WHAT'S A FUNDY, ANYWAY?
/ Re: Tondor and NT Canon / 7Nov99 / Forum: TheologyOnLine - BibleStudy / NG: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
> On 7Nov99 Fisherman wrote: Awhh Tondaar, you have such a nice way with words when you describe
> us "fundies" ... but, I'm not sure that I am a "Fundy" ... Especially the type that you are talking about.
.
Tondaar say: Dear Fisherman, to my way of thinking you are *very* especially the type of Fundy that I am talking about. Indeed, I would even go so far as to say that you are an *arch-fundy* ... Meaning that what distinguishes you from the common run-of-the-mill type fundies is that you are far more educated and expressive than your more ignorant and illiterate brethren. Thus I take it that you speak for them also.
.
But perhaps we should go back to square one before we proceed along this line. If you do not consider yourself a Fundy, then by all means tell us why not. And also tell us what you think it is that distinguishes fundies from other believers. For myself, what makes fundies the uniquely stubborn and thick-headed people that they are is that they tend to idolize the Bible (while at the same time vehemently denying any such thing), and also imagine that the
scriptures were written for children (ie. as per the "literal" interpretation that you're so fond of).
.
In this sense, fundamentalism is by no means restricted to any denominations; or to evangelicals in general. Rather, I consider this mode of thought to be so pervasive and persuasive that it crosses all national and denominational lines and boundaries ... ie. There are no barriers to human stupidity!
.
> But I 'do' want to know ... so what's a "hissy-fit?"
.
Well, a hissy-fit is what happens to Tondaar when his ISP finally connects him after 15 attempts to establish a modem connection, and then two minutes later abruptly disconnects him, only to go through the same process three more times in order to post just ONE STINKING ARTICLE YET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
P.S. That's no joke about my ISP, folks. Internet Direct takes great pleasure in constantly and endlessly and sadistically cyber-sodomizing its captive and helpless customers
Re: What's A Fundy, Anyway? / 9Nov99 / Forum: TheologyOnLine - BibleStudy / NG: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
> On 8Nov99 Fisherman wrote: Tondaar, I guess that, in the strict sense of the word, I will have to admit
> to being a fundamentalist (fundy).
.
Tondaar say: Dear Fisherman, yes ... but? :)
.
> But even though I do believe in the literal Inspiration of the Word of God, I do have my disagreements
> with other (what you call) 'fundies'. For I believe that most of them fail to follow the greatest command
> that we have in studying that Word. And, that is the failure to strictly follow 2 Timothy 2:15, and thus
> they fail to "rightly divide the Word of Truth."
.
Remind people of these things and solemnly charge them before God not to wrangle over words. This is of no benefit; it just brings ruin on those who listen. Make every effort to present yourself before God as a proven worker who does not need to be ashamed, teaching the message of truth accurately. But avoid profane chatter, because those occupied with it will stray further and further into ungodliness, and their message will spread its infection like gangrene. 2Tim.2:14-17 / NETbible
.
Hmmmm ... Sounds like bad news for the newsgroups and forums ... :(
.
> A good example is the Words of Christ in Matthew 23:2-3: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses'
> seat. All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their
> works; for they say, and do not." Most fundies take this as 'a command' to "observe and do" whatever
> the scribes and Pharisees "bid". They do this because they fail to pay attention to the surrounding context.
.
Yeah, but who do the fundies suppose that the scribes and Pharisees are today? Bible scholars and evangelical preachers perhaps? ... As for failing to "pay attention to the surrounding context", that is something that I notice you doing whenever we discuss the date and author of 2Peter! 4X: You have said that 1&2Peter were written within
a few months of each other (66-67CE), but you have yet to explain how it is that the Jewish reform movement (proto-Christianity) could have been awash with Gnostics *before* the Faith had split from Judaism??!
.
> But I cannot believe that Christ was commanding obedience to the teaching of the Scribes and Pharisees ...
.
In this I tend to agree with you, Fisherman. In fact, these words do not sound like the Son of Man (described by Mark and Peter in their Gospel) at all, but rather like the words of a Christian Pharisee (the author of Matthew's Gospel) placed into the mouth of the Lord. So if Matthew can place his own words into the mouth of the Lord, why cannot the author of 2Peter place *his* words into the mouth of Simon Peter?
.
> so therefore, I don't take this, as a 'literal command' to do so. I believe that if we "rightly divide" the context
> of the immediate passage, and the context of the whole Gospel, we see clearly that He could not possibly be
> commanding this.
.
Not only are you denying the plain meaning of the text here (in direct contradiction to your alleged literal reading of scripture), but I think that you also fail to appreciate the social and historical context of the gospel as a whole. At the time when Matthew was written (c.80-85CE) it was still not at all certain that Judaism and the followers of Jesus Christ must go their own ways separately and with much mutual antagonism. Rather, Matthew was trying very hard to make the Faith as appealing as possible to the Jewish believers in his area (Syria?), and to the Jewish people in general. Within this historical context the command to obey the scribes and Pharisees makes perfect sense, and obviously means precisely what it says!
.
> I gather from the context, just the opposite ... that He was uttering a warning against them and their
> teachings. And instead of commanding us to "observe an do," He was simply making a statement, i.e.
> "ye observe and do." He was saying: "it is because they have taken their seat in Moses' seat that ye
> observe and do whatever they bid you." But, the injunction is "Do them not." In verses 4-33 He gives
> plenty of reasons why we should "not do them." And by not adhering to the command to "rightly divide
> the Word of Truth," most fundies take this as the Lord commanding them to do the very things He was
> about to condemn.
.
I don't know, Fisherman. Your exegesis seems more like a rhetorical sleight-of-hand than anything else. It seems pretty clear that Jesus (ie. Matthew) is here telling his readers to do as the scribes and Pharisees say, and not as they do; for while their words are good, their actions are something else again:
.
Then Jesus said to the crowds and his disciples, "The experts in the law and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat. Therefore pay attention to what they tell you and do it. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they teach ... -- Matthew 23:1-3 / NET Bible
.
> Now Tondaar, I didn't mean to digress from the 'topic', but I am trying to explain why, sometimes I take
> exception to being classified as a 'fundy' -- In His Service
.
Hey, I'm perfectly content to classify you as an exceptional and outstanding Fundy; as opposed to the lower orders of fundies (ie. those who appear to be more stubbornly "literal" (ie. thoughtless) in their reading of scripture). Indeed, if you do not wish me to call you a Fundy at all, I'll be well disposed to refrain from doing so. But since you "admit to being a fundamentalist", I must assume that I am not in error as things now stand.
/ Re: What's a Fundy, Anyway? / 27Nov99 / Forum: TheologyOnLine - BibleStudy / NG: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
> On 25Nov99 T.Matthew wrote: I realize that many allegories and shadows are used in scripture.
.
erasmian say: Dear T.Matthew, and fiction and myth and parable too! Yes, dear cyber-saints, even fundies must admit the existence of parables within the pages of scripture; although the meaning and significance of this fact doubtless escapes them!
.
> The main problem that I have with the "non-fundy" approach is that if we accept that many of the prior
> arguments mady by Tondaar concerning Jonah et al are true, then how can we approach scriptures such
> as John 3:16 as being exactly what it means?
.
"For this is the way God loved the world: he gave his one and only Son that everyone who believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." -- John 3:16 / NETbible
.
What's the big confusion here? This is neither myth, nor fiction, nor parable, nor metaphor, but rather a straight-forward statement of fact (or, if you prefer, a theological declaration). Something like this obviously can and should be taken literally (as a matter of faith, as it were). No problemo.
.
> How can we take Galatians 5 literally?
.
With a grain of salt, perhaps?
.
> We can not take Acts 2 as historical fact.
.
Nothing in Acts of Apostles should be taken as a scientific and accurate account of historical realities. For me this is not a problem, because I think that the Faith is quite strong enough to survive a realistic reading of Luke-Acts. Of course, you may not have as much confidence in Faith and Truth as I do ...
.
> How about the existence of an eternal reward or punishment?
.
Possible; but also perhaps unlikely. In any case, this is not essential to the Faith; for God's justice will, in one way or
another, be served. It is not for us to say why and wherefore!
.
> It is precisely the fundy approach that lends itself to the fulfillment of Romans 10:17 (yes, even in it's proper
> context). If believing in a fish swallowing a man is a foolish belief, then I'm guilty of foolishness. But, then
> again, I guess that such is the essence of faith. Hebrews 11:6.
.
"Now without faith it is impossible to please him, for the one who approaches God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him." -- Hebrews 11:6 / NETbible
.
Oh my dear T.Matthew! What you don't know about Hebrews could fill a dozen fat tomes. Foolishness and absurdity form no part of the essence of Faith. Mistaking fiction for fact is NOT a noble foolishness; it is an unworthy stupidity, is what it is. The prophet (not Paulos of Damascus), who wrote the essay much latter (and erroneously) misnamed
'Hebrews', tells us as much when he says quite plainly: "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for, being convinced of what we do not see" (Heb 11:1/NETbible). This does not mean that we must disconnect our brains from our faith; but just the opposite in fact!
.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
.
> On 27Nov99 Fisherman wrote: T.Matthew, I have defended the book of Jonah (to the best of my ability)
> against charges of "myth and allegory," for a long time, on this forum.
.
I'll get around to that in due course ... maybe ... :)
.
> I'm with you on this one. The Bible says: "Now the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah"
> (Jonah 1:17). That's good enough for me, if God "prepared the fish," then I have no difficulty
> believing it happened!
.
Yes, it's so much more sensible to believe that the author wrote a scientific and accurate account of actual historical events centuries after the fact, than it is to accept that the author wrote a deliberately and humorously exaggerated short story. Oh yes! Let us by all means believe that animals are capable of repentance and contrition: for the king of Nineveh "had a proclamation made and said, 'In Nineveh, by the will of the king and his nobles — Let neither human nor animal, cattle nor sheep, taste anything; let them not feed and let them not drink water. Let human and animal put on sackcloth and let them cry earnestly to God ..." (Jonah 3:7-8 / NETbible).
.
So I guess it's much easier to believe that God "prepared the fish", and that animals did "cry earnestly to God", than to believe that reality and the universe are consistent throughout the ages, and that God does not perform outrageous miracles simply to amaze the gullible.
.
> There are people who can believe that, "God spoke," and the "heaven and the earth" were created ... then
> these same people have trouble believing that God could keep a man alive inside a fish, that He "had
> prepared" for the occasion. I take Jonah as being literal, historical and true.
.
Poor Fisherman! Let us all pray that the Lord will take pity on this hard-headed determination to be as ridiculous as humanly possible. What God *can* do is not the issue here. The issue here is recognizing this particular book for what it is. Fundies cannot see that Jonah is fiction because they are utterly lacking for the necessary sense of humor that is needed to sympathize with the author's vision and style.
.
Fundies can never truly understand the Bible, because they can never accept that the scriptures are greater and more complicated than the mind of a four year old child!
/ Re: What's a Fundy, Anyway? / 29Nov99 / Forum: TheologyOnLine - BibleStudy / NG: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
> On 28Nov99 Fisherman wrote: erasmian ... Tondaar?? Do you spout off so much foolishness that you
> have to change your name now and then?
.
Huh? ... I refuse to answer on the grounds that anything I say may be judged incriminating
and held against me in a court of law ...
.
> "And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, 'What have I done unto thee, that
> thou hast smitten me these three times?' And Balaam said unto the ass, 'Because thou hast mocked me:
> I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee'. And the ass said unto Balaam, 'Am not
> I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? Was I ever wont to do so
> unto thee'?" (Numbers 22:28-30).
.
LOL ... The prophets are the greatest; no doubt!
.
> You're right Tondaar (erasmian??), the issue is not what God 'can' do, it's what He 'did' do! I'm so relieved,
> that, in your own artful manner, you admit that God 'could' have performed such a miracle. I don't suppose
> that "the ass spoke to Balaam" either ... that's all 'fiction' ... right?
.
Since donkey's [donkies? asses? assi?] mouths are physically unable to manifest human speech patterns (to say nothing of the lack of required gray matter) I would say that, yes, it is very probably a mistake to read this pericope as a scientific and accurate account of actual historical events. It is a story, Fisherman. And, yes, the Bible is full of such things. What do you think parables are, eh? You don't bother to read them as literal accounts, do you? . . .
Your hermeneutical principles are not only inconsistent and indefensible, they are *grossly* inconsistent and indefensible!
.
> I believe that the ass 'did' speak, because the Word says: "The Lord opened the mouth of the ass" (Numbers
22:28). But, not being a 'true fundy', I don't believe that animals cried "earnestly to God," in Jonah 3:7-8.
.
Since the author of the book of Jonah clearly suggests that they did just that, I'd say that you are just as biased against, and violent toward, the Word as any other regular 'true Fundy'. I don't quibble over such minor details of interpretation. It is your entire approach in general that marks you as a vicious and disrespectful Reader!
.
> The "proclaimation" that was "published through Nineveh" was "by the decree of the king and his nobles,"
> not by God. They may have been able to perform the tasks so decreed in verse 7: i.e. "Let neither man nor
> beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water." But the part of the king's decree
> in verse 8, i.e. "and cry mightily unto God," would not have been carried out by the animals ... even thought
> it had been "decreed" by the king.
.
And yet immediately after the proclamation we get God's response to the resulting activities aroused by the decree. Note that there is no hint that the animals did not do as directed: "God saw their deeds, that they turned from their evil way of living, and God relented concerning the disaster he had said he would bring on them and he did not do it" (Jonah3:10/NETbible). Your interpretation that "their deeds" refers only and exclusively to the citizens is NOT supported by the text of Jonah! Look carefully at the last and final verse of the book. God asks the prophet a difficult question: "Now should not I have compassion for the great city of Nineveh, in which there are more than one hundred twenty thousand people who do not know their right from their left, besides many animals?" (Jonah4:11 / NETbible). God is able to have compassion on 'many animals', but you are not? Right.
.
> You and I both know that the king, in his fearful state, could have "decreed" such a thing, but that doesn't
> mean it happened ... right Tondaar? Now if God had "decreed" it, that would be a different thing ...
> it would have happened.
.
If the king of Nineveh had actually made such a decree in fact and in reality and in history (as you claim), one should then think that some few scraps of remains of such a remarkable document would have survived the centuries and so have been found by relentless archeologists and antiquarians. They kept good records about such things in Nineveh in those days, don't you know. Show me the tangible evidence that such a decree was really and truly made, and I'll be much more disposed to accept the idea that maybe Jonah is something more than fiction after all. btw: Good luck with that!
.
> We both know that the "they" in verse 10 referrs to the "people" and not to the animals ... don't we?
.
No we don't. What we do know is that plants and animals and the entire created order figure prominently in the story of Jonah. They are all, in fact, active players in the plot as it rushes to an abrupt and screeching halt. Wut? You have no trouble believing that a big-fish acted as the prophet's transport vessel (depositing him safely and soundly on the shore of that place to which he did not want to go), but you can't allow that the more beastly citizens of that city could actively and effectively participate in the widespread weeping and wailing that gripped everyone and everything within the city?
.
... Oh, *nice* guy!!!
.
> You see Tondaar, I don't believe that a "serpent" (snake) talked "unto the woman" in Genesis 3:1-5 either!
> Like i said: "I'm not a 'true' fundy."
.
I'm *very* impressed! ... Now repeat after me: "The book of Jonah is a short story. Yes it is. It really and truly IS!"
.
> So, what's with the name change ... I sorta liked 'Tondaar'.
.
Ah well, that's a long and tragic story. The main problem seems to be that I didn't actually create that name. I sorta borrowed it from a movie I saw once or twice. It's called 'Caveman' and features Ringo Star (of Beatles fame) as the hero. And his nemesis in the story is a big, ugly, stupid, ill-tempered brute of a Cro-Magnon (just-barely) pig-dog who thumps his chest and say "I be Tondaar!" ... LOL ... I kid you not! No wonder you like the name, Fisherman ... :) ... And a very funny movie too. Anyway, it seems that the name is copyrighted to Ringo (and the owners of the movie), and so he calls me up the other day to let me know, no uncertain terms (but very politely (as befits a gentleman)) that they were *NOT* happy with my hijacking of *their* name! So I says, "Oh ho! Is zat so?" He said it was. And thus we are now sadly bereft of our dearly departed Tondaar. [erasmian bows his head in solemn mourning and grief] He will be missed, but not forgotten! ... [A tear sneaks out of the corner of his eye and slowly travels down his
cheek as he cliks Start + Shut Down + OK, and mumbles a silent prayer for the hearts and minds of all good cyber-saints plugged into the WorldWideWeb] ...
.
<sniff> ...
/ Re: What's a Fundy, Anyway? / 9Dec99 / Forum: TheologyOnLine - BibleStudy / NG: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
> On 30Nov99 Fisherman wrote: erasmian, I'm sorry to hear of Tondaar's demise ...
> but, I'm sure that erasmian will be more, than adept, at filling his shoes.
.
erasmian say: Dear Fisherman, that remains to be seen ...
.
> But, I do disagree somewhat fervently, with your mistaken assertion, that, my "hermeneutical principles are
> 'grossly' inconsistent and indefensible." For I use precisely the 'same' criterion as you do in my understanding
> of Bible truths ... the difference being ... I come to a much more errorless conclusion than you do.
.
Oh ho! Is zat so?
.
> I base this statment on your reply to Damon (in another thread), you say: "it depends, I guess, on what
> you consider to be 'evidence'. For myself, the primary evidence is the sacred texts ... and the reasoning
> that follows." That's the same criterion I use, erasmian!
.
Not so, Fisherman. You left out a most important ingredient. For me the evidence can be summarized as follows: sacred texts + church history + reasoning from the facts. For you: sacred texts + bad reasoning. Notice the difference? The difference is profound in the extreme. Thus, for example, in my case it leads me to conclude that
2Peter was not written by Simon-Peter, whereas for you (ignoring the facts and realities of early church history) it leads to the conclusion that Simon-Peter *is* the author. In these contrasting results we see the adequacy of a comprehensive methodology that includes all relevant facts, and the inadequacy of a narrow-minded methodology that ignores anything and everything that compromises a literal reading of the text.
.
> I look at the use made of this 'miracle' by our Lord, in Matthew 12:40 "For as Jonas was three days and
> three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of
> the earth." Now there is nothing about "a whale" either in the Hebrew of Jonah 1:17 or in the Greek here.
> The "great fish" was specially "prepared" by its Creator (Christ, John 1:3), and, Christ had no misgivings
> about using the maracle of Jonah, as a factual, historical event.
.
Actually, it is the author of Matthew that speaks of the three days and nights as a factual, historical event. In any case, Matthew's use of Jonah neither proves nor disproves that it is fiction. ... Seems to me we already covered this ground elsewhere.
.
> Now you can 'sermonize' all you want, about these words being "put into His mouth," for, that is simply,
> unfounded nonsense.
.
No, actually it is well recognized that there are various redaction levels within the gospel traditions. Often these are quite easy to discern; as is the case with this bit in Matthew. To deny this basic fact about the gospels is to shut one's eyes to the true nature of the text (a very bad habit that fundies excel at).
.
> Christ was using the miracle of "Jonah in the whale's belly," as a "type" of His soon coming "death, burial
> and ressurrection." It was given as "a sign" to the "scribes and Pharisees" that, He was 'who' He claimed
> to be. The "as" and the "so" are sufficient to show us (in my reasoning) that Jonah 'was' miraculously "in
> the fish," "as" Christ was "in the sepulchre" (27:60).
.
Nothing that is said here by Matthew proves anything about the book of Jonah. If we want to discover the real nature of the book of Jonah we must turn our attention to the book of Jonah (not to Mt or any other book). Sorry, Fisherman, your faulty methodology is showing through again.
.
> Now whether Jonah was 'kept alive' inside the fish, or 'died' "as" our Lord did, and "as" our Lord,
> was miraculously resurrected, is a point of discussion.
.
A point of *fruitless* discussion ...
.
> But, as to the accuracy, of this miracle being historical and literal, there is no question.
.
Oh, of course not! Not when you have already decided in advance that it is absolutely impossible for the book of Jonah to be anything other than an accurate scientific account of actual historical events (which, of course, is precisely what it isn't).
.
> And, that is documented by Jesus Christ, the "creator of all things" (John 1:3, Romans 11:36,
> Colossians 1:16, and Hebrews 1:2).
.
Matthew's opinions are irrelevant. If we wish to study the book of Jonah it is imperative that we turn our attention to the book of Jonah. This is the way my methodology operates. I do not read Shakespeare in order to understand David Hume.
/ Topic > Re: Is God's (special) revelation over? -or- Are we putting God in a box? /
/ TheologyOnLine forum > Bible Study / 4Jan2000 / Newsgroup: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
> On 3Jan2000 Obadiah/Moderator wrote: <snipmuch> Peter refers to Paul's almost contemporary
> writings as Scriptures on a par with the Tanakh (2 Peter 3:15-16), so it seems reasonable to
> classify the NT writings as Scripture. <snipmuch>
.
erasmian say: Dear Obadiah, what did you say was reasonable again? I'm afraid you lost me there. It's true that Paul's writings were highly regarded among the first century churches, but there is no evidence whatsoever to support the contention that anyone explicitly referred to them as scripture prior to about 100CE. If your twisted take on 2Peter is the only evidence you have to the contrary, then clearly it is far more reasonable to admit that 2Peter belongs to the second century prophetic traditions of Egypt; (which theory has *much* support from the text of 2Peter).
.
> There's nothing in Scripture which says that you have to believe in inerrancy or take everything in
> the Bible "literally" to be saved.
.
Amen, bro! You and I are in *total* agreement on that point! :)
.
> The destiny of his soul is the most important thing.
.
I disagree. The destiny of his soul is utterly irrelevant. The most important thing is that he should love the Lord with all his heart and mind and soul. The path of discipleship follows from there ...
.
> God will have all eternity to straighten him out -- along with you and me -- on the other issues.
.
And will you *ever* allow God to 'straighten you out' regarding the undeniable *fact* that Simon Peter is *NOT* the author of Second Peter? Is it not apparent, even to you, that 2Peter 3:15-16 could NOT have been written prior to the Fall of Jerusalem? What fantasy of church history do you wallow in? Peter call Paul's letters "on a par with the Tanakh"?! HA! That's a hot one! Obviously you know zero about the relationship between these two men. Peter would rather choke than glorify Paul's scribblings in the manner you suggest. Perhaps you should re-read Galatians?
/ Topic > Is God's (special) revelation over? -or- Are we putting God in a box? /
/ TheologyOnLine forum: Bible Study / 7Jan2000 / Newsgroup: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
> On 4Jan2000 Obadiah/Moderator wrote: Two brief notes: 1. Dwayne: will respond to your thoughtful
> comments in time. 2. Tondaar/Erasmian/Nom du Jour: only in your fantasy world of pseudo-scholarship
> was 2 Peter written in the second century. On the basis of Proverbs 26:4, that's my complete response.
.
erasmian replies: Dear Obadiah/Moderator, the double-mindedness that you here display in these two notes is shocking and grieves me beyond measure. You offer Dwayne the courtesy of a thoughtful response, but you then turn about and immediately snub the cyber-prophet; not only declining to answer in any Christian manner, but also adding insult to injury not just once but twice:
.
> "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you yourself also be like him." -- Proverbs 26:4
.
Am I a fool, then, for taking Second Peter seriously as a part of the living history of the early Greek churches? Or is it simply that I am willing to discuss this important epistle, while you are not, that makes me a fool? ... Or is it just that my interpretation of it is so at odds with yours that you cannot bear to even consider it?
P.S. "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes." -- Proverbs 26:5
