Converting to Fundamentalist Christianity

[runningmadbull]

I would like to announce to you all that after some thought I have decided to convert to Fundamentalist Christianity. This is a long and tedious process I feel. I was raised in an Evangelical but non-Fundamentalist church. Politically and sociallly my family was long moderate, including on religious issues, not liberal but not as conservative as most members of my church, who are often neo-con Religious Right types. I do not consider the Religious Right to be fundamentalist Christianity but a religious arm for neoconservatism. Anyway, as I got older I began to explore different ideals than what my moderately conservative church and my moderate family taught. I became extremely liberal for a time before discovering libertarianism. I arrived at revleft in exploration of ideals of individualist anarchism but I did not find many people here that agreed. Then only a little while ago I heard radical Islamists talking on TV and I realized that even though they are wrong on many issues they get it right that devotion to God (which I never rejected at any point) involves more than being semi-religious as many people are, like American "Christians" out there. I have read the ideas of Christian Reconstructionism and I realize that the goal of all Christians must be to establish God's Kingdom on the whole world so that Jesus Christ can return and rule over the whole world. Here is an overview of how I see this tying with politics and my political-religious views.

RELIGION

- I am a postmillenialist who rejects the premillenialists (most Evangelicals like Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell) view of immanent tribulation and the foolish idea of the rapture.

- I am a Biblical literalist except in areas where it can be determined to be allegorical, explained for that time etc., such as with the Genesis account of Creation. On the other hand I do not believe the Bible is the revealed and final idea. There are examples of Biblical heroes doing wrong things and there many things not in the Bible that can be counted as part of the historical narrative. So I am not a member of those who say the King James Bible is the final source.

- As for religiousity I do not consider myself as of one strand. I am largely influenced by Protestantism but I admire traditionalist Catholicism. I am not a Orthodox Jew or Muslim but I admire those religions. I also admire aspects of others. Despite being a Christian I believe unlike other Fundamentalists that a good non-Christian person can become accepted by God by being a "law unto themself" to God. So that means I do not believe that only Christians go to Heaven and all others go to Hell, in fact false Christians go to Hell. My view of the afterlife is the traditional Jewish view that Hell is not eternal and is a place where people go to be purified. The saints await the ressurection at the Bosom of Abraham in comfort, the semi-good sit in a sort of place in limbo, the wicked are purified out in hell before joining the semi-good, and the truly wicked and servants of Satan are anihilated. So thus nowhere is lack of faith a sin.

- On personal matters I disagree with fundamentalists who add to the Bible. I see nothing wrong with alcohol, dancing, tobacco, rock and role, and even use of marijuana if it is done responsibly. I oppose homesexual experimentation but recognize there are many natural homosexuals who should be treated for this mental problem. Sodomy is when a person who is not naturally homosexual engages in homosexual acts. There is nothing wrong with sex and marriage begins not with a ceremony, but when two people have sex. So whoever you have sex with first is your wife. I think polygomy is okay as long as not done but church leaders or on the level of being a harem. I am still ultra-conservative though.

- In politics this translates to Christian libertarianism. Christian libertarianism is expressed here by Andrew Sandlin, who is a Reformed Christian. I am not a particularly Calvinist so excuse that. The political view is much the same.

http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/96/clIdea.html

So these are my basic ideas. You guys have a good sense of radicalism and justice and would be perfect Christian footsoldiers if you converted from infidelism, but my goal is not to proslytize, but to debate.

[RedAnarchist]

From what you've written, it looks like you'll be restricted.

[runningmadbull]

Amen to that. I know I am right and you will eventually be living under Christendom.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 05:24 am
Amen to that. I know I am right and you will eventually be living under Christendom.
I thought you were here to debate and not preach? Also, arent we in the West living in Christendom now, or do you mean some ultra-religious, ultra-conservative "utopia" (more like dystopia)?

[Faux Real]

Communism is your only path towards salvation, reject all false prophets!!11oneone

Seriously though, really sad to hear this, give studying revolutionary theory and practice a little more? Why does it have to rely on purely individualism, why not acknowledge that there is a dualism between the individual and the whole aspect of society you interact with?

Edit: What do you think of leftist theory now?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Wow thats not even funny. Its just sick the amount of Christians who do loads of hating.

I'm just glad its a dying religion.

[runningmadbull]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 04:34 am
Communism is your only path towards salvation, reject all false prophets!!11oneone

Seriously though, really sad to hear this, give studying revolutionary theory and practice a little more? Why does it have to rely on purely individualism, why not acknowledge that there is a dualism between the individual and the whole aspect of society you interact with?

Edit: What do you think of leftist theory now?
What do I think of leftist theory now? I think that it promotes a vision of justice that I do not like but at least it promotes a vision of justice. I admire your fortitude in leftism and Lenin had the right organizing ideas. And the corporatist system is an evil one.

[RHIZOMES]

That is so sad. I hope you see the light of rationality one day.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 04:43 am
Wow thats not even funny. Its just sick the amount of Christians who do loads of hating.

I'm just glad its a dying religion.
RACIST!

[spartan]

unlike some here im not going to judge you for the decision you made. all im going to say is good luck and live your life they way you choose.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 04:24 am
Amen to that. I know I am right and you will eventually be living under Christendom.
Why?

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 03:55 am
- In politics this translates to Christian libertarianism. Christian libertarianism is expressed here by Andrew Sandlin, who is a Reformed Christian. I am not a particularly Calvinist so excuse that. The political view is much the same.

http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/96/clIdea.html

So these are my basic ideas. You guys have a good sense of radicalism and justice and would be perfect Christian footsoldiers if you converted from infidelism, but my goal is not to proslytize, but to debate.
perhaps, for you, it translates to libertarianism. However, the bible teaches religious war, bigotry, etc. which you also preach here. You cannot take the bible literally and also say that you are libertarian in any sense; you are already worshipping an idol, a form of authoritarianism.

As for converting to a Christian footsoldier, no thank you. I prefer my humanism. Perhaps if you believed more fluidly and realistically in Christ you would agree.

[runningmadbull]

Christian Humanism as thought up by Desidarius Erasmus was a good idea.

[Fawkes]

I oppose homesexual experimentation but recognize there are many natural homosexuals who should be treated for this mental problem.
Fuck you. Check DSM-IV, homosexuality was removed from it in 1974. It isn't a "mental problem" like your pathetic book may teach you, it's a biological characteristic found in a large portion of human beings.

[Raúl Duke]

You guys...would be perfect Christian footsoldiers if you converted from infidelism

Fuck Off; you make me sick.

We bow to no-one, especially not to any imaginary crap.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 03:36 am

RACIST!
You rock bro.

I doubt he will get it though.

[ComradeR]

Originally posted by Dean+August 23, 2007 02:05 pm--> (Dean @ August 23, 2007 02:05 pm)
[email protected] 23, 2007 03:55 am
- In politics this translates to Christian libertarianism. Christian libertarianism is expressed here by Andrew Sandlin, who is a Reformed Christian. I am not a particularly Calvinist so excuse that. The political view is much the same.

http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/96/clIdea.html

So these are my basic ideas. You guys have a good sense of radicalism and justice and would be perfect Christian footsoldiers if you converted from infidelism, but my goal is not to proslytize, but to debate.
perhaps, for you, it translates to libertarianism. However, the bible teaches religious war, bigotry, etc. which you also preach here.[/b]
You left out that it basically calls for a genocide of the Jews as well.

A fundamentalist Libertarian? Talk about an oxymoron, do you relies that what your basically advocating is the creation of a global totalitarian absolute monarchy in which no one has a say in anything? And that just before it is established everyone must ether convert or die, and calls for what basically amounts to a genocide of the Jews? This is basically what you advocate by being a fundamentalist, and you call yourself a Libertarian? This has got to be some sort of sad joke.

I oppose homesexual experimentation but recognize there are many natural homosexuals who should be treated for this mental problem.
Mental problem? You do relies that homosexuality exists in and is just as prevalent in many other animals besides humans don't you? It's completely natural and hardly a "mental problem".

[Tower of Bebel]

He's a fundamentalist! It's all about the word, not about where the ideas come from, what it will cause. It's all about the fundamental understanding of the "Word" of "God".

[Whitten]

A Christian Libertarian? So you support free-markets and christian morality for social issues... So your a Conservative in denial?

[Dean]

Originally posted by ComradeR+August 24, 2007 11:33 am--> (ComradeR @ August 24, 2007 11:33 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 02:05 pm

[email protected] 23, 2007 03:55 am
- In politics this translates to Christian libertarianism. Christian libertarianism is expressed here by Andrew Sandlin, who is a Reformed Christian. I am not a particularly Calvinist so excuse that. The political view is much the same.

http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/96/clIdea.html

So these are my basic ideas. You guys have a good sense of radicalism and justice and would be perfect Christian footsoldiers if you converted from infidelism, but my goal is not to proslytize, but to debate.
perhaps, for you, it translates to libertarianism. However, the bible teaches religious war, bigotry, etc. which you also preach here.
You left out that it basically calls for a genocide of the Jews as well. [/b]
Too many crimes to mention. It doesn't call, per se, but claims that God will off a third of the Jews. Some purpose for the chosen.


Mental problem? You do relies that homosexuality exists in and is just as prevalent in many other animals besides humans don't you? It's completely natural and hardly a "mental problem".
Homosexuality can be a result of a mental deformity, but there are certainly biological imparatives which make it a natural choice, and of course there's nothing wrong with homosexual acts. The fundamentalist christians like to take the fact of gay sex as a result of mental disorders as meaning that all gay sex stems from this, and that it is wrong because it's a mental disorder. Of course, that's untrue, but I figured the underlying ideas behind such a twisted belief should be uncovered.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Don't worry about being restricted kid, just tell them that you're going to strap some dynamite to your chest and blow yourself up in a Burger King.

You'll be well supported by these clowns then. Shit, they may even vote you in as an Admin.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 25, 2007 07:36 am
Don't worry about being restricted kid, just tell them that you're going to strap some dynamite to your chest and blow yourself up in a Burger King.

You'll be well supported by these clowns then. Shit, they may even vote you in as an Admin.
Nice one.

[spartan]

:lol: good one vinny. some of these so called leftist have such stupid attitudes like it dont matter if your racist, homophobic, sexist, anti socialist, etc as long as your anti imperialist its all okay :lol:

[Bilan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 11:09 pm
:lol: good one vinny. some of these so called leftist have such stupid attitudes like it dont matter if your racist, homophobic, sexist, anti socialist, etc as long as your anti imperialist its all okay :lol:
Are you serious?
That is an unbelievably idiotic thing to say. Just because people don't necessarily agree with you doesn't mean they fit into your simplistic category.
Simplistic political analysis isn't an excuse for such rubbish.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 01:09 pm
:lol: good one vinny. some of these so called leftist have such stupid attitudes like it dont matter if your racist
...like vinny.

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 04:24 am
Amen to that. I know I am right and you will eventually be living under Christendom.
Yeah, well the last time you guys tried to put the world under Christendumb the Saracens kinda kicked your ass. Next time around hopefully I'll be around to kick some fundie ass.

[Le Libérer]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 10:55 pm
I would like to announce to you all that after some thought I have decided to convert to Fundamentalist Christianity. RELIGION

- I am a postmillenialist who rejects the premillenialists (most Evangelicals like Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell) view of immanent tribulation and the foolish idea of the rapture.

- I am a Biblical literalist except in areas where it can be determined to be allegorical, explained for that time etc., such as with the Genesis account of Creation. On the other hand I do not believe the Bible is the revealed and final idea. There are examples of Biblical heroes doing wrong things and there many things not in the Bible that can be counted as part of the historical narrative. So I am not a member of those who say the King James Bible is the final source.

- On personal matters I disagree with fundamentalists who add to the Bible. I see nothing wrong with alcohol, dancing, tobacco, rock and role, and even use of marijuana if it is done responsibly. I oppose homesexual experimentation but recognize there are many natural homosexuals who should be treated for this mental problem. Sodomy is when a person who is not naturally homosexual engages in homosexual acts. There is nothing wrong with sex and marriage begins not with a ceremony, but when two people have sex. So whoever you have sex with first is your wife. I think polygomy is okay as long as not done but church leaders or on the level of being a harem. I am still ultra-conservative though.

So these are my basic ideas. You guys have a good sense of radicalism and justice and would be perfect Christian footsoldiers if you converted from infidelism, but my goal is not to proslytize, but to debate.
If this is your stance and beliefs you wont stay converted. I wouldnt go around expounding your beliefs to any fundamental Protestant, lest they kick you to the curb. Your beliefs arent fundalmental, so prepared to change your beliefs to what they order.

As I have mentioned before I was raised pre-tribulationist fundalmentalist Baptist. Its taken me years to recover from the damage and the lies I was told, all to scare the shit out of people to convert. It must have worked on you. I didnt have a choice, you do.

I once asked a fundalmental Baptist preacher why does he yell and scream about hell and fire and damnation when Christ is suppose to be about redemption and peace. He said to me and I quote, " You can convert more people with fear tham love." You are just part of the herd of sheep.

I'm afraid of what you are voluntarily opening yourself up to. You have no idea what will be expected of you and the constant guilt and confusion, a whirlwind actually they will weave in your life. SO very cultish. You already have a fucked up cafateria, pick and choose list of beliefs there to be a fundalmentalist, oreven Christian. I think you are extremely confused already.

[Le Libérer]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 10:55 pm
I would like to announce to you all that after some thought I have decided to convert to Fundamentalist Christianity. RELIGION

- I am a postmillenialist who rejects the premillenialists (most Evangelicals like Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell) view of immanent tribulation and the foolish idea of the rapture.

- I am a Biblical literalist except in areas where it can be determined to be allegorical, explained for that time etc., such as with the Genesis account of Creation. On the other hand I do not believe the Bible is the revealed and final idea. There are examples of Biblical heroes doing wrong things and there many things not in the Bible that can be counted as part of the historical narrative. So I am not a member of those who say the King James Bible is the final source.

- On personal matters I disagree with fundamentalists who add to the Bible. I see nothing wrong with alcohol, dancing, tobacco, rock and role, and even use of marijuana if it is done responsibly. I oppose homesexual experimentation but recognize there are many natural homosexuals who should be treated for this mental problem. Sodomy is when a person who is not naturally homosexual engages in homosexual acts. There is nothing wrong with sex and marriage begins not with a ceremony, but when two people have sex. So whoever you have sex with first is your wife. I think polygomy is okay as long as not done but church leaders or on the level of being a harem. I am still ultra-conservative though.

So these are my basic ideas. You guys have a good sense of radicalism and justice and would be perfect Christian footsoldiers if you converted from infidelism, but my goal is not to proslytize, but to debate.
If this is your stance and beliefs you wont stay converted. I wouldnt go around expounding your beliefs to any fundamental Protestant, lest they kick you to the curb. Your beliefs arent fundalmental, so prepared to change your beliefs to what they order.

As I have mentioned before I was raised pre-tribulationist fundalmentalist Baptist. Its taken me years to recover from the damage and the lies I was told, all to scare the shit out of people to convert. It must have worked on you. I didnt have a choice, you do.

I once asked a fundalmental Baptist preacher why does he yell and scream about hell and fire and damnation when Christ is suppose to be about redemption and peace. He said to me and I quote, " You can convert more people with fear tham love." You are just part of the herd of sheep.

I'm afraid of what you are voluntarily opening yourself up to. You have no idea what will be expected of you and the constant guilt and confusion, a whirlwind actually they will weave in your life. SO very cultish. You already have a fucked up cafateria, pick and choose list of beliefs there to be a fundalmentalist, oreven Christian. I think you are extremely confused already.

[freakazoid]

I oppose homesexual experimentation but recognize there are many natural homosexuals who should be treated for this mental problem.

http://theoldbill.typepad.com/thebackroom/...s_james_do.html (http://theoldbill.typepad.com/thebackroom/2005/10/things_james_do.html) :)


I once asked a fundalmental Baptist preacher why does he yell and scream about hell and fire and damnation when Christ is suppose to be about redemption and peace. He said to me and I quote, " You can convert more people with fear tham love." You are just part of the herd of sheep.

That is really quite sad that he would say that, :( We are supposed to show the love of Christ by example, not with an iron fist and the fear of fire and brimstone. It always bothers me to here "Christians" saying hateful things that go against the teachings of Christ. That Gandhi quote comes to mind.

[Bilan]

Something all Christians should read: The Bible contradicts itself.

I'll quote some glorious stuff.

"Man made after the beasts. Gen. 1:25-26"
"Man made before the beasts. Gen. 2:18-20"

"God is satisfied with his work; everything made by him his "very good" Gen. 1:31"
"God is dissatisfied with his work. Gen 6:6-7"

:lol:

[freakazoid]

Even though I have already talked about it.


"Man made after the beasts. Gen. 1:25-26"
"Man made before the beasts. Gen. 2:18-20"


You had put quotes around them as if that is what it actually says.

Genesis 1:24-31

4 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

Genesis 2:18 - 20

18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.

You see, the first one is giving kind of a large picture, and the second is being more specific. The first on is all within the sixth day, while the other one doesn't even say which day it is. Take a look at this part again from 2:19

Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air.
Notice it DOESN'T say, "SO the LORD God THEN formed out of the ground all of the beasts of the field and all of the birds of the air."

There is no contradiction. It is the next chapter, you think that the person that wrote it wouldn't notice a contradiction that is the very next chapter? And then there is the part about rote memorization, where the exact details are not important, what is is the message.



"God is satisfied with his work; everything made by him his "very good" Gen. 1:31"
"God is dissatisfied with his work. Gen 6:6-7"

And how is this a contradiction? When everything was created it was good, and later on it became bad. Is that really that hard to understand? And again you put quotation marks around it like that is the exact words that get spoken.

[Module]

You had put quotes around them as if that is what it actually says.
He's quoting the book, not the Bible.


You see, the first one is giving kind of a large picture, and the second is being more specific. The first on is all within the sixth day, while the other one doesn't even say which day it is. Take a look at this part again from 2:19

One presumes that the Bible would show the events chronologically, whilst not feeling the need to specify that they are doing so... rather than not show events chronologically, and not feel the need to specify that that they are doing so.


Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air.

That's funny.
No versions I've found on the internet, or in my personal copy of the Bible, of Genesis 2:19 are phrased like that.
The vast majority say "And, the Lord God formed out of ground etc...", which again, assumes direct chronology from the previous sentence.
So if that is true (as one generally well versed in the English language would hope,) then yes, it is a contradiction.


There is no contradiction. It is the next chapter, you think that the person that wrote it wouldn't notice a contradiction that is the very next chapter?
Well the author(s) of the Bible said a lot of crazy things, didn't they?



And how is this a contradiction? When everything was created it was good, and later on it became bad. Is that really that hard to understand?

Well, maybe because he's supposed to be God. Somebody supposedly so fantastic and all knowing couldn't have made so bad a mistake that everything that was once good was suddenly completely evil... after such a short period of time?
Maybe not a contradiction.... Maybe just a blatant absurdity?


And again you put quotation marks around it like that is the exact words that get spoken.
Quoting from the book.


And then there is the part about rote memorization, where the exact details are not important, what is is the message.
So why do you bother? You could easily write off most contradictions as a result of 'mistranslation', couldn't you? At least it would make you feel better. And unless you desire to convert us all, isn't that what matters?

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 10:38 am
One presumes that the Bible would show the events chronologically, whilst not feeling the need to specify that they are doing so... rather than not show events chronologically, and not feel the need to specify that that they are doing so.
A large problem with writing, even in midieval times, was that your writign could easily get destroyed or damaged, and it where was especially important that events were chronicled properly - such as in Chronicles 1 & 2 and Genesis - such conventions were used. It wsas also important to the religion; remember, these were creation myths etc. primarily when they were written, spoken of, etc.

In fact, Chronicles is so interested in chronology that it lists the entire geneology from David to it's historical context. This was to preserve the importance of Israel, of course, but the interest in numbering events is very common in the bible.

[Module]

A large problem with writing, even in midieval times, was that your writign could easily get destroyed or damaged, and it where was especially important that events were chronicled properly - such as in Chronicles 1 & 2 and Genesis - such conventions were used. It wsas also important to the religion; remember, these were creation myths etc. primarily when they were written, spoken of, etc.

In fact, Chronicles is so interested in chronology that it lists the entire geneology from David to it's historical context. This was to preserve the importance of Israel, of course, but the interest in numbering events is very common in the bible.
I'm sorry, but I'm really not sure what you are trying to say...?

[Dean]

Originally posted by Desrumeaux+August 29, 2007 06:42 am--> (Desrumeaux @ August 29, 2007 06:42 am) I'm sorry, but I'm really not sure what you are trying to say...? [/b]
First, I meant "Adam (from Genesis) to Abraham," which gives the historical context from creation to where it starts its chronology.

In response to your question, I wasn't trying to say anything but point out how important chronology was to the authors of the various books in the Bible, esp. the Old Testament. I was attempting to explain that this:

(you)
...whilst not feeling the need to specify that they are doing so...
...was irrelevant, because they have certain reasons to explain that 'this' came before 'that.'

I wasn't paying attention so much to the argument, so I don't know if this contradicts anything relevant to your debate. I've just been reading about the Bible recently, Chronicles 1&2 in particular (my friend's dad is an authority on those books and he game me a copy of his book on them) and I felt I'd throw a bit of knowledge I'd recently gained into the ring.

[Red Scare]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 10:55 pm
I would like to announce to you all that after some thought I have decided to convert to Fundamentalist Christianity. This is a long and tedious process I feel. I was raised in an Evangelical but non-Fundamentalist church. Politically and sociallly my family was long moderate, including on religious issues, not liberal but not as conservative as most members of my church, who are often neo-con Religious Right types. I do not consider the Religious Right to be fundamentalist Christianity but a religious arm for neoconservatism. Anyway, as I got older I began to explore different ideals than what my moderately conservative church and my moderate family taught. I became extremely liberal for a time before discovering libertarianism. I arrived at revleft in exploration of ideals of individualist anarchism but I did not find many people here that agreed. Then only a little while ago I heard radical Islamists talking on TV and I realized that even though they are wrong on many issues they get it right that devotion to God (which I never rejected at any point) involves more than being semi-religious as many people are, like American "Christians" out there. I have read the ideas of Christian Reconstructionism and I realize that the goal of all Christians must be to establish God's Kingdom on the whole world so that Jesus Christ can return and rule over the whole world. Here is an overview of how I see this tying with politics and my political-religious views.

RELIGION

- I am a postmillenialist who rejects the premillenialists (most Evangelicals like Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell) view of immanent tribulation and the foolish idea of the rapture.

- I am a Biblical literalist except in areas where it can be determined to be allegorical, explained for that time etc., such as with the Genesis account of Creation. On the other hand I do not believe the Bible is the revealed and final idea. There are examples of Biblical heroes doing wrong things and there many things not in the Bible that can be counted as part of the historical narrative. So I am not a member of those who say the King James Bible is the final source.

- As for religiousity I do not consider myself as of one strand. I am largely influenced by Protestantism but I admire traditionalist Catholicism. I am not a Orthodox Jew or Muslim but I admire those religions. I also admire aspects of others. Despite being a Christian I believe unlike other Fundamentalists that a good non-Christian person can become accepted by God by being a "law unto themself" to God. So that means I do not believe that only Christians go to Heaven and all others go to Hell, in fact false Christians go to Hell. My view of the afterlife is the traditional Jewish view that Hell is not eternal and is a place where people go to be purified. The saints await the ressurection at the Bosom of Abraham in comfort, the semi-good sit in a sort of place in limbo, the wicked are purified out in hell before joining the semi-good, and the truly wicked and servants of Satan are anihilated. So thus nowhere is lack of faith a sin.

- On personal matters I disagree with fundamentalists who add to the Bible. I see nothing wrong with alcohol, dancing, tobacco, rock and role, and even use of marijuana if it is done responsibly. I oppose homesexual experimentation but recognize there are many natural homosexuals who should be treated for this mental problem. Sodomy is when a person who is not naturally homosexual engages in homosexual acts. There is nothing wrong with sex and marriage begins not with a ceremony, but when two people have sex. So whoever you have sex with first is your wife. I think polygomy is okay as long as not done but church leaders or on the level of being a harem. I am still ultra-conservative though.

- In politics this translates to Christian libertarianism. Christian libertarianism is expressed here by Andrew Sandlin, who is a Reformed Christian. I am not a particularly Calvinist so excuse that. The political view is much the same.

http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/96/clIdea.html

So these are my basic ideas. You guys have a good sense of radicalism and justice and would be perfect Christian footsoldiers if you converted from infidelism, but my goal is not to proslytize, but to debate.
good luck with that fucked up shit, oh looks like your a templar too (*cough *cough)imperialist(*cough *cough)

[RedStarOverChina]

I'll see you in Hell, fundie nut.

[Red Scare]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 10:55 pm
I oppose homesexual experimentation but recognize there are many natural homosexuals who should be treated for this mental problem. Sodomy is when a person who is not naturally homosexual engages in homosexual acts.
go fuck yourself you crazy rightwinger homophobe

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 04:24 am
Amen to that. I know I am right and you will eventually be living under Christendom.
O_o Unfortunate that you've left rationality and have turned to dogmatism.

[CubaSocialista]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 04:24 am
Amen to that. I know I am right and you will eventually be living under Christendom.
And may you burn in the hell your organized set of superstition threatens the masses with daily.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[Dean]

Originally posted by freakazoid+August 27, 2007 02:58 pm--> (freakazoid @ August 27, 2007 02:58 pm) And how is this a contradiction? When everything was created it was good, and later on it became bad. Is that really that hard to understand? And again you put quotation marks around it like that is the exact words that get spoken. [/b]
Here's a contradiction:

[email protected] 2001
Now, Chronicles lists the sons of Jehoiakim (3:16), who are also the last two kings in David's line: Jeconiah (also called Jehoiachin [2 Kgs. 24:6-17; 2 Chr. 36:8-9] and Coniah [Jer. 22:24]) and Zedekiah (see 2 Chr. 36:10, which also describes Zedekiah as Jeconiah's brother). Note that this is in conflict with 2 Kings 24:17, which says it was Jehoiachin's uncle Zedekiah (see 3:15; originally named Mattaniah, according to Kings), who was installed by Nebuchadnezzar of Bablylon as king in place of his exiled nephew.