# Fundamentalist "Christians?"



## elder999 (Aug 28, 2008)

In keeping with a theme I'll be pursuing this weekend (if it kills me, 'Caver!)



Sukerkin said:


> Sadly, *Jenna*, no.
> 
> There is no enlightenment here - and therein lies the deepest irony of all, given that many of those exhibiting the most extreme opinions actually consider themselves to be spiritual people, favoured in the eyes of God.


 
Fundamentalist Christians so seldom quote from the New Testament--which is supposedly what Christianity is all about--but prefer citing the Torah and Old Testament prophets. 

It seems to me that one reason is that the Old Testament is full of murder, vindictiveness, and genocide--all supposedly ordered by God. So when fundamentalists want a Biblical excuse for hate speech and hate crimes--which they seem to need with considerable frequency--they turn to Old Testament sources. 

The Fred Phelps Klan, for example, carry signs saying 'God hates fags', which they justify by claiming that Leviticus 18:22 ( dubiously condemning male homosexuality as "abomination") is the 'word of God'. Yet more than a third of the entire book of Leviticus is devoted to God's detailed instructions on the proper manner of making burnt offerings of animals to Him. (The rest deals with keeping Jewish dietary laws, avoiding pollution from inadvertent contact with menstruating women, forbidding haircuts and beard trimming, justifying slavery, and saying anyone who swears should be stoned to death). Why doesn't God hate those who fail to make offerings in the exact manner He so carefully spelled out in chapter after chapter? Since fundamentalists feel comfortable ignoring 95% of the 'word of God' in Leviticus, why have they latched onto this isolated phrase? If "God hates fags", then God must feel positively murderous toward people who don't make burnt offerings of animal carcasses in the precise manner so carefully indicated, and in such extreme detail. (God must also hate people who eat lobster, shrimp and pork, which are also "abominations" according to Leviticus). 

It's startling, in fact, how rarely fundamentalist Christians mention the sayings of Jesus. 'Morality' to them means the sexual inhibitions of ancient Middle Eastern patriarchies. They seem to be nostalgic for the pruderies of the 1950s, when the Hays office decreed that movies couldn't show pajama-clad married couples in bed together lest it incite teenage moviegoers to fornication. This obsession with sexuality is surprising, since Jesus seemed to have very little interest in the topic. In the four Gospels there are only four statements about sexuality, and these deal with adultery and divorce rather than sex per se. That is, with relationships--with causing injury to another. 

Compare this with the nineteen statements Jesus makes about the importance of giving, and the value of divesting oneself of money and possessions. Yet we seldom hear fundamentalist Christians saying it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven. Or quoting the ten statements exhorting us to turn the other cheek--a Christian idea that seems to be anathema to hate-filled fundamentalists. 

The Bible becomes the 'Word of God' when a bigot wants to use it to bludgeon his neighbor, and a mere archaic relic when it would be inconvenient for him to take it seriously. Fundamentalists of all persuasions--Christian, Muslim, Jewish--often manage to find some sort of backing for their hatreds in their sacred texts; for these texts were written in societies that were misogynistic, militaristic, and rigidly authoritarian--written, furthermore, by men who believed the earth was flat. 

The reason why so many fundamentalist Christians are so notoriously "unChristian" is simple: for the majority of Christians (Quakers are among many notable exceptions) Christianity isn't about the teachings of Jesus, and never was. The early church fathers knew that Jesus' rather Buddhist message of nonviolence and voluntary poverty wouldn't fly in the Graeco-Roman world, let alone in the Middle East. The idea of a Redeemer on the other hand--someone who would voluntarily sacrifice Himself for humanity and their sins--was very popular. Instead of having to give up their worldly goods and espouse non-violence, all the Romans had to do was believe in the miraculous stories surrounding Jesus' birth and death, which was easy for them, since such stories had been told about pagan gods and heroes and were already familiar. 


Christianity as it exists among fundamentalists isn't about behaving like Jesus. It's all about faith--about believing the story. The underlying message seems to be: _you can behave any way you want as long as you believe the story and say you're sorry before you die._ Following the teachings of Jesus is much too demanding, whereas with the Christianity of fundamentalists all you have to do is shut your mind off.There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word "Christian" has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry.


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 28, 2008)

and the "must post MORE!!!!!" continues!!!

it's so cute


----------



## elder999 (Aug 28, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> and the "must post MORE!!!!!" continues!!!
> 
> it's so cute


 
Is it still good for you, too? I'm not hurting you, am I? :lol:


----------



## Big Don (Aug 28, 2008)

There is a word for Non-Fundamentalist Christians (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, etc, etc) Dictionary.com defines it as:





> &#8211;noun
> 1.	a person who *pretends* to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. *a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.*
> 2.	a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.


Shouldn't this be more troubling than those men and women who actually has the virtues (or tries to) moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., of the religion he or she claims to believe in?
If you can't trust a person to be honest about what he believes, how can you trust anything he/she says?

.

.
.
.
.
.
Oh, that word, yeah, that word is Hypocrite. An alternative definition, those who are "electable"i.e., those who will say they are Christian, only because that is the easiest way to political office in the US. Where in the Bible, the source for the much maligned _fundamentals_ of Christianity. 


elder999 said:


> Fundamentalist Christians so seldom quote from the New Testament--which is supposedly what Christianity is all about--but prefer citing the Torah and Old Testament prophets.


Christ came as the fulfillment of the law, not to end the law. 
No, Christ never spoke specifically about homosexuality, he didn't speak of electric irons, sports cars or tropical fruit Bubbalicious either.
Incidentally, homosexuality (both between men and between women) is condemned in the New Testament, by Paul, in Romans 1. Romans not being in the TOP TEN list of Biblical Quotes (From the Home office in Thermopoli) it doesn't get quoted very often.
The idea that Christ's birth/life/death/resurrection erases all the other laws set down by God is ignorant at best. Does Christ's birth/life/death/resurrection mean now, there are no laws? Now, it is OK to worship other gods before him, have graven idols, adultery, murder, theft, etc? Somehow, I doubt it.


----------



## Tomu (Aug 29, 2008)

> The idea that Christ's birth/life/death/resurrection erases all the other laws set down by God is ignorant at best. Does Christ's birth/life/death/resurrection mean now, there are no laws? Now, it is OK to worship other gods before him, have graven idols, adultery, murder, theft, etc? Somehow, I doubt it.


 
So, do you  make your wife live in a tent outside the house for seven days while she is menstrating?

Do you think people should be stoned to death for adultery?
If so, would you cast the first stone?

Do you like porkchops?


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 29, 2008)

Jewish Law is a living entity, it is lovingly debated, commentaries written and the laws changed by consensus to keep up with the times which is why we don't make burnt offerings ( well not intentionally unless one is a very bad cook) and live in tents etc.
Laws such as the dietary laws continue because they fulfil the intent they were made in, to prevent food poisoning, hence the word kosher which means 'unclean' not abomination. Pork will not keep in a hot country and if you find lobster and other seafood in the desert sure as hell  will be off, it's also the most likely food to have picked up impurities from the water if there are any. These are basic rules on how to eat in a hot country without getting ill. Other laws like stoning were abandoned by Jews a long long time ago.
You'll find Jewish law can cope nicely with any modern problem that is likely to crop up. If people just chose to read the first part of the Laws and get themselves into difficulties it's not surprising. They have no Talmud to go with the Torah.


----------



## Tomu (Aug 29, 2008)

I am fully aware and agree with everything you stated Tez3.  However, most christians that would call themselves "fundamentalists" like to say that the Bible is 100% truth but then "cherry pick" the passages that suite their current rant.  How do I know? I used to be one, and my parents still are unfortunately.


----------



## kamishinkan (Aug 29, 2008)

I have read this post with some "disbelief"......The thought that "fundementalist" Christians are somehow "haters" and use the Torah to justify it, well is just ridiculous! As always, there are those who call themselves christians and use the Bible to justify their actions (remember the crusades????) but real "fundementalist" Christians do not hate ANYONE! We do however believe that homosexuality is inappropriate behavior as mentioned in both the Torah and the NT. This does not mean Christians hate homosexuals. The old statement "hate the sin, love the sinner" comes to mind. Jesus (Yeshua) by no means did away with the Torah (and before you ask I do follow dietary law and saturday sabbath) as far as the blood (unclean) laws, any Torah scholar will tell you that the APPLICATION of Torah laws has "evolved" over the years. For example (since you brought up menstural cycles) today women have something called tampons that keeps the uncleanliness of that time of the month under control. Some common sense is used in these laws. Dietary law is about health and most nutritionist will tell you pork and shellfish have some bad effects on humans. The animal sacrificial system is not followed today because there is no temple in Jerusalem to offer the sacrifices at, that stopped in 70 AD. Under this situation, the NT tells us to "offer ourselves as LIVING SACRIFICES". Again I do not want to turn this into a Torah defense, I just want to note that because of the Torah and the NT, the Christian is commanded to LOVE and not hate, so any representation otherwise is NOT CHRISTIAN!!!!


----------



## Ninjamom (Aug 29, 2008)

I am more than a little disappointed (although unfortunately, not surprised) with the contents of this thread.  Generalizations that would never be allowed to be said about all _____ (fill in the blank with the race, religion, sexual preference or ethnic group of your choice) are said with impunity about *those* Fundamentalist Christians.

A bit of history: The word 'Fundamentalist' as applied to certain Christians was first coined and used in a controversy in the early 1900's, as to what would be considered 'essential' foundational truths of the Christian faith.  This list included these five items:
1. The Bible as the inspired innerrant word of God (BTW, there was a lot of latitude on what 'inerrant' meant),
2. The virgin birth of Christ,
3. Jesus Christ's death as an atonement for sin,
4. The bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead, and
5. The historical reality of miracles.
Those who adhered to these 'fundamentals' of the faith came to be known as 'fundamentalists'.  Today, the word 'fundamentalist' has taken on the connotation of a raving, irrational, loveless, judgemental bigot, even though the above list describes the beliefs of approximately 85% of all Christians world-wide (roughly 1 billion people), myself included.  I would therefore urge that great caution be used when painting with so broad a brush.

For the last fifteen years, I owned and operated a Christian book, Bible, and church supplies store that served the three counties in the southern tip of Maryland.  I worked on a weekly basis with several thousand Christians in 80 to 90 churches spanning every denomination imaginable.  The overwhelming majority of these churches were active in running food pantries, helping the poor, visiting the sick and imprisoned, supporting local works of service, and sponsoring missions, missionaries, and development efforts in third-world nations.  The majority of the individual Christians were active in the community as well, including supporting their churches, helping in their children's schools, leading scouting activities, coaching little league teams, and serving in the local volunteer fire department and emergency medical services.  These customers and friends of mine served as the backbone of the local community, and *lived* their Christianity in word and deed.

I personally have no use for the 'reverend' Phelps and his ilk.  I can't help but feel sad and sorry for him.  However, I would never assert that *all* Christians (or *all* fundamentalist Christians) are like him in any way.  I woud ask that you not succumb to the temptation to do so, either.


----------



## kenpofighter (Aug 29, 2008)

Fundamentalist are the people who just believe the fundamentals (the basics of the Bible, nothing added). Most all of them use the KJV and believe that it was inspired by God. So 100% of the Bible is true. How can anyone pick and choses and say this story of the Bible is true but... this one I don't believe. Then how can you ever be sure which ones are true and which ones are not. I say you have to either believe it all or none of it. But the main thing of the fundamentalist is to see people come to know Christ and go to heaven after they died. Hey Christians are people just like everyone else. They do wrong things and have the same feelings as others. They just have someone to help them through the tough times. Anyone who is not a Christian will never understand this. Just my thoughts.


----------



## Andrew Green (Aug 29, 2008)

Ninjamom said:


> A bit of history: The word 'Fundamentalist' as applied to certain Christians was first coined and used in a controversy in the early 1900's, as to what would be considered 'essential' foundational truths of the Christian faith.  This list included these five items:



Yes, but that was 100 years ago, since then the meaning of the word has evolved.



> 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.[1][2][3][4]
> The term _fundamentalism_ was originally coined to describe a narrowly defined set of beliefs that developed into a movement within the Protestant community of the United States in the early part of the 20th century, and that had its roots in the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy of that time. Until 1950, there was no entry for _fundamentalism_ in the Oxford English Dictionary;[5] the derivative _fundamentalist_ was added only in its second 1989 edition.[6]
> The term _fundamentalist_ has since been generalized to mean strong adherence to any set of beliefs in the face of criticism or unpopularity, but has by and large retained religious connotations.[6] The collective use of the term fundamentalist to describe non-Christian movements has offended some Christians who desire to retain the original definition.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism

Now its generally referred to people that use religious text to justify there actions or beliefs regardless of what all other evidence suggests.  (ex. Homosexuality is unnatural, evolution does not occur, etc.)

It's also not just used towards Christians anymore, but to other religions as well.  Under that original definition the idea of a "Islamic Fundamentalist" doesn't make a lot of sense, yet that term is certainly in use


----------



## kamishinkan (Aug 29, 2008)

Look at that, I come back and re-read my post and realize I mis-spelled fundamentalist.......Jeez I can't even spell what I am :rofl:.
Just for my own defense, I was running out the door right after writing the post, I guess I should slow down!


----------



## elder999 (Aug 29, 2008)

It seems to me as if most of the violence and hatred in the world today is rooted in religious and ethnic conflicts. The perpetual tension in the Middle East is, when all is said and done, a religious-ethnic war. The hatred in Northern Ireland is also both religious and ethnic; Protestant vs. Catholic and Celtic vs. Anglo Saxon. The same is true of the tension between Pakistan and India, which currently threatens to erupt into atomic warfare one day. Indonesia is in a state of constant terror because of fundamentalist Moslems who are bent on destroying Christians, Hindus and native Animists. Africa is one large battleground between different ethnic groups and religions, most of the hatred and violence due to fundamentalist Moslems, who often own Christian slaves. In many Moslem countries, gay people are publicly executed, including a major US ally, Saudi Arabia. South Africa experienced a US led global boycott for far less serious civil rights violations. (They don&#8217;t produce oil) Adulterers are very often stoned to death or beheaded, and thieves have limbs amputated under Islamic law in many Moslem countries. And, they call themselves the &#8220;Religion of Peace&#8221;. I suggest we ought to pay less attention to what they are called, and more attention to what they do.

It is a risky proposition to mention religious bigotry, except when the religious bigots are Christian fundamentalists, preferably white men. The Cult of Tolerant-Diverse-Multiculturalism encourages separating Christianity from the State, but doesn&#8217;t necessarily include other religions in that separation. They frown upon saying &#8220;Merry Christmas&#8221;, instead preferring the generic &#8220;Happy Holidays&#8221;. Of course, the Multiculturalists feel free to wish everyone a happy Kwanzaa, a wonderful Ramadan, a tremendous Hannuka, or a splendid Diwali. They even encourage the study of the Vedas, the Koran, or any other non-Christian text in schools. Lord help you, however, if you bring a Bible anywhere near government property. They seem totally oblivious to their own hypocrisy, while being ultra sensitive to everyone else&#8217;s. It actually has more to do with their hatred of European civilization than it does with the appreciation of other cultures. But, we mustn&#8217;t notice this too often, or they&#8217;ll come after us with both barrels. It is diversity and tolerance in everything except what they disagree with. Still, it&#8217;s good to stir the pot once in a while, isn&#8217;t it?

The regular members here know that I&#8217;m neither Jewish nor Christian-though I was raised Episcopal, and my dad and granddad were Episcopal priests, I've found other ways of expressing my relationship with God. I&#8217;m not advocating one religion over another, nor saying one is inferior to another. I&#8217;m trying to point out that people use religion, like politics, to attack others, to justify all manner of injustice, and to advance their own personal agendas. They use their belief in God to explain their harshness and bitterness. If they aren&#8217;t harsh and bitter, how else can we explain their actions? Their hatred and violence certainly have nothing to do with the Creator of the Universe. It is dangerous to recognize religious bigotry or racism in one group and purposely deny it in another. Shall we avoid venomous cobras while embracing venomous rattlesnakes? That would probably have unpleasant consequences. 

Much of religion seems rooted in tribal rules and regulations from the less enlightened past. It assumes that the Creator is concerned about our diet, our thoughts, our clothing, or whether our genitals have been properly mutilated. It&#8217;s as if the warring Hittites, Philistines, Hebrews and Egyptians of the Old Testament have left their chariots and spears in 2000 B.C. and stepped into 2002 A.D., with atomic weapons. Those of us who&#8217;d rather not be involved in their religious or ethnic conflicts are going to have to deal with this whether we want to, or not. Our neighbors are killing each other because they think God ordered it. How do we get through to people like that? What in the world can you say to someone willing to kill you because you don&#8217;t say the right words or believe the right things? How do you communicate with someone who wants to blow you up for God? Are the Stalinesque multiculturalists any less dangerous than the radical religious fundamentalists? Is anybody else paying attention and asking these questions? I sure hope so. I recently saw a bumper sticker that said,_ &#8220;God is too big for one religion&#8221;. _Amen.

I'll get to the specifics of what was posted in responsse in a minute, but I want to point out that none you noted that in the title I put "Christians" _in quotation marks_, you just figured it was another attack on faith, rather than, as Don has so oblgingly if lefthandedly pointed out, an attack on hypocrisy-_whose_ hypocrisy? Well, give it time......


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 29, 2008)

The problem with blaming wars etc on religion is that it simplifies the problem and hides it behind an easy answer. The Northern Ireland situation was about more than religion is was about land and power struggles way back to Edward the First's time (when everyone was Catholic btw, no Protestants then), latterly it has been about criminal gangs and drug dealers gangs fighting out turf wars under the name of standing up for their religion. 
The Middle East situation is also about land, that's basically what's being fought over, who lives where. Great clouds of religious rhetoric have clouded that basic fact and we've forgotten how it all started, we assume religious differences are to blame.
If all religions vanished in a poof of smoke, all these people would still be fighting, the justifications would just be different.
Take Englands history, at different times Protestants and Catholics have been persecuted depending on who the current ruler was, it was less about what you believed more a cynical power grabbing process. Destroy you opponents by whatever means you can, so use religious differences to justify it. Bloody Mary persecuted Protestants to get revenge on her father and his supporters, Elizabeth the First persecuted Catholics because they had supported Mary and she needed her supporters to keep power, thats why she had Mary Queen of Scots executed. Why were there Protestants and Catholics in England? because Mary and Elizabeth's father wanted a divorce, the Catholics wouldn't allow it so he told everyone they had to become Protestants. No religous feeling there, just cold hard politics.


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 29, 2008)

I can't disagree with anything you said there, *tez*.  

The problem is that religion is used either a justification for continuing a conflict that began in other ways or as a simple 'handle' to drag opinion in the direction desired.

I would far rather that people took responsibility for their own actions and stopped passing the buck 'upstairs' but it isn't apparently happening anytime soon.  Indeed, the evidence I've seen on these pages over the past few days of just the *one* faith woud suggest that civilisation is sliding backwards rather than moving forwards.

In fact, I have a forboding of a clash coming, in America at least, between Church and State that can only end very badly.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 29, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> Laws such as the dietary laws continue because they fulfil the intent they were made in, to prevent food poisoning, hence the word kosher which means 'unclean' not abomination.



Clearly most Jews keeping kosher disagree with your interpretation, since modern technology has made food poisoning from lobster or pork as rare as food poisoning from beef or chicken.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 29, 2008)

Big Don said:


> .Christ came as the fulfillment of the law, not to end the law.
> No, Christ never spoke specifically about homosexuality, he didn't speak of electric irons, sports cars or tropical fruit Bubbalicious either.
> Incidentally, homosexuality (both between men and between women) is condemned in the New Testament, by Paul, in Romans 1. Romans not being in the TOP TEN list of Biblical Quotes (From the Home office in Thermopoli) it doesn't get quoted very often.
> .


 


> *Romans 1:26-27:*_"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet.__"_


Interestingly, the second chapter of Romans goes on to tell us:


> *Romans 2 1Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. 2But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.*



In any case, Romans 1 does contain-if not a prohibition against what appears to be homosexual behavior- a condemnation of it. Of course, were one to read it in the original _koine_, or ancient Greek, as I was forced to, one might reach a different conclusion about whats actually being said here by the writer. The phrase, for example, vile affections, which is _atimia_, could and has been translated in a variety of ways, not the least of which is _compulsion._ The words translated as "unnatural" are variously used by the writer of Paul's books for men who wear their hair long, positive actions of God, and 9and we'll get to this in a minute) the eating of non-kosher items. The phrase should rightly have been translated as something like _unconventional_. This, coupled with the narrative that is Romans 1, tells an interesting story:

Verses 21-23: The people had once been Christians. But they had fallen away from the faith, and returned to Paganism. They made images of Pagan gods in the form of men, birds, animals and reptiles for their religious rituals. The latter were probably held in Pagan temples

Verse 24: Next, they engaged in heterosexual orgies with each other as part of these pagan fertility rituals.

Verse 25: Next, they worshipped the images that they had made, instead of God, the creator. Paul is specifically condemning idol worship here.

Verse 26: *Because of these forbidden practices, God intervened in these fertility sex-rituals and changed the people's behavior so that women started to engage in sexual activities with other women*.

Verse 27: *describes how God had the men also engage in same-sex ritual activities. They (presumably both the men and women) were then punished in some way for their error.*

Verse 28: Again, because they did not acknowledge God, then He _"gave them up"_ to many different unethical activities and attitudes: evil, covetousness, malice, envy, murder, etc.

So, according to Paul, there were some Christians who returned to paganism, practiced sex rites and orgies, and God made them homosexual to screw up the ritual_interesting._

Another, and verse that is often used to condemn homosexuality is in Pauls letter to the Corinthians:

*



Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV): 

Click to expand...

*


> "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."




Well leave aside the source of Corinthians-Paul, God or other, and simply assume that it was Paul. Remember that it was written in _koine_. The original verse would look something like this:



> Don't you know that the unholy will not inherit the realm of God? Don't kid yourselves. None of these will inherit the realm of God: the immoral, idolaters, adulterers, *malakoi, arsenokoitai,* thieves, the greedy, drunkards, slanderers or extortionists will inherit the realm of God.


 
"Unholy" is _adikos_ and means unjust; by extension wicked, by implication treacherous; especially heathen: unjust, unrighteous. This word has special implication. Two words I'm sure caught your immediate attention: malakoi and arsenokoitai. You won't find them in whatever translation you are usingyou'll find various English words and phrases instead. What I have shown are the words in the original language. The truth is, no one knows absolutely for sure what the words mean, and therefore what Paul really meant.

It is important to note that at the time of Christ the word in common usage, which meant "homosexuality", was _homophilia._ That word was used in the Greek language until well after the time of Paul's death, but this word is never used in scripture. McNeill, in his work, _The Church and the Homosexual,_ writes that a second century use of the word in _"Apology of Aristides" _seems to indicate that it means an obsessive corrupter of boys.

Professor Robin Scroggs of Chicago Theological Seminary takes the position that both wordsmalekos and arsenokoites-refer to the active and passive partners in the Greek practice of pederasty, which should not in any way be confused with homosexuality. Pederasty is child molestation, pure and simple. A pederastic relationship existed between a lover (usually a mature male), and a beloved, a boy young enough not to yet have whiskers. The lover was always the active partner; the beloved was required to be passive. Not every relationship was sexual in nature, but nearly all were. The beloved was not to be sexually satisfiedthat was the prerogative of the lover only. When the beloved became old enough to grow whiskers and otherwise become more manly, he was exchanged for a younger person. The reason for this was because the ideal was a boy who resembled a woman. Boys would pluck facial hairs, let their hair grow, some wore makeup. Professor Scroggs contends that the boy was the malekos, and the adult the arsenkoites referred to in this passage of scripture.

While pederasty appears to be homosexual in nature, the reality is that the persons engaging in this activity were for the most part heterosexuals in nature-still are, apparently. Pederasty was considered appropriate to a boy's training for manhood. The relationship was impermanent, lasting only as long as the boy kept his youthful appearance. There was no mutualitythere was no mutual satisfaction or pleasure, and the boy was used by the lover like a thing, not as a person to love and treasure.

At any rate, this is probably NOT an injunction against homosexuality, per se-though the author of the works attributed to Paul seems rather obsessed about the nature of the sexual relationship to me.



Big Don said:


> There is a word for Non-Fundamentalist Christians (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, etc, etc) Dictionary.com defines it as:
> Shouldn't this be more troubling than those men and women who actually has the virtues (or tries to) moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., of the religion he or she claims to believe in?
> If you can't trust a person to be honest about what he believes, how can you trust anything he/she says?


 
Well-remember, you brought the word hypocrite and politics into this. I should point out that what we really need to look at is not what a person says or says they believe, but what they *do*. I'll leave the extra-debatably "Christian" policies of our current presidential regime out of it for now-let's just take a look at the words and actions of some prominent "fundamentalist Christian" leaders: Jimmy Swaggart, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Ted Haggard.....or not. Perhaps the mention of their names should suffice, just as your "democratic parade" did.



Big Don said:


> The idea that Christ's birth/life/death/resurrection erases all the other laws set down by God is ignorant at best. Does Christ's birth/life/death/resurrection mean now, there are no laws? Now, it is OK to worship other gods before him, have graven idols, adultery, murder, theft, etc? Somehow, I doubt it


 
Well, not to be flip or anything-oh, alright, I'm being flip-Catholics and Orthodox Christians are BIG on iconography-so, they have "graven idols."

In any case, Jesus did sau that he came to "fulfill" the law, but the question is "which one?"

As others have pointed out, Christians no longer make burnt offerings (neither do Jews), keep kosher, perform ritual bathing, stone people for adultery, keep menstruating women segregated (and, I'm sorry, but tampons don't exactly cut it any more than lack of trichinosis does for eating pork) or even, in the interpretation of some (7th Day Adventists) keep the Sabbath holy, since Saturday is still "the seventh day." But hey, that's okay-_just as using mistranslated verses and interpreting them how you choose to_ is okay. What's not okay, and what I'm railing about and will continue to rail about, is not just the hypocrisy, or the cherry picking of verses, or the dwelling upon Old Testament fixations with sexual behavior and mores-what is not okay is trying to run _*other*_ people's lives by those rules. What is not okay, and probably wouldn't be okay with "Jesus"-anymore than homsexuality would have been "okay" with him, *-culturally*-is trying to use the state, or government, to rule the people. If you believe that homosexual behavior/marriage/whatever will damn you for all eternity to the fires of hell, _then don't engage in it._ Nowhere in scripture does it say that you'll be damned for the actions of others, or for the actions of your government. If there's gay marriage, sure, maybe it's another sign of the coming of the Apocalypse, and Jesus will walk the earth in rightiousness, bearing a flaming sword-if that's the case, you should pray harder, *and mind your own business....... *

And yes, Fred Phelps was an extreme example, and unfair. I apologize for all those Christians who felt I was lumping in with this most un-Christian of "Christians." While I know of a great many Christian bodies and churches that do good, charitable work-fundamentalist and otherwise-I've also known them to be communities that can and do exclude people on the basis of uncharitable and judgemental positions that are almost wholly based on Old Testament scripture, and not the Gospel. It takes all kinds, I guess....


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 29, 2008)

kamishinkan said:


> ...but real "fundementalist" Christians do not hate ANYONE!



"No True Scotsman" logical fallacy.  Plenty of "real" fundamentalists hate lots of people.  The shape of your dogma guarantees it.  You don't get to wave your hands and make them vanish as "real" Christians so you don't look bad.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 29, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Of course, were one to read it in the original _koine_, or ancient Greek, as I was forced to, one might reach a different conclusion about whats actually being said here by the writer.



But research and education is _hard!  _Can't I just go on proof-texting in order to justify my predetermined beliefs?  Please?


----------



## JBrainard (Aug 29, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Christianity as it exists among fundamentalists isn't about behaving like Jesus.


 
Which is why I think that the WWJD? bumper stickers are so ironic.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 29, 2008)

JBrainard said:


> Which is why I think that the WWJD? bumper stickers are so ironic.


 
Yeah, I saw a good one the other day: _Who Would Jesus Torture?_


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 29, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Clearly most Jews keeping kosher disagree with your interpretation, since modern technology has made food poisoning from lobster or pork as rare as food poisoning from beef or chicken.


 
Far from it with pollution in our seas and oceans being so rife, here we've had mussel and salmon farms going out of business. Food poisoning is still very common, salmonella, E Coli, and gastro enteritis to name a few very common bugs. Kosher rules are as much about how to handle and keep food as it is what you should eat. 

http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/food-poisoning/food-poisoning


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 29, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> Far from it with pollution in our seas and oceans being so rife, here we've had mussel and salmon farms going out of business. Food poisoning is still very common, salmonella, E Coli, and gastro enteritis to name a few very common bugs. Kosher rules are as much about how to handle and keep food as it is what you should eat.



Come on, do you _really _think Jews are keeping kosher because they don't want to get food poisoning?  The last several big break outs of E. Coli poisoning we have had have been mostly different vegetables, with one beef recall.  All perfectly kosher.  Pork on the other hand hasn't had a break out in my living memory.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 29, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Come on, do you _really _think Jews are keeping kosher because they don't want to get food poisoning? The last several big break outs of E. Coli poisoning we have had have been mostly different vegetables, with one beef recall. All perfectly kosher. Pork on the other hand hasn't had a break out in my living memory.


 
We also keep kosher because we have a covernant with G-d and  because we want to! The kosher laws also cover how an animal is slaughtered, there is many arguments for and against this but with BSE being now endemic in Europe and the UK, the careful slaughter of fit whole animals has never been more important.   
When you say *we* you mean the US, there's a whole bigger world out there you know! there is a big worry at the moment here because of the superbug MRSA being found in pork in Europe. 

http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/food-poisoning/food-poisoning


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 29, 2008)

Oh and yes my kitchen is kosher.


----------



## kamishinkan (Aug 29, 2008)

It is also not just the "Jews" that keep kosher. It is for anyone who believes the word of God is useful for living. I keep Kosher because I do not believe Yeshua (Jesus) broke any commandment nor taught His followers to break them either! As was already said, there are some discussions over what exactly is meant by Kosher (Mosaic / Rabbinic, etc) but the concept is still valid. There has been much testing over the nutritional effects from parasites in pork and mercury and other toxic issues related to shellfish. God gave His followers His commandments (rules) to follow just as any good parent gives rules to their children to follow, because He loves us!!!!


----------



## elder999 (Aug 29, 2008)

kamishinkan said:


> It is also not just the "Jews" that keep kosher. It is for anyone who believes the word of God is useful for living. I keep Kosher because I do not believe Yeshua (Jesus) broke any commandment nor taught His followers to break them either! As was already said, there are some discussions over what exactly is meant by Kosher (Mosaic / Rabbinic, etc) but the concept is still valid. There has been much testing over the nutritional effects from parasites in pork and mercury and other toxic issues related to shellfish. God gave His followers His commandments (rules) to follow just as any good parent gives rules to their children to follow, because He loves us!!!!


 
But.....Didn't Peter have a vision in Acts 10 that said "what God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy?"



> *Acts 10:9-16*
> 9 On the next day, as they were on their way and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray.
> 10 But he became hungry and was desiring to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance;
> 
> ...


 
Didn't this "settle" some of the early Christian arguments about table fellowhip, circumcision and keeping kosher? Wasn't this, at best, further "fulfillment of the law, through Jesus Christ?"


----------



## FearlessFreep (Aug 29, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Didn't this "settle" some of the early Christian arguments about table fellowhip, circumcision and keeping kosher?



Many think so, apparently not all...


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 29, 2008)

elder999 said:


> But.....Didn't Peter have a vision in Acts 10 that said "what God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy?"
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't this "settle" some of the early Christian arguments about table fellowhip, circumcision and keeping kosher?


 

That last bit ruins the arguments of Christian vegans and vegetarians doesn't it?


----------



## kamishinkan (Aug 29, 2008)

The vision in Acts 10 was explained a few verses later and was interpreted by Peter as having nothing to do with dietary law.

*Acts 10:17* *Now while Peter wondered within himself what this vision which he had seen meant......*

If the vision meant what he saw why wonder?????

Verse 28 explains the interpretation of the vision......

*Acts 10:28* *Then he said to them, "You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean. (see verse 14)*

The vision was to teach Peter to go and preach about the Messiah to the "unclean gentiles".

If you are wondering why the reference in the vision of food notice verse that led up to the vision

*Acts 10:9 The next day, as they went on their journey and drew near the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour. 10 Then he became very hungry and wanted to eat; but while they made ready, he fell into a trance* 

Most scholars now agree that this verse had nothing to do with food and had everything to do with people.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 29, 2008)

FearlessFreep said:


> Many think so, apparently not all...


 
"Think so?" _*Think*_ so?

_*Think????!!!!!*_ 

but, but, isn't the "fundamentalist" point of view that :



Ninjamom said:


> A bit of history: The word 'Fundamentalist' as applied to certain Christians was first coined and used in a controversy in the early 1900's, as to what would be considered 'essential' foundational truths of the Christian faith. This list included these five items:
> *1. The Bible as the inspired innerrant word of God *(BTW, there was a lot of latitude on what 'inerrant' meant),


 
You mean, the Bible is _fundamentally_ the "inspired, inerrant word of God," except when someon thinks differently? Is *that* what "a lot of latitude" is? :lol:

"_Oh, yeah, the Bible's *all* the word of God, except for the parts *we* say don't count anymore, because we *think* differently: Poppa likes him some ribs, and Mrs. Gump just loves shrimp, and circumcision is painful, so forget about that!_" :lol:

"_Well, *they're* obviously not real Christians, because they don't keep  the Lord's commandments, like the Sabbath on Saturday, and set a kosher table...._"

"_We have to love our neighbors as we love ourselves, except for the Muslims, the Hindus, the Buddhists and the gays-that homosexuality will send you straight to hell faster than Buddha, and he's from de debbil!_"

 :lfao:


----------



## thardey (Aug 29, 2008)

elder999 said:


> "Think so?" _*Think*_ so?
> 
> _*Think????!!!!!*_
> 
> ...



Nope :angel:

At least, not this fundamentalist.


----------



## thardey (Aug 29, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy.  Plenty of "real" fundamentalists hate lots of people.  The shape of your dogma guarantees it.  You don't get to wave your hands and make them vanish as "real" Christians so you don't look bad.



Careful, that fallacy cuts both ways. There are many who would say that only Christians who hate others are the "real fundamentalists." 

My dogma does not guarantee any hate to anybody.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 29, 2008)

kamishinkan said:


> Most scholars now agree that this verse had nothing to do with food and had everything to do with people.


 

....errr....._name two._

and, mind you, *I* have no issue with your keeping Kosher, or even going on the Twinkie diet because you've received a revelation from the Holy Spirit. However, the phrase "most scholars" is probably misleading at best. In any case, there's a worldwide body of the majority of Christians, fundamentalist and otherwise, who say there is "no unclean thing to eat" because of this verse. Are you saying that they're all wrong? That when Pentecostals sit down for Sunday supper and it's a nice pork roast, they've undoing a week's worth of holiness, and making themselves unclean?

I mean, okay, sure-it's about people, and taking the Gospel to the Gentiles,but the letters to Galatians and some other chapters of Romans deal with the issue pretty well-or even Matthew, 15:11.Christians aren't required to keep a _kashrut_ diet.


----------



## kamishinkan (Aug 29, 2008)

*....errr.....name two??*

I could name more than two BUT I will refrain. The last time I was sucked into that trap, any "scholar" I named was just blown off........

So besides that, Matthew 15:11 does not apply to dietary law. Read the verse IN CONTEXT

Matt 15:2 "Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? *For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread*." 

This was all about dirt not defiling the person not unclean meat. Notice verse 20

Matt 15:20 These are the things which defile a man, *but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man*."

Yeshua (Jesus) kept Kosher and all of his disciples did as well.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 29, 2008)

kamishinkan said:


> *....errr.....name two??*
> 
> I could name more than two BUT I will refrain. The last time I was sucked into that trap, any "scholar" I named was just blown off........
> 
> ...


 
No but it really annoys his mother and even G-d himself won't get in the way of a Jewish mother who's son has trangresses* her* rules! don't for one minute think I'm joking!!

On the commandments.....


Rabbi Simlai taught: Six hundred and thirteen commandments were given to Moses.

Then David reduced them to eleven in Psalm 15, beginning: "He who follows integrity, who does what is right and speaks the truth in his heart"

Micah reduced them to three ( Micah 6:8) "Act justly, love mercy and walk humbly with your G-d"

then came Isaiah and reduced them to two ( Isaiah 56:1) "Keep justice and act with integrity"

Amos reduced them to one (Amos 5:4) "Seek me and live)

Habakkuk also contained them in one ( Habukkuk 2:4) " "But the righteous shall live by his faith"

Akiba taught:
  "The great principle of the Torah is expressed in the commandment 'Love they neighbour as you love yourself; I am the Lord' " Leviticus 19:18)

But Ben Azai taught a greater principle (Genesis 5:1)
   "This is the book of the generations of man. When G-d created man, he made him in the likeness of G-d"

_Makkot_

I offer no comments but another piece to provoke thought.

If I am not for myself, who is for me?
But if I am only for myself, what am I?
And if not now, when?

_Hillel_


----------



## elder999 (Aug 29, 2008)

kamishinkan said:


> Yeshua (Jesus) kept Kosher and all of his disciples did as well.


 
I've never questioned that;what I've said, and will continue to say, is that *most* "Christians," don't-including many who call themselves "fundamentalist." You, as far as I'm concerned, can do whatever you want, and call yourself whatever you want to. I've got a question, though-

Do you think Christians should keep _kashrut_? I mean, perhaps it's obvious that you do think that, since you do keep kosher. On the other hand, I've actively discouraged people from keeping prayer some of the ways that I do, so perhaps your keeping kosher is a personal choice.
The question that follows, of course, is do you think people can call themselves "fundamentalist" Christians if they don't keep kosher? Do you think they can call themselves "Christian" at all, if they don't follow the rules that Jesus _mostly_ did?

Most importantly, do you think that the *whole* of the law codified in Leviticus and Deuteronomy should be followed by Christians? Do you think homosexuals-or whatever is meant by "men who leave lyings with a man as with a woman" should be stoned to death? Etc., etc., etc.?


----------



## arnisador (Aug 29, 2008)

elder999 said:


> read it in the original _koine_, or ancient Greek




  I can't not quibble: Koine is Hellinistic Greek, the first reasonably uniform version of Greek, from around the 3rd century BCE. Homeric, for example, is one of many dialects of Ancient Greek (roughly 9th-4th centuries BCE). There are real differences; e.g., koine has largely lost the dual and has only the singular and plural.

OK, I feel better now.

Anyway, the points you make about the difficulty in knowing what the words meant then are very important. One hundred years ago in England, "earnest" meant what "gay" means now. With as few other documents as survived from the time the documents that are now the chapters of the Bible were written--circa 70-110 CE for the major ones--it's very hard to know what means what, especially when looking for nuance. Remnants of shopping lists have been used to help confirm the meaning of some of these books. (To make matters worse, they were written in all capital letters with no spaces between the words, paragraph breaks, or punctuation.) If slang terms were used to refer to homosexuals then as now, and if they changed rapidly as they have for us, it can be very, very difficult to know exactly what's meant.



> So, according to Paul, there were some Christians who returned to paganism, practiced sex rites and orgies, and God made them homosexual to screw up the ritual


 
Heh, a sexual tower of Babel.



> While pederasty appears to be homosexual in nature, the reality is that the persons engaging in this activity were for the most part heterosexuals in nature-still are, apparently. Pederasty was considered appropriate to a boy's training for manhood. The relationship was impermanent


 
Something like this is seen in a variety of cultures.



> Jimmy Swaggart, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Ted Haggard


Preach on.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 29, 2008)

arnisador said:


> I can't not quibble: Koine is Hellinistic Greek, the first reasonably uniform version of Greek, from around the 3rd century BCE. Homeric, for example, is one of many dialects of Ancient Greek (roughly 9th-4th centuries BCE). There are real differences; e.g., koine has largely lost the dual and has only the singular and plural.
> 
> OK, I feel better now..


 

oh, so that makes at least two of here who know the difference......wow. 

Glad you feel better, though......:lol:


----------



## kamishinkan (Aug 29, 2008)

_I've never questioned that;what I've said, and will continue to say, is that *most* "Christians," don't-including many who call themselves "fundamentalist." You, as far as I'm concerned, can do whatever you want, and call yourself whatever you want to. I've got a question, though-

Do you think Christians should keep kashrut? I mean, perhaps it's obvious that you do think that, since you do keep kosher. On the other hand, I've actively discouraged people from keeping prayer some of the ways that I do, so perhaps your keeping kosher is a personal choice.
The question that follows, of course, is do you think people can call themselves "fundamentalist" Christians if they don't keep kosher? Do you think they can call themselves "Christian" at all, if they don't follow the rules that Jesus mostly did?

Most importantly, do you think that the *whole* of the law codified in Leviticus and Deuteronomy should be followed by Christians? Do you think homosexuals-or whatever is meant by "men who leave lyings with a man as with a woman" should be stoned to death? Etc., etc., etc.?_

Without going through all of this. I believe that all Christians should keep Biblical Kosher. I do not go as far as judging anyone. I did not keep Kosher for many years of my Christian walk, I thought I did not have to. I believe a relationship with God through His Messiah "grows". I will continue to learn more and more about how to become more like the Messiah. I believe the Spirit of God will continue to lead God's people into all righteousness, this means that we will continue to learn more and more how to walk in God's ways. As far as being stoned goes, I will side with Yeshua and say that the ones who are sin-free should do it, since I have never met one who qualifies, I choose to use more "grace". I appreciate your views and I know that my views do not agree with others views but I do not pass judgement on others for not seeing it the same way. God is Love! :asian:


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 30, 2008)

kamishinkan said:


> As far as being stoned goes, I will side with Yeshua and say that the ones who are sin-free should do it, since I have never met one who qualifies, I choose to use more "grace". I appreciate your views and I know that my views do not agree with others views but I do not pass judgement on others for not seeing it the same way. :asian:


 
If only everyone could take this highly commendable attitude on board the world would be a much better place.  If I didn't want to overload my signature, I'd be stealing that sentence about "stoning" forwith .


----------

