Ship of Fools: Hell: Taking Back the Term "Christian" From the Fundies

Thread: Hell: Taking Back the Term "Christian" From the Fundies Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001083

Posted by Squirrel (# 3040) on :

The Jack Trick threads on this board fascinate me. How one can defend such an obvious buffoon escapes me. But it brings up a larger issue. The Fundamentalists are getting to be a real embarassment for many Christians. In fact, when the word "Christian" is used in the media nowadays, it's usually to describe something Fundie. "Christian" radio. "Christian" schools. "Christian" bookstores selling "Christian" books on deep topics like "Christian" diets. "Christians" protesting the teaching of evolution in schools. "Christians" comdemning Harry Potter movies.

It's not just that such turkeys are an embarassment. They give the rest of the world the mistaken impression that "Christians" are all a bunch of ignorant buffoons.

It's tike we took the term "Christian" back! Any suggestions?

[ 10. March 2003, 00:58: Message edited by: Erin ]

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

baseball bats and extendable batons

P

Posted by MCC (# 3137) on :

Quiet acts of love to individuals where the aim is to help or heal, rather than convert.

Engaging in debate or conversation with the world on ethical issues and listening to the other side.

Privately maintaining ones standards.

Carrying on going to the Church you want to, without feeling bad that the one down the road has 2 or 3 times the congregation.

And, the one that I find the most difficult, but is important, remembering that, while we have our differences, we are also on the same side, just holding different positions. In his father's house are many mansions, and both liberal questioners and conservative fundamentalists should accept each other, as much as we disagree!

Like the Ship really.

Posted by Arch- (# 982) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MCC:
In his father's house are many mansions, and both liberal questioners and conservative fundamentalists should accept each other, as much as we disagree!

Like the Ship really.

I agree with everything you say, MCC, but to accept each other, one must acknowledge the validity of one another's journeys. If you are openly gay, or accept the validity and integrity of other faiths or have profound doubts about the theology of substitutionary atonement, to name but three, I am not entirely sure that conservative fundies can truly be accepting, because they cannot acknowledge that validity and integrity of those particular journeys. In this sense, I am not entirely convinced that all Christians are on the same side.

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :

I can acknowledge say, a gay Christian's sincerity, or service, or any number of other bits of his life.

That doesn't mean I should zip my lip & never, ever mention that he's taking a razor to hunks of Scripture if he wants to justify actively living out his "gayness".

If I look at Scripture, look at the homosexual Christian, and see, even with my limited human perception, that he's not right with God, would it not be the height of Jonah-like bigotry to leave him that way? As in, "Why should I try to help him? Let him die in his sin. No room in Heaven for such."

Of course, the effectiveness of saying something to him about it depends upon
(a) whether I love him in Christ as I should, and
(b) whether he gives a flying flip about the Bible.

Just a point of view from an evangelical, fundamentalist, Bible-studying, sufferer-serving 'churches of Christ' Christian.

Posted by chukovsky (# 116) on :

The topic of whether or not gay Christians are taking razors to large chunks of the bible has been amply discussed in Dead Horses.

The topic of whether or not other Christians, including fundamentalist Christians, are taking razors to large chunks of the Bible, however, could prevent this thread from going that way.

I'll see your "made in seven days" and raise you "in Christ there is no male and female".

Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Squirrel:
"Christian" radio. "Christian" schools. "Christian" bookstores selling "Christian" books on deep topics like "Christian" diets. "Christians" protesting the teaching of evolution in schools. "Christians" comdemning Harry Potter movies.

Ok, I really can't see what's wrong with Christians setting up Christian radio stations and Christian bookstores. Although I tend to steer clear of non-Catholic Christian bookstores (after discovering one in which "Roman Catholicism", "Islam" and "Jehovah's Witnesses" were all together in the "Other Religions" section), I've found Catholic bookshops immensely useful and rewarding as places to buy stuff that doesn't make the mainstream, but for me is much more important than the latest junk on diets (I have never seen a Christian dieting book...!) and business strategies.

Harry Potter and evolution are both completely separate issues. And I think in both cases it's perfectly okay for Christians to express their doubts - even if I think they're misguided on both.

Posted by Sean D (# 2271) on :

Apologies for long quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Arch-:
to accept each other, one must acknowledge the validity of one another's journeys. If you are openly gay, or accept the validity and integrity of other faiths or have profound doubts about the theology of substitutionary atonement, to name but three, I am not entirely sure that conservative fundies can truly be accepting, because they cannot acknowledge that validity and integrity of those particular journeys. In this sense, I am not entirely convinced that all Christians are on the same side.

Arch-, speaking as one person who believes that homosexual activity is wrong, that Jesus is the true revelation of God and therefore only way to God and is also committed to the view that substitutionary atonement is one aspect (but only one) of what happened on the cross, I guess some would count me a fundie.

I find James Barr's definition in his book "Fundamentalism" useful, which argues that fundyism is more to do with things like belief in inerrancy and desperate attempts to defend it than a belief in the Bible's authority. I would defend the latter to the hilt.

At the same time, I completely believe in the integrity and validity of other journeys, be they liberal, Roman Catholic, radical or whatever. It seems to me so thoroughly self-evident that these Christians love God and live lives which honour him. I have learnt so much from my friends of these traditions both theologically and spiritually, because so often they have got hold of a particular truth which in the past I might have overlooked, such as God's heart for the poor or aspects of liturgical practice, or theological enquiry.

In retrospect this fits so well with my understanding of the Bible's authority as so often my friends of these traditions have opened my eyes to things in the Bible which I had overlooked in my narrow tradition. I thank God for bringing these people into my life!

Posted by LowFreqDude (# 3152) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chukovsky:

I'll see your "made in seven days" and raise you "in Christ there is no male and female".

...so Christians are hermaphrodites?

LFD

[No, but they can use UBB code.]

[ 27. October 2002, 22:38: Message edited by: sarkycow ]

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

I find the assumption that people, many of whom have given much study and reflection to how they read the Bible and come to different conclusions, have "razored out" chunks of the Bible pretty offensive.

I have to say that I've noticed on this board that certain conservative Christian posters really wind me up - they're the ones who seem to make the assumption that anyone who disagrees with them is just lazy, sinful and looking for an easy life or not a proper Christian - "razoring out" chunks of the bible, indeed!

I dare say on the Conservative side of things the equivalent red rag to a bull is people coming from a liberal viewpoint who jump to the assumption that they hold their views out of prejudice, stupidity or hate.

Neither attitude is helpful, and exemplars of both do exist.

I have to say that people who take these extreme attitudes IRL are the ones likely to find themselves in front of the TV cameras. It makes for a good ding-dong and a bit of controversy.

That probably has something to do with the problem but I don't know what the solution is (unless these boards are part of it!)

Louise

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LowFreqDude:

quote:
Originally posted by chukovsky:

I'll see your "made in seven days" and raise you "in Christ there is no male and female".
...so Christians are hermaphrodites?

LFD

LFD, what do you think Paul meant when he said "in Christ there is neither male nor female"?

Moo

[Does no one use preview post?]

[ 27. October 2002, 22:40: Message edited by: sarkycow ]

Posted by LowFreqDude (# 3152) on :

Here's the immediate textual context:

"26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

(Galatians 3)

It indicates our unity in Christ, particularly our spiritual inheritence. Consider, by way of a comparison, the segregation in the temple: Court of the Gentiles, Court of the Women etc.. Now, in Christ we all have co-equal access to the Holy of Holies through the priesthood of all believers.

LFD

Posted by MCC (# 3137) on :

Arch

quote:
I agree with everything you say, MCC, but to accept each other, one must acknowledge the validity of one another's journeys. If you are openly gay, or accept the validity and integrity of other faiths or have profound doubts about the theology of substitutionary atonement, to name but three, I am not entirely sure that conservative fundies can truly be accepting, because they cannot acknowledge that validity and integrity of those particular journeys. In this sense, I am not entirely convinced that all Christians are on the same side.

Arch and others, I come at this from the liberal doubting gay-accepting side of things. What follows is just a personal view.

What I was getting at is my responsibility to try to tolerate Christians who I disagree with, providing their behaviour is not abusive, fascistic, or murderous. It is a view I try to take with other faith journeys, if I am to do so with Non christians, I must do so with "Christians" as well. And as I say, I do not find it easy.

This is not an attack on the many Evangelicals who I have discussed and argued with, in an attempt for each of us to further our journey in faith. However, It is difficult to listen to self-righteous, moralising, pietiestic people, and while they might be fundamentalists, they might NOT: we all know people of all traditions who regard themselves as superior, more knowledgeable, or better able to quote scripture or the authority of their church at you. And it might be me from time to time!

All I'm trying to say is that I should not fall into that same trap. It is up to others to decide whether they can be tolerant, and examine their consciences about how they treat the people around them who are trying to come to God in a manner which they find different or difficult.

Jesus, IMO, was most scathing about people who excluded others from the Spiritual life of the age because they did not fit their religious stereotype or rules. So even if I disagree with Conservative Fundamentalists, I have a responsibility to see what I share, and hope that they can with me. Not always easy, and in my private thoughts I fall short of this.

But Love is more important than ideology.

So, if your religion tells you to kill others, or to "excommunicate" those who disagree or behave in different ways, I have a problem. But I do accept that my way may not be right, I do accept that I can learn from those I disagree with, (this is one of things I stay on the Ship for). In turn I hope they do as well. I can not control their reactions though!

Anyway, its something like that!

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Janine:

If I look at Scripture, look at the homosexual Christian, and see, even with my limited human perception, that he's not right with God, would it not be the height of Jonah-like bigotry to leave him that way?

Janine, I am amazed that you are able to decide whether someone else is 'right with God' or not. Surely that is a personal thing and up to each person to find out for themselves, not for us to go around telling other Christians that they are not right with God? For example, How would you react, if a gay Christian came up to you and told you that you weren't right with God? I expect you would tell him to take a running jump. So don't be surprised if he does the same to you!

Posted by Squirrel (# 3040) on :

Jesuitical Lad: I agree that there is nothing really wrong with Christian book stores or radio stations. Or Jewish book stores. Or Sufi book stores. The problem is that, at least in our society, the term Christian seems to equal Fundie. Are there many Christian book stores that would sell books or tapes that champion gay rights, or the idea that Darwin was right about some things? OK, there may be a few, but at least here in the US I would doubt you would find many like that. And "Christian radio" is worse.

Posted by LowFreqDude (# 3152) on :

I'd challenge that association, Squirrel.

In my experience, Christianity is often equated with the established churches, y'know all vicars, cathedrals (and the inevitable roof fund [Angel]

)

By the same token, I'd suggest there is a perceptual mapping between Islam and fundamentalism (where fundamentalism = militancy/terrorist-like), for which I blame the "meedja"

LFD

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I think it probably depends where you live whether LFD or Squirrel is right. Depending on who has the highest profile. In our nearby city, there are groups of fundamentalists who stand in the main shopping area with microphones on a Saturday, yelling at people that they're all going to Hell, etc. So when you are in any conversation about Christians, it is this group that people immediately start referring to and saying they don't want anything to do with. Maybe in areas where this doesn't happen, the image of a Christian is more what LFD says.

Posted by Squirrel (# 3040) on :

LFD, I see that you are from Edinburgh. (GREAT town, BTW. The wife and I went there as part of our honeymoon). Maybe things are different there. Here in the US there is no official church, as in the C of E or C of Scotland. The Fundies are rapidly gaining on the more established churches, like the Lutherans or Presbyterians. In many ways, they seem to have surpassed them, certainly in terms of growth. You're probably right in blaming the media for much of the problem. When the US Catholic Conference issues a statement, it may get ten seconds on the news. But when characters like Pastor Fred of "God Hates Fags" fame do their thing, they get lots of publicity.

Posted by LowFreqDude (# 3152) on :

Chorister - I think the street ranters/preachers are often seen as either rogue individuals or near-cultic offshoots/extremists. Local experiences, will of course vary. Either way the mainstream doesn't seem to be tarnished by them.

(BTW, despite being quite happy being called a fundamentalist m'self, these people have at best a horribly unbalanced evangel. I hold to the fact that there is a Heaven to gain and a Hell to shun, but this generation doesn't have the benefit from a direct Christian heritage, so they're not natively wary of the Hot Place [Devil]

.) Street evangelism is near dead, AFAIK. There's too much 'static' in our shopping centers...merchandisers, homeless/Big Issue vendors, flyer distributors, buskers, street entertainers...how anyone can think someone can focus on a sermon, Hellfire or otherwise, is beyond me!)

Squirrel - I'm still getting to know The Auld Reekie myself, but I like what I see so far! I'm trying to save up for a Winnebago (sp?) trip around the USA in the not to distant future to *really* expand my horizons!

On the media note, I have a major bugbear about the mainstream media. They skew everything - not just the Christian side of things - with their selective portrayal of the world. It's getting to the point where journalism is being effectively usurped by opinion...

LFD

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

quote:
It's getting to the point where journalism is being effectively usurped by opinion...

You should stop reading 'The Scotsman' then. [Snigger]

Posted by LowFreqDude (# 3152) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
You should stop reading 'The Scotsman' then.

Heh. It's getting that way, unfortunately. I'm moving more and more to using the interweb for my news. Auntie Beeb seems to have some semblance of balance. I'll often surf several news sites, and try and pick up the bones of the issue having allowed aspects of the reporting to cancel each other out...

LFD

Posted by tomb (# 174) on :

Well, as a host to this board come lately to this thread (don't you people have a LIFE?) all the gay/hermaphrodite/whatever stuff interests me much less than the OP (which is saying something).

As a 'Christian' and a 'journalist', I would point out that, in Holy Scripture, the word "Christian" was initially a perjorative term. I really don't care about its fundy connotations. I find it a lot of fun to be in a situation where somebody discovers out that I'm a Christian and they say something stupid like, "but, but, you seem so Normal." It opens up a lot of doors for evangelization and sharing the love of Christ: "I am normal, asshole. What's the matter with you?"

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
Of course, the effectiveness of saying something to him about it depends upon
(a) whether I love him in Christ as I should,

Which I sincerely doubt you would.

quote:
and (b) whether he gives a flying flip about the Bible.

Newsflash ... just because people don't agree with your interpretation of the Bible doesn't mean they don't care about the Bible.

tomb, my favorite one is when people say, "You're a Christian? Really? But you hang out here!"

"Here" being a cafe, owned by friends of mine, which has a sizable gay clientele. All I do is wear my Sunday clothes to lunch and sit at the counter. Sometimes one of my friends outs me as a Christian by asking me how church was. Time and again strangers at the counter have told me about how they were rejected by the churches they grew up and by their "Christian" parents, and then asked, hesitantly, if it would be okay if they came to my church.

Fortunately, the answer is yes. Even if they've been razorbladed out of their original church's roster and the family photos, the answer is yes.

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :

ESPECIALLY if they've been razorbladed out of their church rosters and family photos, one would think.....

cheers,

m (who is still in the parish choir because there have to be a couple of token straights)

Posted by linzc (# 2914) on :

I don't mind things being Christian, but why does "Christian xxx" always translate to "mediocre pap xxx"?

We borrowed some friends' car once and I turned the radio on to hear Premier (Christian) radio. After a few minutes of recycled Derek Prince I decided this was getting dumped and so I pressed the pre-programmed key '1'. Premier. [Paranoid]

Oh well, that must have been what it was initially set to. Let's try '2'. Premier again - but a different frequency. [Paranoid]

In fact presets 3-6 were also all set to different frequencies. No matter where in London, down to Canterbury or west to Reading these people went, Premier was always on tap. Hallelujah! [Projectile]

I manually tuned in BBC Five Live...

Then just this Saturday I visited a new Christian bookshop opened up nearby. I noticed a 'Science' section and wandered over to see what latest book I could snaffle by Polkinghorne, Peacocke, Alexander, Sam Berry, or the like. A quick perusal convinced me that this section was nothing to do with science. Out of interest I counted: one book seriously discussing the implications of evolutionary theory for ethics and theology; 37 'Creation Science' books. [brick wall]

Won't be going there again!

Posted by Inanna (# 538) on :

[tangent]
I managed to completely befuddle the staff of the LCM christian bookstore in covent garden a few months back, just after ++Rowan's appointment as ABC had been confirmed...

... I went in, and simply asked if they had any books by Archbishop Rowan.

And was met with complete blank faces. They managed to get as far as "What sort of stuff does he write?", and when I replied that it'd probably be 'theology', looked completely dumbfounded. [brick wall]

OTOH, had I wanted the latest in the "Left Behind" series, or the testimony of some half-famous celebrity, or a volume on how the Alpha course can improve my prayer life, cooking skills and general attractiveness, then they could have happily satisfied me.

[/tangent]

Posted by chukovsky (# 116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Inanna:

... a volume on how the Alpha course can improve my prayer life, cooking skills and general attractiveness, then they could have happily satisfied me.

Can it? gosh. I should go on one....

I need some cooking ideas.

Seriously though... There is a good article by Veronica Zundel in which she suggests that christian, as an adjective, should be outlawed. AFAIK it is only used in the Bible as Christian, the noun. So we can be Christians but we cannot have christian schools, notepaper, or diets.

What!? I hear you cry. Well, if you want to have such things think about what they really are - is it a school attached to a church, or run by a number of churches? notepaper with Bible verses? a diet which involves prayer (I am actually hard-pressed to work out what exactly a christian diet would be anyway).

Posted by UnShaggy (# 82) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chukovsky:
I am actually hard-pressed to work out what exactly a christian diet would be anyway.

Honey and locust breakfast bars?

Posted by Inanna (# 538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chukovsky:
(I am actually hard-pressed to work out what exactly a christian diet would be anyway).

I did at one point own a book by Neva Coyle (I think), called "Free to be Slim". There are other equally nauseating programs around such as "Slim for Him". [Projectile]

As far as I remember, they rely on verses like your body being a temple, the holy spirit giving you self control, and odd out-of-context things from Leviticus about a low fat healthy diet.

Interestingly enough, 123 Christian Businesses directory has no ethical qualms about partnering with 3 sites offering cheap Phentermine Diet Pills...

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :

...but some of my best friends are homosexual... [Roll Eyes]

I just used a hot-button example. Some esoteric spiritual example without grabbable handles wouldn't have made my point.

Since no one understood it, anyway, I'll give it up.

All I was after is, if I understand some specific action(s) to be sinful (insert any action you want), so as to hinder the Christian's walk, or to interfere with an unbeliever having the chance to hear the Good News at all...

Then, the height of hateful bigotry would be to smile and be sweetly accepting towards him/her, leaving the ignorant soul to possibly fry in Hell.

Posted by chukovsky (# 116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Inanna:

quote:
Originally posted by chukovsky:
(I am actually hard-pressed to work out what exactly a christian diet would be anyway).
There are other equally nauseating programs around such as "Slim for Him".

Oh, he said we have to be slim, did he?

Hmm... I think I missed the parable of the Diet Guru.

But it does sound like a good shortcut to bulimia.

I read Foster's Celebration of Discipline with a group once, it is on the whole a good book but has a dreadful chapter on fasting which sounds like an anorexic's handbook. I was leading that week and got very worked up, and despite reading a passage from an Anne Lamott book about her bulimia and how only by working out what she was actually hungry for when, and eating it, did she get out of mortal danger, the rest of the group just didn't get it.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Time and again strangers at the counter have told me about how they were rejected by the churches they grew up and by their "Christian" parents, and then asked, hesitantly, if it would be okay if they came to my church.

Fortunately, the answer is yes. Even if they've been razorbladed out of their original church's roster and the family photos, the answer is yes.

HUG

quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:much more important than the latest junk on diets (I have never seen a Christian dieting book...!) and business strategies.

Scarily, I have seen such books. If you try you can replace everything in your life with a Christian "alternative." [Eek!]

This in fact might be one way -- to avoid that kind of over-separation from everyone else.

quote:

Harry Potter and evolution are both completely separate issues.

A good thing, too. Harry Potter and the Riddle of the Diplodocus just doesn't have the same ring.

David

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

Appropriate lyrics from Steve Taylor: "Guilty by Association"

quote:
So you need a new car? let your fingers take a walk
Through the business guide for the "born again" flock
You'll be keeping all your money in the kingdom now
And you'll only drink milk from a Christian cow
Don't you go casting your bread to keep the heathen well-fed
Line Christian pockets instead--avoid temptation

Guilty by association ...

I think that sums it up pretty well...

Posted by OgtheDim (# 3200) on :

Ummm...to the Op,

I would be very surprised if the media in NYC think Christianity = fundy. With the extent of the RC church in the city, I would be very surprised indeed.

Secondly, if somebody thinks fundy = Christianity then we non-fundies have not been gettin our message across.

Don't blame the fundies if they have implied their version of Christianity is the only legitimate version worthy of the label Christian. They are just following in the rhetorical footsteps of Al-Queda (sic).

Posted by MCC (# 3137) on :

St paul and St peter, the Church outside and In Jerusalem, argued about who was true many years ago. Nothing new under the sun.

And a reminder to all not to assume that only their view can be acceptable at all times. Both sides were genuine followers of their Lord.

(Though I come down on Paul's side as far as circumcision is concerned.)

Posted by Sean D (# 2271) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Newsflash ... just because people don't agree with your interpretation of the Bible doesn't mean they don't care about the Bible.

Well said x1000 and then some RuthW. ++ Rowan W an excellent case in point. Why do some Christians make one's interpretation of the biblical passages on homosexuality (which are hardly numerous and easy to translate/interpret) a shibboleth of what makes you (in the phrase I will now CTH) "Bible-believing". I never heard such nonsense in my life. grrrr [Mad]

quote:
and then asked, hesitantly, if it would be okay if they came to my church.

Fortunately, the answer is yes. Even if they've been razorbladed out of their original church's roster and the family photos, the answer is yes.

Anything we could do to pursuade you to relocate to the UK??

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
Since no one understood it, anyway, I'll give it up.

If only you had.

quote:
All I was after is, if I understand some specific action(s) to be sinful (insert any action you want), so as to hinder the Christian's walk, or to interfere with an unbeliever having the chance to hear the Good News at all...

Then, the height of hateful bigotry would be to smile and be sweetly accepting towards him/her, leaving the ignorant soul to possibly fry in Hell.

The assumption here is that your understanding is greater than that of the "ignorant soul." This is of course not an assumption I share.

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :

It's probably better discussed in its own thread, but there is an interesting discussion point here.

If John sees Jane misunderstand a crossing signal and start to walk into traffic, what is the loving action for John to take? Should he call out to Jane and try to pull her back to safety? Or should John quietly respect Jane's understanding of the signal, and let her go on her way without comment?

If it turns out that John has misunderstood the signal, is his intervention any less loving?

If Nick sees John try to intervene, should he stop John and tell him to respect Jane's interpretation of the signal? If Nick does so, is he being disrespectful of John's interpretation?

I'm not trying to make a point for either side here. I'm only pointing out that whatever our gut reaction, it is not a simple question.

scot

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

If the Bible were as clear as streetlights, that analogy would make some sense.

The thing is, there's such a bad fog that none of us can see clearly to the other side of the street.

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :

quote:
(I am actually hard-pressed to work out what exactly a christian diet would be anyway)

I remember reading about a christian version of weight watchers some years ago. For their motto they took the words of John The Baptist:

quote:
I must decrease so that he can increase.

Smilies seem superfluous after that, but [Killing me]

Posted by linzc (# 2914) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Appropriate lyrics from Steve Taylor: "Guilty by Association"

[TANGENT]
Lots of Yay! Another Steve Taylor fan!
[/TANGENT]

Posted by Squirrel (# 3040) on :

Og:

Yes, NYC has a huge Catholic population. But Catholic institutions are usually called "Catholic." Catholic Schools, Catholic organizations, etc. When the media reports on "Christian schools," for example, they are seldom talking about the Lutherans or Episcopalians. They mean the fundies. I think that the Fundies have usurped the term, and the media has picked up on this.

One cannot blame the media too much for this. Journalists report news. That's their job. If there is a huge demand for "Christian" books such as the "Left Behind" series, they will be more likely to report on that than on a scholarly piece by a theologian. Fundies are doing a lot of things that get attention, so they get in the news. And if they call themselves simply "Christians," the media will pick that up.

What to do? Well, that's why I started this thread. I frankly don't know.

Posted by Arch- (# 982) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Scot:

If John sees Jane misunderstand a crossing signal and start to walk into traffic, what is the loving action for John to take? Should he call out to Jane and try to pull her back to safety? Or should John quietly respect Jane's understanding of the signal, and let her go on her way without comment?

If it turns out that John has misunderstood the signal, is his intervention any less loving?

If Nick sees John try to intervene, should he stop John and tell him to respect Jane's interpretation of the signal? If Nick does so, is he being disrespectful of John's interpretation?

I'm not trying to make a point for either side here. I'm only pointing out that whatever our gut reaction, it is not a simple question.

scot

So, does this interesting parable mean that we equate God's Love and God's Judgment with a thumping great Truck ready to squash us flat when we have mis-read God's own ruddy confusing signals. This parable only works if you buy into a theology of rewards and punshments which I have never been able to equate with divine life, both earthly or heavenly.

More to the point, perhaps, some people see a particular signal as green where others only see red. Would that we were all colour blind!

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :

Arch-, you do know that parables are never meant to present an entire belief system, right? They are only useful for illustrating a single point, and if you try to stretch them any further, they break.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:

quote:
(I am actually hard-pressed to work out what exactly a christian diet would be anyway)
I remember reading about a christian version of weight watchers some years ago. For their motto they took the words of John The Baptist:
quote:
I must decrease so that he can increase.
Smilies seem superfluous after that, but

Or else, there is that deeply spiritual hymn to dieting, to encourage us all to 'lose those pounds for Jeeeeeysus!'

Jesus take me as I am -
I can come no other way;
Take me deeper into you -
Make my flesh life melt away;
Make me like a precious stone:
Gall or kidney, both will do -
So I vomit when I eat;
giving everything back to you......'

Actually, the eagle-eyed among you will have noticed that from line 6 onwards, I have somewhat improved the original text..... [Wink]

Posted by Arch- (# 982) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
Arch-, you do know that parables are never meant to present an entire belief system, right? They are only useful for illustrating a single point, and if you try to stretch them any further, they break.

Granted. But the parables chosen to illustrate any given theological point do, IMHO, reveal something of our theological positions, otherwise, why use that particular parable ?
Jesus used parables of the Kingdom to illustrate the nature of that kingdom. I believe, though you can certainly correct me, you used the parable of the 'Dangerous Crossing' to reveal something of your theology of Salvation, a theology I respect but cannot proclaim myself.

Posted by MCC (# 3137) on :

Doesn't it boil down to whether LOVE or RULES are supreme?

Posted by LowFreqDude (# 3152) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MCC:
Doesn't it boil down to whether LOVE or RULES are supreme?

They mutually moderate: Rules not born of love are legalistic, and love not tempered by rules leads to injustice.

LFD

Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :

quote:
Rules not born of love are legalistic, and love not tempered by rules leads to injustice.

agree with the first part of that, but i don't quite see how untempered love leads to injustice.

Posted by JimT (# 142) on :

I would like to add my weight as far left on this teeter-totter as I can (recognizing that it might tempt everyone to rush to the other side and launch me into a low sub-orbit over Bermuda). There was a time when I simply could not contribute to a thread like this. I'm sorry it is in Hell because I would like to give it Purgatorial treatment. Basically, I am completely with MCC's last statement. My feeling is that you can razor-cut everything from the Bible except for the second of the two great commandments--the first was just to keep Jesus from getting killed.

When Jesus was pressed for his position on all the thorny theological issues of his day, he had no problem razor cutting the entire Old Testament down to two Great Commandments. Apparently, he didn't even think you need a New Testament. But they went and wrote one anyway, made him God, and now Christians are as hung up on it as the Pharisees were about the Old Testament. Yeah, yeah, "every jot and tittle must be fulfilled, I came not to destroy the law, I am the Way, no Man cometh unto the Father but by me blah blah blah." But how should we live our lives? Love yourself, knowing that you are precious and infinitely valuable despite inevitable and forgivable flaws, love your "neighbors" in the same accepting and forgiving way, and in so doing you will automatically honor the source of all that gives rise to Goodness in Man, God. Funny, four years of psychotherapy has taught me the same thing.

That's my personal heresy. Jesus was a Man, he looked at the "fundies" of his day and said, "time to get back to one fundamental, kids--cherish yourself and others if you want to honor God." It sure as shit wasn't "call on my blood to save you from eternal torment by a God who doesn't care about anything other than this one damn litmus test." (I have to get Hellish somewhere in order to honor the rules of the board).

I suspect that the question of "how stridently should you warn The Ignorant Lost of their current Path Toward Damnation" boils down to your conception of Hell and Salvation. If Hell is Eternal Torment coming at any moment and you can only be Saved from it by believing that Jesus' blood has saved you from sin, get out the bullhorns and the Chick tracts. Nothing else makes sense. But if Hell is hatred in the Here and Now, and Salvation is the contagious spreading of Love, starting with Self and spreading out toward others, take a look at yourself through the eyes of The Ultimate Loving Parent, see others through those same eyes, and let God judge you as He will.

Now read my sig, with feeling.

Here endeth the lesson. Amen.

Posted by LowFreqDude (# 3152) on :

Nicolemrw:

I could have done with expanding my original post at the time, but I was midst of fixing something @ work and was in terse mode.

What I mean by the latter clause was along the lines of lying to protect a loved one in a court case, or someone so in love with another that a marriage partner is sinned against in adultery.

It could better be described as emotion tempered by reason

LFD

Posted by CJ (# 2166) on :

[Not worthy!]

applause

What Jim said (most of it)

Loving God kind of important too, but still...thanks

Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :

quote:
What I mean by the latter clause was along the lines of lying to protect a loved one in a court case, or someone so in love with another that a marriage partner is sinned against in adultery.

hardly things that god would be liable to be guilty of.

Posted by LowFreqDude (# 3152) on :

I wasn't talking about (a) god or God. I was talking about the human condition. His love isn't unrestrained love, it's perfect love tempered by justice

LFD

Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :

ah. i understood mcc's point to be weather god was primarily a god of rules or love.

Posted by LowFreqDude (# 3152) on :

Could be. I read it more as a philosophical discussion...

LFD

Posted by JimT (# 142) on :

CJ,

Thanks for the applause. It'll take a while before I warm up to the "loving God" idea--made a psychological living hating the "vengeful God" of my Pentecostal youth. I've made it almost up to Einstein's non-personal God and will confess that I accidentally prayed the other day when trying to compose a response to Ley Druid on the "Anti-Sacramentalism" thread. You have no idea how humiliating it is for an atheist to pray--like blaspheming except you can't ask anyone for forgiveness. I swore while I was praying, too, which has to be exceptionally bad form. But anyway.

At least I can walk into a church without my bullwhip, looking for the money-changers, convinced they must be hiding somewhere.

Jim

Posted by linzc (# 2914) on :

JimT

I enjoyed your personal heresy - thanks for sharing it with us. For me, the 'making Jesus into God' stuff is important underpinning for the love stuff. That is, it is only a God who has experienced human life that I think can ask us with integrity to live a life of love. It is only such a God that I can respect enough to love. It is only the existence of such a God which allows me to believe in the primacy of love in a world which is fundamentally based on selfishness.

P.S. JTC is a hate-spewing, twisted charicature of a human being whose goat-f***ing proclivities would make Erin smile.

P.P.S. Just so I don't get thrown out of Hell. [Wink]

Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on :

Chorister writes:

quote:
I am amazed that you are able to decide whether someone else is 'right with God' or not. Surely that is a personal thing and up to each person to find out for themselves , not for us to go around telling other Christians that they are not right with God?

Hmmm. Sounds good. So I gather we're Ur-Quakers then, at the behest of the 'inward light' and not subject to any sort of objective standard of behaviour, written or otherwise?

Raspberry Rabbit
Montreal, QC

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arch-:
I believe, though you can certainly correct me, you used the parable of the 'Dangerous Crossing' to reveal something of your theology of Salvation, a theology I respect but cannot proclaim myself.

And correct you I will. I have told you nothing of my beliefs on the specific question. In fact, my little parable was intended to point out some of the potential pitfalls of making assumptions. It was pointed equally at the people on both sides.

scot

Posted by PeteB (# 2357) on :

On a slightly different tack, in my experience most atheists are fundamentalists. Typically they define 'God' as a gaseous vertebrate who is responsible for everything good and bad that happens and who demands we worship him (not her)- and then say they can't understand how anybody could believe in such a thing and they certainly don't.

Of course the Christian fundamentalists play into their hands and since they are easy targets for ridicule play an important role in putting people off religion. Unlike a _real_ atheist, like Attlee who answered the 'do you believe ..' question with ' The ethics, yes. Not the mumbo-jumbo.'

Can't help feeling that a lot of people would be more likely to enter through the ethics door than the literal-truth, hell-fire if you don't believe door.

Pete

Posted by JimT (# 142) on :

Linzc,

If I hear you, you are saying that the most natural thing in the world is to be selfish and not loving. Had not God shown us that it was possible to be human and loving, we never would have given it a try and indeed God would not have a right to dare and even ask us. Maybe that's a distortion or exaggeration, but it is what I hear.

I don't remember being selfish. I don't remember not caring what anyone thought of me. All I can remember is wanting to please other people, wanting them to love me, and wanting to love them. Hate I learned in Church. Self-hatred first, hatred of others second, and hatred of this entire world third. Thank goodness we're going to die soon and go to Heaven! I can't wait! I'd kill my sorry sinful ass right now if it weren't illegal or my duty. All of this while paying some bizarre lip service to "God is Love" and "Love One Another." And it didn't get a lot better in ultra-liberal Episcopal churches, either. Just more subtle. The underlying message of "we need to be saved from our innate badness" was always there. It just doesn't ring true for me.

Maybe I've got a bad memory or have deluded myself into thinking I was always good when I really was always bad. Maybe everyone I knew when I was a kid was crazy. I could believe that. I used to think it all the time. But now, when I see Christians tearing each other new assholes over some point of doctrine I want to cry. In fact, I went ahead and did the other night. Felt pretty good, too.

Posted by linzc (# 2914) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
If I hear you, you are saying that the most natural thing in the world is to be selfish and not loving. Had not God shown us that it was possible to be human and loving, we never would have given it a try and indeed God would not have a right to dare and even ask us. Maybe that's a distortion or exaggeration, but it is what I hear.

This is getting a bit purgatorial, but I think it's important so I'll risk persisting. I think you are misunderstanding me, so let me try again. I think that being selfish is absolutely natural for terrestrial creatures. It is the driving force of evolutionary change. The miracle (and speaking for myself I see it as God's work) is that somehow this process has gradually developed a species in which that overriding bent to selfishness can be and is overcome. This is (IMO) the 'divine spark' in us, or if you like to use the Genesis wording, 'the image of God'. This image, this ability to rise above our animal nature is not perfect - we all struggle with 'original sin' despite the divine in us.

The conservative view sees the 'fallenness' in humanity as our own fault - an aloof God judges us for it, then institutes a program of salvation which we must follow or perish. This type of belief leads to the self-hatred ('we are worms') and hatred of others (though it may not be recognised as such) that you suffered from, and I agree that it is hideous.

You said:

quote:

The underlying message of "we need to be saved from our innate badness" was always there. It just doesn't ring true for me.

I agree. The message of the gospel (to me) is not 'you need to be saved', but 'you have been and are being saved', from the beginning of the race through our long march to learning how to love the other.

What Jesus (as God) represents for me is God taking responsibility for the awful suffering this playing out of history has caused and will yet cause. It is God identifying himself with humanity, striving to love in a fallen world. It is God taking humanity into Godself to acknowledge, celebrate and bring to full fruit, the divinity in humanity.

Does that explain my position better?

Posted by A name I call myself (# 2343) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
Ok, I really can't see what's wrong with Christians setting up Christian radio stations and Christian bookstores. Although I tend to steer clear of non-Catholic Christian bookstores (after discovering one in which "Roman Catholicism", "Islam" and "Jehovah's Witnesses" were all together in the "Other Religions" section), I've found Catholic bookshops immensely useful and rewarding as places to buy stuff that doesn't make the mainstream, but for me is much more important than the latest junk on diets (I have never seen a Christian dieting book...!) and business strategies.

Is there a branch of Wesley Owen near you?

Inhale, cross yourself, and enter. It's a weird and wonderful world; and if the staff are anything like many of those at the Manchester branch, prepare to be patronised. I don't just mean the odd comment based on an assupmtion that you may not know this or that. I mean they're so focussed on this business of converting everybody that they fail to realise that some of us have heard the word 'Jesus' before.

The CTS is just round the corner. Much better place, and the staff remember you next time you go, and don't try to convert you all over again.

I have a lot of 'alternative' friends who I like to think have a slightly different perception of Christianity now that they know me. I know in such circles, there is a lot of anti-Christian feeling, and when one does a bit of investigating, what they have issues with tend to be the elements of Christianity described in the OP.

I remember during the Commonwealth Games, when there was a large screen in Piccadilly Gardens, on which lots of people were watching the events. Lots of us were hanging around there. I left for about 15 mins, and upon my return, was horrified to discover that the Jesus Army had paid a visit, had told my friends who are into rock and metal that they would go to hell if they didn't change their ways, and, worst of all, had given them all these cheesy, orange, glow-in-the-dark crosses. What made this bearable was that most of them wore them inverted anyway, which I found quite comical.

But it really annoyed me that after I had spent months subtly convincing these people that perhaps Christianity isn't quite so bad, these twonks came along, did their damage, and then buggered off again. Have we seen them since the Commonwealth Games finished? I think not. Yet I am the one who's there when they've run away from home, or been dumped, or been beaten up by the scallies, or just need to cry when they don't know why. Not to blow my own trumpet, but is this the sort of image that we want of Christianity?

Yes, people like the Jesus Army ARE an embarrassment to Christianity, waving their silly little flags and strumming guitars to tacky choruses in te gay village; again, only during the games. It doesn't matter once the eyes of the world aren't on them.

I'l stop here, as I'm getting quite agitated again.

Me x

Posted by JimT (# 142) on :

Lincz, I see much better what you are saying and if we were talking in person I'm sure would quickly come to terms that would indicate strong, if not complete, agreement. Thanks.

Now back to Hellish ranting, the lot of you!

Posted by Squirrel (# 3040) on :

ANICM:
The antics of the "Jesus Army" which you described so well are a great example of what I mean. These clods are an embarassment. And do they really think they are going to convert people with such behavior?

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :

Name, what makes you sure that those misguided clods made a deeper impression on your friends in 2 minutes than you have in months? I think in your justifiable outrage, you are underestimating the effects of your own behavior as a Christian.

scot

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sean D:
Anything we could do to pursuade you to relocate to the UK??

Thanks, Sean - nice of you to ask. But there are plenty of Sunday-clothes-wearing gay-friendly straight folks in the UK, I'm sure.

Scot, I think you make a good point about A Name's ongoing witness having more effect than 2 minutes with the Jesus Army. But I'd bet the Jesus Army's 2 minutes reinforce a message A Name's friends have heard again and again from plenty of people, not just Christians: we don't want your kind. So it's not A Name vs. the Jesus Army, it's A Name vs. the Jesus Army and a whole lot of other people, plus the general bias against homosexuality which still exists in the culture.

Posted by A name I call myself (# 2343) on :

Thanks Squirrel and RuthW for your replies. I'm glad for this thread, as it's made me realise that it isn't just me who feels this way.

And thank you very much for your post scot. It was really reassuring, and has given me a bit more hope.

We plod. (and pray from time to time as well)

Me x

Posted by Astro (# 84) on :

I think that the church behind the Jesus Army was one of the few organisations to be asked to leave the Evangelical Alliance for being too cult like.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Astro:
I think that the church behind the Jesus Army was one of the few organisations to be asked to leave the Evangelical Alliance for being too cult like.

It was also ejected from the Baptist Union (about fifteen years ago, I think). It was originally Bugbrooke Baptist Church, in Northamptonshire. When I lived in the area it was called the New Creation Christian Community, and owned lots of property, farms, businesses in town, etc.

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :

Oh, is that who they are? In which case I once attended a service of theirs, many, many years ago. Can't remember what happened in the worship, but an item in the notices has stuck in my mind. It ran something like this:

quote:
The Church weekend away is coming up. Last year we spent a lot of time making sure you shared a room with people you liked. This time we're making sure that you share a room with people you don't like, so that you can grow in grace.

Sounded like non-stop fun to me!

Posted by MCC (# 3137) on :

Nicolermw said

quote:
ah. i understood mcc's point to be weather god was primarily a god of rules or love

It was meant to be about what we think is important, under God if you like. It was a fairly unexplained reaction to the idea of one group of Christians telling another off for their behaviour etc.

I'm sure that some would defend themselves by saying that the loving thing to do when one thinks one's neighbour is going to Hell is to point it out to them. Unfortunately, I find this fundamentally unloving in the first place. I do not remember one single word from Jesus about homosexuality (for that is where the discussions were at the time). I do remember him berating those who shut other people out, or charged them money to come in.

Of course to live in a civilised society one must have rules- thou shalt not murder for instance. The test of any rule, is whether it is loving, and it is to be left behind when the love becomes more important than the obedience.

I just think some fundies get stuck on rules, and forget to look at the beam in their own eye, forget the command not to judge, and forget that love is not about about all sorts of things which JimT expressed.

Posted by MCC (# 3137) on :

Sorry, I meant to say

"Love IS about all sorts of things which JimT expressed", not in the negative!

Misposter must learn to do better!

Posted by Squirrel (# 3040) on :

Here's another example of a fundie embarassment:

Anita Bryant's Official Web Page

Yup, she's still around. Many fundies dropped their support of her after she divorced her abusive husband Bob Green. (What loyalty they show to their own!) But she's made a come-back, at least on a small scale.

Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :

I remember when she was pitching orange juice "from the Florida sunshine tree." [Projectile]

Posted by duchess [green] (# 2764) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Inanna:
<snip!>I did at one point own a book by Neva Coyle (I think), called "Free to be Slim". There are other equally nauseating programs around such as "Slim for Him".

Dang it...you had me laughing here, ship's redhead! "Slim for Him" ...are you serious? Oh my goodness...that is so lame, it can't be real.
[Killing me]

[Your code is killing me.]

[ 05. November 2002, 01:07: Message edited by: sarkycow ]

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

Heaven help us: It's a genre.
[Eek!]

"Shedd and his readers could hardly have foreseen the impending explosion of Christian diet literature into a multimillion-dollar industry, one that rode the back of the American diet craze and capitalized on it by creating a message specially geared to the evangelical multitudes..."

Me, while I am indeed working on my health, I still prefer the children's hymn I heard in England in 1994 (anyone ever hear this one?):

God Loves You

If you're black or if you're white
If you're fat or lean
God loves you...

Here in the US we don't use the word "fat" as much as in England, I think. And while I think it's healthier to be less fat for the most part, I think knowing God loves us just the same regardless is really important...

Posted by Squirrel (# 3040) on :

Christian diet litterature is pretty comical. But I really get a kick out of Christian investment advisors. I gather that they find creative interpretations for the Parable of the Talents.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

I once read this horrible and dangerous book called
Help, Lord ! The Devil Wants Me Fat!
when I was a kid, young enough for it to be really dangerous. It claimed that Satan was conspiring to make Christians fat in order to destroy their witness, encouraged using your "new,trim figure" as a conversational lead-in to describing how the Lord helped you in your battle with flab, and promoted the practice of long-term fasting as a means of weight loss.And I mean long term. Like Jesus's forty days.

I took it out of the church library, pencilled in several pages of scriptual argument, and put it back on the shelf to give 'em something to think about.

Posted by sarkycow (# 1012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
<snip> and promoted the practice of long-term fasting as a means of weight loss.And I mean long term. Like Jesus's forty days. <snip>

Also know as anorexia. Long-term fasting as a spiritual thing isn't about weight-loss. [Mad]

Viki

Posted by Squirrel (# 3040) on :

I have seen the "Christian" diet books, including some that claim Satan is behind obsesity. Then I saw an alleged "Christian therapist" on Pat Robertson's "700 Club" show arguing that anorexia was caused by demonic posession. How about that? The Devil makes one person fat, and another so afraid of being heavy that they starve themselves.

How can anybody take those turkeys seriously?

Posted by duchess [green] (# 2764) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Squirrel:
I have seen the "Christian" diet books, including some that claim Satan is behind obsesity. Then I saw an alleged "Christian therapist" on Pat Robertson's "700 Club" show arguing that anorexia was caused by demonic posession. How about that? The Devil makes one person fat, and another so afraid of being heavy that they starve themselves.

How can anybody take those turkeys seriously?

Shoot them, we need to shoot them. Then make a nice turkey baste...cook at 400 degrees for until nicely goldren brown. Darn idiots. [Mad]

Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :

I understand that there are more fat people in the United States than in any other nation. This place must be a demon Disneyland. [Two face]

Posted by Eyan (# 3524) on :

Woah Nelly.! "A name I call myself" posted some pretty strong stuff about Wesley Owen in Manchester. S/he said: "...prepare to be patronised... I mean they're so focussed on this business of converting everybody that they fail to realise that some of us have heard the word 'Jesus' before."
This is bolox. Wesley Owen staff in the Manchester are not a bunch of judgemental bigots with closed ideas on who is and isn't a Christian. I should know because I employ them. If we are guilty of anything, it is of pandering too much to the evangelical church and neglecting to serve effectively the non-evangelical / post-evangelical Christian community, of which I include myself a part.
Eyan

Posted by linzc (# 2914) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eyan:
This is bolox. Wesley Owen staff in the Manchester are not a bunch of judgemental bigots with closed ideas on who is and isn't a Christian. I should know because I employ them. If we are guilty of anything, it is of pandering too much to the evangelical church and neglecting to serve effectively the non-evangelical / post-evangelical Christian community, of which I include myself a part.
Eyan

I've never been to WO/Manchester, but when I was in the UK I was a regular visitor to WO/Bromley and knew a few of the staff personally. I never found the staff to be anything other than polite and helpful. It's certainly true that the stock is squarely fixed on the evangelical market, but that's OK as I read plenty of books from a broad evangelical perspective and if I wanted a book which wouldn't have been regularly stocked they were always happy to order it for me.

The only thing I ever found off-putting was the inevitable huge display near the front of the latest 'Left Behind' book. [Projectile]

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :

I've been to WO Manchester, and to be honest, I felt very uncomfortable there. Its very much aimed at the evangelical market : there's very little in the way of other approaches.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

The Wesley Owen in Birmingham has a very wide range of literature and resources and was a fave place for theological students from all colours of the spectrum. Though I think it's fair to say that there seemed to be a larger representation of evangelical titles than otherwise. I have no personal memories of the staff except they did what I expected them to do in terms of take my money and say 'thank you'. (I have very low expectations....)

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

I'm tempted to say that bookshops, even Christian bookshops, will sell what sells, and that if Evangelicals are people who meet God in the word, they are likely to be people who read more than others.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I'm tempted to say that bookshops, even Christian bookshops, will sell what sells, and that if Evangelicals are people who meet God in the word, they are likely to be people who read more than others.

Except when you go to some other Christian book-shop eg, some SPCKs, and you see a huge range of 'tat' accessories and catholic and RC literature and liturgical resources, and a select but limited range of evangelical output; which gives the impression that most of the meeting God in the world and reading is done by the spiky end of the spectrum, followed closely by the liberals and the evangelicals coming a poor illiterate last!

Which we know isn't true; so possibly the moral of the tale is you can't judge the reading habits of a church-tradition by the quantity of IVP on the shelves.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by linzc:
The only thing I ever found off-putting was the inevitable huge display near the front of the latest 'Left Behind' book.

It's in England too? [Eek!]

Posted by OgtheDim (# 3200) on :

Time for Og to get something off his chest....

For two months, I ran a bookstore at a Christian post-secondary institution.

One of the reasons I left was people expected me to sell the "Left Behind" books and videos etc. etc. When I refused on the grounds the books were neither educational and that those who would want them would probably get them at their local "Christian" bookstore, they looked at me like I had horns. The conversations went from there like so:

"People want to see the books there."
Og: "Yes, but they are not buying them."
"So?"
Og:"Ummm...wouldn't it be better to spend our money on something that people actually buy?"
"But you can return them."
Og:"Yes, but we are paying somebody to receive them, pay for them, and then return them and get the money back for them."
"Yes, but...you are a Christian bookstore."
Og:"So?"
"Well...you have to have those books."

[Disappointed]

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

Bursting into tears, his body wracked by deep, heaving sobs of profound mixed sympathy and horror, David hugs Og

[Waterworks]

David
has proudly never read even one of the Cleft Behind series

Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :

Tim LaHaye has a special distinction in my life. One of his books was so annoying that I actually THREW IT AWAY. Before I finished it, even. If you saw my house full of books, you would know how amazing this is--I didn't even feel guilty and fish it back out later. [Big Grin]

Posted by Telepath (# 3534) on :

Hmmm... The last times the word 'fundamentalist' came up in any of my general conversations, were years ago.

The first time was in sixth form, when one of my teachers started ranting about 'raving Christians'... then she remembered, clapped her hand over her mouth, and said, 'uh... Fundamentalists, I mean... uh...'

The other time was right after university. Now, while I was at uni over ten years ago, the then Bishop of Durham came out of the closet as not really believing in an actual, as it were, *God* as such. He was proper miffed when this got him kicked out of the Anglican Church - found it really narrow-minded. [Killing me]

Accurately or not, I felt that that coloured the general public's perception about what the usual boundaries of 'Christian belief' and 'not Christian belief' might be.

So when my new boss said he presumed that I was a fundamentalist of some kind, I neither affirmed nor denied it. I had the feeling that, rather than assuming that I was someone who literally believed in the world's having been created in six actual days, he was probably assuming that I held those far-out extremist beliefs that the Virgin Birth, the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection *actually took place*. That's what I think many people saw as 'fundamentalist' at that particular time, though I could be wrong.

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Telepath:

The other time was right after university. Now, while I was at uni over ten years ago, the then Bishop of Durham came out of the closet as not really believing in an actual, as it were, *God* as such. He was proper miffed when this got him kicked out of the Anglican Church

I think you are very confused none of the above seems to fit into any historical event.

Anyway welcome to the Ship and since you are an apprentice my reply has been suitably gentle but you might find the calmer shores of purgatory a good place to get your bearings.

Nightlamp
Hellhost

Posted by Telepath (# 3534) on :

My humblest apologies.

I know I have no business flinging about such accusations without checking my facts first. I promise to mend my ways.

Regards

Telepath

Posted by Squirrel (# 3040) on :

Zeke, I am SHOCKED at your behavior! By throwing away LeHay's book, you squandered a a valuable resource. I have a better solution.

I believe it was Voltaire who once wrote something like, "I am seated in the smallest room in the house. I have your letter in front of me. It will soon be behind me."

If all copies of the Left Behind series were so employed, thousands of trees which would normally be destroyed to produce bathroom tissue could be spared.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

The symbolism would be worth the strain on the plumbing...

Posted by da_musicman (# 1018) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Squirrel:
Then I saw an alleged "Christian therapist" on Pat Robertson's "700 Club" show arguing that anorexia was caused by demonic posession.

(I have to leave now before I start Quacking out such a list of Obscenities I'll get thrown Overboard.)

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Squirrel:
Then I saw an alleged "Christian therapist" on Pat Robertson's "700 Club" show arguing that anorexia was caused by demonic posession.

I'm not certain but isn't Pat Robertson caused by demonic possession? [Devil]

Reader Alexis

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

You're thinking of Bob Larson. [Wink]

David
If you don't know who Bob Larson is, consider yourself lucky

Posted by Squirrel (# 3040) on :

I've not heard of Bob Larson, but if he's nuttier than Marion Gordon ("Pat") Robertson, then let's have a link for a few chuckles.

These guys are a disgrace. They deserve to be riddiculed by Christians, lest the rest of the world think we're all like them.

Senator Barry Goldwater (no liberal!) once commented, "I think every good Christian ought to kick Jerry Falwell's ass."

Posted by bessie rosebride (# 1738) on :

ah, you want some Bob Larson:

Posted by bessie rosebride (# 1738) on :

let's try this again...

Bob Larson: you asked for it, you got it:

see for yourself [Devil]

Posted by linzc (# 2914) on :

I used to review books for Australian Presbyterian Life magazine. Here is my review of two Bob Larson books - "Abbadon" and "Dead Air":

quote:
These two books purport to be Christian novels. I would seriously question that identification. The theme of each of the books is the occult, and this theme is tackled with a hideous relish. Larson’s theory of a widespread occult conspiracy left me totally unconvinced. Graphic, detailed portrayals of Satanic rituals including child sexual abuse of an absolutely horrifying nature left me feeling personally defiled. Perhaps these obscenities genuinely occur — nevertheless I wonder whether they are fit fare for Christian reading in the light of Phillipians 4:8! Though evil is stymied by the end of each book, the flavour one is left with is exactly that — that it is merely a temporary setback. There is no hint of the ultimate and assured triumph of Christ over all evil.

For good or ill, Frank Perretti’s books introduced a new wave of books concerning spiritual warfare and the struggle of evil against good, and they have also set the standard for books of this type. Larson’s offering falls very far short of this standard. Christian booksellers would do a significant service to the Christian community by immediately withdrawing these books from sale.

I also sent this review to a large Christian bookshop in Sydney and they withdrew the books from sale.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

[Not worthy!]

Lincz!

Posted by Squirrel (# 3040) on :

Thanks for the link, Rosie! This guy IS wackier than Pat Robertson. Dungeons and Dragons is Satanic! Gee, I never knew that. I just thought it was boring.

I also know to bring a large quantity of water to an exorcism.

Posted by bessie rosebride (# 1738) on :

His bizarre article on the history of vampirism almost tranced me out. [Roll Eyes]

This is truly the lunatic fringe of Christianity...

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0