FSTDT.com

[Nadiine]

Also worth pointing out that Muslim, New Age and even occasionally Hindu, atheist, and secular fundies are included on the mainpage.

Seriously you guys can't think that the highlighting of quotes about how neat it is to beat your children and enslave your wife are really "bullying"?

I have no doubt that trolls come in and say all kinds of crap posing as "fundies" when they're not. That's a huge problem (and blessing) with the internet, anonimoty.

But I DO see Christian bashing going on in those types of sites. Go read IIDB. Sadly, the term "fundamental" has turned into an ugly term that ALWAYS means you're a raging freak that needs professional help.

I'm a conservative, but I believe the Bible to be fundamentally true and I adhere to it fundamentally becuz it makes teaches literal, emphatic principles & moral laws.

They're morphing these terms to mean ANYBODY who adheres to traditional Christianity is a fundamentalist which is equivalent to unbalanced, radical terrorists, etc.
THAT is the problem. I consider some of the "Christian" fundamentalists they quote are NOT Christians at all becuz of their level of hatred and they seem to show a LOVE of judgment instead of grace.

And I can attest that I have met many of them myself in other chat room forums and they don't even consider normal fundamentalists "Christians".
If you aren't as angry and hostile as they are, you're unsaved & they lump you into their indignation.

 

[LightHorseman]

I have no doubt that trolls come in and say all kinds of crap posing as "fundies" when they're not. That's a huge problem (and blessing) with the internet, anonimoty.

Quite possibly... but there are an awful lot of people out there saying some unbelievably "darndest" things... some of them whole independant websites worth, are they ALL trolls?

But I DO see Christian bashing going on in those types of sites. Go read IIDB. Sadly, the term "fundamental" has turned into an ugly term that ALWAYS means you're a raging freak that needs professional help.

It will be a great day when everyone is judged on their individual merrits and stereotyping no longer exists. However, lets be fair, there is a great deal of stereotyping and bullying goes on in all directions, and while "fundamental" seems to have turned into a term with negative conotations, I don't think the charecterisation of "liberals" as all being tree hugging dope smoking hippy freaks is any more justified.

They're morphing these terms to mean ANYBODY who adheres to traditional Christianity is a fundamentalist which is equivalent to unbalanced, radical terrorists, etc.

I respectfully disagree... as evidenced by the fact that quite a number of regular contributors to FSTDT are actually Christians.

I consider some of the "Christian" fundamentalists they quote are NOT Christians at all becuz of their level of hatred and they seem to show a LOVE of judgment instead of grace.

I think that is a big part of why some of the "darndest things" are considered darndest... people claiming to belong to a loving, tolerant religion like Christianity spewing forth their bile and hatred seems worthy of note to some people... and I guess you can either see the humour in the self-contradiction/hypocracy, or you could weep.

And I can attest that I have met many of them myself in other chat room forums and they don't even consider normal fundamentalists "Christians".
If you aren't as angry and hostile as they are, you're unsaved & they lump you into their indignation.

Indeed. I've met a few people like that, and it can be quite upsetting. I think far and away the bulk of people quoted on FSTDT are of this type, rather than common or garden Christians who don't believe insane, counter-intuitive, paranoid or plain hate filled dogma that has nothing to do with Jesus' message.

 

[Nadiine]

Quite possibly... but there are an awful lot of people out there saying some unbelievably "darndest" things... some of them whole independant websites worth, are they ALL trolls?

ALL? No. I didn't say all tho either. I just know they are active out there saying outrageous things either for fun becuz they need a life or they have an agenda to make people look bad (whoever they are against).

It will be a great day when everyone is judged on their individual merrits and stereotyping no longer exists. However, lets be fair, there is a great deal of stereotyping and bullying goes on in all directions, and while "fundamental" seems to have turned into a term with negative conotations, I don't think the charecterisation of "liberals" as all being tree hugging dope smoking hippy freaks is any more justified.

I agree, but their religious beliefs as far as the Christianity they claim is VERY justified and runs across the board.

I respectfully disagree... as evidenced by the fact that quite a number of regular contributors to FSTDT are actually Christians.I think that is a big part of why some of the "darndest things" are considered darndest... people claiming to belong to a loving, tolerant religion like Christianity spewing forth their bile and hatred seems worthy of note to some people...

Well since most nonChristians and liberal Christians and even naive Christians who haven't studied scripture very well, their definition of God's love is very skewed and "stereotypical" as well.
They stick God in a box as if He has to have the identical love they feel, when WE are the corrupted by sin and fallen in nature.
Man has brought God down to his own level to judge God's attributes according to how they would act and it's innappropriate and it's quite disturbing to be honest.

So I reject your ideals of what [God's] true love is and does; namely when you can't see the whole picture like God does; past, present & future and He's on an agenda, a timetable as to what must be accomplished.

And it seems funny to me that when some people use rebuke or refutation, it's construed as hatred when it's not. I follow God's definitions and principles, not what man makes of them.
With that said, I have already agreed that some of these people are hatefilled. They go beyond regular rebuking into hatred and love of judgment. THAT is when it goes wrong and they show their true spirit.
They either need salvation, or they need to repent and let God soften their hearts so they can love others.

and I guess you can either see the humour in the self-contradiction/hypocracy, or you could weep. Indeed. I've met a few people like that, and it can be quite upsetting. I think far and away the bulk of people quoted on FSTDT are of this type, rather than common or garden Christians who don't believe insane, counter-intuitive, paranoid or plain hate filled dogma that has nothing to do with Jesus' message.

Well unfortunately, after seeing some of your other beliefs in 2 other threads, you reject alot of the Bible as God's truth - you base everything on your definitions of what love is and what you envision Jesus as (despite what scripture says) - and again, God is not what He's being limited to by us when we're the fallen and corrupted by nature. God hasn't been.

Bringing God down to our understanding and expectations is the mistake, not the truth people preach that you hate.
I'll tell anyone who rejects so great a Salvation from Jesus Christ's payment on the cross, WILL suffer eternal condemnation - but that is told in sincerety, not glee.
This is why we spend our lives bringing the gospel to keep people from this fate IF they decide they want the Lord and to turn from sin.
I'd be labeled a raging fundy phobe for saying what the Bible actually says of those who refuse Salvation. I say, SO BE IT.
Eternity is a long time to be wrong.

 

[NorrinRadd]

...

I think that is a big part of why some of the "darndest things" are considered darndest... people claiming to belong to a loving, tolerant religion like Christianity spewing forth their bile and hatred seems worthy of note to some people...

One of the favorite ploys of the anti-fundies I've encountered, including -- maybe even especially -- the ones who are professing Christians, is to claim that fundies are really "Paulians," because Jesus was all lovey-dovey nicey-nice, but Paul was an arrogant bigoted bluenosed homophobe misogynist. It's always fun to point them to the violent acts and outrageously hard and unloving sayings of Jesus.

and I guess you can either see the humour in the self-contradiction/hypocracy, or you could weep. Indeed. I've met a few people like that, and it can be quite upsetting. I think far and away the bulk of people quoted on FSTDT are of this type, rather than common or garden Christians who don't believe insane, counter-intuitive, paranoid or plain hate filled dogma that has nothing to do with Jesus' message.

I would say that one really cannot even *be* a Christian without believing a fair amount of "dogma" that is counter-intuitive or (in the perception of the "natural" mind) insane.

 

[NorrinRadd]

...
I got a rating of 3.09 on the fundy scale, which apparently means I'm more fundie than I am not. ...

Bow to me. I got, like, 4.22 or 4.25 or something in that range.

I am fundier than thou.

 

[SallyNow]

One of the favorite ploys of the anti-fundies I've encountered, including -- maybe even especially -- the ones who are professing Christians, is to claim that fundies are really "Paulians," because Jesus was all lovey-dovey nicey-nice, but Paul was an arrogant bigoted bluenosed homophobe misogynist. It's always fun to point them to the violent acts and outrageously hard and unloving sayings of Jesus

I would say that one really cannot even *be* a Christian without believing a fair amount of "dogma" that is counter-intuitive or (in the perception of the "natural" mind) insane.

Why do threads about how rude some people can be towards fundementalist Christians always turn into attacks against moderate and liberal Christians?

I see one difference. Instead of doing it *here* or on other regular forums, they take their frustration off to a different little corner of the internet, designed specifically for ranting and venting frustration. The few times I have posted comments there, it was because I was so hurt and angry over what was said that I needed to say something, but I knew if I responded on the regular board, I wouldn't be able to be polite and would end up hurting somebody else. The people who are saying things like


are actually attacking the person "to their face."
And often, people do go and read the thread, and when something is taken completely out of context, somebody points that out.

I also admit to browsing there occasionally, especially when I've seen a vicious attack by someone who identifies themselves as a fundementalist Christian on this board. Sometimes it turns out they were a troll, and I've been relieved.

When a post isn't really that "darntastic", or it has taken out of context, or is Christian in nature but not actually claiming any scientific or psychological fallacies, most people will point it out, and the post gets taken down.

Yes, there are some very rude comments on fstdt, but many times it is because liberal Christians, non-Christians, agnostics, or atheists have been really hurt by something that has been said. They post what they are complaining about directly. Other times it's just someone being really rude for the sake of being really rude. That's just rude.

And I also think that there are a few trolls and poes that say nasty things pretending to be fundementalist Christians just to get on FSTDT.

 

[NorrinRadd]

Originally Posted by NorrinRadd

One of the favorite ploys of the anti-fundies I've encountered, including -- maybe even especially -- the ones who are professing Christians, is to claim that fundies are really "Paulians," because Jesus was all lovey-dovey nicey-nice, but Paul was an arrogant bigoted bluenosed homophobe misogynist. It's always fun to point them to the violent acts and outrageously hard and unloving sayings of Jesus

I would say that one really cannot even *be* a Christian without believing a fair amount of "dogma" that is counter-intuitive or (in the perception of the "natural" mind) insane.
​

Why do threads about how rude some people can be towards fundementalist Christians always turn into attacks against moderate and liberal Christians? ...

Howdy.

Could you point out what I said that you construed as an "attack"? Seriously, I don't get it.

 

[Nadiine]

Why do threads about how rude some people can be towards fundementalist Christians always turn into attacks against moderate and liberal Christians?



I also admit to browsing there occasionally, especially when I've seen a vicious attack by someone who identifies themselves as a fundementalist Christian on this board. Sometimes it turns out they were a troll, and I've been relieved.

When a post isn't really that "darntastic", or it has taken out of context, or is Christian in nature but not actually claiming any scientific or psychological fallacies, most people will point it out, and the post gets taken down.

Yes, there are some very rude comments on fstdt, but many times it is because liberal Christians, non-Christians, agnostics, or atheists have been really hurt by something that has been said. They post what they are complaining about directly. Other times it's just someone being really rude for the sake of being really rude. That's just rude.

And I also think that there are a few trolls and poes that say nasty things pretending to be fundementalist Christians just to get on FSTDT.

I don't know why trolls do it - I tend to think it's just to make Christianity look like it's full of raging loons personally.
Either way they'll meet up with the one they're trying to harm and give account.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Originally Posted by NorrinRadd

One of the favorite ploys of the anti-fundies I've encountered, including -- maybe even especially -- the ones who are professing Christians, is to claim that fundies are really "Paulians," because Jesus was all lovey-dovey nicey-nice, but Paul was an arrogant bigoted bluenosed homophobe misogynist. It's always fun to point them to the violent acts and outrageously hard and unloving sayings of Jesus​

Those who say things like that really don't understand Paul. Of all the NT writers, he was the one who was all about Grace. After Jesus, Paul is my main man, my favorite NT personality!

I would say that one really cannot even *be* a Christian without believing a fair amount of "dogma" that is counter-intuitive or (in the perception of the "natural" mind) insane.

I think Paul said that too, and even more succinctly.
​

 

[Nadiine]

Paul is this girl's HERO - can't wait to meet that man & share some cheesecake while I'm surrounded by a zoo of animals.
lol (BLISS) =)~

 

[SallyNow]

Originally Posted by NorrinRadd

One of the favorite ploys of the anti-fundies I've encountered, including -- maybe even especially -- the ones who are professing Christians, is to claim that fundies are really "Paulians," because Jesus was all lovey-dovey nicey-nice, but Paul was an arrogant bigoted bluenosed homophobe misogynist. It's always fun to point them to the violent acts and outrageously hard and unloving sayings of Jesus

I would say that one really cannot even *be* a Christian without believing a fair amount of "dogma" that is counter-intuitive or (in the perception of the "natural" mind) insane.

​

Howdy.

Could you point out what I said that you construed as an "attack"? Seriously, I don't get it.

I don't really want to start a debate (this isn't the place for it) but it does seem that having "fun" with hurting the faith of others is a sort of attack.

I'm going to bow out now, I really didn't want to start a debate, just put in another side to the issue. I will answer any other questions you may have, though.

 

[NorrinRadd]

I don't really want to start a debate (this isn't the place for it) but it does seem that having "fun" with hurting the faith of others is a sort of attack.

I'm going to bow out now, I really didn't want to start a debate, just put in another side to the issue. I will answer any other questions you may have, though.

As you wish.

You've left me sort of scratching my head because of all those little question marks dancing on top of it -- -- but I'll live.

 

[SallyNow]

As you wish.

You've left me sort of scratching my head because of all those little question marks dancing on top of it -- -- but I'll live.

If they get too annoying, then do ask the questions. I'll answer them

 

[NorrinRadd]

If they get too annoying, then do ask the questions. I'll answer them

Well, the only question I have right now is still the one about why you took what I said as an "attack" against moderate or liberal Christians. If you're concerned about a debate erupting if you answer here, you could PM me. Or, if you'd like to keep it public, we could start a thread in WWMC and copy and paste part of this thread there.

But if you'd prefer to drop the matter, that's too.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

Agreed...
I checked their page out and they even have me quoted on there, with comments to poke fun and all that.

I got a rating of 3.09 on the fundy scale, which apparently means I'm more fundie than I am not. Oh well... I'm actually a tad humored to be included.

Could you tell me where to find out my rating? I looked and couldn't tell. I'm curious.

 

[Nadiine]

In general, I have always said that those who attack Paul yet claim they're Christians, are shooting themselves in the foot as to their actual faith.
Becuz it's only Paul who brings the clarification of grace over law. And gives so much teaching on what has changed from the OT due to Christ's sacrifice. He explains how we become new in spirit, how to witness, clarification on church structure and leadership, etc.

Paul's done the most for us spiritually speaking in liberating us as God's people in the new Grace covenant as Christ's bride, yet they attack him becuz he lists the moral sins that are still forbidden... it's nothing but bias imo.

If Paul is right in his grace over law, and liberties in Christ, and love over condemnation, then how is he wrong in the corrections he wrote to the churches where he has to teach proper judgment and list the moral sins? You can't have both when it's penned from the same man's hand.

Paul was phenomenal - his love of the saints was beyond belief.
People want their sin and God's kingdom both. Taking the blessings without obeying the commands. Nothing is new under the sun.

 

[spinningtutu]

I agree with Nadiine's post.

I'm not sure when the trend started, but the "Paul started a new religion that wasn't of Jesus" is a bit old, as far as I'm concerned. I think it is horrible to produce Jesus vs Paul dichotomies.

Paul was a faithful communicator of the gospel message and the kingdom of heaven. He just systematized everything and drew things to their conclusions... as someone firmly rooted as a Pharisee, he was the perfect vessel for God to use to show how the dispensation of Christ brings forth a new liberation.

And one more thing, for the record, I *don't* consider myself to be a "Liberal"... but, if I may say so, in his historical context, Paul said some amazingly liberal things.
So yes, lets not shoot our own feet.

 

[Nadiine]

I agree with Nadiine's post.

I'm not sure when the trend started, but the "Paul started a new religion that wasn't of Jesus" is a bit old, as far as I'm concerned. I think it is horrible to produce Jesus vs Paul dichotomies.

Paul was a faithful communicator of the gospel message and the kingdom of heaven. He just systematized everything and drew things to their conclusions... as someone firmly rooted as a Pharisee, he was the perfect vessel for God to use to show how the dispensation of Christ brings forth a new liberation.

And one more thing, for the record, I *don't* consider myself to be a "Liberal"... but, if I may say so, in his historical context, Paul said some amazingly liberal things.
So yes, lets not shoot our own feet.

You bring up a good point about Paul - to the legalistic Jews, he was very 'liberal' in bringing grace and mercy over letter of law which they were used to.
I agree with that. I think today liberal has been taken over to mean anything nontraditional or unorthodox...

While Paul brought radical teachings, he was still very traditional and conservative in morality and even custom. It wasn't a license to go live in sin & have salvation too like it's been turned into today.

One more thing I'd add, Paul also has the support and backing of the other disciples who did walk with Jesus.
If you read 2 Peter 2:15-16, Peter called Paul his brother and confirmed his epistles as from God. So unless Peter is a liar & heretic... I think Paul's credibility stands. (Paul had to defend his credentials to the Corinthians too; even then wolves were in the church trying to undermine his authority in the church, and no wonder; he was one powerful ambassador
for Christ).

 

[spinningtutu]

hey, Paul experienced the risen Christ. works for me.

plus, I'm very excited at the thought of redeeming both the word "liberal" and "fundamentalist"... it would appear as though I really *can* be both, that the Lamb and the Goat will finally come together.

 

[Nadiine]

hey, Paul experienced the risen Christ. works for me.

plus, I'm very excited at the thought of redeeming both the word "liberal" and "fundamentalist"... it would appear as though I really *can* be both, that the Lamb and the Goat will finally come together.

Um don't get too excited there, goats are separated from sheep as per Jesus' own teaching.

Paul was not liberal - he was conservative and traditional; but compared to the pharisees & people who only knew law, his teachings on grace, love & mercy would be viewed as liberal if they didn't understand the prophecies of the OT that a new covenant was being introduced by the Messiah.