“Target: Fundamentalist Christianity” by Michael G. Mickey

Fundamentalist Christianity could be defined as a movement stressing the need for Christians to interpret the words of the Bible literally and to adhere to them to the very best of one’s human ability.

It goes without saying that, in our politically correct, ‘anything goes’ world, taking the Bible literally and living one’s life accordingly doesn’t make one popular with a host of people these days, some of whom claim to hold a kinship with Christians. Recently, for example, the Vatican ‘took on’ Christian Fundamentalists, as seen in the opening paragraphs of a Fox News story:

It’s not easy walking through the minefield called Middle Eastern politics, and a Vatican document released Sunday managed to criticize Israel, Egypt, Islam and even Christian fundamentalists.

The 46-page text, “The Catholic Church in the Middle East: Communion and Witness,” will serve as a working document for an October meeting at the Vatican about the Mideast.

The document was made public Sunday, the final day of Pope Benedict’s visit to the island of Cyprus, and reflected the Church’s concern about the flight of Christians from the Holy Land as they leave to look for more opportunities and fewer problems elsewhere.

“The Israeli occupation of Palestinian Territories is creating difficulties in everyday life, inhibiting freedom of movement, the economy and religious life,” the document said. “Moreover, certain Christian fundamentalist theologies use Sacred Scripture to justify Israel’s occupation of Palestine.”

Many Evangelical Christians, especially Americans, have thrown their total and unwavering support behind the Jewish state in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Those of us who take the Word of God literally, the Vatican would have us to believe, are encouraging Israel’s “occupation” of lands that we happen to know belong to none other than Israel! It’s a funny thing how reading one’s Bible can teach you things like that. Perhaps those at the Vatican criticizing those of us who actually do so should try reading their Bibles.

Genesis 15:18:

In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:

The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites,

And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims,

And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.

One need do but a small amount of research to determine that present-day Israel isn’t “occupying” even one inch of soil that doesn’t belong to the descendants of Abraham – if you believe the teachings of the Bible which the Vatican, apparently, chooses not to do.

Just look at all the trouble the Vatican says fundamentalist Christians are causing by believing in God’s Word! By offering our unwavering support of the apple of God’s eye (Zechariah 2:8), namely Israel, in its ongoing struggle against those who want nothing less than to destroy it, we’re creating difficulties in the “everyday lives” of Palestinians. What a sad tale and a tall one it is at that!

Literally thousands of rocket and mortar attacks have been launched against civilian targets in Israel from Gaza in recent years, but steel and shrapnel raining out of the sky inside the borders of Israel? None of them, from the Vatican’s perspective, impacts the “everyday lives” of Israelis. And how cruel it is that fundamentalist Christians aren’t up in arms that Palestinians aren’t permitted more “freedom of movement” by the Israelis. Who knows? If the Palestinians and the terrorist factions they harbor could’ve moved around more freely they could’ve potentially launched hundreds of thousands of rocket and mortar attacks against civilian targets in Israel! Yes, the Vatican thinks Israel and fundamentalist Christians are holding the Palestinians down, but let’s be fair. The Vatican is far from alone in having a problem with those of us who take God at His Word. As seen in the opening paragraphs of a NewsBusters story, there are people who believe the next great task for humanity is to rid itself of us, to “eradicate” fundamentalism:

Author and blogger Frank Schaeffer really, really doesn’t like what he calls “evangelical/fundamentalist” Christians. In the past, he’s suggested that their “hatemongering” was responsible for the “continuing ugliness of the response to President Obama.” And now, in a new blog on The Huffington Post, he’s calling for the “eradication” of fundamentalist Christianity.

“The next great task for the human race is to wean ourselves off literal interpretations of religion. We need to eradicate fundamentalism in all its forms,” Schaeffer wrote. “Atheism is no help,” he later added.

It is no surprise that he feels this way toward Christianity. After all, it flies in the face of liberal ideology, which promotes gay marriage and heterosexual cohabitation before marriage.

Right on cue, Schaeffer used the blog promote the gay agenda, beginning in the fifth paragraph. Killing two birds with one stone he attacked the Church in America and promoted the homosexual lifestyle. Schaeffer praised, “Those of us who have no problem with celebrating the fact that some people are created gay, or that other people live with a girlfriend or boyfriend because marriage isn’t always the best way to relate to a lover” as having a wider circle of acceptance.

Just look at all the chaos fundamentalist Christians are responsible for from Schaeffer’s perspective:

* Hatemongering – Even though we stand accused of being rigid in our adherence to the Word of God, we’re not, in the eyes of the world, when it comes to that whole ‘love thy neighbour as thyself’ thing. (Matthew 19:19)
* President Obama’s sagging popularity – The president is pro-homosexual, pro-abortion and anti-Israel among other things, all of which flies in the face of our biblical beliefs. We react accordingly, which is a bad thing from the liberal’s perspective. If tomorrow we threw all of God’s precepts out the window, there would never be a liberal policy we didn’t love. This would be why people like Frank Schaeffer would like to see us thrown out the window (of an office on the top floor of a very tall building)!
* Sexual immorality remaining taboo – We just won’t let the world become Sodom and Gomorrah without a fight, perhaps because we remember what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis, chapter 19) and take the Lord at His Word, literally, when He says He set those cities forth as “an example” for us. (Jude 1:7)

The further we proceed into the last days, the more those of us who hold fast to a literal interpretation of Scripture and strive to live our lives accordingly are going to be subject to the criticisms and hatred of the world.

In the prophetic future, as we see in Revelation 12:17, Satan and his right-hand man, the Antichrist, are going to unleash their full fury on those who “keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.”

Their target? Fundamentalist Christians.

Can you see it coming?

Original Link.

22 Responses to ““Target: Fundamentalist Christianity” by Michael G. Mickey”

  1. WayneD says:

    “Fundamentalist Christianity could be defined as a movement stressing the need for Christians to interpret the words of the Bible literally and to adhere to them to the very best of one’s human ability.”

    Goes to show you that Fundamentalist Christianity has it all wrong. If we literally interpret Genesis, we would believe that the universe was created about 5000 years ago when all evidence shows that it is around 4 Billion years old. Some believe that Jesus was God, yet he stated that some of the people would be still standing when his Father arrived in glory in his Kingdom. I.e., it was supposed to happen back then. That leaves only one conclusion. Jesus was just another failed prophet and not divine at all.

    “The president is pro-homosexual, pro-abortion and anti-Israel among other things, all of which flies in the face of our biblical beliefs. ”

    The president is recognizing that homosexuals were born that way, they didn’t choose to be that way, and that they have rights and should not be discriminated against. As far as abortion goes, stats show that when it was legalized those adults with unsociable behavior, who went around committing unacceptable acts and murder, declined because girls weren’t forced to raise a kid they didn’t want and acted indifferent to. As far as Israel goes, I would prefer backing them over Muslims, but I realize that Israel is far from innocent of atrocities of their own. You try to relate homosexuality to Sodom and Gomorrah but you ignore the fact that in the Bible, slavery was OK just that when you beat your slave, don’t injure their eyes and something else. Also, it was A-OK to sell you daughter into slavery. And Abraham, the so called father of the Jews, in order to save his own skin, claimed his wife was his sister and allowed her to be put into a Harem. What a wonderful man. I’ve only scratched the surface, but I want to make this point. The Bible is man-made and is not the word of God.

  2. Steve says:

    Wayne,
    Interpreting Genesis literately is not all that hard and actually doesn’t contradict science. Both the old earth thinkers (billions of years old) and the young earth thinkers (thousands of years old) fail to understand a key concept about Genesis.
    Dr. Rodney Whitefield in his book “Reading Genesis One”, makes the point that Genesis One is written in ancient Hebrew. This language was an intuitive language being very limited in vocabulary and could not necessarily express specific ideas which one might infer from the English translation. He notes that Hebrew verbs by virtue of the language itself do not specify the duration of verbal actions, nor even necessarily the order of verbal actions, in contrast to their English translation. The precise timing of things is not the emphasis of Genesis One, but rather that God did create all things. Thus we have a literal interpretation of Genesis.
    As a side note to that, there is another credible theory for the Genesis creation account.
    It is believed that Moses was given the account by God.
    The author of this website said it best:
    “What if, for example, you took the prophetic interpretation. Genesis 1 is not written in the first person, rather it is as if someone is seeing and hearing what’s happening (say, for example, Moses), and is recording what he sees and hears. Suppose that God reveals Genesis 1 to the prophet for a week. Each day of that week God shows him a new thing that He did. What if the phrase “And there was evening, and there was morning” which is repeated each day was referring to the actual evenings and mornings which the prophet experience. He went to bed. He got up. And then God gave him another vision, and repeated this for each day.

    Furthermore from what perspective would the prophet be observing all these things? Is he observing it from outer space looking down on the earth? What if rather he’s observing these things from the perspective of the surface of the earth (which is how most of the rest of the Old Testament is written)? In that case you may have a different interpretation of the events. It seems that on the 4th day of creation, after separating the land masses from the seas on the earth, God finally gets around to creating the sun, moon and stars. You might as well throw any scientific inferences out the window if you’re going to conclude that. But wait a minute. What if these existed already, but they couldn’t be seen from the perspective of the surface of the earth until God had cleared up the atmosphere sufficiently. After all He created them “in the expanse of the sky”, not that they didn’t exist before. Or perhaps God is not revealing these in chronological order to the prophet, but categorically. Perhaps He is revealing different categories of things He created. This as opposed to the other gods of the nations which only considered gods of particular things. The main point might merely be that the God of the Bible is God over all things. Realize that if we conclude that it is a prophetic vision, then as the meaning of a vision is open to interpretation it may not actually be telling us much of what actually took place from a technical scientific point of view. Much of Genesis only conflicts with science if you demand certain interpretations.”
    Wayne, I see that despite the scientific data to the contrary, you are still part of that shrinking group that believe homosexuals are born that way. Interesting how you invoke the name of science to “prove” your point about creation, but completely ignore it where homosexuality is concerned. Typical liberal.
    Geneticist Francis Collins, head of the international Human Genome Project, has written that “whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations,” when commenting that sexual proclivity is influenced, but not hardwired, by DNA.
    As for the right to marry, would you be so kind as to show me where the right to marry exist in our Constitution or Bill of Rights, please?
    Wayne, you said “As far as abortion goes, stats show that when it was legalized those adults with unsociable behavior, who went around committing unacceptable acts and murder, declined because girls weren’t forced to raise a kid they didn’t want and acted indifferent to.”
    What an interesting interpretation. As it turns out, the facts show a different story. Although crime rates are down nationally, statistics show that crime within the black community are up. Interestingly enough, it turns out that blacks also receive the most abortions. Using your logic, the group receiving the most abortions should have the lowest crime rate, yet the inverse of this is true. Blacks receive the most abortions, yet they commit a majority of the crimes. It appears your logic concerning abortion is flawed. You might want to go back and rethink that one.
    Let’s look at another flaw in your logic. Liberal religion haters like yourself often believe that everyone in the Bible had to behave like God. You fail to understand that the people told about in the Bible were people just like you and me, with all the same human faults. They consistently went against the will of God. The Bible tells us how God dealt with those people, in one fashion or another.
    Go ahead and present your arguments here. I assure you that I’ve already heard and refuted all of them, but if it makes you feel better about yourself, bring it on.
    Good Luck.

  3. WayneD says:

    Dear web keeper, your web site is screwed up. I have tired to post a comment here but I keep getting the message that my comment is spammy. It isn’t. Sorry Steve. I wanted to comment but couldn’t. A friend of mine has a web site and, so far he has had me, an agnostic theists and some atheists. on it. He is a Christian who admits that he cannot prove what he believes. He needs someone like you to balance things out. You can come over there and i will answer your comments since I can’t seem to do so here.

    http://thebelievingagnostic.blogspot.com/

  4. WayneD says:

    Steve, Pt I of several,
    Here are some authoritative reports on homosexuality being attributed to genetics. i didn’t make this up.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/homosexuality-genetics-usa
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/homosexuality-genetics-usa
    I’m currently listening to a lecture by a college professor on the brain. The Professor mentions that male toddlers were encouraged to play with dolls and the females with trucks. It didn’t work since the males preferred the trucks and the females, dolls. This seems to indicate that homosexuality is not due to environment. Funny, my sister-in-law gave my son a pink coach with a doll in it which her daughters grew up with. my son removed the doll and made the coach into a mail cart even though we were encouraging him to play with the doll in addition to his traditional male oriented toys.

    Not sure Francis Collins is all the credible considering that he has written a book attempting to scientifically prove the existence of God. I don’t buy it. Science is designed to explain material things not spiritual which cannot be proven.

  5. WayneD says:

    OK, I see the problem. When you first type something in Word and then copy it here, the mechanical no brain takes it as spam

  6. WayneD says:

    Steve, pt 2
    I’m afraid that you are basing your beliefs on what ancient people believed, and are cherry picking what it is you wish to believe, otherwise you would be saying that slavery is OK, Ephesians 6:5, 1-Timothy 6:1-4, Leviticus 25:44-46. When beating your slave, according to God’s counsel, you must be careful not to injure his eyes or mouth, Ephesians 6:5, and that it is AOK to sell your daughter into sexual slavery, Exodus 21:7-11, and that if anyone discovers that his wife on his wedding night is not a virgin, then he is supposed to take her to the steps of her father and stone her. Sounds like Muslin law being carried out today. Jesus didn’t change these laws from the Old Testament. He said that not one word of the Law is changed.

    you state that blacks have the most abortions. That doesn’t hold a lot of water since they have the highest birth rate and most cannot afford abortions. A Catholic Nun put it well when she stated that those who claim to be antiabortionists were in actuality pro-baby. and she felt that in stead of hounding these who wanted an abortion they should be offering to adopt these unwanted babies instead. Do you realize how many children in the world die of starvation or sold into sexual slavery because the mothers have no access to abortion facilities and cannot afford to raise these children?

    You sure do like to jump to conclusions when you call me a religion hater. I was raised Christan, but have since found it to be man-made. I am an agnostic with theist leanings, but at the same time have an open mind. Atheists on the Friendly Atheist blog have presented some good arguments against the existence of a god or gods, but I also had some good arguments in favor of a creator as well. Funny, you accuse me of hate, but what do you call your discrimination against homosexuals? An evangelical minister was interviewed on TV and he said that he had voted for Bush and he expects him to stop homosexuals from being friendly on the street in front of his kids. That was really sad because you could feel the hatred coming through from this so called follower of Jesus, who preached love.

  7. WayneD says:

    Steve, pt 3,
    You mentioned one so called credible theory that Moses was given an account by God. Unfortunately, it has been determined that Moses was not the author of Genesis or any of the first 5 books in the Bible. We have more than 2 creation myths in the Bible. Same with the flood myth. Someone, forget offhand, combined them into one. if God inspired, why different stories of different order of creation and one account of 2 of every animal onto the ark and another with 7 of every clean animal and 2 of unclean? If creation myth was God inspired, why does it describe the heavens above like a copper plate with lights in it? This is similar to the Greek creation myth. As far as Noah and his family caring for all the animals and and insects on earth, you would have to be smoking some funny weed to believe that myth. Further, a wooden vessel the size of the Ark would have broken up when the first wave hit it. That is a scientific fact. Oh, did I mention that there is no evidence of a worldwide flood.

    In Mark, the oldest Gospel, Jesus states that there will be some of you who are standing here who will not taste death until they see that the Kingdom of God has come in power, Mark 9:1. This statement is slightly altered in Luke 9:27 by leaving out “has come in power”. Why, because it was clear that it wasn’t happening during the life time of the people Jesus was preaching to. In Mark 14:612, At his Trial, Jesus boldly states to the high priest, “you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of power and coming with the clouds of heaven” That is, the end would come and the high priest would see it. Luke, writing many years later, after the high priest was long dead and buried, changes the saying: “From now on the Son of man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God” (Luke 22:69). In Luke’s passage, Jesus no longer predicts that the high priest will be alive when the end comes. John states that the prophesy was fulfilled by the Logos becoming flesh. Wait a minute, Jesus, who is supposed to be God, said it was going to happen in the life time of some those he was preaching to. If it were so, we would not be having this conversation. sorry, but id didn’t happen; therefore, I can only assume that Jesus was just another failed prophet. Paul was asked what to do about the poor and he responded that it was not necessary to do anything because of the coming Kingdom in which the poor and downtrodden would be lifted up into this Kingdom. Steve, it was supposed to happen then, not millenniums later. Jesus was fervently preaching for everyone to prepare themselves to enter this Kingdom. How absurd would it be i fhe really meant it was to happen after they died? That wouldn’t help them at all. The idea was that the downtrodden was to be uplifted and the proud, wealthy and powerful were to be put down. Even Jesus stated it was going to happen in their lifetime. IT DIDN’T HAPPEN. How many times since Jesus’ death have people prepared themselves for the 2nd coming only to have it wrong because they simply did not realize that it was supposed to happen back then and didn’t . You may argue that Jesus said that he didn’t know the exact time, and that is true, and he stated this, but he did know it was going to happen in the lifetime of some of the people he was preaching to, and he stated this as well.

  8. WayneD says:

    Steve part 4,
    In Mark, the oldest Gospel, Jesus states that there will be some of you who are standing here who will not taste death until they see that the Kingdom of God has come in power, Mark 9:1. This statement is slightly altered in Luke 9:27 by leaving out “has come in power”. Why, because it was clear that it wasn’t happening during the life time of the people Jesus was preaching to. In Mark 14:62, at his Trial, Jesus boldly states to the high priest, “You will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of power and coming with the clouds of heaven” That is, the end would come and the high priest would see it. Luke, writing many years later, after the high priest was long dead and buried, changes the saying : “From now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God” (Luke 22:69). In Luke’s passage, Jesus no longer predicts that the high priest will be alive when the end comes. John states that the prophesy was fulfilled by the Logos becoming flesh. Wait a minute, Jesus, who is supposed to be God, said it was going to happen in the life time of some of those he was preaching to. If it were so, we would not be having this conversation. Sorry, but it didn’t happen; therefore, I can only assume that Jesus was just another failed prophet. Paul was asked what to do about the poor and he responded that it was not necessary to do anything because of the coming Kingdom in which the poor and downtrodden would be lifted up into this Kingdom. Steve, it was supposed to happen then not millenniums later. Jesus was fervently preaching for everyone to prepare themselves to enter this Kingdom. How absurd would it be if he really meant it was to happen after they died? That wouldn’t help them at all. The idea was that the downtrodden was to be uplifted and the proud, wealthy and powerful were to be put down. Even Jesus stated it was going to happen in their lifetime. IT DIDN’T HAPPEN. How many times since Jesus’ death have people prepared themselves for the 2nd coming only to have it wrong because they simply did not realize that it was supposed to happen back then and didn’t. You may argue that Jesus said that he didn’t know the exact time, and that is true and he stated this, but he did know it was going to happen in the lifetime of some of those he was preaching to, and he stated this as well.
    The idea that the Bible is a perfect guide to morality is astounding. According to God, whenever children get out of line, we should beat them with a rod (Proverbs 13:24, 20:30 and 23:13-14:. If they are shameless enough to talk back to us, we should kill them (Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 20:9, Deuteronomy 21:18-21, Mark 7:9-13, and Matthew 15-4-7). We must also stone people to death for heresy, adultery, homosexuality, working on the Sabbath, worshipping graven images, practicing sorcery, and a wide variety of other imaginary crimes. Many Christians believe that Jesus did away with all this barbarism, but Jesus stated “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished, Matthew 5:18-19.
    Speaking of writing in 3rd person, the Gospels are written that way. Some attribute the writings to eye witnesses, but evidence shows instead that they were written by very literate Greeks. Also, there is a passage that states that John was illiterate, yet the Gospel of John is written by a very literate Greek.
    You state that you have already refuted all arguments. The problem is that you cannot do it by quoting the Bible as the Word of God since that would be circular reasoning, and like the Joker said in Batman, you have never come across the likes of me. You are basing it pretty much on faith. I can show you that the Bible is man-made, but it only counts if you have an open mind, which I doubt very much. You challenge me to bring it on. Don’t make me laugh. I tend to eat arrogant Christian apologists for lunch.

  9. WayneD says:

    Steve. I have more, but I have run out of time.

  10. WayneD says:

    Web master, if you are concerned about spam, you need to have a random word pop up in which the poster must type in. I typed up everything in word, and it was brutal for me to then have to retype it in order to get it accepted by your blog.

  11. Steve says:

    Wayne,
    Continue to use your Word to write your comments. Your post were accepted but got caught in the spam filter. I’ll retrieve them and get them posted for you.
    Thanks!!
    -Steve

  12. WayneD says:

    Thanks Steve. BTW, my last post is missing a smiley face at the end of it.
    Hope you will check out my friends site. He is a really great writer and needs some more positive comments to balance out the atheist ones and mine as well.

  13. Steve says:

    Wayne,
    I have a very busy day at work ahead of me, so I’ll not have to time to debate today.
    Keep checking back and I’ll get with you as soon as possible.
    God Bless.
    -Steve

  14. Steve says:

    Wayne,
    Still very busy at work. I have several time sensitive projects to finish up.
    In the mean time, you mention throughout your comments, that you have evidence to back up your positions. If you have time, please make a post of that evidence.
    Thanks,
    -Steve

  15. Steve says:

    Wayne,
    Not much time today…work is still a killer right now, but I wanted to repost a comment I made several years ago about homosexuality:

    “Mr. Knauft studied sexual change among the Gebusi of Papua New Guinea. These people practiced what we would call homosexuality. They also practiced shamanism or spirit mediumship, sorcery beliefs and inquisitions, a high level of violence, ornate ritual dances and costuming.
    Now what makes this interesting to me is that on Mr. Knauft’s return visit several years later, the Gebusi had been introduced to Christianity. Check this out:

    “Gebusi whom I had known and their descendants had become willing participants in Christian churches, the Nomad sports leagues, the Nomad market, and government activities. Their children regularly attended the multiethnic Nomad Community School, where they received instruction by national teachers in the Papuan New Guinean dialect of English for 6 1/2 hours a day, 5 days a week. Eighty-four percent of adults in the new Gebusi community were baptized members in one of the three local Christian churches-Catholic, Evangelical, or Seventh Day Adventist. All of these denominations were highly fundamentalist in orientation. Amid these changes, Gebusi spirit mediumship was defunct and male spirit stances, which had previously taken place an average of once every 11 days, were no longer held.”
    “With the decline of traditional spirit mediumship and seances, there was little way Gebusi could communicate with their indigenous spirits. With startling rapidity, Gebusi cosmology had been supplanted by a Christian cosmos of good and evil, sanctity and sin, and heaven and hell (see Knauft, 2002b, chaps. 6-7; 2002c; in press). Teenagers and young Gebusi men in the community were no longer initiated. However, the Christian pastors, who came from outside the area, knew little of Gebusi traditional practices and had little if any knowledge of their indigenous spiritual beliefs or sexual customs. Despite extensive investigation, I never heard homosexuality mentioned or even alluded to in Christian descriptions of so-called heathen practices, which otherwise included singing to false gods, holding sorcery divinations, fighting, or drinking native intoxicants, all of which were subject to disparagement. MSM [male homosexuality] among Gebusi does not seem to have been on anyone’s chart of a moral crusade; changes in male sexuality seem to have occurred to a significant extent as part of larger desires to become locally modern in an out-of-the-way place.”

    So when given the choice, these people, who you contend were given over to homosexuality as a societal norm, gave up the practice almost overnight (on a societal scale) and did so willingly.
    There were no protest to the changes. There was no “I was born this way” argument. There was no “it’s natural and normal” argument. They just walked away from it, because they learned a better way to live.

    I see this as not only debunking your argument, but debunking the resistance to change that we hear from homosexuals all the time.
    If these Pacific natives can walk away from homosexuality, why can’t Americans?”

  16. WayneD says:

    What was going on in New Guinea doesn’t at all appear to be true homosexuality, instead it appears to be some sort of religious ritual. In this case, one undesirable false religion was substituted by another false religion with more desirable behavior. Check out this review of a book by an ex Muslim who is now an Atheist. She even suggests that Muslims should be converted to Christianity because it is less violent. Funny, in the past, Christianity was just as violent. http://friendlyatheist.com/2010/06/30/why-you-should-read-nomad-by-ayaan-hirsi-ali/#comments

    Scientific evidence indicates that homosexuality is due to a gene defect. But let’s go one further and state that discriminating against homosexuality based on a religion which is based on FAITH, since it cannot be proven as the word of God, and, in fact, too much evidence shows that it is man-made, is simply wrong. One more thing, a God cannot be proven either, yet religions will go out of their way to discriminate against these people when it is none of their business.

  17. WayneD says:

    My opinion of Russ Limbaugh went up a notch when I heard that he paid a million dollars to Elton John, a self proclaimed Homosexual, to play and sing at his wedding. Even a right wing talk show host did not discriminate against Elton. BTW, Elton said he tried to become straight, but it didn’t work out, indicating that it was inborn and not something he chose to be.

  18. Mike Hoover says:

    Thought you might like to give this a read. On the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.

    It is important to understand that Jesus was speaking as a prophet, using prophetic, symbolic language, and was rarely speaking of literal judgement. There is also no concept of punishment after death ever discussed in the Bible. All punishments are everlasting, or age lasting. We must understand what these words mean, and what words have been translated to hell, before we preach a gospel we don’t understand. Did you know that the word “hell” simply means: an Imperceptible realm? Did you know that the words translated to hell were Gehenna, tartaros, and hades? None of these words have anything to do with punishment after death. Yet you are preaching something that none of the peole in Jesus time even believed in. Nobody believed in a place called “hell” after death! And yet you are teaching about it. Why do you think Paul never mentions it, David never mentions it, Job never mentions it, Solomon, Moses, Isaiah? Because it doesn’t exist.

    What does the parable teach? That the Jewish nation, and especially the Scribes and Pharisees were about to die as a power, as a church, as a controlling influence in the world; while the common people among them, and the Gentiles outside of them, were to be exalted in the new order of things. The details of the parable show this: “There was a certain rich man clothed in purple and fine linen.” In these first words, by describing their very costume, the Savior fixed the attention of his hearers on the Jewish priesthood. They were, emphatically, the rich men of that nation. His description of the beggar was equally graphic. He lay at the gate of the rich, only asking to be fed with the crumbs that fell from the table. Thus dependent were the common people, and the Gentiles, on the scribes and Pharisees. We remember how Christ once rebuked them for shutting up the kingdom of heaven against these. They lay at the gates of the Jewish heirarchy, for the Gentiles were literally restricted to the outer court of the temple. Hence in Rev. xi:12, we read; “But the court, which is without the temple, leave out, and measure it not, for it is given unto the Gentiles.” They could only walk the outer court, or lie at the gate. The brief, graphic descriptions given by our Savior, at once showed his hearers that he was describing those two classes, the Jewish priesthood and nation, on the one hand, and the common people, Jews and Gentiles, on the other.

    The rich man died and was buried. This class died officially, nationally, and its power departed. The kingdom of God was taken from them, and conferred on others. The beggar died. The Gentiles, publicans and sinners, were translated into the kingdom of God’s dear son, where is neither Jew nor Greek, but where all are one in Christ Jesus. This is the meaning of “Abraham’s bosom.” They accepted the true faith and so became one with faithful Abraham. Abraham is called the father of the faithful, and the beggar is represented to have gone to Abraham’s bosom, to denote the fact, which is now history, that the common people and Gentiles accepted Christianity and have since continued Christian nations, enjoying the blessings of the Christian faith.

    What is meant by the torment of the rich man? The misery of those proud men, when, soon after, their land was captured, and their city and temple possessed by barbarians, and they scattered like chaff before the wind–a condition in which they have continued from that day to this. All efforts to bless them with Christianity have proved unavailing. At this very moment there is a great gulf fixed so that there is no passing to and fro. And observe, the Jews do not desire the gospel. Nor did the rich man ask to enter Abraham’s bosom with Lazarus. He only wished Lazarus to alleviate his sufferings by dipping his finger in water and cooling his tongue. It is so with the Jews today. They do not desire the gospel; they only ask those among whom they sojourn to tolerate them and soften the hardships that accompany their wanderings. The Jewich church and nation are now dead. Once they were exalted to heaven, but now they are thrust down to Hadees, the kingdom of death, and the gulf that yawns between them and the Gentiles shall not be abolished till the fullness of the Genitles shall come in, and “then Israel shall be saved.”

    http://www.tentmaker.org/books/BibleThreateningsExplained.html

    Thank you for reading,

    Mike Hoover

  19. Steve says:

    Mike,
    I have to disagree with you on this one. From GotQuestions:

    According to the Bible, hell is just as real as heaven. The Bible clearly and explicitly teaches that hell is a real place to which the wicked/unbelieving are sent after death. We have all sinned against God (Romans 3:23). The just punishment for that sin is death (Romans 6:23). Since all of our sin is ultimately against God (Psalm 51:4), and since God is an infinite and eternal Being, the punishment for sin, death, must also be infinite and eternal. Hell is this infinite and eternal death which we have earned because of our sin.

    The punishment of the wicked dead in hell is described throughout Scripture as “eternal fire” (Matthew 25:41), “unquenchable fire” (Matthew 3:12), “shame and everlasting contempt” (Daniel 12:2), a place where “the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9:44-49), a place of “torment” and “fire” (Luke 16:23-24), “everlasting destruction” (2 Thessalonians 1:9), a place where “the smoke of torment rises forever and ever” (Revelation 14:10-11), and a “lake of burning sulfur” where the wicked are “tormented day and night forever and ever” (Revelation 20:10).

  20. WayneD says:

    Steve,
    I agree with you. According to Jesus, we will all be judged and those who are bad will go to Hell. There will be nashing of teeth. Funny, a scribe added a verse just for fun in which the disciples ask Jesus what if someone doesn’t have teeth. Jesus responded, teeth will be provided. 🙂

  21. WayneD says:

    Steve, you mentioned heaven. Do you realize that there is no reference to heaven in the Bible? Heaven was a concept developed by Plato. So, if you believe in heaven, you are a Platonist. I just heard that in a lecture on The Philosophy of Religion.

  22. Jack says:

    Wayne–“No reference to heaven in the Bible?” Maybe not in yours, but in all the other ones I’ve ever seen, it was there in spades. How many times did Jesus say, “My Father in heaven” or similar? Or “I have come down from heaven” or “Your names are written in heaven” or “Do not swear by heaven” or…or…or…

    Enough.

Leave a Reply

*