Who is the Real Fundimentalist

I have been busy over at Tony Jones' Blog. They posed a question about being 'intersexed' and I have been responding to one person specifically, Panthera.

I am going to post the conversation that has being occurring between He (?) and I, the goal of this is to see who the real fundimentalist is within this conversation.

panthera:

dustin germain my marriage is legitimate. What you and your hateful version of Christianity thinks is totally irrelevant.

For what it's worth, my opinion is very simply put:

You should love the person who loves you. Build a committed, monogamous, loving, faithful and true marriage. Who cares what your chromosomal status or your sexuality is, marriage is strictly between two people and not determined by hateful conservative Christians.

Regardless of how often they rape, torture, beat and kill us.

Me:

Panthera~

I don't know what your story is, or frankly anything about who you are, and I'm not trying put on a pretense of judgment towards you, however, I think that for the Christian, the word of God must be our Authority for Truth. There are so many experiences, philosophies, sects, cults, and religious persons that I believe that to submit to any of them outside of scripture is folly.In Short, We must have an Arbiter of truth that is external from us.

That said I am a conservative Christian. I have never Raped, Tortured, Beat or Killed anyone and being as I don't even know who you are I clearly don't hate you. That said, I am, because of my belief in Sola Scriptura, against any and all forms of marriage that are not given to be valid covenantally by the Word of God (see Gen. 1-2, Matthew 19). I am forced by my love for scripture and the God of Scripture to say that out side of God instituting a covenant, persons in committed, monogamous,loving, lifelong relationships are still fornicating, an act described as sin by both the New and Old Testaments.

Is it possible for you to see that perhaps persons who take the view that I have just outlined are not hate-mongers, but rather are people who lovingly desire for you to not come under condemnation from God Almighty?

panthera:

Of course it is possible for me, Ken.

I find it sad that you needs must imprison God by limiting Him to your interpretation of the Bible. And that is what you do.

Calling my marriage fornication is absurd. Do you really think I would abandon my husband just to satisfy your mumbo-jumbo?

Not going to happen.

There is little charity amongst you fundamentalist Christians, little indeed if you can call a faithful partnership of 25 years a sin.

Oh, and, yes, I am a Christian. You can be a Christian and gay. Even a Christian and gay and married.

Me:

panthera -

I would like to systematically address your response.

1. I think that it is completely irrational and unreasonable to say that I am imprisoning God. If the text explains God, then holding to that isn't an imprisonment, but rather a representation. This type of language serves more to Poison the Well, rather then to make a rational argument.

2. I am not calling your marriage fornication, I am saying that I do not believe that you can support from scripture same-sex marriage, being covenantally begun by God. I would also note that Dee Bradshaw a pastor in the MCC in his debate with Dr. James White said that he could not do so.

3. Do I really think you would abandon your husband just to satisfy my "mumbo-jumbo?" No, I don't. I don't think in fact if Jesus came down and told you that he did not approve of your actions that you would abandon your 'husband.' I hope that you understand that I mean that in the kindest was possible.

4. To say that there is little charity amongst fundamentalists may or may not be true, however, I am not a fundamentalist, which is frankly a derogatory term, that has no place in civil discussion. Notice that no where in what I have said did I Directly say that what you are doing is a sin. That is your conclusion from the logical case I am forwarding, but I did not use the word Sin.

5. I think that we must submit to 1 John as to what a Christian, I don't Judge you.

panthera:

Ken, you wrote, I answered. I won't get into the hysterical fundamentalist/conservative/literalistic/bible-as-God's-only-message discussion with you.

Calling a fundamentalist a fundamentalist is no more an insult than it was after church Sunday when a local farmer came up to me and said his b i t c h was in heat and did I think my dawg might spend the week with his family, 'cause he knows what to do with his nose.

That man would die for his pretty little dog, they're that close. But he still calls her by what she is.

Tony, I see little hope of any mercy from these people for anyone whom they consider 'other'.

Me:

Panthera ~

The clear issue is that I am not a Fundamentalist. As a matter of fact based on the definition of the term, by Richard Dowkins, You are more of a fundamentalist then I am. "Richard Dawkins has used the term to characterize religious advocates as clinging to a stubborn, entrenched position that defies reasoned argument or contradictory evidence."

The clear fact is that you, in our brief encounter, have done exactly this. Thus we must conclude that You are the Fundamentalist not I.

panthera:

Ken,
And Richard Dawkin's opinion is relevant because...?

I simply don't care how you self-identify. I have no interest in the mumbo-jumbo you practice in your version of Christianity in your church.

All I care about is that you cease attacking my status as a human and stop blocking my civil rights, including the right to have my marriage legally recognized in the US.

That is the difference between us - I am more than happy to leave you and your hatefilled ilk be. You recognize neither my status as Christian nor human, demanding I bend to your perverted, hatefilled will.

Ain't gonna happen.

I will die before I surrender to you and your nasty fellow travelers.

Me:

Panthera ~

Can you please show me, and everyone else reading this where exactly I have said you are "not-Human" in any interaction here.

I find it funny that you refuse to do anything but cry victim, as if I have dehumanized you, degraded you, or treated you at all poorly. When in fact I have done none of these things. I understand that you have no doubt been mistreated previously, which I openly condemn. I am simply trying to have a rational discussion with you about in issue.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I find it amazing that 1. I am not a nasty, hate-monger, anti-gay, dehumanizing, fundamentalist. However, looking at the more modern definition given by Richard Dawkins, I am asking:

Who is the Real Fundamentalist??

You be the Judge.