20 Reasons I Don't Take Potshots at Fundamentalists
By: John Piper

1. They are humble and respectful and courteous and even funny (the ones I've met).

2. They believe in truth.

3. They believe that truth really matters.

4. They believe that the Bible is true, all of it.

5. They know that the Bible calls for some kind of separation from the world.

6. They have backbone and are not prone to compromise principle.

7. They put obedience to Jesus above the approval of man (even though they fall short, like others).

8. They believe in hell and are loving enough to warn people about it.

9. They believe in heaven and sing about how good it will be to go there.

10. Their "social action" is helping the person next door (like Jesus), which doesn't usually get written up in the newspaper.

11. They tend to raise law-abiding, chaste children, in spite of the fact that Barna says evangelical kids in general don't have any better track record than non-Christians.

12. They resist trendiness.

13. They don’t think too much is gained by sounding hip.

14. They may not be hip, but they don’t go so far as to drive buggies or insist on typewriters.

15. They still sing hymns.

16. They are not breathless about being accepted in the scholarly guild.

17. They give some contemporary plausibility to New Testament claim that the church is the “pillar and bulwark of the truth.”

18. They are good for the rest of evangelicals because of all this.

19. My dad was one.

20. Everybody to my left thinks I am one. And there are a lot of people to my left.

John is a modern day theologian. Found this on one of his blogs...

http://www.desiringgod.org

Like his insights...

20 Reasons why Realists have a problem with fundamentalists:


1. They have control issues.

2. They believe they believe the truth.

3. They believe that what they believe matters more than what others believe.

4. They believe that the Bible is true, all of it, but can't tell you why there are so many Bibles.

5. They know that the Bible calls for some kind of separation from the world, and always think it's coming up real soon.

6. They have backbone and are completely unwilling to recognize the merits of other points of view.

7. They think Jesus is the highest authority above the law.

8. They believe in hell and get off on scaring others with it.

9. They believe in heaven and sing about how good it will be to go there, if you are a member of their club.

10. Their "social action" is helping the person next door (like Jesus), which doesn't usually get written up in the newspaper, and they think that makes all the other crap ok.

11. They tend to raise law-abiding, chaste children, who remain unaware of their right to make their own choices, until their 20's!

12. They resist trendiness, instead preferring to live in their own little dogma bubble.

13. They don’t think too much is gained by sounding hip, largely because their dogma bubble just isn't hip.

14. They may not be hip, but they don’t go so far as to drive buggies or insist on typewriters, because they are lazy, like everyone else wanting to improve their life, but not pop that dogma bubble in the process.

15. They still sing hymns, like a lot of people do.

16. They are not breathless about being accepted in the scholarly guild, because scientific understanding may well pop that dogma bubble and that's kind of scary.

17. They give some contemporary plausibility to New Testament claim that the church is the “pillar and bulwark of the truth.” mostly because they have to, otherwise their dogma bubble doesn't really mean anything.

18. They think they are good for the rest of evangelicals because of all this. One dogma bubble for all is the goal.

19. My dad was one. (don't have a retort for this one)

20. Everybody to my left thinks I am one. And there are a lot of people to my left. Realists know why this is, accept it and move on, largely able to interact with others in a healthy way.

'..don't have a retort for this one...'

It's about seeking truth, not simply retorts.

Only One claims to be the way the Truth and the life.

Look elsewhere and you'll be sorely disappointed.

Herb

Once again "Bumper Sticker Theology" for the most complex of issues.

Funda"mental"ists suck in every way possible.

Chris, that was my point!!

Herb, if you were really all about seeking truth, you would absolutely be willing to have a two way conversation, not one way advocacy.

That was my greater point by returning fire on all of those. It's a bunch of crap that has no real value, other than entertainment.

Want to get at some real truth?

Have a conversation that's real.

RE #16 (Acceptance by the "scholarly guild") -- If fundamentalists don't care about being accepted by the "scholarly guild," then what is this big stink about evolution vs. creationism? Why is there such a place as the Institute for Creation Research, and why are there Christian activists who are devoted to "debunking" evolutionary theory?

Hey Missing, you forgot one. You couldn't open a fundamentalist's mind with a crowbar. Sure, their nice people, until you say something they don't like and then they can get in your face same as anyone else.

The 20 reasons I ignore fundamentalists.

1) They want to be the boss of me.
2) They want to be the boss of me.
3) They want to be the boss of me.
4) They want to be the boss of me.
5) They want to be the boss of me.
6) They want to be the boss of me.
7) They want to be the boss of me.
8) They want to be the boss of me.
9) They want to be the boss of me.
10) They want to be the boss of me.
11) They want to be the boss of me.
12) They want to be the boss of me.
13) They want to be the boss of me.
14) They want to be the boss of me.
15) They want to be the boss of me.
16) They want to be the boss of me.
17) They want to be the boss of me.
18) They want to be the boss of me.
19) They want to be the boss of me.
20) They want to be the boss of me.

'Herb, if you were really all about seeking truth, you would absolutely be willing to have a two way conversation...'

I'm all about a two way conversation.

Unlike leftists,
(1). I don't swear at my ideological opponents,
(2). Believe that man doesn't have all the answers, and
(3). That God exists.

For that, I get pilloried on a constant basis.

But like the Energizer Bunny, I keep comin' back.

Herb

20 Reasons I Don't Take Potshots at Mennonites:

1. They are humble and respectful and courteous and even funny without being cruel.

2. They believe in truth.

3. They believe that truth really matters.

4. They believe that the Bible is true, and they read many books.

5. They know that the Bible calls for hard work and sacrifice to make the world a better place.

6. They have backbone and are not prone to compromise principle, even if it means refusing a gun in battle.

7. They put acting like Jesus above the approval of the man.

8. They understand hell and are loving enough to help the folks around them out of it.

9. They believe in heaven and sing about it without forgetting the struggles of everyday people.

10. Their "social action" is helping the person next door, which doesn't usually get written up in the newspaper. Their quiet anti-war stance usually garners all the attention.

11. They tend to raise smart kids.

12. They resist.

13. They don't think too much is gained by destroying the earth.

14. They are conscious of their impact, and some go so far as to drive buggies or insist on typewriters.

15. They still sing hymns a capella.

16. They are not surprised about being accepted in the scholarly guild.

17. They give some contemporary plausibility to the Beatitudes.

18. They are good for the rest of us because of all this and more.

19. My ancestors in Switzerland were Mennonites.

20. Everybody to my left and right thinks I am one. And there are a lot of people to my left and right. I take it as a compliment.

They still sing hymns a capella.

The only solid way to do this, IMHO.

Ideally, they do them 4 part, SATB!!

Twenty Strange Tech Gadgets and Accessories

20. The Talking Lips
Not your ordinary speakers, these "Talking Lips" actually have moving lips that synchronize with your mobile phone or online chat conversations.

19. Portable Cardboard Speakers
Speakers made of cardboard and a few electronic components that ship unfolded in a clear plastic pouch -- fold them up and they're ready to use.

18. Talking Japanese Watches
A new watch that not only tells time but teaches you Japanese as well.

17. The Baller Cheating Pen
The Baller Pen features a retractable 6.5" sheet which can be written on.

16. Cup Noodle Stove
Place your favorite Cup Noodle flavor on the stove and power it up. In just a few minutes, your ramen will be piping hot and ready to eat.

15. Gas Powered Blender
The "Daiquiri Whacker Gas Powered Blender" comes with an unbreakable Oster blender jar and a Mountain Safety Research aluminum fuel bottle (for gas mixing/fuel storage).

14. The Mini Desk
The entire desk is constructed from what looks like a real Mini Cooper with its top chopped off, interior gutted, and left door panel removed.

13. Wood LED Clock
When turned off, this clock looks just like a regular block of wood. Once powered up, the LED lights display the time on this still regular looking block of wood.

12. Headlight LCD Combo
Now you can sit in front of your car headlight and watch your favorite DVD movies. Someone decide to cut you off? Show them so love by putting on a movie.

11. Rat Race Clock
Watch the mechanical rat run on a treadmill, whilst moving "gears that advance the hour and minute hands".

10. Radio Toaster
You can not only prepare toast but also listen to FM radio at the same time.

9. The Sauce Dispensing Chopsticks
You'll never have to dip your sushi in soy sauce again.

8. The Head Bath Cap
Gives your head/hair a good bath; just place it over your head and let water start running into it.

7. Bouncing Digital Camera
This nifty little bouncy ball is actually a digital camera that snaps 3.0 Megapixel images when bounced.

6. Touch Rubik's Cube
It uses six different materials, engaging users to use their senses. This also enables blind persons to enjoy the wonders of a Rubik's cube.

5. RSStroom Reader
Print the latest RSS headlines directly on to rolls of toilet paper. It also features Wi-Fi Connectivity, USB 2.0, and RSS 2.0/Atom compatibility. This reader interacts with your toilet bowl "biometrically"; depending on your weight, it'll deliver you a customized news feed.

4. BriefSafe
This is basically stained underwear that securely stores valuables in a 4" x 10" secret compartment with velcro closure. Leave the "Brief Safe" in plain view in your laundry basket or washing machine at home, or in your suitcase in a hotel room.

3. Knife Block Shaped Like Human Head
Hand carved by Irene van Gestel.

2. Shower Belt
Easily attaches to any faucet with the buckle acting as a fully functional nozzle. Want to freshen up before heading out on that big date? Just whip out your trusty shower belt for a quick wash in the bathroom.

1. Human Skin Laptop Bags
Made from synthetic human skin. The "Skinbag" is shock absorbant, has 1 cm padding (fabric lining), and 1 side pocket for all your accessories. "They anticipate the fusion between the digital and the organic."

(Note: I have many BriefSafes scattered liberally throughout my home, and have yet to have been a victim of home intrusion. Better than a gun, Skybill!)

techblog.com

"Unlike leftists,
(1). I don't swear at my ideological opponents,
(2). Believe that man doesn't have all the answers, and
(3). That God exists. "

1. Ah but Jesus swore occasionally at the religious conservative/legalistic leaders of his day. However the writers of the scriptures often softened the language for cultural reasons.

2. I believe Herb has even fewer answers.

3. I believe God exists so your statement that those who lean left don't believe in God is false. Obama is a believer in God too. So once again you're screaming from your lonely little island.

The religious right ( actually religious militant is a more accurate monkier) has no monopoly on God. By inferring so is slap the face of Jesus and his disciples.

Get a grip Mr. Herb.

'...Jesus swore occasionally...'

Sources and specifics, please.

Herb

Herb I am surprised. You quote scripture so effortlessly yet can't come up with something like this? Honestly I am disappointed.

Let me restate the swearing aspect. Jesus used vulgar language is probably more accurate. I was using a more contemporary vernacular.

Think it over Herb. Jesus was by trade a carpenter after all, and he hung out with fishermen. The oldest gospel, Mark, reports Jesus cursed a fig tree for being barren. (Mark 11:14).

When you drive out money-changers and pigeon-sellers from the Temple (mark 11:15) you can reasonably believe he spoke a language (loudly probably) that would intimidate these people, and that may well have included words polite people considered bad language.

MT 23:33 "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?

Is Jesus dropping an F-Bomb? Not in our language today, but back in his day...probably. Remember we're talking about Holy anger here, not some foul mouth laced juvenile who can't put two grammatically correct sentences together.

Herb do some biblical history investigating, Get to know the culture in which Jesus lived. The subtle nuances of the Hebrew and Greek language will help you recognize these types of things. And I know you’re intelligent enough to do so.

"Is Jesus dropping an F-Bomb? Not in our language today, but back in his day...probably."

Probably?

You're making assumptions without evidence.

Just because one is a carpenter doesn't mean he swears. I've known those who don't.

Conjecture doesn't count, Chris, especially whilst assailing the character of God. And while I won't call it blasphemous, some would.

I'm not bashing you. I'm just speaking plainly about what is a very serious accusation.

Herb

The Bible is full of conjecture.

Wow can you edit a post or what Herb. I gave you several Biblical references but you chose to ignore.

Okay here it is. Having had many and I mean many a conversation with pastors from all denominations, liberal and conservative and having read more than one scholarly commentary and having studied some biblical history over the years, the consensus is Jesus used some colorful language in HIS time.

Your black and white world of literal biblical interpretation just can't put Jesus on any kind human level. How do you think Jesus was able to reach the most vile and hated in his day in age, by singing kum by yah?

I'm not saying he went around cursing just to curse.... you might have missed that in my previous post. Since you are not into bringing any kind context when posting scripture, I can certainly understand your lack of understanding of the point I'm making.

Your assumption (and you do plenty of that) that I am assailing the character of God is probably one of your most blatant and utterly vicious comments. I mean HOW DARE YOU!!!

Jesus was both human and deity. But it seems you won't let Jesus be human enough, and I think I may know why. Because he knows you too well so you hide behind his deity taking pot shots.

Hey, it's an absolute known fact that profanity escalates over time.

Damned and damn used to be profane. And cursing is often profane as well.

That's enough to support what Chris just posted.

Besides, Jesus was a Liberal!

Everybody knows that.

"You're making assumptions without evidence."

This pretty much defines your entire belief system.

Yep.

There is a cool $250K sitting around for anybody able to prove that Jesus is NOT the son of the Spagetti Monster.

You're making assumptions without evidence.

But Herbocrite that's ALL you do!

The person of Jesus is/was without sin. Sin-less...perfect...but very human too...but perfect when He was on this earth. Scriptures mentioned here tells of an incident when Christ got angry and shared some words but sinned not.
Spouting out profanities to most people (and according to God's Word ) would be less than devine thus sinful but forgiveable by a forgiving God.

>>There is a cool $250K sitting around for anybody able to prove that Jesus...

Many millions have proof in their hearts and lifes that He is the true and Living God of the universe...Priceless!

I never said Jesus sinned. Far from it. But when he got angry he got his point across. Angry words from Jesus will sound very different than angry words from me.

Most of Jesus' anger was towards the religious people of his day for their hypocrisy, legalism and pride. Today's religious right would fall into that category.

>>hypocrisy, legalism and pride.

hypocrisy and pride guilty by everyone human...legalism...don't see much in the religious right....pretty fundamental...ah..back on topic!

Angry is one thing, as is the statement:

'...the consensus is Jesus used some colorful language in HIS time.'

But don't you agree both are different than:

"Is Jesus dropping an F-Bomb? Not in our language today, but back in his day...probably."

Herb

Again I was attempting to put context and first century middle east into perspective.

We are all affected by our surroundings. The language and customs. Same with Jesus. Did Jesus curse or swear...I'd say he did, but we'll never really know will we.

'Did Jesus curse or swear...I'd say he did..'

That's tantamount to saying Jesus sinned. Again, be careful.

'..we'll never really know will we...'

With all serious and sincere due respect, please speak for yourself, and not 'we,' on that ONE single solitary issue.

Herb

Check my post above Herb. I did say Jesus never sinned. Sinning and swearing are two different things.

And the type of swearing or cursing that happened in the first century probably is not quite what you and I would equate to what we hear today.

Again Herb all I'm trying to do is to put some contextual language around scripture and Jesus. I'm not sure how your minds eye sees him but he certainly didn't have a white European, blue-eyed blond hair appeal.

There's an earthiness to Jesus that I'm drawn too. A realness that western theology and many conservative institutes just don't want to look at or for whatever reason ignore.

Jesus the human being and the deity. Quite a combination and to be honest the hardest thing for many to reconcile. I think CS Lewis actually says it better than I.

Is there a list of taboo, sinful words, like George Carlin's "7 words you can't say on TV?" Can disgust, disapproval, or anger be expressed without sinning? Can abrasive language not be sinful?

Good questions Alfredo. I think language and semantics also fall under "Intent." If the intent is to use language for power and control then to me that is sinful.

If you hammer your thumb accidently and cuss up a storm....I don't see that as sinful....just some physical pain.

>>Can abrasive language not be sinful?

Ah...the $64,000 question and the title of a new thread? Profanity, slang, vulgarities, cussing...not the most pleasant choice of words to express to our human brothers and sisters but used by many everyday just to get their point across...the f-word now "ok" by the FCC as a preverb,adverb,noun,etc...and all over our media especially in the movies.

The Bible does speak to the matter...Watch the way you talk. Let nothing foul or dirty come out of your mouth. Say only what helps, each word a gift.
Ephesians 4:29 (The Message)

"Let nothing foul or dirty come out of your mouth."

Easy to say until you get some bad fish.

or bad christians knocking at your door. (Again.)

I heard a new term today.

CHINO

"CHristian In Name Only"

Refers to those who rail against Abortion and Homosexuals but turn a blind eye toward Jesus' other teachings.

And again and again and again...

I'm completely through with this discussion.

In a way, some profanity is self fucking correcting. You see, if I encounter some "Please let this be Disneyland" weenie, that can't actually handle a real conversation, perhaps we just shouldn't be talking.

I've no regrets.

Leftists set the bar so low, they needn't worry about missing the mark.

Wanna off a kid while she's being born?

No problem to a leftist.

That's why the fellow-traveling liberal mediae give them a pass.

Herb

"No problem to a leftist."

Do you actually believe this shit that comes out of your mouth?

Mrs. Merkin, we all wipe with the same tools we type with, but some are more fastidious than others.

I like The Message from Eugene Peterson myself. Good job Dan.

Now how to interpret it is another. What is foul or dirty language? That is where the debate or discussion lies.

Have I ever cussed up a storm? Absolutely. And you know what happened, nothing. Lighting didn't strike me down, my first child wasn't taken from me, God's wrath never came upon my household.

Do I just blurt out expletives because it's fun....no. But this is but one definition. It's not all about cursing or cussing or swearing but it's about all our language and the intent.

From the other thread when Dobson spoke that Obama is distorting the bible for his own purposes. This is foul language. You don't have swear to be foul.

But Dan if you bring in more of the context of the scripture you will note in the verses previous Eugene Peterson writes:

"Go ahead and be angry. You do well to be angry-but don't use your anger as fuel for revenge. And don't stay angry. Don't go to bed angry."

Also who is Paul, the original writer of this passage, writing too? Dan what was the church in Ephesus dealing with at the time of Paul's letter to them?

You see....it's context. Taking one passage and using it for justification actually brings little justice to the passage and for my money lesson's its meaning. My very conservative brothers and sisters in Christ unfortunately many times leave the context out of the passage and thus it becomes their justification to do harm to others.

That's a big problem with me and my main issue with Herb and Broadway.

Leftists set the bar so low, they needn't worry about missing the mark.

PURE BULLCRAP!

Is that why RADICAL EXTREME RIGHT radio is called low-brow radio???

More GARBAGE from Herbocrite.

I think they both go to bed angry.
Very angry.
Every night.

Now I lay me down to sleep,
I hate the world,
In hate,
I'll steep,
And if I die before I wake,
Lord,
Kill them all for pity sake...

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...

A-men.

Herbocrite is FULL of hate.
It's sad because I sure he could be a better human being if he could just release it.....
Sad....

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.....

LOL!

I thought i'd add a little to that growl!

Chris, sounds like we "rightly divide" the Word of God differently. I have no problem in using a particular scripture to convey a certain message...good grief...Pastors do it every day/sunday.

>>becomes their justification to do harm to others.

Not my purpose or motive...why would I want to do that here? Again...pdxradio is an arena of ideas/dreams/thoughts/truths and it's quite obvious that The Bible is an offense to many here but to understand it you have to know the Author....and you know what...I have no problem to have'n Bible study here with Herb joining in!

Sorry...but you are wrong about your views of Dobson and should revisit his motives and not listen to the worlds spin of his ministry.

---

quote:

Fanaticism is an emotion of being filled with excessive, uncritical zeal, particularly for an extreme religious or political cause, or with an obsessive enthusiasm for a pastime or hobby.

According to philosopher George Santayana, "Fanaticism consists in redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim"; according to Winston Churchill, "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject". By either description the fanatic displays very strict standards and little tolerance.

---

---

quote:

Religious fanaticism has been shown to be correlated with orthodoxy and the self-importance of the belief to the individual. It is inversely correlated with consciousness of ambivalence.

These attitudes are related to personality attributes such as authoritarianism, conservatism and concern for status.

---

---

quote:

Religious fundamentalism refers to a "deep and totalistic commitment" to a belief in the infallibility and inerrancy of holy scriptures, absolute religious authority, and strict adherence to a set of basic principles (fundamentals), away from doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life.

---

---

quote:

Religious Zealot A person who has ruined religion by using it for his own personal gain and to make him seem like (s)he's better than non-religious people.

---

Maybe Dark, just maybe! "I'll take door number four, what do I win? A cookie maybe?"

Broadway, you really need to read better. I'm not sure anybody here has said the Bible is offensive.

It's the delivery buddy, not the work itself.

---

quote:

It's the delivery buddy, not the work itself.

---

>>It's the delivery buddy

Tell me...how can I be a better deliverer of the "work"?

Subtle, be subtle. No more in your face my way or you go to H E double hockeysticks. WE all have our beliefs and by this stage in our lives are pretty well entrenched into us. The aggressive and/or passionate posts, well lets just say this forum is not the best venue for that display. Chris is a good example to follow. Even Herb has toned it down from the days of old. You are not the first to hit this nerve and wont be the last but it brings back memories of your predecessor whose name we are not allowed to mention under penalty of Merkin. The end result was the banning of him and his diametric opposite. It got bad and we just don't want a repeat of that again.

I can appreciate the mandate to go forward and spread the word, but in here, you might consider toning it down.

The choice is yours, be subtle, or be a target. And to be honest, to be at the center of controversy and the hub of the conversation on this in here is not necessarily a good thing and may turn off people instead of helping them find the way home.

>>The choice is yours, be subtle, or be a target
>>result was the banning of him and his diametric opposite

in other words pdxradio does not have full first ammendment rights for those who believe in absolute truth of God's Word...good grief...you guys have'nt figured out that I am just a messenger here...a voice in the radio wilderness...just trying to be a little salt and light where needed...and to be honest...I am "reeling in" at times...but come to think of it...Jesus was never subtle in His message and I don't think I can change either not out of defiance for the group but to follow His example.

You are not a messenger. You're just another idoit making claims that can't be proven. You are why non religious people can't stand religious people. Take a cue from Chris Taylor some time.

First, some education about free speech on the Internet.

Wake up. You don't have any. There is exactly zero entitlement for any of us. We speak here because Dan lets us speak, period, end of story.

Want to speak your own mind? Great, post up a forum and have at it. Bear in mind though, still you cannot do this without consequenses. Your peers might choose to silence you, by blocking your site, governments may do the same.

If your speech is annoying to the right people, they can take your service provider to court and silence you that way.

The whole thing is a give and take. The freest speech you can have on the Internet is speech you, yourself publish on your time and on your pipe. Everything else is a privilege.

Secondly, free speech is not a shield. For the most part, Dan allows us to really get after it. This is good, but not a shield.

Again, if your speech ends up being a net loss for people, they may well choose to speak back, leaving the whole thing to escalate to a point where the community as a whole is threatened.

That's what Dark was talking about. It's not a good thing.

Another way to think about it is this: You may well be able to say what you want to. (here, this is almost completely true) However, others can respond in like kind. You may or may not feel good about that.

Finally, this is a captive audience. We are bound by our friendships here. That's what makes the community happen in the first place.

Each of us contributes, exchanges, reads, whatever and gets value from the body as a whole. If a contributor makes too much noise, with noise being those contributions that disrupt the flow of others more often than not, then the value for everyone is diminished.

This is a problem.

We all go off, we all make noise, we all recover, we all are friends at the end of the day.

The dynamic that makes it work is that we have the sense enough to know when to just let it ride for a while. If this is the case, more often than not, then it's all gonna work fine.

When it does not work, then tension builds and I personally believe that's an abuse of the venue.

Again, captive audience. So, if we want to entertain our friendships here, we must tolerate the noise in order to do so. Nature of the beast.

If we have contributors here prolestysing and raising the noise level consistently, then we are all having to tolerate more noise than we would otherwise have to and that's a harm and an abuse of the thing and of us as a whole.

Personally, I will gladly entertain theological discussions. Like them, learn about people from them, and recognize that it's important to others to have them.

I absolutely resent every last thread being somehow linked to God. It's like being put in a room, eye lids taped open, having to stare at the light, or leave!

I would leave, if the pain grows too great, but my friends are here! That means I'll deal with the pain, but it also means I'll push back on it, hoping for solid ground where it's a largely good thing to continue.



Does that make more sense?

There is good reason not to fish with dynamite, your kill more than you catch and they are lost forever!

When you fish with a net, the ones you don't catch are still there for you to catch later on.

You go right ahead and keep tossing out dynamite though. Just don't complain when one day it blows up in your face.

Man, you try to offer some advice to people and "Wooooooosh" right out the window!

Some time ago, I had read that the term "Fundamentalist" is a reference to a series of pamphlets published circa 1900; the series was called "The Five Fundamentals of Faith." The philosophy behind these pamphlets was neo-Puritan. In other words, they were trying to define Christianity by simplifying it to a few core doctrines and removing what the authors considered extraneous rituals and practices.

A number of mainline denominations flirted with the ideas in these pamphlets. Independent churches and loosely-organized denominations (such as the Pentecostal denominations) seem to have embraced the philosophy of these pamphlets most closely.

Since the early 1900s, the term "Fundamentalist" has also been metaphorically adopted to refer to people and groups in other religions who practice a tight adherence to a group of core tenets in the given religion. All "Fundamentalists" seem to have some authoritarian elements in their creeds that include a deep-seated desire to convert the entire world.

IMHO, this is related to the idea that fundamental = true. It isn't --it's just fundamental!

"I am just a messenger here..."

Hmm . . . I've heard from God himself a few times and he has told me to pass along the following message:

Knock it off! I don't need "messengers" or mortals to write books for me. I'm powerful enough to reach people individually. If it seems like I'm not reaching enough people that need saving, have faith, I know what I'm doing. You're truly, God.

>>Your peers might choose to silence you, by blocking your site,

don't think that is anyones power to do except the site owner. I would hope he drops access to individuals who use profanities over religious content.

>>noise being those contributions that disrupt the flow of others more often than not, then the value for everyone is diminished.

Good grief...now my input has been called a new term...noise that disrupts...need to subtle my noise...who's controlling who here...

I AM NOT TELLING YOU WHAT/HOW TO POST DAILY HERE

>>every last thread being somehow linked to God

He can handle it...He's a big God!

And He is pissed!

Broadway, I used noise generally, only trying to convey where the tension is, nothing more.

As for who has what power on the Internet, consider the following:

Say we own a site. It's got material on it that offends, or maybe just is critical of others. We build that content and put it on the net somewhere.

Where does it go?

On a computer, and storage right?

Where is that computer located?

Say it's at your house, meaning we are self-publishing. Who puts our traffic onto the greater internet and how do people find us?

Our site name, or domain, is registered in DNS, and our ISP moves or routes our traffic to the greater Internet, composed of the ISP's peers.

Now some baddie wants to get us shut down.

The government can sieze our DNS, meaning people can't find us. This has been done, and will continue to be done. Takes a court order, but not always...

Maybe somebody out there just wants to make it really hard to speak, in the hopes that perhaps we will quit speaking! So we get hacked, we get denial of service (lots of nonsense traffic), we get lied about for the purposes of having the connection dropped, or the speech marginalized.

Maybe they go so far as to enter the home and just take the stuff.

So, we are speaking but nobody is reading. Isn't the impact the same as just not speaking? My point is that we may be in the right for speaking, but the cost of that speech is not sheltered by the right to speak!

Maybe that baddie decides to put the pressure on our ISP. Files notices, does whatever. So we lose our net connection.

Now we are not speaking at all.

Another scenario then.

We put that content onto a computer that's hosted somewhere, or maybe just put it with other content on a larger computer hosted somewhere.

Our content causes trouble, so that provider simply refuses to host the site. We still own it, but they won't carry traffic for it.

People decide to just hammer that site, costing us too much money, or disrupting traffic for other sites. No courts, just annoyed netizens.

Hosting provider decides we are not worth it, or we decide we cannot pay to maintain the site.

No speech in those scenarios either.

On the net, we all are peers. Some of us are bigger peers and some of us are just people using the net because others permit it, encourage it, whatever.

People may be in the right to speak, but that does not mean such speech will be carried.

Profanity -vs- Religion.

IMHO, they both work the same. Some profanity does not harm, nor does some religion. Too much of either and we have noise. This works with a lot of things!

It's a given there is always noise. If the noise gets too high, and that could be anything: nonsense posts, profanity, religion, insults, repeated postings where the outcome is a known heated state, you name it... then there are problems.

That's all I meant by noise. That entire post was all about just trying to explain some dynamics in play here, that's it.

What you do with that, if anything, is your deal. I've absolutely no control at all, nor do I desire it. My only purpose was to explain from my perception where the tension is. Others have done the same, and others still haven't, because there is none!

Having done that, I'm going to control what I can control, and that's my posts here. What you do is what you do and how you feel about it is how you feel about it!

All I've done is let you know how I feel about it and why. Again, where that takes you is simply where that takes you.

Frankly, I think I might enjoy sharing time with you here. If I didn't, I think I might have not even bothered with any of this conversation at all. Put that in the context of what was written above.

Peace.

Alfredo, I think what you posted could be expanded on.

Fundemental also means core, or focused, maybe just basic.

If one feels passionately about something, boiling that down to fundamentals means focusing the passion in that way, making the discussion focused and easy to quantify.

Maybe that helps to get closer to the perception of truth, and that leads to the false connection of it actually being truth, simply because it's more difficult to rebut.

>>Frankly, I think I might enjoy sharing time with you here. If I didn't, I think I might have not even bothered with any of this conversation at all. Put that in the context of what was written above. Peace.

Missing...hey...agreed and dittoed (sorry) here...especially the peace part!

I suspect that the writers of "The Five Fundamentals of Faith" certainly did feel that Christianity needed some kind of focusing because in the early 1900s, there were a number of relatively new religious sects that claimed to be Christian, such as LDS, Christian Science, and Jehovah's Witnesses. I need to find some more information to really determine whether it was specifically the creation of these sects that triggered the writing of the Fundamentals.

Please share if you find something of interest!

More than a few here would find that a good read.