From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: 19 Nov 92 20:15:20 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <Petch-191192082841@oboe.gvg.tek.com> Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch) writes:
>
>It amazes me how people who know very little about the religion they are
>criticizing manage to be so certain about their opinions. Being a
>fundamentalist simply means getting back to the fundamental ideas taught in
>the Bible without embellishing it with present day fads, such as the idea
>that homosexuality is not morally offensive. 

  I assure you that fundamentalism entails much more than this.  At
  the root level, it implies an acceptance of the Bible as the
  infallible word of god.  That means no mistakes, no misquotes, no
  improper translations, nothing that would render its meaning or
  intent incorrect.  The corollary to this is that you must accept
  all sorts of mind bogglingly simplistic ideas, such as a 6000
  year old earth and a worldwide flood some generations later.  Etc
  ad nauseum.

>First, Jesus did tell us to love one another. But if you
>know that much, you must also know that Jesus actively rebuked sin.
>Remember the woman caught in the act of adultery? What did Jesus say to
>her? First He told the crowd, "Let he who is without sin cast the first
>stone." Then he told her, "No one condemns you. GO AND SIN NO MORE." 
>
>Next, is homosexuality a sin, or should we simply tolerate it? Check out
>Romans Chapter 1 in the NEW TESTAMENT where the apostle Paul refers to
>homosexuality as a sin so repulsive that it shouldn't even be spoken about.
>The language is absolutely clear--God did not make us for that kind of
>life.

  First you quote Jesus, then Paul, and apparently place the quotes
  from each on comparable theological footing.  Never mind that Paul
  was a homophobic, asexual, anti-female, power hungry compulsive.
  Or has your view of innerancy clouded your assesment of the merits
  of his writings?  Christianity would do well to go back solely to
  the words and actions of Jesus and toss all that unecessary
  baggage left behind by Paul.


>To do otherwise would be to condemn them to eternity without God, a very
>unloving act.

  Well said.  Why does the same not apply to your god?  Especially
  wrt to those of us who don't believe in him?  (Careful, I've been
  known to react violently to the "you didn't ask sincerely" or
  "you've chosen to live your life w/o god" arguments).

>Finally, is God evil because he condemns sin, judges people for it, and
>casts them into hell if they have not accepted Jesus as Savior?

  Unequivocally yes.

>He's God. He made us, and He sets the rules He wants us to live by.

  Might makes right.  How pathetic.

  Too bad god's not a she.  The rules might be a little different.
  In the words of Robin Williams, "If the president of the US were a
  woman, they're wouldn't be any more war.  Just intense
  negotiations every 28 days."  Same goes for god.

>Seek Jesus out, and ask Him to forgive your
>sins and come into your life. You won't regret it.
>

  Must be a bad day.  I thought I'd seen enough of the crap over the
  last few years to be immune.  Ah well.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"Look, I tried the cat experiment.  On the third trial, the cat was
dead.  On each of the subsequent 413 trials, it remained dead.  Am I
doing something wrong?"
			James Nicoll

Q.  How many Heisenbergs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A.  If you know the number, you don't know where the light bulb is!

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc