Fundamentalism is ALWAYS a bad thing

[Thuloid]

Fundamentalism, dictionary defined, is based in the literal reading of religious texts. One could generalize the term to apply to a literal and unbending acceptance of any code, legal, moral, or religious. Yes, fundamentalism is ALWAYS a bad thing.

Fundamentalism is essentially a dehumanizing force, because it forces human beings who accept it, any form of it, to live up to an absolute code. If the code is absolute, then it becomes itself a kind of god, unquestionable, and human failing in the face of an absolute code is unacceptable. To accept and live with a fundamentalist outlook, long-term, a human must either see him or herself as living up to the code completely, thereby resulting in self-righteousness and a view of oneself as perfect (always a mistake- we're never perfect) or see him or herself as failing the code, resulting in guilt, despair, and an inability to see the value of one's life. Both of these points of view are delusional and dangerous, and many people with strong fundamentalist outlooks will alternate between the two.

On a completely different note, I don't want to turn this thread into a theological debate, FearlessLeader2, but the Christology represented in the your posts is a bit screwy. Let's take a look:

When Christ came, it was after the people of spiritual Israel had lost the way, and he was providing a new guide down the path. As part of his work, he restored God's original plan, and sacrifices and many other placations of the Israelites were swept aside. This was done by Jesus' living up to the requirements of, and thereby fulfilling, the Mosaic Law.

You make it sound as if Jesus was sort of a late-game, stopgap insertion by God in order to straighten out a world that had clearly gotten away from him. You claim to take the Bible seriously--What about the opening of John's gospel (In the beginning was the word, etc...), some of Jesus's own words from that gospel (Before Abraham was, I am...), Christian interpretation of many Old Testament passages as referring to Jesus as the 2nd person of the trinity.... In fact, you seem here to be ignoring the whole history of Christianity and biblical exegesis, effectively removing Jesus from the trinity.
As far as redemptive action is concerned, what good would it do if only one person were to keep the law? So what? Actually, Jesus claimed to have authority over the law, inasmuch as he violated what the Pharisees (devout religious people no doubt, but classic funamentalists) and Sadducees perceived to be the law. Anyway, note his teaching on the sabbath, definitely part of the law, in Mark2:23-28 ("The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.")

 

[Thuloid]

Fundamentalism, dictionary defined, is based in the literal reading of religious texts. One could generalize the term to apply to a literal and unbending acceptance of any code, legal, moral, or religious. Yes, fundamentalism is ALWAYS a bad thing.

Fundamentalism is essentially a dehumanizing force, because it forces human beings who accept it, any form of it, to live up to an absolute code. If the code is absolute, then it becomes itself a kind of god, unquestionable, and human failing in the face of an absolute code is unacceptable. To accept and live with a fundamentalist outlook, long-term, a human must either see him or herself as living up to the code completely, thereby resulting in self-righteousness and a view of oneself as perfect (always a mistake- we're never perfect) or see him or herself as failing the code, resulting in guilt, despair, and an inability to see the value of one's life. Both of these points of view are delusional and dangerous, and many people with strong fundamentalist outlooks will alternate between the two.

On a completely different note, I don't want to turn this thread into a theological debate, FearlessLeader2, but the Christology represented in the your posts is a bit screwy. Let's take a look:

When Christ came, it was after the people of spiritual Israel had lost the way, and he was providing a new guide down the path. As part of his work, he restored God's original plan, and sacrifices and many other placations of the Israelites were swept aside. This was done by Jesus' living up to the requirements of, and thereby fulfilling, the Mosaic Law.

You make it sound as if Jesus was sort of a late-game, stopgap insertion by God in order to straighten out a world that had clearly gotten away from him. You claim to take the Bible seriously--What about the opening of John's gospel (In the beginning was the word, etc...), some of Jesus's own words from that gospel (Before Abraham was, I am...), Christian interpretation of many Old Testament passages as referring to Jesus as the 2nd person of the trinity.... In fact, you seem here to be ignoring the whole history of Christianity and biblical exegesis, effectively removing Jesus from the trinity.
As far as redemptive action is concerned, what good would it do if only one person were to keep the law? So what? If you look carefully at Jesus's words regarding himself and his mission (set forth most clearly in John's gospel, and Paul definitely advances this point of view) what matters is not the specific action that Jesus takes or does not, but Jesus himself. Not to oversimplify things, but the whole point of the incarnation (y'know, that little event we celebrate on the 25th of this month every year), of God made flesh, is God's assumption of human frailty, weakness, sin, and eventually death, into himself. Jesus says as much--"I, If I am lifted up, will draw all things to myself." Because of this, while morality and the law are good things, they are utterly nonessential. Everything that matters has been taken care of.

Anyway, Jesus claimed to have authority over the law, inasmuch as he violated what the Pharisees (devout religious people no doubt, but classic funamentalists) and Sadducees perceived to be the law. Anyway, note his teaching on the sabbath, definitely part of the law, in Mark2:23-28 ("The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.")
Furthermore, it occurs to me that the people Jesus came down hardest on were those who had a set, unchangeable religious code, the fundamentalists of his day. He himself provided a radically different interpretation of many religious writings than his audience was used to or prepared for. That doesn't set a good precedent for those who want to advance Biblical literalism.

I don't want to attack your beliefs too strongly, but don't confuse faith with the stubborn adherence to a simplistic worldview that fundamentalism represents. Fundamentalism's problem is that it is incapable of real forgiveness, and therefore of real love. I can imagine very little more sad than that.

 

[allan]

"If it didn't concern me so greatly, would I be making myself a target for everyone who wants to use me as a symbol of all those annoying obstacles in the way of their own selfish desires? You think I enjoy having people tell me that I am a fascist control freak? You think I like being hated for my views?"

FL2, your self-pity is pathetic.

Truth be told, you CHOOSE to make these actions "concern" you emotionally. So take responsibility for your choice. If the consequences of your choice is ridicule in these forums, then so be it.

I could just as easily make the "issue" of people picking their noses in private disturb me, and get myself worked up over that, and put myself in basically the same position as you have here. But since such action (like two homosexuals doing it in a hotel room, that I am not even AWARE of) does NOT impact my life, I choose not to let it disturb me.

My life is hard enough, challenging enough to not devote energy to things I cannot change, or to the lives of people I know absolutely nothing about other than a certain sexual act they may do.... To me, people like you have too much idle time on your hands, and could probably be more productive if you devoted that time and energy to your OWN lives. Of course, maybe we're ALL guilty of that by being on these forums to begin with, but.... At least *I* devote my energies to making sure my OWN house is clean, so to speak. Do YOU?

 

[allan]

"Homosexuality, as I have mentioned elsewhere, has a promotional effect upon mindset towards sex as a recreational activity."

It does? How come then, when I was a teenager, homosexuality was CONDEMNED by most teenagers at my school, people used "faggot" as a general blanket insult for anyone they felt like picking on, etc. And yet, that had absolutely NO effect on teenagers engaging in recreational hetero sex (in fact, those who DIDN'T partake in hetero sex could be subject to suspicions of homosexuality, hence there was actually some pressure to find a girlfriend and engage in it to "prove" otherwise)....

Believe me, "recreational" sex thrives quite well with the absence, intolerance, or whatever of homosexuality. It always has, and recent acceptance of homosexuality will do nothing to increase it....

So you have raised up a "pseudo-issue", a non-issue, and are baffled that so many people are ignoring it or ridiculing it....

As for my focus on homosexuality in this debate, it is for two reasons:

1) It is what fundamentalists recently have been focusing on (I remember in earlier years, they focused on rock music, and earlier still, interracial dating...).

2) It is one area where I disagree with them. I agree with them about laws against theft, assault, and murder, so of course would not pick a fight with them on those issues. However, there are other things I disagree with them on, like their position on the smoking of marijuana, and drug laws in general. So we can debate those as well, if you'd like....

 

[t92300]

I got to agree with FearlessLeader2on this one

t92300

 

[FearlessLeader2]

t92300, I appreciate the support, but what you did is basically post 'Me too.', an action which Weird Al Yankovic referred to as the action of 'some brain-dead AOLer'. By all means agree with me, but at least let us know WHY...

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by allan
"Homosexuality, as I have mentioned elsewhere, has a promotional effect upon mindset towards sex as a recreational activity."

It does? How come then, when I was a teenager, homosexuality was CONDEMNED by most teenagers at my school, people used "faggot" as a general blanket insult for anyone they felt like picking on, etc. And yet, that had absolutely NO effect on teenagers engaging in recreational hetero sex (in fact, those who DIDN'T partake in hetero sex could be subject to suspicions of homosexuality, hence there was actually some pressure to find a girlfriend and engage in it to "prove" otherwise)....

That was then. I am talking about now. It is now considered healthy and normal, and not a bad thing at all. Hmmm, I wonder if your own observations could therefore be used in support of the theory of 'moral decay', which you contemptuously brush aside...?

Originally posted by allan
Believe me, "recreational" sex thrives quite well with the absence, intolerance, or whatever of homosexuality. It always has, and recent acceptance of homosexuality will do nothing to increase it....

The recent trend toward tolerance of this activity has created ANOTHER means of encouraged recreational sex. Would you care to re-examine this statement, in light of that?

Originally posted by allan
So you have raised up a "pseudo-issue", a non-issue, and are baffled that so many people are ignoring it or ridiculing it....

As for my focus on homosexuality in this debate, it is for two reasons:

1) It is what fundamentalists recently have been focusing on (I remember in earlier years, they focused on rock music, and earlier still, interracial dating...).

So apparently it is the issue of the day.

Originally posted by allan
2) It is one area where I disagree with them. I agree with them about laws against theft, assault, and murder, so of course would not pick a fight with them on those issues. However, there are other things I disagree with them on, like their position on the smoking of marijuana, and drug laws in general. So we can debate those as well, if you'd like....

So we're right about that stuff, but no matter how well-reasoned our arguments on these other topics, you're not buying? <shrug>

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by allan
"If it didn't concern me so greatly, would I be making myself a target for everyone who wants to use me as a symbol of all those annoying obstacles in the way of their own selfish desires? You think I enjoy having people tell me that I am a fascist control freak? You think I like being hated for my views?"

FL2, your self-pity is pathetic.

You accused me of not being concerned about the issue. I pointed out that I have gone to some length, including suffering the slings and arrows of my detractors, to support one side of the issue as a way of proving you wrong. I am accused of self-pity. And your logic for this conclusion is...?

Originally posted by allan
Truth be told, you CHOOSE to make these actions "concern" you emotionally. So take responsibility for your choice. If the consequences of your choice is ridicule in these forums, then so be it.

So, I'm taking a stand for what I believe in, and accepting the consequences of that choice, namely dealing with your insults and demeaning language. Seems Like I have accepted the responsibility. I'm just not silent about it.

Originally posted by allan
I could just as easily make the "issue" of people picking their noses in private disturb me, and get myself worked up over that, and put myself in basically the same position as you have here.

Yes, but since nose-picking is only gross, not actually harmful to society, you'd be silly to do so.

Originally posted by allan
But since such action (like two homosexuals doing it in a hotel room, that I am not even AWARE of) does NOT impact my life, I choose not to let it disturb me.

My life is hard enough, challenging enough to not devote energy to things I cannot change, or to the lives of people I know absolutely nothing about other than a certain sexual act they may do....

I have pointed out the harm that it does, and you have chosen to brush my argument aside without thought. That doesn't make me wrong. It just means we disagree.

Originally posted by allan
To me, people like you have too much idle time on your hands, and could probably be more productive if you devoted that time and energy to your OWN lives. Of course, maybe we're ALL guilty of that by being on these forums to begin with, but.... At least *I* devote my energies to making sure my OWN house is clean, so to speak. Do YOU?

Well, I did hire a maid...

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Thuloid,
I don't have time now (I'm at work) to properly address the points you have brought up. I will do so when I get home, but thank you for a fresh viewpooint, even if I do see it as flawed. But I will get to that tonight.

 

[t92300]

but at least let us know WHY...

I am a christian and you already said my arguments what more can I say

 

[Simon Darkshade]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by allan
"Homosexuality, as I have mentioned elsewhere, has a promotional effect upon mindset towards sex as a recreational activity."

It does? How come then, when I was a teenager, homosexuality was CONDEMNED by most teenagers at my school, people used "faggot" as a general blanket insult for anyone they felt like picking on, etc. And yet, that had absolutely NO effect on teenagers engaging in recreational hetero sex (in fact, those who DIDN'T partake in hetero sex could be subject to suspicions of homosexuality, hence there was actually some pressure to find a girlfriend and engage in it to "prove" otherwise)....
----------------------------------------------------------------------


That was then. I am talking about now. It is now considered healthy and normal, and not a bad thing at all. (FL2)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
In my experience, the situation is still exactly how allan described it in schools, particularly single sex schools. It is not widely perceived as 'healthy or normal' by a large amount of the youth, and of the rest of the populace. Neither is it actively promoted or encouraged. It is specifically left out of sex education programs. I believe there are laws in Britain which forbid teaching to 'encourage' it in any fashion.

I'm not saying that this non-encouragement is necessarily a bad thing, either, but to paint a picture of society as being corrupted and jaded by the limited acceptance (manifesting itself mainly in decriminalisation) is to twist the situation.

The link that is continually pushed, that homosexuality is wholey and solely recreational sex, and therefore encourages recreational sex of all descriptions, does not follow in my view. Just because homosexuality is permitted does not mean that people will indulge in it, or in recreational sex in general. The main occurences of recreational sex are heterosexual, and it is these that admittedly can contribute to the welfare burden through unplanned pregnancy. But this situation was not caused, or influenced in any way by homosexuality, or how it is regarded or treated.

To characterise the change in attitudes and laws towards homosexuality as symptomatic of, or even the catalyst for, a moral decline in society does not follow in my opinion. The morals of society have changed over the last decades, some for the good, some for the bad, but I cannot subscribe to the theory of moral decay in this sense.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Ok Simon, but at this point, you and I are at an impasse. Shall we simply agree to disagree?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Thuloid
Fundamentalism, dictionary defined, is based in the literal reading of religious texts. One could generalize the term to apply to a literal and unbending acceptance of any code, legal, moral, or religious. Yes, fundamentalism is ALWAYS a bad thing.

By that definition, no one could disagree. But that its not the definition that I am offering. I am saying that moral absolutism should be applied to a legal code, and equally enforced worldwide. Relativism is nothing but veneer-thin justification of evil for personal pleasure, gain, or simple perverse desire.

Originally posted by Thuloid
Fundamentalism is essentially a dehumanizing force, because it forces human beings who accept it, any form of it, to live up to an absolute code. If the code is absolute, then it becomes itself a kind of god, unquestionable, and human failing in the face of an absolute code is unacceptable. To accept and live with a fundamentalist outlook, long-term, a human must either see him or herself as living up to the code completely, thereby resulting in self-righteousness and a view of oneself as perfect (always a mistake- we're never perfect) or see him or herself as failing the code, resulting in guilt, despair, and an inability to see the value of one's life. Both of these points of view are delusional and dangerous, and many people with strong fundamentalist outlooks will alternate between the two.

This is unfortunately true. On the other hand, if everyone was trying to follow the rules, and the ones breaking them were being punished, then the ones following them could at least satisfy themselves with the knowledge that at least they aren't that bad...

Originally posted by Thuloid
On a completely different note, I don't want to turn this thread into a theological debate, FearlessLeader2, but the Christology represented in the your posts is a bit screwy. Let's take a look:

You make it sound as if Jesus was sort of a late-game, stopgap insertion by God in order to straighten out a world that had clearly gotten away from him. You claim to take the Bible seriously--What about the opening of John's gospel (In the beginning was the word, etc...), some of Jesus's own words from that gospel (Before Abraham was, I am...), Christian interpretation of many Old Testament passages as referring to Jesus as the 2nd person of the trinity.... In fact, you seem here to be ignoring the whole history of Christianity and biblical exegesis, effectively removing Jesus from the trinity.

The Trinity is not now, nor has it ever been, a valid Christian teaching. Jesus himself flat out denied being God. Are you calling Jesus a liar, and then ascribing god-hood to a liar, when the Bible itself clearly states that it is impossible for God to lie?

Originally posted by Thuloid
As far as redemptive action is concerned, what good would it do if only one person were to keep the law? So what? If you look carefully at Jesus's words regarding himself and his mission (set forth most clearly in John's gospel, and Paul definitely advances this point of view) what matters is not the specific action that Jesus takes or does not, but Jesus himself.

Why then, does Jesus exhort us to "...take up our torture stake and follow in his footsteps..."? Are we supposed to simply 'be' Jesus, instead of trying to do what he did, and told us to do, namely teach the word of God?

Originally posted by Thuloid
Not to oversimplify things, but the whole point of the incarnation (y'know, that little event we celebrate on the 25th of this month every year), of God made flesh, is God's assumption of human frailty, weakness, sin, and eventually death, into himself.

Doesn't it ever bother you that you celebrate the birthday of a man whose best friend on earth was beheaded so that his head could be given as a birthday present to the daughter of a woman who hated God? Doesn't that strike you as a cruel irony? If one pores over one's Bible, seeking religious observances that apply to Christians only, and not Jews, how many religious holidays can one find? The answer is one. The Memorial of Christ's death. And even that sombre celebration makes no mention of fertility rites or sun worship, yet we see eggs and rabbits everywhere around Passover time, when Easter is celebrated. Hmm. Maybe the people involved in this Christmas thing, and this Easter thing, are not getting Christianity right?

Originally posted by Thuloid
Jesus says as much--"I, If I am lifted up, will draw all things to myself." Because of this, while morality and the law are good things, they are utterly nonessential. Everything that matters has been taken care of.

So Ted Bundy is assured of a great reward? Osama bin Laden will be swept into God's holy embrace? Hitler will get a pat on the head? Somehow I think morality and the law still have a part to play. The Bible warns us to stay away from the '...man of lawlessness...'.

Originally posted by Thuloid
Anyway, Jesus claimed to have authority over the law, inasmuch as he violated what the Pharisees (devout religious people no doubt, but classic funamentalists) and Sadducees perceived to be the law. Anyway, note his teaching on the sabbath, definitely part of the law, in Mark2:23-28 ("The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.")
Furthermore, it occurs to me that the people Jesus came down hardest on were those who had a set, unchangeable religious code, the fundamentalists of his day. He himself provided a radically different interpretation of many religious writings than his audience was used to or prepared for. That doesn't set a good precedent for those who want to advance Biblical literalism.

Biblical literalism? It is a book filled with symbology. What right-thinking individual would ever attempt such insanity? The symbolism isn't even that hard to understand. A beast with seven heads, ten horns, crowns, and authority over the earth, that speaks in grandiose terms of itself. Now what does that remind you of? Sure sounds like the UN to me...

Originally posted by Thuloid
I don't want to attack your beliefs too strongly, but don't confuse faith with the stubborn adherence to a simplistic worldview that fundamentalism represents. Fundamentalism's problem is that it is incapable of real forgiveness, and therefore of real love. I can imagine very little more sad than that.

There is no attack strong enough to even leave a smudge on my beliefs. I am not what you define as a fundamentalist.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

"Ok Simon, but at this point, you and I are at an impasse. Shall we simply agree to disagree?"

Ok, fine.

 

[allan]

"I have pointed out the harm that it does, and you have chosen to brush my argument aside without thought."

WITHOUT THOUGHT? I think I've posted quite a bit my THOUGHTS about why exactly I disagree with you. And no you haven't assailed these effectively. You've ignored a lot of them.

It is YOU who brush aside reasoning that other people give without thought.

"That doesn't make me wrong. It just means we disagree."

You know, isn't that a WHOLE lot better than saying "I'm right and you're wrong"? I see you're improving some then.

 

[allan]

"This is unfortunately true. On the other hand, if everyone was trying to follow the rules, and the ones breaking them were being punished, then the ones following them could at least satisfy themselves with the knowledge that at least they aren't that bad..."

Yep, just like those Pharasees probably felt when they were about to stone that adulterer.... Too bad Jesus came along and ruined that "good feeling" for them, isn't it?

 

[allan]

"That was then. I am talking about now. It is now considered healthy and normal, and not a bad thing at all. Hmmm, I wonder if your own observations could therefore be used in support of the theory of 'moral decay', which you contemptuously brush aside...?"

I certainly don't believe homosexuality is the "in" thing at Middleville Junior High these days. Yes these days a kid who is gay probably won't get the crap beat out of him by the other kids, as it seems bullying of all sorts is finally being tackled somewhat (although it is still a problem far from solved), but I don't see THAT as a "moral decline", but the opposite.

Actually, Christ (Who more and more it seems that I have more respect for His teachings and example than you do, quite ironically) taught us that ALL have sinned, and yet we are to "love thy neighbor"--so it follows that though you may HATE the sin, you still LOVE the sinner. And persecuting certain people for certain "pet peeve" sins you may hate, including using unnecessary violence against them, doesn't follow with such a philosophy very well now does it.

You TOO sin, only in different ways. Substitute one of YOUR particular sins for homosexuality, and receive the same treatment that homosexuals have traditionally endured, and I think you would change your tune VERY quickly.

It's so easy to be complacent when sh*t ain't happening to YOU now isn't it? Feel LUCKY....

 

[allan]

"So we're right about that stuff, but no matter how well-reasoned our arguments on these other topics, you're not buying? <shrug>"

Huh? I just said you fundies (oh, I forgot that NOW you are not a fundamentalist, even though you used "we" to my reference to fundies.... ) are right (IMHO) about SOME things, but not (IMHO) about others. Why is that so hard to understand?

No one is perfect, certainly not fundies....

As for me seeming "mean" or somehow "abusive" in my posted responses to you, I think I have written with great restraint, considering these fundamentalists you defend (yes you've said you're not one, but whatever... you're taking their stance in this ongoing debate) serve to perpetuate, and even increase, the climate of unnecessary force--violence--in our society. Including against actions *I* do personally, like smoking pot now and then. I'm not a homosexual, but I DO take your arguments for applying the force of a gunbarrel (the force of law) on them as very easily applying to some things *I* do that you also disagree with.

And when people talk casually about using men with guns unnecessarily against me or ANYONE, my tone can very righteously get harsh REAL quick....

As yours would too given similar circumstances, methinks....

 

[Thuloid]

Fearless, I am going to answer most of your counters to my claims, but in an unusual order. Fear not, I'll make it fairly clear.

To begin with, you countered my emphasis on the idea of incarnation with an attack on Christmas celebrations.

Two very different things, I'm afraid (the event and the celebration).

Doesn't it ever bother you that you celebrate the birthday of a man whose best friend on earth was beheaded so that his head could be given as a birthday present to the daughter of a woman who hated God? Doesn't that strike you as a cruel irony? If one pores over one's Bible, seeking religious observances that apply to Christians only, and not Jews, how many religious holidays can one find? The answer is one. The Memorial of Christ's death. And even that sombre celebration makes no mention of fertility rites or sun worship, yet we see eggs and rabbits everywhere around Passover time, when Easter is celebrated. Hmm. Maybe the people involved in this Christmas thing, and this Easter thing, are not getting Christianity right?

Incidentally, the assimilation of pagan festivals into Christianity worries me not at all. Fertility symbols have a quite natural connection to the subject of new life and rebirth, both of which are certainly brought to mind by the concept of resurrection. Consider spring itself as a sign of God's intentions for us embedded in the world he created. Of course Good Friday observances would make no note of fertility rites, but Good Friday is only meaningful given the events of Easter Sunday. Death considered in itself is meaningless--in fact, it is the very symbol of meaninglessness. Easter is the one absolutely essential Christian festival-- without it, no Christianity at all. Bunnies and eggs are good things, part of a good creation. Why shouldn't nice, fluffy things (or things that make good omelettes) also have a place in the celebration of the ultimate triumph of their Lord and Maker? I'll get back to this one later....

he Trinity is not now, nor has it ever been, a valid Christian teaching. Jesus himself flat out denied being God. Are you calling Jesus a liar, and then ascribing god-hood to a liar, when the Bible itself clearly states that it is impossible for God to lie?

I'll begin by giving a short list of biblical type folks who believed Jesus to be God, and then move on to his words on the topic. Of course, even if everybody believed Jesus to be God, it wouldn't make it necessarily so, but this whole thing is about faith, isn't it?

People who thought Jesus was God:

John of Patmos, the author of Revelation-- Note Rev. 1:8 ("I am the Alpha and the Omega", says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty) and compare to Rev. 1:12-18 (Describes "one like a son of man"--obvious reference to Jesus, as God is NEVER depicted as man in Judaism --and he speaks, saying, "Fear not, I am the first and the last"--mirroring the words of God himself). Also Rev. 21:22 "And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb." Clearly this John guy believed the Lamb, who was the man Jesus of Nazareth, to be equal with the Almighty God--worshipped together, a right John reserved for God alone, as can be determined from Rev. 22:8, where John tries to worship an angel, and the angel tells him to worship only God. Also, Rev. 22:13--"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." The two phrases from the beginning of the book, repeated together, just so we know that their speakers were in fact the same.

The author of the letter of Jude. He refers to "our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ." The author, from the citations he uses of Old Testament events, is obviously of Jewish background, and Jews had a habit of referring to God as Lord. Incidentally, the letter also contains an explicit formula of the Trinity, Jude 20-21, "...pray in the Holy Spirit; keep yourselves in the love of God; wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life."

The author of the epistles of John (probably the author of the Gospel of John as well, but I will address that document independently...) Many examples, but take, for instance, 1 John 5:20, "And we know that the Son of God has coome and has given us understanding, to know him who is true, and we are in him (my emphasis of course) who is true, in his son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life."

The author of 2nd Peter (even in ancient times not believed to be Peter, but even if it was, so much the better for my argument....) 2 Peter 1:2-3, "May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord. His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence...."

The author of 1st Peter. For example, 1st Peter 5:10, "And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ will himself restore, establish and strengthen you." This is a bit trickier, but how exactly would God call people to his eternal glory in one other than God? The difference between God and man is infinite, man cannot be elevated by any other element of Creation, as it is as far below God as we are. Christ is clearly given a different role entirely here from that of creature...

Paul. There is more evidence here than I care to muster-- Very few people even try to argue that Paul didn't believe in Jesus' divinity. Many disagree with Paul on this, of course, but very few try and claim he believed something different. Just so I have an example posted here, try 2 Corinthians, a letter considered among those most authentically Pauline. chapter 4, verse 4: "In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the likeness [Greek, ikon, that is, image] of God." That's pretty explicit.

Author of Gospel of John. This one is easy. He even puts the words in the mouth of Jesus himself, "I and the Father are one," John 10:30. A brief point: since we only have Jesus as attested by the Gospels, if the gospel writers believe Jesus to have been God, then Jesus, as presented to us, was God. No further argument is possible if I can demonstrate that the Gospels present Jesus as God. One down. Of course, this isn't the only place in John's Gospel this happens. Try the first couple sentences of that Gospel on for size. (In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,....and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.")

Luke. Here one has to build a larger textual argument, as Luke is less inclined to give theological discourses in his writing. Still, on may quickly note the constant instances of the phrase "Son of God," and of the charge against Jesus by the pharisees in chapter 5, that of blasphemy, because Jesus forgives sins as the Pharisees say only God can do. Luke's Jesus clearly has a special, and unique, relationship with God, and commands divine power.

This post is getting lengthy, and I have a few other things to do right now, so I'll return to this later....

 

[Thuloid]

Y'know, I could just keep going with reams and reams of textual evidence, but I won't. I'll just assert it for the last two: Matthew and Mark also believed Jesus to be divine. Just read those Gospels as well, and its fairly obvious. Some scholars claim that Mark is an adoptionist, that is, that Mark's Jesus is solely man and not divine but is adopted by God as the Son. These scholars are a minority, but they do exist and have some argument on their side (though not enough, in my opinion). Either way, the same claim cannot easily be made for the other three, especially John, who is absolutely explicit in identifying Jesus with God, both from Jesus' words and from the words of witnesses.

To sum up, you can claim that Trinitarian theology is incorrect, but don't claim that it is biblically unsupported or that it is out of line with historical Christianity. Neither is close to the truth.

Please point out to me where Jesus said "Nope, I'm not God." I'm relatively certain it's not in there.

To respond to your questions/claims about actions, morality, law, etc....

We are not called to 'be' Jesus, we are called to be 'in' Jesus. That phrase is used again and again, especially throughout Paul's letters, but also in the words of Jesus himself. I think they mean a great deal about faith, that is, faith in the One greater than yourself in whom you are blameless. This is the tricky part about guilt/salvation. You recognized the negative effects that an absolute moral/legal code can have on people. The opposite in effect of such moralism, faith is a humanizing force, that is, one that engages us with the best of our humanity by offering us absolution even as we recognize our own enormous failings. And yes, BTW, I do think, in the end, when it is entirely God's business, that even Hitler & Mr. Bin Laden will be confronted with and surrounded by God's love. In the meantime, you're right, we need to keep law and morality around to protect society and make life in general tolerable. But don't confuse a pragmatic approach to law and morals, which are in the end as fallible as the humans who practice them, often atrociously, with the absolute Kingdom of God which we can neither effectively cause nor oppose.

Laws and morals codes are practical measures in a world far more morally complex than any code is capable of being. Nearly every good action has a slight amount of bad in it, and every bad thing has a bit of good in it. Our job is to muddle through and act compassionately. The idea that the benefit of morality is in the satisfaction of those who obey the rules is a particularly odious form of self-righteous trash.

Incidentally, I am not a moral relativist. Actually, by most definitions, I'm barely a moral realist. I do believe that the concepts good and evil really do mean something very important, well beyond what I may feel they represent at a given moment, but I think that the play between good and evil runs very deep in our world, and the relationship between them, the possibilities for seeing a thing as good or bad, are so complex, perhaps irreducibly so, that very few situations, if any, have an absolute moral answer, that is, one that advances good absolutely. For most situations, I find an answer as best I can, and in the end I only hope my solution does more good than ill.

To jump back to the whole thing on Christmas celebrations and the like, I'm not at all sure how much of 'good friends' John the Baptizer and Jesus were, but they at least were acquainted with one another (and were, of course, cousins). The Bible, and life, are full of cruel ironies. The cruelest irony is the cross itself, the messiah murdered as a criminal. Of course, that cruel irony also became the greatest punchline in history, as absolute defeat became ultimate victory and hopelessness gave birth to the one true hope for humanity. Don't sweat pagan symbols and rites being incorporated into Christianity- they were incorporated into Judaism centuries earlier, and there also turned to the greater glory of the Lord. In the end, everything is turned to that purpose, so take the Christian use of pagan symbol and rite as a sign of how God has promised to turn all the vices and idiosyncrasies of His world, even odd bits of ancient pagan cults, into the Garden and the Holy City, the bride of the Lamb.


A note to everybody else: I apologize if I come across in these posts as somewhat preachy or intending to turn this whole thread into some Christian theology discussion. It simply seemed the most appropriate way to respond to Fearless's claims, which began, essentially, with religion. No offense to anybody, regardless of belief system (even if I do think it makes no sense).