+ Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results
Results 1 to 25 of 114

Thread: What do you understand a FUNDAMENTALIST to be?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Re: What do you understand a FUNDAMENTALIST to be?

    Quote Originally Posted by jon1959 View Post
    Truthpaste has taken to presenting himself as one half of a Christian double act with Gofer Blue.

    They may indeed both be Christians, both willing to argue their case on a football messageboard, and both say they are anti religion (by which I take it they see organised Christianity plc of whatever type as antithetical to what they take to be 'Christ's teachings') - but there is a world of difference between Gofer and Truthpaste.

    Gofer is humble and respectful of others, responds to other posters' actual views, explains himself without hammering others over the head with random biblical quotes, and shares his doubts and faith journey. Truthpaste shares none of those qualities.

    I have nothing in common with Gofer's beliefs and faith - but I find his posts interesting and sometimes thought provoking. He adds to the board. Truthpaste doesn't.
    I wouldn't wish to bunch Gofer with truthpaste for one second either. They are like chalk and cheese. Gofer behaves on here like a civilised person and is easy and straightforward to communicate with.

  2. #2

    Re: What do you understand a FUNDAMENTALIST to be?

    Quote Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie View Post
    I wouldn't wish to bunch Gofer with truthpaste for one second either. They are like chalk and cheese. Gofer behaves on here like a civilised person and is easy and straightforward to communicate with.
    This how i feel too.

  3. #3

    Re: What do you understand a FUNDAMENTALIST to be?

    Quote Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie View Post
    I wouldn't wish to bunch Gofer with truthpaste for one second either. They are like chalk and cheese. Gofer behaves on here like a civilised person and is easy and straightforward to communicate with.
    I'm happy with that assessment from your perspective, it's probably what I would have said before I was saved.
    The only common factor I claimed (re Gofer) is that we have both admitted we are flawed individuals that have seen our need for God's forgiveness and accepted Christ as our Lord & God. Nothing more.

    Gofer takes a very different approach to my own, so yes we are chalk & cheese, correct.

    I have needed to be more confrontational because of the ministry I am in, Gofer is in another area of ministry to my own.
    It's hard to explain, but take the approach of Alex Ferguson and Alf Ramsey; both very respected for getting results, albeit AF over a longer period of time, both equally football managers, but one would bounce teacups off the wall and the other wouldn't dream of it.

    In the end you are not my judge TBG, and while I may continue to make mistakes, none of them will be deliberate or malicious; the key factor will be if you end up taking life, death and your soul more seriously; not how much you hated or loved the messenger.

    Same goes for you Jon. Nobody who is a Christian thinks it's going to be a popularity contest.
    Shalom.

  4. #4

    Re: What do you understand a FUNDAMENTALIST to be?

    Quote Originally Posted by truthpaste View Post
    I'm happy with that assessment from your perspective, it's probably what I would have said before I was saved.
    The only common factor I claimed (re Gofer) is that we have both admitted we are flawed individuals that have seen our need for God's forgiveness and accepted Christ as our Lord & God. Nothing more.

    Gofer takes a very different approach to my own, so yes we are chalk & cheese, correct.

    I have needed to be more confrontational because of the ministry I am in, Gofer is in another area of ministry to my own.
    It's hard to explain, but take the approach of Alex Ferguson and Alf Ramsey; both very respected for getting results, albeit AF over a longer period of time, both equally football managers, but one would bounce teacups off the wall and the other wouldn't dream of it.

    In the end you are not my judge TBG, and while I may continue to make mistakes, none of them will be deliberate or malicious; the key factor will be if you end up taking life, death and your soul more seriously; not how much you hated or loved the messenger.

    Same goes for you Jon. Nobody who is a Christian thinks it's going to be a popularity contest.
    Shalom.

    Unusually I have some time on my hands this afternoon!

    I concur with you on your latest post. You are correct, I do not enjoy confrontation and I tend to go about my faith quietly, preferring “actions speak louder than words” (which is difficult to convey on an Internet forum of course!). I realise this is a bit of a balancing act as I could be accused of being a social activist rather than an evangelical!

    If anyone expects all Christians to be exactly the same in their approach i.e. like clones, then it may come as a bit of a shock to find that that is not the case. As you say, it is not a popularity contest either on here or in life in general. In fact I find it a bit embarrassing that I seem to be classed as the guy in the white hat and you as the guy in the black hat (to quote that well known cowboy film cliché)! I am certainly no saint in the secular, vernacular sense (in the Biblical sense, a bit different of course!). Can you elaborate on this rabbit hole/Hamas thing which seems to have lit TBG's blue touch paper?

    It can be tiresome being classified as gullible, non-intellectual, crutch-requiring thicko's as if I have accepted everything in the Bible without question. I would say my faith is evidence-based rather than blind faith, but of course for most people the New Testament does not constitute evidence they argue, as it was written so long after the events (or at least a very handy excuse for not looking any further in case it might just be true!). I only became a Christian in my late 30's when I looked into the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus and found that this could be proven “beyond reasonable doubt” as a defence lawyer would put it.

    I think I have already said in a previous post that I tend towards the “shake the dust off my shoes” approach rather than continue the debate in a confrontational manner but it is difficult to resist the temptation to respond when faced with some of the spurious arguments put forward! My Dad used to use the phrase “slowly, slowly, catchee monkey” in this sort of situation. If tempers are lost or verbal abuse is used, then he would say that you have already lost the argument – that has always stayed with me but it's not always easy to put into practice!

  5. #5

    Re: What do you understand a FUNDAMENTALIST to be?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gofer Blue View Post
    Unusually I have some time on my hands this afternoon!

    I concur with you on your latest post. You are correct, I do not enjoy confrontation and I tend to go about my faith quietly, preferring “actions speak louder than words” (which is difficult to convey on an Internet forum of course!). I realise this is a bit of a balancing act as I could be accused of being a social activist rather than an evangelical!

    If anyone expects all Christians to be exactly the same in their approach i.e. like clones, then it may come as a bit of a shock to find that that is not the case. As you say, it is not a popularity contest either on here or in life in general. In fact I find it a bit embarrassing that I seem to be classed as the guy in the white hat and you as the guy in the black hat (to quote that well known cowboy film cliché)! I am certainly no saint in the secular, vernacular sense (in the Biblical sense, a bit different of course!). Can you elaborate on this rabbit hole/Hamas thing which seems to have lit TBG's blue touch paper
    Thanks for your comprehensive reply and considered thoughts.
    I've no issue being the guy with the black hat etc - I would rather 50 people broke my nose but all ended up knowing which way was up and us all laughing about it in eternity.
    100 years from now, it won't matter who had 2 million followers online, or who drove an X7, or who was lambasted for standing up for their faith and quoting the Bible; all that will matter is what people decided re Jesus Christ while they where here on Earth.
    I applaud your approach re your faith and I too have many contacts across many "real-life" face to face social groups where it is a lot easier to demonstrate Christian love, care and practical help. I'm currently urgently trying to help a guy move from Riverside to Cathays within 24 hours.
    The Hamas thing was me simply saying that some individuals create rabbit holes (to the standard of those in Gaza) to avoid discussing the key issues; so predictably (as we live in a victim culture) that was taken as me saying that anyone that dug such rabbit holes was as evil as Hamas!
    Will reply further later, have to head out now. Take care.

  6. #6

    Re: What do you understand a FUNDAMENTALIST to be?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gofer Blue View Post
    It can be tiresome being classified as gullible, non-intellectual, crutch-requiring thicko's as if I have accepted everything in the Bible without question. I would say my faith is evidence-based rather than blind faith, but of course for most people the New Testament does not constitute evidence they argue, as it was written so long after the events (or at least a very handy excuse for not looking any further in case it might just be true!). I only became a Christian in my late 30's when I looked into the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus and found that this could be proven “beyond reasonable doubt” as a defence lawyer would put it.

    I think I have already said in a previous post that I tend towards the “shake the dust off my shoes” approach rather than continue the debate in a confrontational manner but it is difficult to resist the temptation to respond when faced with some of the spurious arguments put forward! My Dad used to use the phrase “slowly, slowly, catchee monkey” in this sort of situation. If tempers are lost or verbal abuse is used, then he would say that you have already lost the argument – that has always stayed with me but it's not always easy to put into practice!
    Indeed, the BBC, National Geo, Hollywood and many others love to portray Christians as naive and lacking in all the facts.
    The truth is very different as many successful and brave scientists have stated, though the very thought that this is a remote possibility drives the skeptic to run for cover, or into the 'safety' of skeptical anti-biblical websites or half bakes scientific theories that only have a basis in acceptability rather than hard facts.

    If they did what you, Lee Stroble or Josh McDowell (and thousands of others) has done, and look at the evidence for the resurrection, they would be left with no doubt whatsoever. But why look if you want to remain in denial?

    There are times when shaking the dust off your shoes is the wise approach, yet with social media you never know who is listening or reading outside the sphere of the participants, or even if those taking part are taking things far more seriously than they let on.

    Many in the States are counting the hours until this second major total eclipse (8.4.24), which is interestingly crossing a number of places in the States called Nineveh! Either way, the time that people have to consider these things won't last forever, and the state of people in the original Nineveh was far worse than even our society today (and they too had a total eclipse before you know who arrived to warn then via God's Message for the entire region).

    So keep going...!

  7. #7

    Re: What do you understand a FUNDAMENTALIST to be?

    Quote Originally Posted by truthpaste View Post
    Indeed, the BBC, National Geo, Hollywood and many others love to portray Christians as naive and lacking in all the facts.
    The truth is very different as many successful and brave scientists have stated, though the very thought that this is a remote possibility drives the skeptic to run for cover, or into the 'safety' of skeptical anti-biblical websites or half bakes scientific theories that only have a basis in acceptability rather than hard facts.

    If they did what you, Lee Stroble or Josh McDowell (and thousands of others) has done, and look at the evidence for the resurrection, they would be left with no doubt whatsoever. But why look if you want to remain in denial?

    There are times when shaking the dust off your shoes is the wise approach, yet with social media you never know who is listening or reading outside the sphere of the participants, or even if those taking part are taking things far more seriously than they let on.

    Many in the States are counting the hours until this second major total eclipse (8.4.24), which is interestingly crossing a number of places in the States called Nineveh! Either way, the time that people have to consider these things won't last forever, and the state of people in the original Nineveh was far worse than even our society today (and they too had a total eclipse before you know who arrived to warn then via God's Message for the entire region).

    So keep going...!
    Mostly Frank Morrison (of "Who moved the stone?" fame) in my case, although I have read McDowell and Strobel too.

    Yes, for a "non-subject" which Christianity is often portrayed as (Dawkins et al), it amazes me that this thread now has in excess of 3700 views!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •