EGREGIOUSPHILBIN

You wrote, "ThomasBaum,
It sounds like you believe in the Rapture. Do you really believe in this? Or am I misunderstanding you?"

If by the "Rapture", you mean that "believers", will be flying out of here bodily by the boatloads, so to speak, no, I do not believe this.

As I have said before, there are things that I believe and there are things that I know.

It says in the bible, something to the effect, "In those days, two will be in bed, one will be taken and the other left".

It does not say that one will bodily fly out of there, it says, "One will be taken and the other left", it could very well be that the one left will notice that the other one is dead, the person is taken, not necessarily the body.

Hasn't this been happening for quite a while, so to speak? Just because we can not see what has happened to the person that has died, does not mean that nothing happened, does it?

So in a way, the "Rapture" has been and will continue to happen even up to the point of a mass "Rapture", but will we even know that it has happened when it happens?

In those days people will be buying and selling, marrying and given in marriage and then...

Even then, there will be some left that will, shall we say, be treated terribly.

Another thing about the "believers", Jesus said not all that say "Lord, Lord ...", for someone to say "Lord, Lord" seems to me to imply belief so belief in and of itself means nothing, what one does with that belief, that is what is important.

Some do not believe in God but are right with God in their hearts whereas some believe in God and are not right with God in their hearts, it says so all over the bible.

Ultimately, ALL will be in the Kingdom, the new heavens and the new earth, which will come with the dawning of the seventh day.

As I have said before, God wins, satan loses, a tie is unacceptable.

Jesus told us to be ready, He did not say that we should try to figure out when and the reason is, even if someone knew the exact moment, it doesn't matter, one will either be ready or won't be.

It is important what one does and why one does it and what one knows, God looks at the person, not the label.

I am just a messenger, I do not know the details, only God knows exactly how it all will play out, so to speak, but I am here to tell the world that the seventh day will arrive when it arrives.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

ThomasBaum,
It sounds like you believe in the Rapture. Do you really believe in this? Or am I misunderstanding you?

Thanks for the reply, Thomas.

BIOS

You wrote, "Thomas, what exactly do you mean by take care, be ready?"

When I first started ending my posts with, "Take care, be ready", it was just a send off greeting that came to me and it seemed appropriate and I suppose God in some way had me put it in.

The "Take care", part, points to the fact that God cares for us and that we should care for each other whether or not we believe that God Is Real.

The "be ready" part points to the fact that we are responsible for what we do, whether or not we accept that responsibility is our choice, irregardless of whether we believe in God.

The signs of the time are upon us whether or not we can see them.

The world is a mess in many, many ways, have we, humanity, brought it upon ourselves?

Thanks for asking the question and I hope I have answered it.

God's Plan, which is spoken of in Revelation, is for ALL OF HUMANITY to be in His Kingdom, the new heavens and the new earth.

It is sad that some of the people that seem to know nothing about God except for His Name, persist in speaking as if they did.

I have met God and God is a Trinity and God is Pure Love and Jesus is God-Incarnate, but one would be hard-pressed to see this by some of the vile garbage being spewed out in His Name.

As I have said before, God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof and that it is important what one does and why one does it and what one knows.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Coloradodog-

and CCNL-

You can critique all you want. CCNL always accuses any person that has deep Christian beliefs of hallucinations. It is the way he makes himself feel better about his rejection of Christ.
It is an excuse to not confront the truth of the gospel.

Last of all- all of you need to understand- in the end, your knee will bow to jesus christ. Either you will end of doing it now and in the end, or only at the end and willingly but with great resignation.
It is a choice ... we all make when we live our lives.

Chops, hilarious reply. And more to the point, Haggard is one of the most representative characters of the whole evangelical sect. Jumping from one addiction to another, he just doesn’t know which one to chose.
Now, he says that sex is complex and that there are other “realities”. How many years did it take him to find out that he was preaching BS??

And just like him, there are legions of Haggards in the evangelical move, living a lie, blogging around, bulls**ting their way through life, defending the dishonest, misleading bible BS and harvesting money from the poor and ignorant.

At least Catholics ask for money from people who can give, but these new-born-old-junkies have no concern about the lower classes.
Hopefully, people will become more aware of this and start rejecting this bible addiction crack.

Thomas, what exactly do you mean by take care, be ready?

SPIDERMAN2

You wrote, "They have NO fear of God."

You do not seem to have a clue what "Fear of the Lord" means, do you know what it means?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

CCNL

You wrote, "Apparently "counterww" has also seen god making that two out of the 100 billion humans who have walked the Earth and met god in their travels. (Thomas "The Moses of the NT" Baum being the other)."

I have never said that I saw God, I said that I met God.

Specifically I said, God the Father came into my heart, God the Holy Spirit came into my body and also revealed to me that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus, there is the Trinity.

I also mentioned that I met satan, in case you forgot.

Don't worry, you and every other human being will also meet God.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Alex511:

Anyone throwing a rock is not following Jesus Christ's command.

The amount of money to be spent for goods from those bonuses would precipitate a HIRING SPREE from all types of businesses.

I'd like to take this opportunity to say that I support Obama's stimulus package. The bigger the package the better.

His next assignment should be to formulate another stimulus package that would give 1 or 2 month salary bonuses for working individuals.

This recession would be over in no time if that would be implemented.

Some portions of the Bible are like puzzles or a riddles and only those who are gifted are able to decipher them.

I believe that the Bible is inerrant. What we see as mistakes are actually not mistakes. It's just a "comprehension problem" on our part. It's like a puzzle. Puzzles are not mistakes.

"Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God"

No evangelical view it as literal, do they?

OK, Spidey, so you are not a believer in the "inerrancy" of the Bible. I'm OK with that. You do not demand that every word of the Bible be taken as literal fact. That's good. So the Adam and Eve story, for instance, could be an allegory, or, as you put it, a "metaphor." That's good. So I guess you're not a fundamentalist. I think you're probably now in hot water with many evangelicals, however.

Natural selection is the process by which FAVORABLE heritable TRAITS become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms.

Since watching pornography is NOT a favorable trait, does it mean atheists will be gone in succeeding generations? I never thought Darwin's theory is discriminating againsts atheists like himself.

fr jaked:

>Christians don't "hate" homosexuals. We hate the sin.

Sorry, not at all true. Were Christians to actually NOT hate GLBT's would mean that they don't show up, UNINVITED, dragging their small children along, to Pride events, holding up signs with vicious anti-gay LIES, hurling anti-gay shouts at us, and throwing ROCKS at us.

Get a clue, and grow UP.

As I've said, the Bible is NOT an ordinary book. What we see as "contradictions" could be attributed to its conveying of different messages.

One could be a metaphor while the other is not.

The reason why atheists are 5 times more likely to watch pornography than evangelicals is plain and simple. They have NO fear of God.

For them it's as normal as eating while evangelicals view it as poison food.

Assuming there are 200 people in a certain place - half are atheists and the rest are evangelicals. If there are 120 people who would claim to be watching pornography, 20 of them would be evangelicals and the remaining 100 would be atheists.

I believe the survey is accurate.

My apologies to CCNL. The post I was referring to was from the fundamentalist counterww who cherry-picks new "depensations" to justify the old.

The Bible is "inerrant" according to Fundamentalists. But it contains hundreds of internal contradictions and hundreds of contradictions between what it says and what we know independently. For instance, there are two mutually exclusive accounts of the death of Judas. The details of the open tomb of Jesus differ from Gospel to Gospel. The details of the story of Peter's denial of Jesus differ from Gospel to Gospel. The number of animals Noah was commanded to take onto the Ark differs within just a few lines (2 of everything vs. 7 of the clean and 2 of the unclean). These are just a sampling of internal contradictions. An example of a contradiction of independently known fact would be the story of Herod ordering the killing of infants (never happened), or even the fact that in Genesis God creates day and night, light and dark, before he creates the Sun. The point is that "inerrancy" demands that every word of the Bible be literal fact, yet these contradictions are all examples of only one side of the contradiction being possible fact. Judas could not have died in two mutually exclusive ways, for example. Maybe one is fact and the other fiction. Maybe both are fiction. But it is impossible that both are fact.

CCNL wrote

"Colorado dog- you obviously need to learn about the old despensation..." (sic) "...versus new."

______________________________--

Who made you Pope to tell me what I need to learn?
I'm not the one who thinks the Bible is infallible.

My point is fundamentalist who believe the Bible is literal and infallible need to follow all the Scriptures including the Old Testament, not just cherry-pick the ones that are convenient to further their dogma of exclusion and hatred of others.

While we're being critical, by the way, your repeated cut and paste pontifications are really redundant and boring.

Apparently "counterww" has also seen god making that two out of the 100 billion humans who have walked the Earth and met god in their travels. (Thomas "The Moses of the NT" Baum being the other). Or do both suffer from hallucinations? Or is it simply again the Three B Syndrome i.e. being Born, Bred and Brainwashed in "redneck" Christianity?????

(from Wikipedia: "A more recent estimate of the total number of people who have ever lived was prepared by Carl Haub of the Population Reference Bureau in 1995 and subsequently updated in 2002; the updated figure was approximately 106 billion.)

Spidermean:
"One recent survey says that atheists are 5 TIMES more likely to watch pornography"

They're also 5 times more likely to admit it in a survey.

5 times less likely to visit male prostitutes on meth while condemning homosexuality (Thanks Ted Haggard, u make me laugh).

And 5 times less likley to be sexually repressed (my penis makes me a bad boy!!!)

One recent survey says that atheists are 5 TIMES more likely to watch pornography.

I think that explains the addiction Bios is talking about. The real addicts point fingers to those who are not.

I think the success of evangelicalism consists on replacing one addiction for another, or creating one.
The typical obsessive/compulsive behavioural pattern and complete psychological dependence on the bible (along with shutting down all other behaviours) is representative of all addictions and it’s exactly what we see so often under this label.
The main target is also the same as for the common drugs, people of low income & low education. This is one of the reasons this sect should be on trial and subject to scientific scrutiny.

“New borns” are really “old addicts” and in the “new” life the bible takes absolute relevance. Life is to be lived according to the bible, and in no way can there be any introspection whatsoever. No self-analysis is allowed....for bible matters.

I still have not met or heard non-fundamentalist evangelicals. If Mitrovich mentions the NAE as non-fundamentalist, they obviously do exist, maybe they are negligible in numbers or maybe they are not so open.

CochalitoAdoptivo :

You say sarcastically that "... only the stupid fundamentalists believe in such silly things as the importance of human life, etc... "

I assume by this that you are mocking pro-choice people as "baby-killers", whose only interest in life is to encourage everyone to have promiscuous and immoral sex, and then tear out the fetuses and throw them away, and that abortion is the sanme a murder, and the all of the "dead babies" is worse than the extermination of Jews in the Nazi ovens.

But did it ever occur to you that pro-choice people feel the way about abortion that they do, so that women, sometimes young girls, will not die while have illegal underground and unsanitary abortion, so they will not die, bloody, gory, painful, lonely deaths, so that you can proclaim to Jesus Christ that you have done your duty, shed your disengenuous tears, cried out in empathetic pain for the dead babies, but have done nothing else, and made no effort, none whatsoever, to advanee the cause of Christ?

I do not think that God is very impressed at pretentious empathy for "dead babies" and I do not think that God is very impressed at the persecution of Gay people in the name of Christ. I can very easily imagine that Jesus Christ might want to distance himself from people who so flagrantly use his name in vain, in the pursuit of their personal predjucices and bigotries.

I believe that "fundamentalism" is not merely a Christian sect, but is instead a psychological state of mind, in which there is an accomodation and submission to a dogma or doctrine. It is often centered around religion, but may be also centered around quasi-religous political or social movements, such as Nazism or Communism.

Fundamentlism is a defensive reaction to a complex and frigtening world. I sometimes think that perhaps it is a genetic coping trait, that is completely separated from the particulars of any given fundamentalist doctrine.

The primary psychological mechanism operating in fundamentlism is the conformity of mind to the doctrine, completely, and without any further consideration or thought. There is only ONE decision for a fundamentalist, and that is to commit to conformity of mind. After that, no more thinking is necesssary, but just ovedience the the commands of the dogma or doctrine.

This kind of religious belief is easy and without effort or challenges, and is comforting. In this religious view, doubt, skeptism, and thinking are all sins, to be suppressed in others, and to be repressed in oneself.

“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."

In other words know the fundamentals and keep them in your heart. As I witness the world worsen along the wide path, as Jesus accurately forecasted, it just deepens my faith and encourages me to strive to remain on the narrow path. I gladly accept the ridicule of the evolutionists and other smarter than thou crowds. I and they will soon be dead. What good will their social acceptance be then?

This is such a misinformed piece. I am not Southern Baptist and I have some serious issues with some of their doctrine yet this is a misleading interpretation of what their statement concerning the authority of scripture says. There is no serious Bible student lay person or clergy that would say everything in the Bible is literal. The author of this article knows that yet has painted this picture of the idiotic Bible thumper. What that statement is saying is that all scripture is inspired by God and therefore is true and authoritative. Secularists and many nominal Christians cannot stand this stance because it takes away their freedom to whisk away those pesky passages they disagree with or find to out of context, yet the still want to feign that they are open minded to the Christian worldview, just not the crazy fundamentalists.

Mitrovich, when was the last time you even stepped into a Protestant church and actually listened? Jesus tells the pharisees not to harden their hearts when they flagrantly act as though they know it all and as though Jesus is some country bumpkin who knows nothing. In reality people are either liberated by the truth or they choose to fight against it and deny it. In the end the truth will be revealed.

Additionally, your condescending piece makes it sound as though only the stupid fundamentalists believe in such silly things as the importance of human life, etc... and that there are many Christians out there who are now seeing the light because now they are coming to believe like everyone else. While there is certainly always room for Christians to continue examining the difference between tradition and actual Biblical teaching this does not mean that all Christians should be expected to believe as everyone else. If they did then Christianity would be meaningless. As it is and in reality the book of I Peter reminds the Christians being persecuted time and time again that the world will not get them, that they will live as strangers in the world. In fact Jesus says in the beautitudes that many will speak evil against the followers of Him but that such people are blessed because it is a sign to that person that they are actually standing up for the truth.

It is a sad day America when authors like this get away with stupid, unprofessional articles like this. It is a sad day but not an unusual day, because this kind of diatribe is everywhere. Mitrovich do your homework, try to tell the truth. Washington Post, surprise and try to get some writers on this forum who maybe actually write from a Biblical point of view every now and then.

Oh, great. We can't even agree on the definition of "fundamentalist" so how are we going to agree on the definition of "love, compassion and caring"? For instance, is it "love" to let someone jump off a bridge?

A more defined view as fundamentalism as most people see it can be found at this website:
http://www.bidstrup.com/religion.htm

This author defines fundamentalism as such:"In my view, a fundamentalist religion is a religion, any religion, that when confronted with a conflict between love, compassion and caring, and conformity to doctrine, will almost invariably choose the latter regardless of the effect it has on its followers or on the society of which it is a part."

You're not a 'man,' Spidey. You're terrified of manhood. YOu'd rather see the *world* end than leave the cradle.

(from Wikipedia)

Fundamentalism as a movement arose in the United States, starting among conservative Presbyterian academics and theologians at Princeton Theological Seminary in the first decade of the Twentieth century. It soon spread to conservatives among the Baptists and other denominations during and immediately following World War I. The movement's purpose was to reaffirm orthodox Protestant Christianity and zealously defend it against the challenges of liberal theology, German higher criticism, Darwinism, Socialism, and other "-isms" which it regarded as harmful to Christianity.

The term "fundamentalism" has its roots in the Niagara Bible Conference (1878–1897) which defined those things that were fundamental to belief. The term was also used to describe "The Fundamentals", a collection of twelve books on five subjects published in 1910 by Milton and Lyman Steward. This series of essays came to be representative of the "Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy" which appeared late in the 19th century within the Protestant churches of the United States, and continued in earnest through the 1920s. The first formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs can be traced to the Niagara Bible Conference and, in 1910, to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church which distilled these into what became known as the "five fundamentals":

1) The inspiration of the Bible by the Holy Spirit and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result of this.
2) The virgin birth of Christ.
3) The belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin.
4) The bodily resurrection of Christ.
5) The historical reality of Christ's miracles.

Rick Warren believes in these Five Fundamentals even though he would not call himself a "fundamentalist".

I'd like to withdraw my statement that NAE is NOT an evangelical group. I was reffering to another group but I forgot the name. Sorry for the mistake.

I believe there is a distinction between evangelicals and fundamentalists, but I don't think that it can generally be defined by issues of choice/life and marriage. Instead, I think the difference lies in perspectives towards Truth/truth. I think that I actually agree (partially) with Warren when he suggested that the distinction is made by those who listen and those who don't. However, he can not really confess that he is an evangelical if his mind has already been made up on what God has revealed to him/us about life. For one to listen, one must seek understanding from another and also comprehend that he/she may not have all of the answers. If one believes that he/she already possesses a divine Truth, he/she is not listening, but merely entertaining. Thus, the distinction should be made on those that believe they possess the Truth and those that believe they know/experience some truth(s), but are humble enough to know the limitations of humanity and seek the divinity in others as well.
Peace.

THat verse ("except a man...") was given to Nicodimus and was he not able to understandd it because he took the verse LITERALLY.

As I've said, the Bible is NOT a simple book. If you cannot understand the Bible, you won't be able to understand what is a TRUE evangelical.

NAE is NOT an evangelical group.

"Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God".

The Bible is NOT a simple book. Before you define what is a TRUE evangelical, you must be born again first. Some ignorant people like this writer is trying to define things which he has really no knowledge about.

Think about a florist explaining Einstein's Relativity Theory. That is what this person is doing.

Being born again or evangelical means many things like hating gay marriage. There's nothing "fundamental" about that.

( "In the same way, their males also abandoned their natural sexual function toward females and burned with lust toward one another. Males committed indecent acts with males, and received within themselves the appropriate penalty for their perversion." (Romans 1:27) )

Also, evolution does not believe in ANY intelligence in nature. A person is a FOOL if he cannot see one. This column should not be talikng about what is a fundamentalist. You guys should talk about yourself like defining what is a FOOL.

CCNL-

Actually you have seen God, but have rejected him.

Christ continues to pursue you, or you would have not have this obsession of cutting and pasting.

Colorado dog- you obviously need to learn about the old despensation versus new.

The Ancients in the OT were prime sinners in every area. They had no inkling of the saving grace of Christ ,and God treated them very harshly, much for reasons we can't always fathom from our clouded perch. We are in the age of grace now, hence God is withholding judgement on all sorts of bad things people do.

Sin is sin. Whether it is adultery, or lieing, or even homesexual acts.

You can't defend any of them to God.

from Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

Numbers 31:13-18 The sword of war should spare women and children; but the sword of justice should know no distinction, but that of guilty or not guilty. This war was the execution of a righteous sentence upon a guilty nation, in which the women were the worst criminals. The female children were spared, who, being brought up among the Israelites, would not tempt them to idolatry. The whole history shows the hatefulness of sin, and the guilt of tempting others; it teaches us to avoid all occasions of evil, and to give no quarter to inward lusts. The women and children were not kept for sinful purposes, but for slaves, a custom every where practised in former times, as to captives. In the course of providence, when famine and plagues visit a nation for sin, children suffer in the common calamity. In this case parents are punished in their children; and for children dying before actual sin, full provision is made as to their eternal happiness, by the mercy of God in Christ.

BTW for all the player-haters out there who put down Christians: They do make more modern translations of the Bible. You don't have to say thee or thou or hath anymore; it's not Shakespeare you know. Better yet, why don't you quote the original Hebrew or Greek?

ECGLOTFELTY:

He / she was actually quoting Numbers 31. You are spot on about those outside the church often view all people inside churches as fundamentalists.

Coloradodog:
In what context was Numbers 13:15-18 written in, or were you just quoting a random piece of scripture taken completely out of context so that you can make the bogus claim that because the Bible uses verses like these that go against your particular moral sense of outrage and therefore must not be true?

P.S. the following is Numbers 13:15-18.

"These are the names of the men which Moses sent to spy out the land. And Moses called Oshea the son of Nun Jehoshua.

And Moses sent them to spy out the land of Canaan, and said unto them, Get you up this way southward, and go up into the mountain:

And see the land, what it is, and the people that dwelleth therein, whether they be strong or weak, few or many."

The comments about fundamentalism vs. evangelicalism are mostly based on perceptions of the two groups, which of course stem for their particular beliefs in the Bible.

The perception of fundamentalists are that they seem more bent towards legalism than other mainline churches, and this is due to their particular views of the inerrancy of Scripture. They are often classified as people who read only the King James Version of the Bible, make sure they hold to a particular code in everything they do, from the clothes they wear to the music they listen to. In particular, many fundamentalists were known better for who they were against rather than who they were for. Many were forbidden by their pastors and teachers to go to movies, watch certain TV programs, wear jewelry, sing or listen to certain types of music (even contemporary Christian music would be out of the question because it was too worldly like its secular ancestor, rock-n-roll), or attend other churches especially Catholic ones.

The most obvious difference to me came in the form of the literature they presented. Back in 1992, I worked as a music teacher at several different Christian and Jewish schools. At the "evangelical" school/church, the tracks they presented in the lobby were more friendly; they seemed to show a kinder, gentler form of evangelism that said, "Come to Christ and change your life for the better." The "fundamentalist" school/church had tracks that emphasized hell and damnation and spoke in all caps and red letters, basicially saying, "Come to Christ or BURN IN HELL."

Ironically, those outside the church often view all people inside churches as fundamentalists.

Or while "fundamentalists" are cherry-picking Leviticus (except verse 19:33, of course) to hate and exclude others, how about Leviticus 20:10? - ‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.'

If they followed this Bible verse literally, there would be a lot less of them left to annoy the rest of us.

I don't have a "cold, closed heart" (that would be "sin" BTW), so perhaps you are hating someone else?

JakeD wrote:

Christians don't "hate" homosexuals. We hate the sin

_________________________-

I don't hate you. I hate your cold, closed heart.

Maybe neochristians who believe "The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter." should obey Numbers 13: 15 - 18 and "kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves"

Jesus wept.

JBMLS:

Thanks for the input. This "guest" author wonders why the media didn't write about Saddleback or Warren as "fundamentalist". Perhaps, because they aren't?

I've been a member of Saddleback Church for just over three years. Although it is absolutely Evangelical, I have never heard it called "Fundamentalist." We do believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, but still study it carefully for meaning and the intent of the writers.

P.S. attendance at the Saddleback Presidential Forum was NOT limited to church members. Yet another misrepresentation.

"Once upon a time not to long ago and for a long time", people thought/dreamed/hallucinated that the world was flat.

"Once upon a time not to long ago and for a long time", people believed in/hallucinated about "pretty/ugly, wingie, talking thingies aka angels/devils.

"Once upon a time not to long ago and for a long time", "prophets" believed in/hallucinated about the end of the world, the coming of the messiah and flying chariots. Today these "prophets" are known as fortune tellers and/ or "propheteering/ "profiteering" evangelicals or fundamentalists!!!

Bottom line: the age of superstitions and feeding the "pew sitters and bowers" a lot of mumbo jumbo is over. Welcome to the 21st Century!!

Christians don't "hate" homosexuals. We hate the sin.

The way fundamentalist/evangelical has been dichotomized here is somewhat misleading - although defining and comparing such categories can be rather difficult, particularly as the meaning and content of categories and words changes over time.

First off, the use of "fundamentalist" and "evangelical" is confused and confusing. Are fundamentalists one group of evangelicals, or are evangelicals and fundamentalists two separate groups? (both of these meanings are used by Mitrovich)

The fundamental (no pun intended) problem here is that the term "evangelical" is used to demarcate a political group (by Mitrovich, by academics, and by the national media), even though the term itself is meant to define a "spiritual" community - those who believe that Christ died in order to make atonement for the sin of mankind, that he (literally) rose again to conquer death, and that whoever believes in him may have eternal life through repentance and acceptance of Jesus Christ's Lordship over one's life.

Within this spiritual community, there are some theological differences (including the doctrine of inspiration), but most definitely a whole host of political differences, which Mitrovich laudably describes to a certain extent. (I would wager, however, that most people that describe themselves as evangelical are probably opposed to abortion). He doesn't go far enough, however.

To echo what I wrote above, the term "evangelical" describes a spiritual community that ultimately pursues spiritual goals (in the words of Christ: "go and make disciples") that do not necessitate the pursuit of political power, and are often hindered by such a pursuit. To bestow a unifed political agency/will on a group that is not defined (and does not define itself) in political terms leads to all sorts of misunderstandings.

"Fundamentalist Christianity is best known in the US these days for their vocal hatred of gay people.

"Which is a shame, because that hatred overshadows the good many fundamentalists do."

It should. People do good without being Fundamentalists. All the time. Takes a Fundamentalist to look me in the eye and say, 'This bad I'm doing to you isn't bad cause I'm a Fundamentalist, and this good you're doing is really evil cause you're not obeying Fundamentalists.'

This should not be hard to figure out.

*Everything* that comes out the fundament is a novelty. Least till you realize it's just a different day. :)

Doesn't mean you want to stand on it, if you know what the word means. :)

Corrections to a previous post:

In the Bible it is related in Joshua 10:12-14 that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still. This was done so that the Israelites could continue slaughtering their enemies. Unless one discounts the laws of physics ((Isaiah 13:10 contributes another anomaly of the physical laws, i.e., "the moon shall not cause her light to shine," which ignores the fact that the moon reflects, the light of the sun),, the result of this happening would be catastrophic, probably decimating the Israelites as well as their enemy. In one apology online, the veracity of the bible is defended by attributing this passage to later accretion, i.e., it is not the word of God but was added by men. Well, that is fine, but this argument would only support the notion that the existing Bible is not the unerring word of God; who can be sure what is revealed by God and what was added by men? Of course one could accept the tale as stated, attributing it to a miracle. That is what is great about miracles; there is no need of a rational explanation.

Fundamentalist Christianity is best known in the US these days for their vocal hatred of gay people.

Which is a shame, because that hatred overshadows the good many fundamentalists do.

In the Bible it is related in Joshua 10:12-14 that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still. This was done so that the Israelites could continue slaughtering their enemies. Unless one discounts the laws of physics (Isaiah 13:10 contibutes another anomoly of the physical lawas, ie., "the moon shall not cause her light to shine," which ignores the fact that the moon reflects, the light of the sun), the result of this happening would be catastrophic, probably decimating the Israelites as well as their enemy. In one online apology, the veracity of the bible is defended by attributing this passage to later accretion, i.e., it is not the word of God, but was added later by men. Well, that is fine, but this argument would only support the notion that the existing Bible is not the unerring word of God; who can be sure what is revealed by God and what was added by men? Of course one could accept the tale as stated, attributing it to a miracle. That is what is great about miracles; there need of a rational explanation.

If Christ didn't exist...then someone's gotta offer a plausible explaination for His profound influence on Western (and Eastern) thought and practice...to include His place in the minds of some/most of history's greatest thinkers...scientists and otherwise.

...hallucinations indeed!

The simple truth:
NO HUMAN BEING knows what "GOD" says, what "GOD" does, or anything about "GOD".
Anyone who listens to a Priest, Shaman, Preacher, Fortune Teller, Astrologer, etc., ad inf. is an IDIOT.

I have never met CCNL, but from his writing he appears to be a liberated person that loves us all and want to help us find the truth. Challange to christian fundamentalism is not new; for recent illuminating books please read Robert M. Price : The Incredible Shrinking Son Of Man, Deconstructing Jesus and Behind Born Again: On Putting Away Childish Things.

Hmmm, Reality and Truth are not elements of being mean!!!!

And the reality of Thomas "the Moses of the NT" Baum is that he continues to hallucinate about seeing god!!

We as humans seem to be so intent on putting "labels" on other people, God does not look at "labels" whether they are self-applied or applied by others, God looks at the person.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

oh by the way, in reference to the below comments by CCNL - you my friend, are a perfect example of a fundamentalist. Why do you have to be such a hater? You think you are so supremely enlightened... But please don't be so mean.

This was a very interesting and insightful article. A breath of fresh air for mainline protestants such as myself who often feel boxed in by certain labels used in the media or within more secular public circles. Your article was reasonable and there was nothing venomous or "fundamentalist" about it. The same cannot be said for most of the posts and comments in the "On Faith" forum. Thank you.

Christian Reality 101 in 2009 for those eyes that have not seen:

Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/ simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

Current crises:

Pedophiliac priests, atonement theology and original sin!!!!

Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley, Roger Williams et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

Current crises:

Adulterous preachers, "propheteering/ profiteering" evangelicals/fundamentalists and atonement theology.