Christian Fundamentalism

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 3:18 am

Thanks Ted. Must admit it rather spooked me!

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 6:08 pm

I was thinking about this particular issue, fundamentalism. To be very honest if I felt I had to believe as they do to be a Christian I would in fact turn to Buddhism. I have no problem with those for whom they this is appropriate. However, the exclusivity that such an approach leads to is in fact spiritual error. It is not at all consistent with the message and life of Jesus of Nazareth.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sun Mar 23, 2008 4:46 am

Jester: My initial reply is on your voting thread. Will come back to this when brain shows signs of functioning, but IF you belive God created the world in 7 days in 4004 BC or whatever Bishop Ussher came up with AND say Jesus shouldn't always be taken literally we're going have further disagreements.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sun Mar 23, 2008 6:58 pm

Christian fundamentalism is a modern invention and does not go back to the churches created by the apostles after the death of Jesus. Any good book on Christian history will clearly show this.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sun Mar 23, 2008 6:59 pm

Alleluia Christ is risen.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon Mar 24, 2008 11:26 am

jester:-6

Peter and Paul were part of the earliest church. They were not teaching what the fundamentalists teach today. What the fundamentalists are teaching today was invented about 400 years ago and in many cases at the beginning of the last century.

Now to the question as to who taught pluralism. It comes right from the Bible if one does a careful reading. Micah 6:8; Isaiah 58; Acts 10; Matt. 22; Matt. 25. plus a host of others. Thus it comes from Jesus himself.

Jesus and the apostles would be appalled at what many have done to the church in the name of God. The reformers twisted the message completely out of shape and have made it say what they think it should say and not what the God manifest in one Jesus of Nazareth said and did.

The real question we are addressing here is not pluralism but fundamentalism. The historical fact is that it was and is the invention, and I do say invention, of the reformation and the years following. The historical fact is that it cannot be traced back to the early church of the apostles.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon Mar 24, 2008 11:28 am

An appropriate response to "Alleluia Christ is risen." is "Christ is risen indeed, alleluia."

That was the early church response.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon Mar 24, 2008 6:18 pm

jester:-6

You pick and choose as well. On what basis? Your interpretation?

Homosexuality is an abomination and so is the wearing of clothing made of more than one fiber. At this point you start trying to justify that position. You take some of it literally and apply it to today and others you choose to come up with excuses why it is OK. If one is an abomination than so is the other. You cannot have it both ways. Eating shell fish is in the same category. Excuses are apparently supposed to wash with some but not others. You accuse me of picking and choosing but you do exactly the same thing. On what basis?

Apparently war crimes as per Num. 31 are also OK. God can be as unjust as He wants to because He is God. Nice God to "trust" in. This approach makes God into some kind of evil monster no better than Ted Bundy or Adolph Hitler or Joseph Stalin.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon Mar 24, 2008 6:30 pm

jester:-6

Let us look at Acts 10;34ff "Then Peter began to speak to them: 'I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.' "

Clearly we are speaking of any nation and any person.

One might argue that it talks of Jesus after but a close reading will show that it is an additional comment and that vs. 34 and 35 stand alone.

To Matt. 25 which is a copy of Isaiah 58. When Jesus separates the sheep from the goats the goats are apparently condemned and the sheep welcomed into the kingdom. The sheep are those who did it to the least of these. There is no proviso that they have said the name Jesus or even heard it. There is no proviso that they must be "saved". To suggest otherwise is to add to the scriptures what is not there.

These of course are totally ignored by the fundamentalist. They want to add in their suppositions which are not there in English or Greek.

Fundamentalism has not been robbed it is the robber. Prior to the reformation the Bible was not considered by the church in general to be the absolute and inerrant word of God. There have always of course been a few but the general belief was contrary; that the Bible was a book with some history and a lot of symbolism. That is the history. The reformers usurped the term Christian and invented their own religion.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon Mar 24, 2008 7:04 pm

jester:-6

One of the positive things of good literature is the fact that two different people can read the same piece and get two different interpretations. It is no different with the Bible. There have been hundreds of thousands of interpretations of the Bible and the differences are quite apparent in the existence of some 22 000 various Christian denominations around the world.

When one individual comes along, whether it be Fred, Bill, Deborah or Sallie, and claims to have the one and only correct interpretation their credibility is all shot to hell.

It is well acknowledged among clergy and scholars today that there can be many interpretations. These interpretations come from the change in time, era, culture, history, our fund of knowledge etc. It is this that keeps the Bible a living book. Otherwise it becomes a dead cast off from an ancient period. This approach, that there is only one correct interpretation puts the reader into the absurd position of having to deny the reality around him or her i.e. the age of the world. That particular fact is no longer questioned except by those who are afraid to face reality. Trust in God is not enough they need a written contract from the divine so that they can hold Him/Her to that contract. This amounts to a lack of faith in God.

I am criticized for using the term "midrash" and yet that is the style in which the Bible was written and interpreted by the early church and the members of the Jewish faith. This amounts to a rejection of the very book that some call the inerrant word of God. If that is how it was written that is how it must be interpreted or one is not interpreting the scriptures as written. They are interpreting it in the way the reformers invented. The book is being interpreted in ways contrary to the writers intent and purpose.

Shalom

Ted:-6

nvalleyvee · Post by **nvalleyvee** » Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:31 pm

Ted;815096 wrote: jester:-6

One of the positive things of good literature is the fact that two different people can read the same piece and get two different interpretations. It is no different with the Bible. There have been hundreds of thousands of interpretations of the Bible and the differences are quite apparent in the existence of some 22 000 various Christian denominations around the world.

When one individual comes along, whether it be Fred, Bill, Deborah or Sallie, and claims to have the one and only correct interpretation their credibility is all shot to hell.

It is well acknowledged among clergy and scholars today that there can be many interpretations. These interpretations come from the change in time, era, culture, history, our fund of knowledge etc. It is this that keeps the Bible a living book. Otherwise it becomes a dead cast off from an ancient period. This approach, that there is only one correct interpretation puts the reader into the absurd position of having to deny the reality around him or her i.e. the age of the world. That particular fact is no longer questioned except by those who are afraid to face reality. Trust in God is not enough they need a written contract from the divine so that they can hold Him/Her to that contract. This amounts to a lack of faith in God.

I am criticized for using the term "midrash" and yet that is the style in which the Bible was written and interpreted by the early church and the members of the Jewish faith. This amounts to a rejection of the very book that some call the inerrant word of God. If that is how it was written that is how it must be interpreted or one is not interpreting the scriptures as written. They are interpreting it in the way the reformers invented. The book is being interpreted in ways contrary to the writers intent and purpose.

Shalom

Ted:-6

I Love the way you speak about religion from your heart. It has always been in a compassionate manner toward all faiths. I can only say that all faiths have preached compassion to ALL peoples. So where in this world will we align our beliefs with aall countries? Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Islam ,Tao, Buhtists are all apartr of the basic religion.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 5:09 pm

jester:-6

There are many applications, absolutely. Just so there are many interpretations that can be seen and are valid.

The Bible was written for a specific culture in a specific era. Yes it has meanings for many others. However, it must also be considered in light of today's culture and in light of our fund of knowledge today. That knowledge has been given to us by God and it is a sin to disregard it. The Bible can and should be reinterpreted or it is dead.

In dismissing midrash you are dismissing both the folks who wrote the Bible as well as the Bible itself. You have made something of it that was never intended. It is you who are making changes in the book.

Your take on Acts 10 is in error. It does not make any stipulations. If the fear, which means revere, God and do what is right they are acceptable to him. You are indeed adding things that are not there.

Your comment on Matt 25 is highly inaccurate. You are indeed picking and choosing. It has no provisos beyond what Jesus said: If you did it to these you did it to me.

I agree we must take the Bible as a whole insofar as it makes sense. You are adding into Matt. 25 a concept that is not there. You have taken John 3:16 and tried to apply it to all other aspects of the Bible. This is to misunderstand the message of Jesus. There is a consistency in the Bible but it is not correct belief but a right relationship with God. It is about justice and compassion. Justice and compassion are the basic tenets of all the great faiths of the world.

I almost forgot your question concerning Hell. Do I believe Hell exists as a place. Absolutely not. It is as ancient mythical creation as is Satan. (Mesopotamian)

Here you have ignored completely the fact that there have been hundreds of thousands of interpretations of the Bible and among all of those you are saying that you have the only right answer. I don't believe that for one second. All these others were wrong???!!! You must be kidding.

I see absolutely no justice in Num 31. We are told not to commit murder and then God tells the Hebrews to willy nilly kill all men women and children except for the virgins. The young children have committed sins? You have people who have never heard of the Jewish God being punished for their accident of birth. This is just? Hardly. God is not only allowing but encouraging the rape of women? What kind of god are you speaking of? This does not come from God. This is out and out primitive war crimes. Albeit it was the custom of the day but we don't condone that kind of behaviour today. Another change do to an advancement in culture. Nor do we see this behaviour in the life and teachings of Jesus.

Now we shall go to the whole issue of sexuality. Do you wear clothing made of more than one fiber. If homosexuality is an abomination that so is that practice. You tell me I can't reinterpret the Bible on the basis of modern culture but you do exactly that when you try to justify your stand against homosexuality while saying it is ok to wear clothing made of more than one fiber. No excuse can justify that interpretation if one accepts the Bible as the absolute inerrant word of God.

The whole issue of fornication is rather interesting. A read in the Jewish encyclopedia on adultery shows that a married man could step out with another woman and have sex with her as long as she was not a virgin. This was not considered adultery. Polygamy was well accepted well past the death of Jesus and was not considered a sin. The ancient kings had dozens and in some exaggerations hundreds of wives. It is a wonder they had time to look after the affairs of state. Here again history does not support such a strict interpretation.

As for me I will follow Solomon's advice to get instruction, acquire knowledge and strive for wisdom.

Fundamentalism today is a religion created by the reformers. It does not go back to the church of the Apostles.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 6:05 pm

jester:-6

Another interesting observation. You claim to go back to original meanings, the history, culture etc. Yet when I point out the original meanings of words you reject them. When I point out how the ancient scriptures were written and interpreted you reject that as well.

It seems to me to be a contradiction. If you were looking to the past you would include those things pointed out.

Thus what you are doing is rejecting the writings and the intent of the authors and their meaning in favor of an interpretation that was invented by the reformers and some branches of the church since. You cannot possibly gain the understanding or the meaning intended by the writers. You are placing your interpretation above that of the very folks who wrote the book. You are in fact reinterpreting the Bible which is what you accuse me of doing and in that case I acknowledge that.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Wed Mar 26, 2008 8:08 am

As a sort of addendum to this debate, I've been wondering if one of the reasons Creationism is so popular in the USA is at least in part due to its relatively recent occupation by humans.

I've just finished a lot of work on my garden, which involved digging down a metre or so in places. I rapidly found traces of previous building work from the 1960s, and under that, the bones of a horse dating back to the 1920s or earlier. The idea that digging down into the earth is also digging back in time is solidly established and confirmed every day all over this much lived in Island (and probably accounts for the popularity of Time Team!:wah:). You can find mediaeval pottery, under that Iron Age artefacts, below that Bronze Age and so on back into time until we reach fossils millions of years old and traces of the hot mud pools where life may have begun. My little scrapings in the garden touch just the top of this record, but I am aware of the connection. Not long ago they found some human bones in Cheddar Gorge that date back 10,000 (I think it was 10,000 - a very, very long time, anyway) years or so and managed to extract some DNA. They found a match in the DNA of (appropriately enough) a local history teacher. The teacher was a descendant. I imagine him going into the local museum , looking at the bones and saying, "Hi, grandpa.":)

If an American goes out into his or her garden and digs, I understand that they are highly unlikely to find anything from the Iron or Bronze Ages, or mediaeval times. There are maybe a few Native American sites, but that's about it until you reach the fossils. There's no direct connection, so it's comparatively easy to ignore or dismiss if you want to.

The bit I don't get at all is the idea that God put these fossils in the ground - why? To mess with our heads? Sounds most un-God-like to me!

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:33 pm

Dear Ted, I've very much admired the patience and scholarship with which you've responded to Jester's posts.

Jester, I know you believe what you believe sincerely but your arguments seem weak to me and you give the impression of ducking issues you can't deal with - eg why homosexuality is a sin and wearing clothes of one fibre isn't when both are condemned in the Old Testament. In my opinion Creationism is simply stupid, a blind flying in the face of the evidence. I just hope that, one day, you see the light.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Mar 26, 2008 2:39 pm

Jester;816892 wrote: God is an absolute perfect being, I recognize that man makes errors and that I can be wrong, however there is enough of the bible, the culture, the historical data available to make a clear single interpretation. I dont think I know every aspect of every word in the bible, but I can gleen an excellent picture of God, His attributes and his actions in dealing with mankind enough so that I can be fairly dogmatic about right and wrong. I simply see way less gray than you do Ted. You exclude anything the so called reformers did. I don't, I think the so called reformers merely went back to what was originally intended and uncorrupted what the mainline churches had mis interpereted for purposes of power over the common man.

We will never agree Ted, its that simple.

Jester, the very fact that you are having this running debate with Ted shows conclusively that this is not the case. Any document, never mind one as long and complex as the Bible, that is not written in a rigid metalanguage, is open to multiple interpretations and to insist on there being only one possible interpretation in the face of many other alternatives is turning a blind eye to the n'th degree.

You might never agree with Ted's interpretation but to deny that it can even possibly have any validity is absurd.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Mar 26, 2008 2:57 pm

Clodhopper:-6

Thanks. I do wish I had the patience of Jesus but alas that is not to be.

You are correct jester does avoid many of the issues I raise. I am certain that I do not have all the answers. That is why I continue to read and study. It just seems logical to me that if one does not read the ancient writings with their style and intent in mind one can never come close to what the writers meant. Thus we end up with an interpretation that is not consistent with what the writers put there.

I also feel, though, that as with any good literature each new reading can lead to another equally valid interpretation and ought to be considered in light of modern culture and knowledge.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Mar 26, 2008 3:00 pm

Bryn Mawr:-6

Thanks.

jester and I will likely never agree on many things. It is only too bad that he cannot see that others, not necessarily myself, may have equally valid interpretations. In fact I don't expect others to agree with me.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Mar 26, 2008 3:07 pm

jester:-6

Of course we will never agree on many things. That is not even my intent. I am simply pointing out to you that there are other valid interpretations of scripture.

Yes you can glean information from the Bible and even interpret it. Your interpretation will not be the intent of the author since you refuse to understand and recognize the style and the intent with which any passage is written. You will not be interpreting the Torah as the writers intended. You will be interpreting it as you intend and nothing more.

As Clodhopper has pointed out you have disregarded much of what I have said. Silence gives consent???!!! LOL

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Mar 26, 2008 3:15 pm

I have just finished reading the recently found "Gospel of Judas" published by Ehrman. One of the interesting things that has been reinforced in my own mind is just how divided the early church became within less than 100 years of the death of Jesus. They had a very good start on those 22 000 Christian denominations that we now have.

This particular gospel is thought to have been written somewhere in the early 2nd Century.

The " Gospel of Peter" it would appear was written either before or at the same time as "Revelation", around 95 CE. Of course as with all of the ancient manuscripts we do not have the originals but copies of copies of copies etc.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Wed Mar 26, 2008 5:36 pm

I reject the Creation myth as factual truth. The science says it isn't true. Your position on this issue makes your opinions in general suspect. I am aware that nothing anyone says on the issue will change your mind, which seems entirely closed. Best of luck, but I'm simply not interested in your opinions now I understand where you come from. Ted is far more convincing, and in my opinion, far more christian. I'm not sure what you are, but I want no part of it.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Mar 26, 2008 6:06 pm

Jester;817528 wrote: CH,

Many refuse to see the simplicity of the bible when it forces them to change how they live, instead they reinterperet the bible to make it say what they wnt to say. Ted is such a one, You apparently are too, which fine. Its up to each person to take what God reveals in creation and the written word and accept it or reject it.

I gave an explaination as to why the Law (fulfilled in Christ) still rejects homosexuality, the issue of the garments is fullfilled in the same way, it is an example to the Hebrews then as to why two things that dont fit together shouldn

t be put together, example, two men having sex, it is against creation, the fact that you reject creation explains to me where you stand.

Bryn,

When someone writes something down its with a certain meaning. Typically there are not many ways to interperet what someone writes. Its written with one intent as it explains what the person intended to say. What they wrote can have many applications but only one interpretation, that is common sense. The reason I reject Teds interpretation is that he adds to and removes major portions of the bible. Even major concepts such as 'hell'. One cannot come to a correct interpretation without all of the bible.

Ted,

It comes down to our basic approach as to what is contained in the bible, and thats why I reject your interpretation. I believe with all I am that you are wrong becasue you're not looking at the whole picture. You reject what I say because you claim the reformers invented what I believe. Our views are diametrically opposed, we vaguely agree on method, we vaguly agree on Christ and we completely disagree on each others dieties attributes.

I'll give you an example or two:

You believe in a melding of creation and mans theory of evolution.

You reject all concept of Hell, punishment or that God has the right to order his own creation, even their deaths.

You reject somewhere near 80% of the words attributed to Christ (by my dead reckoning, in our conversations).

You base all your hopes on doing 'justice and love' but rarely if ever say what justice and love is and leave it up to God to be judged.

What's left of the truth if you remove hell, punishment, creation, and 80% of what the savior said and never define Justice or love according to scripture?????

Somewhere I started a thread about which books of the bible you reject and got called on it as being antagonistic, it wasnt my point to be antagonistic, but I wanted to know which parts of the bible you do reject and which parts you dont so that I could get a clear picture of what the typical pluralist believes. Thats why I say you pick and choose.

Sorry Jester, I write technical specifications for a living. When the going gets tough I drop into pseudocode but most of it is in English. I'm good at my job and take pride in being unambiguous but virtually every document I write is queried for its exact interpretation.

It is not possible, in English, to write anything non-trivial and to admit of only one interpretation - English is not an exact language.

To expect a document as long and complex as the Bible to have but a single possible meaning is akin to expecting Schrodinger's Cat to escape from the sealed box before tomorrow morning - it just ain't going to happen. To believe otherwise is anything but common sense.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 12:34 am

Jester;817549 wrote: Bryn,

If you take a word in the bible, even one that is a common word it has different meanings, maybe two or three ideas or subsets of meanings, involved in a single word, as its coupled with other words it narrows down its meaning to a more exact interpretation of the word, when you string the words together in context, and in light of the culture you can get an understanding that is narrow enough to come to a conlclusion about what that word means. Thats what I mean about one interpretation. Of course it is more complex than that, you also need to cross reference ideas with other parts of the bible to make sure the idea or concept is consistant.

Im am talking about the wide wide swings folks take when they interperet the bible the way they WANT too.

If you say you believe in the bible, and then say that God did not create the world in the order he says he did, then you dont really belive in the bible. Thats a humongusly different determination about what it says and a vastly different interpretation.

Thats what Im talking about. I'm not talking about differences in how the word 'and' is used. Or about a word that the translators added to the bible to clarify what the greek says in english.

I could not agree more, if *you* do that then *you* come to a conclusion. If another person does that then they come to a different conclusion. If a third person does that then they come to yet another conclusion. It gets even worse with a document the size of the Bible with its many different authors, styles, translations and cultural backgrounds allowing people to give emphasis to one passage or to another (I agree that it is all important but, as with any text, there are key sections that carry more meaning than others).

You interpret the Bible in the way that you WANT to - others interpret it in they way that they WANT to and who is to say which of those interpretations is correct.

To believe that you possess the only possible interpretation and that everyone else is wrong is hubris which, as I recall, is specifically warned against in the Bible.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:48 am

JAB: I ended up graduating in English Literature, but it was touch and go whether it would be History. I am aware of the English Civil War and the 30 Years War in Europe. Both sides claimed the other was the enemy of God, and from there it's but a short step to atrocity. Both sides pitched in with gusto and the resulting atrocities were so horrible that the British in particular and Europeans in general have never allowed the priests control over our political lives since.

If you look at Jester's political views on another thread and combine them with his religious views you have someone who I CANNOT trust. He believes the Old Testament literally, and says it has one meaning and he knows pretty much what that meaning is. As Bryn Mawr points out, it is not possible to reduce a text as long and complex as the Bible to one meaning. Bryn knows it from his work, I know it from my training. Neither of these things will move Jester's position one iota. Jester is a liar, if only to himself.

To insist on the literal truth of the Genesis he has to deny the validity of the scientific process and the existence of anything before 4004 BC (assuming he's going on Bishop Ussher's dating, which counted back using length of lives mentioned in the Bible - largely in the Book of Kings if I remember right). Archaeology makes a nonsense of such claims. Take one small example: In the last Ice Age sea levels were about 70 metres lower than the are today, and both Britain and Ireland were joined to mainland Europe by a land bride. As the Ice began to retreat north animals moved along this land bridge into the until rising sea levels cut off first Ireland and then England. As you might expect, fewer species of animal reached Ireland than England before the land bridge was cut, and there are fewer species of animal in England than on mainland Europe, both in the present day and the fossil record. Hence the unsurprising fact that species that do not travel fast never reached Ireland, which is why Ireland has no snakes. As I understand Jester's view, neither the Ice Age nor the fossil record happened, so species distribution in Europe is presumably a matter of chance.:-5:-5

Heck, Astronomers look at distant stars and galaxies and the light they see is older by millions and millions of years than the Creation claimed by people like Jester! But no, it's those scientists telling lies again. He's quite happy to accept power created by nuclear reactions, but the evidence of the decay of nuclear materials isn't true. :-5:-5

Take an example more familiar to Americans - the Horseshoe Crab has existed pretty much unchanged for several hundred million years. It's there in the fossil record with the dinosaurs (and way before them), and still here today. Because the Creation Myth says otherwise it did not exist several million years ago, though I assume its current existence is accepted.:-5:-5

You speak of working out their spirituality in their lives. I don't know what either of them do in that regard, but assuming both are being truthful on this website I know which one I'd go to if in I was in trouble and had to pick one: Humility rather than self righteousness. One I wish to take by the hand and say, "Welcome, friend," the other makes my skin crawl. Literally. There's flame behind his eyes.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 1:04 pm

JAB: Yesindeedy! Scientific thought evolves and what now is known was once only imagined and before that was not conceivable at all because the words to describe the concepts hadn't been developed! New evidence comes to light, the results of experiments are challenged and so on.

And if anyone can tell me I've got it wrong on this, please do 'cos hard science isn't my field but I understand that radiocarbon dating is based on the fact that radioactive isotopes decay at an absolutely fixed rate and have done in every test that has been done , which is why, for example, our clocks are kept in time by a Caesium clock. So the amount of whatever isotope they check for is measured in the sample taken for dating and the scientists can say "well, if this bone had just been created, we'd expect to find x amount of isotope present, but we have in fact found this much smaller amount y and we can calculate that it takes z number of years for the isotope to decay to that extent. There are plenty of variables that can distort results, the risk of contamination etc etc, but in the hundreds of thousands (probably millions by now) of datings that have been done a consistent reasonable accuracy has been achieved that generally puts Bronze Age artifacts in the Bronze Age and old, old rocks at around 4,000,000,000 years old. Science makes mistakes - scientists are human - but it's very rare for them to come back and say they were THAT mistaken in a branch of science that has been around for a while now, and in fact there's nothing older than 6,000 years.

At that point I accept they are probably right, which means either God is messing with our heads, or the Genesis story is not literally true. And that doesn't mean there isn't spiritual truth there - I think I believe that sin is Man's creation, not God's, which the Genesis story suggests, while I doubt that Eve chatted to a serpent and was responsible - smells far too much of a man shifting the blame - which is another spiritual truth accessible in the story!

nvalleyvee · Post by **nvalleyvee** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:48 pm

I only read 2 pages of this. If you are Christian fundamentalist...you must have come over on the Mayflower. You are the people the colonists rebeled against.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:39 pm

Wow, I dont think anyones ever called me a liar and a hell bent demon in one sentence before and lived to tell about it another day. I think I'll do the christian thing here and spare your life. At least that way you can say that I did show some mercy in my lifetime.

(My emphasis)

Is this meant to be humour or is it a veiled death threat? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt: I don't think YOU know which it is.

I said you were a liar to yourself. I'll call you a fool if you prefer.

Given the amount of killing you want, you are certainly no angel.

majorford · Post by **majorford** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 9:02 pm

I view this like our original American Constitution prior to amendments - Christian or any religion fundamentalism from its earliest policy.

Regards,

Ford

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Fri Mar 28, 2008 6:55 am

Jester: If I said to you, given the row we've been having, that I was considering killing you, but on the whole I'd decided to let you live - at least for the moment - how would you react?

Bear in mind that I have read your posts about killing on other threads.

It is possible that you were just joking. Tone of voice is always tricky on message boards and Americans and British people are notorious for misunderstanding eachother. This is why I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Poor joke though. Hard not to see it as an attempt to bully me into silence.