[A note to newcomers to these newsgroups].

If you browse here for a while you'll note a disparity between the quantity of heat and light in many threads. Reason? Clash of ideologies (about four or five discernible ones, in my thinking).

The main 'confrontation' however is between Christian fundamentalists and all others.

I'm 'fundamental' in some areas (eg. I believe in the supreme authority of the Bible, the deity of Christ, a 'real' resurrection of Christ, the reality of Satan etc.) but I'm far too liberal for many of the fundamentalists here.

How can you pick 'em?

Pretty simple really. Fundamentalists tend to have problems with (alliterated for easy recall :-)

1. Maturity. Post-adolescent humans should have learned to live with ambiguity, and have 'ideas about ideas'. Fundamentalists find those challenges difficult. They prefer 'black-and-white' to 'grey'. See http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/9018.htm

2. Magnanimity. If one is to the left of their position on something, then they're 'evil', 'not in Christ', 'going to hell' (and in the 13,000 articles on their website none has much redeeming edification :-). And if they are from, say, Australia, and have come fairly recently to these groups, and they have the 'front' to address 'newcomers' then they're invaders/foreigners trying to take over the groups. (See the note on ethology/territoriality in http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/8109.htm ). If you want to be accepting/loving of others (even if you disagree with their *ideas*) then it's probably best not to be too confrontational (Fundamentalists tend to take your challenges as a personal attack), never be ad hominem (a sign of weakness when you run out of ideas) and certainly don't respond with hate (a malevolent attitude not necessarily restricted to Fundamentalists).

3. Methodology. Fundamentalists and liberal theologians share one broad way of doing theology - a commitment to their respective forms of rationalism. It's 'theology-via-syllogism' (this and this therefore that). Two Fundamentalist examples: 1. (A variant of Calvinistic thinking) God chooses the elect to go to heaven. 2. Some are not thus chosen. 3. Therefore by inference/deduction God chooses some to go to hell (so-called 'double predestination'). Another (mainly American Bible-belt fundamentalism): 1. God inspired the Bible to be written. 2. He communicated through fallible human beings. 3. But God is truth, without error. 4. Therefore the 'original manuscripts' were inerrant. Both of these views are too 'liberal' for me, as the Bible doesn't assert them.

So what are we to do?

Act as Jesus did. Love people who've decided you're 'the enemy' (hate isn't Christian). Don't stoke the fires of unintelligent diatribe. Be teachable. And pray for the people you read here: they are not merely disembodied producers-of-words, but real persons with real histories (some very painful).

--

Shalom!

Rowland Croucher