Hi All

"The first duty of love is to listen." -- Paul Tillich

My path stresses the value of being able to put oneself into the position of another. We build so many inner walls that it is a very difficult thing to do. I know this from experience. I remember once completely underestimating another on my path simply from prejudgment. It was a sobering experience.

If I am drawn philosophically to understanding the meaning and purpose of human life on earth, listening is a skill necessary for me to become better at. Otherwise the heart of philosophy which provides experiential "meaning" is built on imagination which cannot lead to wisdom.

Simone Weil wrote: "Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity." Attentive opening of our psych to receive the impressions of another without prejudgment is required to put oneself into the position of another. Otherwise we first color the experience with our own defenses and/or imagined self importance.

What better way on the Internet to put oneself into the position of another then inviting another to express themselves while paying attention so as to try to put myself into their position. Rather then debate, these interviews are attempts to further the understanding by creating through questioning the means that help another to express themselves leading to a more detailed and better discussions .

Hopefully members will find some ideas brought by the one interviewed worth discussing. It can be done on another board while this one is to clarify the beliefs of the one being interviewed.

If philosophy is the love of wisdom that some are drawn to, what better way to further our understanding then in seeking to understand the process: our attraction to what provides "meaning." The essential purpose of interviews will be to understand the need for "meaning" in another without criticism for the sake of bettering the interviewer's understanding. If someone else profits, so much the better.

"For when two beings who are not friends are near each other there is no meeting, and when friends are far apart there is no separation." Simone Weil

Perhaps the distance between the two lessens the more we can put ourselves into the position of another.

The first interview will be with Lilly who I know as a Fundamentalist from another site. So rather then define Lilly as a Fundamentalist, I seek to know Lilly as as person and what attracts her to Fundamentalism

I am more attracted to esoteric Christianity which doesn't prevent me from accepting that certain ideas are fundamentally important. So I'll try to get to know Lilly and her atraction to fundamentalism.

Hi Lilly and welcome to Online Philosophy Club. We'll get the tea pot going and then perhaps I can learn a bit about you and Fundamentalism.

I know you as a Fundamentalist so I'd first like to ask you to explain what Fundamentalism means to you. I don't know how old you are but regardless, did you grow up with your path or did you discover it? I discovered mine in my thirties for example.

What was its initial attraction for you?

Lilly, would you say that this time of choice was more an emotional or an intellectual experience? I guess I'm asking if the sense of truth in the experience was more a unique emotional experience or an intellectual revelation that has begun to allow you to separate the truth from the lie as the Bioble has opened to you. Do you relate your experience to what Jesus described as needing new eyes to see and ears to hear

Could you elaborate on what you mean by the "fundamental meaning of Christianity?" Does this fundamental meaning transcend the normal beliefs of various sects? Philosophically, do you relate it to wisdom as described in the Bible? Wisdom is speaking:

(Proverbs 8:22-33)

The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water...
When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth... when he gave the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment; when he appointed the foundations of the earth: then I was by him...
Now therefore harken unto me, O ye children: for blessed are they that keep my ways.
Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not.

Wisdom must contain logic to be wise and if proverbs is correct, this knowledge existed from the beginning. Do your experiences suggest that the fundamental meaning of Christianity can translate into wisdom both emtionally and through reason?

Hi Lilly

Is your belief open to the idea that though God is distinct and separate from creation, God is also within the Son as well as Man?

John 14

9Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.

I've come to understand this logically by considering a log in a pond and me as a log. The log is in a large body of water but the water is also within the log. Jesus said that the kingdom is within. So even though we are less then a speck within creation and a God beyond our conception, the source is still within the speck. Does fundamentalism deny this possibility?

Since this is an interview, don't worry about negativity even though you've probably suffered much ridicule over this question. You wrote:

I believe we need God's guidance and revelation to teach us his will and his ways.

How do we know what is God's guidance and what is self deception? Jesus said that the influence of false prophets is so powerful that it could almost effect the elect. For the typical believer it is easy to be mislead. So when John suggests to "Test the Spirits," what does this mean to you as a fundamentalist?

You suggest we have to be told how to act since this knowledge is not innate. Paul describes himself as the wretched man in Romans 7 and this hypocrisy can only be reconciled through what Jesus brought. This implies that Christianity is more then how to act but in the change of what we ARE through "re-birth. So my question for you is how you as a fundamentalist appreciates Christian re-birth? Is the "wretched Man" for you reborn by the experience of metanoia or is re-birth the potential of metanoia for the wretched man: the change of what we ARE?

This post will require a shot of Brandy in my tea. Feel free to join me.

What have you learned that suggests the world to be ruled by God? From what I've read, the Lord's Prayer is not for the World but rather for individuals capable of appreciating it.

Jesus as well as Socrates assert that the World must hate the message of world blindness. If the message does not arise in the world but rather from above, is the world saved in your beliefs or just those in the world but not of it? How does your fundamentalism appreciate this extraordinary biblical passage?

6"I have revealed you[a] to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. 7Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. 8For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me. 9I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours. 10All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them. 11I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one. 12While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled. 13"I am coming to you now, but I say these things while I am still in the world, so that they may have the full measure of my joy within them. 14I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. 15My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. 16They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17Sanctify[b] them by the truth; your word is truth. 18As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. 19For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.
Jesus Prays for All Believers
20"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. 24"Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world. 25"Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. 26I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them."

You wrote:

To me it means that I must do my part in study and prayer to understand the things of God, but most importantly I must trust God to keep me on the right path. We are likened to sheep. Sheep easily lose their way. That's why we need a shepherd and Christ is our Shepherd. We are to keep our eyes on him so that we don't get drawn into error. It is dependent on his faithfulness to us.

This is what is so difficult to understand. Muslim extremists will say the same thing and sincerely believe they are serving the will of Allah during acts of terrorism. IMO it is just devolving spiritual meaning into secular meaning for political gain.

Simone Weil as usual expresses profound understanding in her beautiful laconic fashion:

In what concerns divine things, belief is not appropriate. Only certainty will do. Anything less than certainty is unworthy of God. Simone Weil

“Denial of St Peter. To say to Christ: ‘I will never deny you’ was to deny him already, for it was to suppose the source of faithfulness to be in himself and not in grace…. Peter did not deny Christ when he broke his promise, but when he made it.” Simone Weil

It seems then that we have this tendency to confuse divine things with secular goals. Do you believe our quality of faith adequate to be capable of opening to the help that enables distinguishing the wheat from the tares within?

This leads to a question you've probably been faced with before. I don't have to tell you that proselytizing is now a dirty word for many. Yet at the same time the unique nature of Christian love is to awaken a searching person to metanoia. As the song Amazing Grace goes: "Was blind but now I see." It is very unfortunate IMO in modern tiomes that so few distinguish between the two

Jesus of course had this love and it was experienced by the apostles. A person doesn't drop everything to follow Jesus because of a sales pitch. They were awakened to the experience of metanoia through the experience of the energy of divine love that moved through Jesus.

So the energy expressed through Christian love to whatever degree of purity can only be given by one who has it to some extent. I know by experience that many preaching do not have it and are just on an ego trip.

Have you considered this great question of Christian love compared to proselytizing? Where Christian Love is essential for the awakening of those in the world but not of it, proselytizing just supports egotism in the world creating slavery rather then the freedom offered through Christian love.

Does your fundamentalism appreciate this distinction?

Hi Lilly

Please remember that this is an interview rather then a debate. When I ask these questions, don't take them as a challenge but rather as an invitation for clarification. My purpose is neither to agree or disagree but to understand your beliefs.

The Internet is good for stereotyping and fundamentalism on many sites has an unfavorable connotation for many. You are showing that a Fundamentalist can be a nice thoughtful person with good intentions.

Here Jesus is praying for his disciples. He is moving to the next stage where his disciples will be left in a sinful world without him and prays for the Father to protect them from the sinfulness of man. Jesus' disciples have been given the gospel message to take to the world and to call out men from all nations to follow God's Anointed.
Do you take this to mean just reciting scripture as sufficient or also having acquired a certain inner growth that allows scripture to live?

I've always liked this passage by Meister Eckhart

People should not worry as much about what they do but rather about what they are. If they and their ways are good, then their deeds are radiant. If you are righteous, then what you do will also be righteous. We should not think that holiness is based on what we do but rather on what we are, for it is not our works which sanctify us but we who sanctify our works.

From this perspective it seems that an emphasis must be placed on what we ARE which gives the Christian value to what we do.

Does your fundamentalism agree with Meister Eckhart here?

Um... I don't see a connection at all. I'm not a Muslim terrorist. I don't follow the Prophet Mohammed nor trust in his teaching. My faith is in Jesus and his teaching. He never told me to be a terrorist. He told me to love my neighbor, to do good to my enemy. He told me to live at peace with all men as much as it is in my power to do so. This is the teaching I look to for guidance. How is that anything like Islam or terrorism? The difference between me and a Muslim terrorist is that I follow Christ, they follow Mohammed and the fundamental teachings of these two men are as different as night and day.

You misunderstood the question. I didn't mean to imply that you would side with terrorists. I was only questioning the value of faith. It seems that as it is normally understood, it can be double edged.

Those that supported the Spanish Inquisition for example would say that they had faith. I'm not arguing faith here though after the Interview it would make a great topic for a forum discussion.

But you must admit that Jesus said we have little faith if any at all. The apostles who believed asked to have their faith increased. Jesus said the Centurion had great faith. It seems as though that there is something underneath this concept of faith that may be underestimated. I'm only asking now if as a fundamentalist, do you believe you have acquired either the faith of the centurion or what the apostles asked for more of? It raises the interesting question of the difference between faith IN Jesus and the faith OF Jesus which is a worthwhile discussion later. Now we are just painting a general picture of what you are as a good human being and a fundamentalist.

The natural question now is how Fundamentalism has benefited and affected your life and your relations with others?

I disagree with her statement. There is no certainty in the things of God. We are not even certain that God exists. There is no proof. He has not made himself known to us through certainty. My belief tells me that we can only know God through Spirit. We can only know God through faith, believing that he is and that he rewards those who seek him. If you're looking for certainty, you will never find it because all you have is belief.

But isn't this why the Christian seeks the direct experience of gnosis? Did Paul experience Jesus and in modern times, did Simone Weil experience a connection which she explains in this letter to Father Perrin. She knew she was dying and he wanted to know her better. This letter he released is now considered her spiritual autobiography. In it she wrote:

http://www.rivertext.com/weil3c..html

There was a young English Catholic there from whom I gained my first idea of the supernatural power of the sacraments because of the truly angelic radiance with which he seemed to be clothed after going to communion. Chance -- for I always prefer saying chance rather than Providence -- made of him a messenger to me. For he told me of the existence of those English poets of the seventeenth century who are named metaphysical. In reading them later on, I discovered the poem of which I read you what is unfortunately a very inadequate translation. It is called "Love". I learned it by heart. Often, at the culminating point of a violent headache, I make myself say it over, concentrating all my attention upon it and clinging with all my soul to the tenderness it enshrines. I used to think I was merely reciting it as a beautiful poem, but without my knowing it the recitation had the virtue of a prayer. It was during one of these recitations that, as I told you, Christ himself came down and took possession of me.

In my arguments about the insolubility of the problem of God I had never foreseen the possibility of that, of a real contact, person to person, here below, between a human being and God I had vaguely heard tell of things of this kind, but I had never believed in them. In the Fioretti the accounts of apparitions rather put me off if anything, like the miracles in the Gospel. Moreover, in this sudden possession of me by Christ, neither my senses nor my imagination had any part; I only felt in the midst of my suffering the presence of a love, like that which one can read in the smile on a beloved face.

I had never read any mystical works because I had never felt any call to read them. In reading as in other things I have always striven to practice obedience. There is nothing more favorable to intellectual progress, for as far as possible I only read what I am hungry for at the moment when I have an appetite for it, and then I do not read, I eat. God in his mercy had prevented me from reading the mystics, so that it should be evident to me that I had not invented this absolutely unexpected contact.

Yet I still half refused, not my love but my intelligence. For it seemed to me certain, and I still think so today, that one can never wrestle enough with God if one does so out of pure regard for the truth. Christ likes us to prefer truth to him because, before being Christ, he is truth. If one turns aside from him to go toward the truth, one will not go far before falling into his arms............

Would you accept the possibility that Simone had a genuine Christian experience?

To proselytize is to try to convert someone to your way of thinking whether it's about faith, doctrine, a cause, or what have you. We are all trying to convince each other to believe as we do. I find no fault in that because I think what I believe is the truth. I'm sure you do too. So we try to convince each other to believe the way we do because we think it's the best way. If I didn't think my belief was the best one, I would change my belief.

But we're back to the previous question. I am only speaking theoretically here and not referring to you. But is Christianity primarily beliefs or an experience? If it is an experience can it be shared without first experiencing and retaining it? Would you admit the possibility that there is great danger for those that diminish a person new to Christianity by stressing beliefs?

Matthew 18:

5"And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. 6But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

Jesus isn't referring to a child in the normal usage but rather as one who is new to what Jesus brought. They are vulnerable to those with beliefs but lacking the substance of understanding. I've often wondered if some people doing exactly this have the slightest awareness of it.

Do you and fundamentalism in general have a similar concern for the damage that can be done to a new one through beliefs?

Hi Lilly

You've been sincere in explaining your beliefs. They raise a lot of good questions including the nature of faith, belief, self deception, and receiving and expressing the spirit.

Do you believe Christian music for example invites expressing the Spirit or an egotistical emotional response? Since my beliefs make me more wary of self deception, my experience with much of modern Christian music has been an emotional expression of egotism and imagination rather then an expression of the Spirit.

What has been your experience with modern Christian music?

I believe that a free society requires acknowledging a need for the help of grace to remain free and grow. What would you say is the role and potential for fundamentalism in an increasingly secular society?

For example, even a period of silent prayer in the beginning of a school day annoys someone. Yet it is psychologically valuable for a student to settle down in this way. Politics denies it so kids suffer.

Regardless of our differences, how do you believe fundamentalism should present itself to an increasingly secular nation that loves nothing better then attacking and ridiculing it?

There are charlatans in Fundamentalism as there are in anything else. Fundamentalism though is often defined by its charlatans. How do you deal with it and how do you believe fundamentalism as a whole should deal with it?

Hi Lilly

I enjoy Christian music very much. We are exhorted in Scripture to sing praises to the Lord. We are told to worship him. I would not criticize another man's worship of God. That's for God alone to judge. Self deception and pride may certainly occur in some people, but how can I judge between that and someone's sincere expression of love towards God. Here are three songs I like. I think the words are good.

Would you be open to the idea that for some there is primarily the need to receive Christianity while for others as with Christian music, there is a dominant need to express their impressions of Christianity? Is it possible that egoistic expression denies a person the openness to receive the Spirit replacing it with hyper emotional expression?

If our nation elects representative who outlaw prayer or even a moment of silence in schools, then Christians should obey the law. In this country we have the privilege of taking part in the political process and express our views, but Christianity isn't about politics. It's about Christ, and if we lose the right to express ourselves as citizens, then we lose that right, but we must remain faithful to God. We as Christian Americans have had an easy time of it compared to Christians living in other nations. If that changes, then it changes and we will have to adjust. Whatever the political powers that be decide, Christians will remain Christians at heart.

What is your opinion of the Christian conservative movement. It is a political movement. Do you believe it is worth fighting for or is it better just to let be what will be and concentrate on turning the other cheek?

We have been told this would happen. Peter writes, "But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their shameful ways and bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping."

Do you think that a false prophet knows they are a false prophet or do they believe they are genuine? What would you say is the greatest distinction between a real and false prophet?

These are all questions I believe the average person considers. I'm interested in your answers not to define right and wrong but just to give indications of how you expressing fundamentalism would reply if someone asked you next week?

Hi Lilly and happy Labor Day. You wrote:

In my view, no. That's because I believe we are all self centered at heart as a part of our sinful nature. When we receive Christ he imparts to us the Spirit of God to lead us into righteousness, including convicting us of egotism. In other words, we don't clean ourselves up in order to receive God's Spirit. We receive God's Spirit so he can clean us up. If we are egotistical and emotional, the Spirit will help us with that. For our part we must follow the leading of the Spirit so we don't fulfill the lusts of the flesh. When we follow the leading of God's Spirit to do what is right, we become the sons of God.

I'd like to clarify this. It appears as if we don't have a responsibilty to aid in receiving the spirit other then believing and not fulfilling the lust of the flesh.

What does it mean to fulfill the lust of the flesh as opposed to just doing what is natural? Is sex for example considered such a lust or does sexual lust refer to something else.

Also, how do you interpret the Parable of the Ten Virgins in Matthew 25:

1"At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. 2Five of them were foolish and five were wise. 3The foolish ones took their lamps but did not take any oil with them. 4The wise, however, took oil in jars along with their lamps. 5The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep.
6"At midnight the cry rang out: 'Here's the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!'

7"Then all the virgins woke up and trimmed their lamps. 8The foolish ones said to the wise, 'Give us some of your oil; our lamps are going out.'

9" 'No,' they replied, 'there may not be enough for both us and you. Instead, go to those who sell oil and buy some for yourselves.'

10"But while they were on their way to buy the oil, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut.

11"Later the others also came. 'Sir! Sir!' they said. 'Open the door for us!'

12"But he replied, 'I tell you the truth, I don't know you.'

13"Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.

We would agree that this is deep psychology. Do you believe we have a responsibilty to psychologically provide this oil or does it come automatically? What does oil represent? If we have no responsibility, what do you see as the essential difference between the wise and foolish virgins?

"It is what Christians do."

I hope this interview has served to question the legitimacy of this assertion as well as the legitimacy of stereotyping and classification. You've expressed your beliefs in a fashion that doesn't threaten anyone. If the worst sin you have is the desire to live by the golden rule, it doesn't make you a bad person even though to some you would be considered one of those "fundamentalists" and you know what they do.

Society admits the danger of stereotyping with select groups. If I were to say for example "It is what blacks do," I'd never hear the end of it. Yet it is acceptable for certain groups such as this mysterious category "Christians."

Above all you are an individual and cannot be considered the same as anyone else because of stereotyping. I'm simply respecting our differences rather than denying them.

What would you say is the future for the fundamentalist influence in an increasingly secular society? Will it lessen or become more attractive if as I believe the psychological results of secularism become more obvious?

How do you like this idea of interviews? I believe that getting to know you and your beliefs through expanded conversation provides advantages over brief criticisms and ridicule all too common for Internet sites and inviting more respectful and meaningful dialogue. Questions for example as to the belief in the devil wouldn't have to be coated in ridicule after reading an interview. I believe as a whole interviews can be beneficial for an Internet site. Do you agree?

The next interview I hope to have is with an exponent of Theosophy which has a profound philosophy. Some people calling themselves fundamentalists would accuse it of being demonic.

My great great grand uncle was an archbishop in the Armenian church and friendly with Helena Blavatsky the founder of Theosophy. While researching him I read this excerpt from the sister of Madam Blavatsky unrelated to my ancestor yet food for thought:

H.P. recalled this epoch in later years with terror and contempt of her helpless and uncontrollable mediumism. After several years she completely subordinated to her will these powers, the pernicious nature and evil origin of which she explained in her works, with full confidence in her judgment, but possibly being wrong.[5]

Next year Blavatsky went to Tiflis. On her way, at a church service at Sadonsk, she was recognized by the Most Reverend Isidor, former Exarch of Georgia, and later Metropolitan of St. Petersburg, who came to Sadonsk on his way from Kiev. He had known Blavatsky in her youth in Tiflis and he sent a servant to her with an invitation to visit him. Isidor enquired how and where she had traveled, where she was going now, etc. He very soon noticed the phenomena which surrounded her and was deeply interested in them; he questioned her about them, put mental questions, and, after receiving sensible A answers, was still more surprised. When saying good-bye, he blessed her and said words regarding her exceptional gifts, words which always remained very dear to her, as the opinion on her gift of a high priest of the Orthodox Church. He said: "Every power comes from God, you need not feel dismayed if you do not abuse this power given to you. There are many undiscovered powers in nature. Many of them are not known to man, but it is not forbidden to discover and to use them. Man will gradually obtain control over these powers and will be able to apply them usefully for humanity. God bless you in all your kind and good deeds.

I believe that there isn't any essential conflict. In reality the value of such talents is determined by their use and if they deny the Spirit in favor of glorified egotism. IMO that could be a good discussion but requires more than brief platitudes or condemnations. My gut feeling is that interviews require us to be open to another. Otherwise it isn't an interview but rather a "trial." Would you agree?

Some people may get the idea that an interview is elitist but it isn't so. It simply is a way to allow you or anyone being interviewed to elaborate so as to be better understood as a person rather than a group stereotype benefiting dialogue in general.

Introduce yourself on the introductions board so some members can say hi to you?

I've appreciated the opportunity to explore your beliefs in this interview. I hope you've appreciated the opportunity to clarify your attraction to Fundamentalism as well.

All the best

Nick

Hi Lilly

I'm glad you enjoyed it. I think this board could be built on interviews and one on one discussions which could present people in a new light. The key is to stick with the game plan and not allow an exchange to devolve into attack and defense.

You may want to invite someone here with sincere beliefs and the disposition to be interviewed. Then you could check with Scott. Anyone can do the same. It requires the mindset to interview with the idea of clarifying the ideas of another rather then attacking them. Present a good meaningful interview to Scott and I believe he would allow it.