleive does not act accordingly. I see this line of thought as reasonable, though there are myriad tendrils of discussion and distinctions to be made for each point. Ultimately, don't judge too harshly the one who tries to turn you from not believing in the fundamentals, even if they do it harshly and imperfectly. Many mean well, even if they are not tactful in their approach. I'm not sure of the context here, but this appears to be a philosophical point. Theologically, I think Jesus' nature is important for all the reasons stated above. Loaded question, I'm slobbering to tackle this, but it will quickly lead to definitions and distinctions, and don't really have the time to get into this kind of discussion right now. Short answer: Jesus did everything it was His Father's will He do at the cross, but first we'd need to identify what that was. He actually does require something from us: that we BELIEVE. This is the loaded part...the debatable part is what constitutes belief to the extent of saving faith. As James said, "You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder" (James 2:19). You dismiss belief in the fundamental nature of Christ....how do you know this is not an important part of what Christ exhorts one to believe? In fact, I would agree with those who note that it's more important to know how Jesus is not like us than it is to know how He is, for reasons noted above. How do you know that it's correct and proper to ignore traditional notions about Christ and the Bible? Isn't it possible that efforts to 'reinvent' certain aspects of the Christian faith to make it more appealing may be misguided, that such reinvention might be in directions that are not spiritually healthy? I've head this idea before that fundamentalism tends to separate God and man. Now, I'm a fundamentalist, and the Lord has brought me considerably closer to Him by certain adjustments to my theology which ended up strengthening my fundamentalism and relationship with Him, not thrust it apart, despite the sheer difference in our natures. This strikes very near the fascination I have with religious viewpoints. Many accuse fundamantalism of badness, but evil has no epistemic connection to a viewpoint. Viewpoints are sets and subsets of knowledge and ideas...prescript attaches to things spiritual, as mentioned above. This mirrors the classical view pretty much, I think. I don't think your charge of separation as a cause of fundamentalism is supportable, WF2k Agreed. But this is a people defect, not a fundamentalist defect. I know fundies who are quite honest about their fallibility, and progressives so dogmatic that they refuse to allow facts to alter their beliefs. So what's new under the sun? ....and I think this is perfectly reasonable.... I think they would be right, but this applies to all humans. We're a pluralistic mess, each one of us, spiritually speaking, IMHO. True, the opinions of some tend to exceed actual knowledge and perception, but again, this is not specifically a fundamentalist flaw, it's found everywhere. Thanks for your input, WF2k.

Hi WF2k, Correct. Correct again...this is by far the most popular view among my fellow fundies. Remember, my own fundamentalism affirms the first four of the fundamentals--or five, as some use a 6 point fundamentalism, as per….. Bible inerrancy the virgin birth the deity of Christ the substitutionary atonement/man’s fallen state the bodily resurrection the second coming of Christ [premillenial belief] I reject the last….premillenialism is not a fundamental of the Christian faith...and most are open to careful interpretation, which your typical Christian-in-the-pew is not particularly good at. While you and I appear to agree on what I believe to be some pretty important points, I’ll never tell you or anyone else you’re going to eternal hell. I do believe in hell, but not that it’s eternal. I typically lose lots of fundie support when I state that I believe Adolph Hitler, you, me, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and Mother Theresa are all equally the apple of God’s eye. Most can’t handle the thinking behind this. But fndies are people too, you know, and not as bad overall as they're made out. Criticism tends to focus on the worst 5%, which is human nature. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi OA, Absolutely.

Hi OA, Thanks for responding. You seem to be pretty honest. Actually, I've found that progressives and fundies are about equally judgmental of one another, in religious matters. I say this from a very informal 3 year study of my own, posting on various theology boards and having dialog with folks with different viewpoints. Personally, as a fundie, I've found that once I understood that it has been God's intention all along to save all mankind, it became immediately easier to accept both my fellow fundies--who largely reject my views--and progressives, who also usually reject my theology. *sigh* Being the world's only esoteric fundamentalist gets lonely sometimes, but there are benefits, too...for instance, being the world's only rational esotericist, I recenly elected myself to my second consecutive term as CEO and chielf spokeperson for the Society of Rational Esotericists. Quite a prestigious position, you know. Lonely though it is, still, human motive and behavior fascinates me, so I'll continue to collect data....

Hello WF2k, Your mention that one of my questions deserved its own thread made me realize that I've sort of hijacked this one, so I'll try to keep this short and sweet, and will back out anytime the thread wanders back to its original intent. Just one question, though.....you said, Which fundamentals of the faith do you see as contributing to being judgmental and self-righteous? Do you think progressives are more free from judgmentalism than fundies, and if so, do you think this is because of the reasons I stated in my earlier post...re a higher relationship and connectivity with God? Also, do you think gut feeling in one's personal theology trumps reason in, for instance, the case of the fundie who sees man's inherent sinfulness as a reasonable, rational proposition over against the progressive view that man is not inherently sinful? Let me know if you think this discussion warrants a new thread, BTW.

Howdy wayfarer2k, Thanks for the welcome. Yikes, I don't know....that avatar of yours sure looks like it'd bite. But I'll take the chance..... Interesting, a pretty typical and consistent list compared to other former fundies I've dialoged wtih. I'd agree with you on 6 and 11 especially, and 1,2,5,8,9 & 10 conditionally. Here, we have strong common ground in 1,5,6,7,8,10 and 11. Not sure what you mean by #9. Agree conditionally with the rest. See, fundies and ex-fundies can have some common ground. I've found a great deal of freedom in adherence to several of the points you make, especially in those areas that confirm that God's love is toward all mankind. But as mentioned in my opening post, I've found more reason than ever to remain committed to the fundamentals of the faith [as outlined by evengelicals in the early part of the 20th century in response to the rising tide of progressive thought within the church]. I'm curious to explore how differences in religious opinion are formed. It's generally considered true that all those things that denote in a human being an improved or closer relationship with God have a corresponding effect for good in that individual. I.e., as one progresses in one's religious walk, it will, if authentic, produce conspicuous fruit (Mat 7). In light of this, aside from the freedom I think I can safely say you and I share--that God in His great mercy and love isn't going to roast in an eternal hell any human being--what other fruit or benefits do you see in having abandoned, for example, the notion that Jesus was God, that man is inherently sinful or that Scripture as an inspired set of texts has a form of power in being God's actual word and communication to mankind? Thanks for your willingness to correspond.

Hi, I'm new here. Was browsing, noticed an undercurrent of unity among posters here re a relief to be rid of a former fundamentalism. As the world's only esoteric fundamentalist, I've seen these sentiments expressed on other theology boards, and wonder if any former fundies here would be willing to clarify their feelings about what it is about your former religious views you abandoned, what you found that is of greater value. So you don't think I'm trying to 'bait' anyone into a mud-slinging contest, since a deep spiritual experience I underwent over a three year period, from '91-'94, I've found that my own fundamentalist beliefs were first shattered, then rearranged. Lots of old stuff was thrown out, and I find a lot of agreement with sentiments expressed here regarding some of the negative aspects of fundamentalism, but find now, some 12 years later, that my adherence to the fundamentals of the faith have been strengthened. I'm interested in honest, challenging debate, not rock-throwing. Any willing correspondents?