[Johnnyboysmac]

Having been reading the latest Christian v's Gay thread on this forum, I had a few troubling thoughts and decided to express a few of them.

The thing that troubles me the most about those kind of threads, and others of it's kind, is the observed tendency to always be thinking in terms of absolutes. Black and white. And fixed, no matter what argument or logic is brought to bear in the debate.

This of course, is a tenet of fundamentalism, of which the far Christian right is no exemption.

I noted, a few days back on the TV, comments from one of the US's many criminals to pay for his crimes with his life, this particular one (who's name escapes me) being an ex Baptist minister, who shot and killed some folks outside of an abortion clinic.

The part that really stood out, (apart from the crime itself) was his absolute and unswerving belief that he had done the right thing, because abortion was just plain wrong, and it said so in the bible, and that he was going to be rewarded in heaven, and would be at one with Jesus.

The point I make here, is the danger, and utter folly of taking religious tenets literally. Be they Christianity ( which I have used as a recent example, not to pillory Christianity specifically) or any other fundamentalist far right religious beliefs.

Fundamentalists not only believe they know 'ultimate' truth, but they OWN it too, which is to say, nothing can contradict or shake their beliefs, as any other premise or idea is entirely false, I mean, it tells one so does it not, either in the bible, or the Koran, etc, take your pic.

My contention is that fundamentalism is very much on the increase, to our considerable loss, and I for one see little difference other than the willingness to use violence, between the well meaning, but relatively harmless right wing Christian fundamentalism, as expressed by folks on this forum, and the also well meaning, (from their point of view) but pointedly very HARMFUL right wing fundamentalism practiced by the far right Muslim fanatics of whom sept 11 is but one sad and truly horrendous example.

Whether it be Christian or Muslim, or any other sort of fundamentalism, the same dogged and unshakeable belief in their particular interpretation of religious ideals is plainly apparent.

I'm quite sure that the Baptist minister was fully convinced of the 'righteousness' of his actions, re being able to find suitable Biblical Scripture to support it.

As did the Catholic church throughout the middle ages re the Italian and Spanish Inquisitions, burning people ALIVE at the stake, for the error of their ways, all the while BELIEVING that it was within both Biblical teaching and their moral duty as Chrisitans to do so.

Personally, I find Fundamentalism both religious and political quite reprehensible, and a danger to free thinking and living people everywhere.

I started this thread I guess out of a sense of frustration in the way that fundamentalists preach/push whatever their fixed tenets are, and try to influence, by whatever means they feel justifys the end, to assert those beliefs.

Be that by shooting people outside an abortion clinic, burning people alive at the stake, or stirring up minority hatred (most noticeably in recent history towards so called 'gay' folks) and of course, wars, bombs, terrorism etc etc.

Whether it be in the middle east, or in the US, fundamentalism is something that affects us all, and it would appear in the most negative of ways.

What do you think?

I'd be interested to hear everyones views.

Cheers

Johnboi

[nonhuman]

Well, I agree with you. I don't really know what else to say. Uh...

[simonjames]

good topic Johnboi - I too would like to hear about this including anyone with a psychological background that can shed light on the type of personality that believes they should impose themselves on you and the type that can lead to making violent crimes in the name of religion. What makes them do what they do?

[forkies]

What you describe, this strange desire to cling to what is permanent and absolute, is exactly what has recently turned me away from the Christian tradition. Sorry, guys, but things change.

[Xeo]

To me, it seems many people take what they learn growing up and hold onto it for life. People don't question what they were taught as children. Arguing with people who have inherited beliefs is impossible because to admit they are wrong, they are forced to admit their parents, teachers, priests, etc were wrong.

Along with that, they often only see their views, and the views of others as being right or wrong, and not something that can be both or neither.

I think this happens a lot with people who don't attend college. Those who spent their lives with their parents until they moved out on their own. It seems that more people who go to a 4-year, live-in-dorms, school come out with their own ideas instead of inherited ones. Living with other ideas around them force them to question their own and determine what they should hold onto and what needs to be rethought.

Now, obviously there are plenty of people who don't go to college but still question themselves and their ideals, determining for themselves what is right. And there are people who go to college who don't. Nothing is absolute, but that's the point, isn't it?

I think if people raised their children to be open-minded, teaching what open-mindedness is and encouraging it, it would benefit the world as a whole.

[gadster]

Interesting topic!

Looking at this community as a microcosm . . .

Certain members try to convert people to their point of view repeatedly on this forum. Repeatedly and relentlessly. It would be an interesting poll: who has changed their mind on an important personal belief as a result of persuasive arguments put forth by a MacNNer? My guess would be: no one.

And yet, annoyingly, they persist. Unswervingly doling out the pious homilies and admonitions, the pithy trolls, the biased bullshyte.

I put it down to fear. Fear of being unloved. Or worse, ignored.

What would the opposite of fundamentalism be called anyway, I wonder?

[Johnnyboysmac]

Forkies wrote

this strange desire to cling to what is permanent and absolute

I think that in any time of change, uncertainty, or just maybe facing the seemingly ephemeral existence of life, many people look for either security, solace, or something seemingly absolute, defined and unchangeable in their lives to give it a sense of purpose, meaning, and being 'grounded' in something.

Various religious beliefs the world over fufill that need, and I see nothing wrong with that. In fact, if it helps you in life, then I think that's really a good thing.

What does trouble me though, is how people cling to THEIR particular version/interpretation of say Biblical Scripture for example, and then quote that in the context of their personal 'take' on things as being absolute and unshakeable truth for everyone else, without question or reason. And everyone else is expected to conform to their view, or "else".

The 'else' often takes the form in our more moderate western democracies of such things as social ostracisation and alienation, as a small example, and other practices that are far from being demonstrations of the loving and caring religion that they purport to represent.

I have read on these forums many comments by those who I would loosely describe as being of the fundementalist Chrisitian Right, and it is a good example of the behaviour that concerns me - far from being a live and let live attitude rather sadly.

I am not anti-Christian, or religion generally, just the fundamentalist and unloving attitude that so often seems to go with it in these times, and at the extremes as I've mentioned, the violence, both physical and physcological.

Gadster wrote:

I put it down to fear. Fear of being unloved. Or worse, ignored.

One of the things that strikes me with folks with very strong right wing fundamentalist viewpoints, is that to challenge them is one thing, but for them to admit that they may be in ERROR, in anyway, shape or form, is just too confronting, as it undermines their whole value system upon which they've based their life.

So yes, it is an extremely fearful thing for a fundamentalist to contemplate acceptance in any form to any ideas other than their own fundamentalist view of things.

Curiously, I've observed a semblance of this behaviour in the way social groups of people accept or reject each other, based upon signals such as dress codes, behavioural patterns etc.

People are quite tribal, and a bit sheep-like at times, and if one doesn't toe the accepted line, one is out in the cold as it were.

Certainly my experiences/contact with fundamentalist religious groups bears this out; often it is toe the accepted line, or be excommunicated as it were.

For a fundamentalist, to be separated from his tribe, is a fearful thing, and they often blindly follow to gain the sense of acceptance and belonging that they often crave.

Strength in numbers, plus a reinforcing of their own 'irrefutable' views

Cheers

Johnboi

[AB^2=BCxAC]

The "war on terrorism" is looked at in the fundementalist muslim world as "the holy war".

Most americans would be appalled to think of themselves in a holy war, but here we are... agressively stepping down on fundementalist regimes that harken back to ages of mysticism and severe oppression. It needs to be done, but we also need to address the lack of dialogue needed open up some minds to the problems of fundementalism that are at the root of religious intolerance.

That's why when I see that we have religious nuts in the U.S. who can't be swayed from killing in the name of god, I realize how incompetent our society still is at being multi-cultural, despite all the progess, and why it's going to be so hard to help out in the middle-east if we set such a ridiculous example most of the time.

Personally, I see that fundementalists are so reactionary and spiteful that it's quite ridiculous to see them as deserving anything like a heavenly reward.

[Shaddim]

Sounds to me, like many people here are intolerant of Fundamentalism.

Now, I know that will garner an attack, but it is true none the less. It's not Fundamentalism that's at fault, it's intolerence.

If a person wants to live their life in strict personal religious obedience, that's fine. Conversely, if a person doesn't have any spiritual belief at all, that's fine. As long as no one is getting hurt, and as long as no one is being persecuted, people can believe what they want. That's freedom.

IMO, God gives man the right to choose, this is free will. So, doesn't man place himself above God if he tries to take that choice away from another? Now, I know that doesn't mean jack to many of you, it's specifically a description of my view and how I feel about the issue.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Sounds to me, like many people here are intolerant of Fundamentalism.

Of course, but they don't see it that way.

It's true, people only see it black and white.

As in you cannot disagree with homosexual sex, and NOT hate all homosexuals. To some people they can't separate that. I find that a lot in here.

So because I don't agree with the homosexual lifestyle, I am some kind of hate monger?

Does anyone not see the irony in that?

[sniffer]

Well, ignorance comes in many shapes Zimp, and I don't personally see that anything have been painted black and white here so far. But that is just me.

Nice input Johnnyboysmac.

[benb]

This is a good topic with a well thought out post. Thank you Jonhboi. I am glad that it did not escape without me seeing it.

If I may add to this thread about Christian Fundamentalism specifically:

I don't know if I would classify myself as a Christian Fundamentalist, I would call myself Reformed, but that is not the issue. However, I do share many of the same views as those you describe.

The dangers are not taking tenents literally, the danger is not taking all of them literally. For example, the Minister who comitted the abortion shooting. He took a tenant literally, namely he considered life in the womb life. He probably quotes David in 2 Samuel 12:23 and Luke 1:41. And possibly even Exodus 20:13, "You shall not murder" as justifcation for his actions. What a hypocrite! If only he was as well versed on all tenants of Christianity he wouldn't have missed Matthew 7:1, "Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, Let me take the speck out of your eye, and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out af your brother's eye."

There is nothing wrong with Christianity, just with us. There is nothing wrong with Fundamentalism, just wrong with what we do. Christians need to be careful that we do not focus on the "hot topics" of the day, neglecting the rest of scripture. I am sure that the minister who comitted that awful crime spent 90% or more of his time working agains abortion. That is not the job he was supposed to do. His job is edification, teaching, and leadership. Not changing a political climate. Christians get too caught up in trying to change the nation, to institute Christian policies and such. What a waste! You cannot legislate morals, good behavior, right thinking, or policy from a Christian standpoint and expect it to change one person. Sometimes I wonder if people doing this have actually ever studied the topic of thier role in Government.

The problem arises when we set out on a mission against a particular sin in society. Believe me, it is easy to get wrapped up in, because it is easy to talk about. Look at all the threads about homosexuality here for an example. It is a hot topic, and everyone can participate. There is lots and lots of books and articles on the subject. And it feels like a noble cause. But that is not what the Bible says we are to do. People can get so wrapped up in the topic that they neglect all study except say abortion. This is very bad because it keeps one from growing and maturing.

We do not elect one-issue candidates into office. Why then do most Fundamentalists live as one-issue Christians? I have no answer for that. And I fear my reply was a bit incoherent. But I felt it necessary to give a view from the other side of the fence and to voice the opinion that not all Christians think the Fundamentalist movement is a healthy one, or Biblical for that matter. (Fundamentalist being the political sense of the word, not the sense of holding all tenents to be true, and knowing that truth to be ultimate truth).



And on general fundamentalism and one's belief that they are absolutely right with regards to the truth:

I agree that most radical religious actions are carried out by the Fundamentalists of their respective institutions, but that does not necessarily mean fundamentalism is to blame. It is the person. And I would contend that they are not really a fundamentalist of their persuasion as well. Would a true fundamentalist (one who holds all tenants to be true and ultimate) fly planes into buildings or kill abortionists? No, because they know all tenents are true and apply to them. These radicals believe all tenants to be true, but believe that some do not apply. Be it that they are trumped by the greater good or someother reason. That is how one can commit the murder of one to stop the murder of another.


Basically, we need to be diligent in making sure that we do not believe that knowing truth does not make us dull in practicing that truth.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Sounds to me, like many people here are intolerant of Fundamentalism.

Now, I know that will garner an attack, but it is true none the less. It's not Fundamentalism that's at fault, it's intolerence.

The problem is that fundamentalists often have the crazy idea that everyone must believe exactly what they believe, and if they don't they must be compelled.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Nicko:
The problem is that fundamentalists often have the crazy idea that everyone must believe exactly what they believe, and if they don't they must be compelled.

Not really. I feel I shouldn't be called a "hate monger" because of my views.

I also feel that people complaining that my views aren't open as they would like kinda funny in a ironic way.

If you don't believe what I believe that is fine. But also don't expect me to view what you deem normal, normal.

I guess what I am saying, it works both ways.

[wataru]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Not really. I feel I shouldn't be called a "hate monger" because of my views.

I also feel that people complaining that my views aren't open as they would like kinda funny in a ironic way.

If you don't believe what I believe that is fine. But also don't expect me to view what you deem normal, normal.

I guess what I am saying, it works both ways.

When you get killed for not conforming to non-Fundamentalist ideals then we'll talk.

[Xeo]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Not really. I feel I shouldn't be called a "hate monger" because of my views.

I also feel that people complaining that my views aren't open as they would like kinda funny in a ironic way.

If you don't believe what I believe that is fine. But also don't expect me to view what you deem normal, normal.

I guess what I am saying, it works both ways.

So far, your posts in this thread seem to be defending yourself against attacks. No one has attacked or even mentioned you. No one has mentioned your views on homosexuality. Even in other threads where you're posts would fit, very few people call you a hate monger. Relax. Discuss the topic at hand.

But yes, I agree with you. It works all ways. Anyone can suffer from the "it's black and white" syndrome. But almost everything outside of simple math has more than one right answer. Christian fundamentalism is what is mainly being looked at because there are many examples. But every example can be applied in many other ways to help everyone examine and grow.

As I mentioned earlier, I believe the source is the unwillingness of some people to examine their own beliefs. People are so sure they are right that they don't ask the one question they need to at least once, "What if I'm wrong?" It's a hard question to ask. But to truly be strong in whatever you believe, I think it's necessary to first look at it as if you don't.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by wataru:
When you get killed for not conforming to non-Fundamentalist ideals then we'll talk.

When was the last time that has happened?

If you are talking about the abortion doctors assassinations, those people really have very little to do with real religion.

Wolves is sheeps clothing if you will.

Originally posted by Xeo:
So far, your posts in this thread seem to be defending yourself against attacks. No one has attacked or even mentioned you. No one has mentioned your views on homosexuality. Even in other threads where you're posts would fit, very few people call you a hate monger. Relax. Discuss the topic at hand.

I was discussing one side demanding acceptance, while belittling anyone that didn't agree. I was commenting on the irony.
[

[nonhuman]

Please no one respond to him so we can keep this very worthwhile thread on topic (nothing against you, Zimphire, I just think this topic is a really interesting one that wafrants discussion and am afraid that this topic will, as so many other have, be taken wildly off course by people deciding that they have to argue with you because they don't like you).

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally posted by Johnnyboysmac:
The part that really stood out, (apart from the crime itself) was his absolute and unswerving belief that he had done the right thing, because abortion was just plain wrong, and it said so in the bible, and that he was going to be rewarded in heaven, and would be at one with Jesus.

Given the choice in fundamentalism I'd rather have flowing wine and unspoilt virgins waiting for me in my afterlife

[Johnnyboysmac]

benb wrote:

There is nothing wrong with Christianity, just with us. There is nothing wrong with Fundamentalism, just wrong with what we do. Christians need to be careful that we do not focus on the "hot topics" of the day, neglecting the rest of scripture.

I appreciated reading your detailed and thoughtful post, however also picking up on the thoughts of others, it strikes me that fundamentalism, or literalism if you will, is often but not necessarily always, aligned with intolerance.

Literal interpretations of religious doctrine, in a 'fundamentalist' way, combined with intolerance and a lack of balance in terms of a scriptural 'overview' as you point out, is surely reponsible for many crimes of hate and violence, IMHO, be they manifested phsyically or physcologically.

But I'm glad to hear that not all folks of a Christian persuasion support fundamentalism, or see it as being Biblical or Scriptural.

There's some hope for the 'rest' of us then, as I wasn't planning on getting burnt at the stake anytime soon.

IMHO though, I would have thought that Christian tenets, mostly laid out in parable form by third party writers, 'reporting' as it were the 'facts' would always be open to some kind of interpretation, both good and bad, as indeed has been the case in the many translations of the Bible throughout the ages.

My contention is that when some of these 'facts'/interpretations are taken in a totally literal manner, and somewhat forcefully propogated upon others in the intolerant and fundamentalist way we've been discussing, that real harm is caused, often quite contrary to the religious tenets being put forward when they are viewed as a whole, as you point out.

Xeo wrote:

People are so sure they are right that they don't ask the one question they need to at least once, "What if I'm wrong?" It's a hard question to ask. But to truly be strong in whatever you believe, I think it's necessary to first look at it as if you don't.

I agree. And certainly, I think we must also accept that perhaps there are indeed many truths. Not necessarily one ULTIMATE, I am right, I know the ONLY way etc etc, but many different paths, re spiritual enlightenment perhaps, if that is what one is seeking. Or at the very least be able to recognize and accept that.

And to develop tolerance, acceptance, an understanding of others, and learning from others as well if we are to truly move forward as people and human beings, living a fulfilling life free of the scourge of terrorism amongst other acts, such as presently confronts much of the world.

At his trial in Bali, the convicted bomber, Amrozi shouted out each day, as he was brought into the trial 'God is great! - God is great!" - to which his supporters in the crowd returned the chant.

Unrepentant to the end, he smiled like the martyr he undoubtedly believes himself to be when handed down the death sentence for his crimes. It was quite apparent that he felt justified by God in choosing the course of action which killed and maimed hundreds of people.

Imagine then how I cringed, when I saw on TV, the smiling, gentle face of the convicted Baptist minister, in his final moments, praising God, and glorifying in his acts as being 'of God' as I mentioned earlier.

This is literalist/fundamentalist & intolerant thinking, by Muslim and Christian alike that is so horribly obnoxious IMHO.

Hence my continuing internal dealings with the thoughts of the dangers of fundamentalism, be they Christian or anything else.

Cheers

Johnboi...

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally posted by AB^2=BCxAC:
(...) harken back to ages of mysticism and severe oppression.

Back to the age of mysticism and oppression?

Methinks you need to look around you...

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Funny thing is 90% of the gay topics here have NOTHING to do with religion till Zimphire comes in with the 10 posts in a row full of quotes and turns everything into a religious matter.

[version]

Originally posted by - - e r i k - -:
Back to the age of mysticism and oppression?

Methinks you need to look around you...

I think so too. I wonder how many peopel here have actualy spent any considerble time in an Asian, or Islamic country? I have, and I find some of the rhetoric coming out of the media quite disgusting. I'm not saying thre isn't a good deal of intolerable behaviour by some of these governments, but they seem to be labeled with this blanket view of being barbarians, terrorists, and such like. Having spent time in these countries, I felt far safer than I do at home (Scotland), I was accepted, and treated with respect, and people were all too happy to welcome me in to their towns, and lives. Yes, we might want to show sme countries by example how to treat their fellow citizens, but for heaven's sake, let's not go in their and force it on them, or destroy a nation through sanctions justto bend them to our will, which is usually disengenius in the first place, Iraq, and Afghanistan being prime examples.

[Logic]

benb:

: golf clap :

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Please no one respond to him so we can keep this very worthwhile thread on topic (nothing against you, Zimphire, I just think this topic is a really interesting one that wafrants discussion and am afraid that this topic will, as so many other have, be taken wildly off course by people deciding that they have to argue with you because they don't like you).

I am on topic. You don't say to people not to respond to me so it will be worthwhile, then say "Nothing against you"

Do you realize, you posting this totally knocked things off topic even more?


Good job.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Johnnyboysmac:
benb wrote:

Literal interpretations of religious doctrine, in a 'fundamentalist' way, combined with intolerance and a lack of balance in terms of a scriptural 'overview' as you point out, is surely reponsible for many crimes of hate and violence, IMHO, be they manifested phsyically or physcologically.

Depends on what you mean. If you are going out and stoning people, then yes. But say, if you just feel that adultery and lusting is bad, then no. Literal interpretations do not lead to hate and violence.

This is exactly what I was talking about. People can't separate one from the other.

Hence my continuing internal dealings with the thoughts of the dangers of fundamentalism, be they Christian or anything else.

Cheers

Johnboi...

The only dangers is when one uses the bible or whatever to try to justify things it does not teach. That isn't taking literal interpretations. That is making up stuff. That is just the opposite.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker:
Funny thing is 90% of the gay topics here have NOTHING to do with religion till Zimphire comes in with the 10 posts in a row full of quotes and turns everything into a religious matter.

Funny, 90% of topics have very little to do with me until you come in hissing and honking and making same lame personal jab.

Actually I am not the one that usually starts the religious speak. This has been shown time and time again.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I am on topic. You don't say to people not to respond to me so it will be worthwhile, then say "Nothing against you"

[chris v]

Here's a quick and easy tutorial picture for you boys and girls:



CV

[gadster]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Funny, 90% of topics have very little to do with me until you come in hissing and honking and making same lame personal jab.

Actually I am not the one that usually starts the religious speak. This has been shown time and time again.

Actually, funny how you continuously make such an arse of yourself, you dropkick.

[benb]

Originally posted by Johnnyboysmac:
Imagine then how I cringed, when I saw on TV, the smiling, gentle face of the convicted Baptist minister, in his final moments, praising God, and glorifying in his acts as being 'of God' as I mentioned earlier.

This is literalist/fundamentalist & intolerant thinking, by Muslim and Christian alike that is so horribly obnoxious IMHO.

I imagine that the whole world would cringe, save for the few that whose minds are clouded by the same delusional haze as a result of knowing truth (in their sense) but not the whole truth.

I think it is too bad for us when we only hear the about the fringes of any group. When was the last time you heard of these Fundamentalists doing any good, be they Christian, Muslim, or whatnot? Not very often. I know there is more good coming from Christianity than it seems in the news sometimes, and I am sure not all Muslims want to fly planes into buildings or blow up Israel's buses. Unfortunately whenever Muslims are in the news, it is usually because they killed a few people. It is much harder to find good news, and to sell good news than bad.

So don't be decieved into thinking that all Fundamentalism is bad, Christian or Muslim or Political. There are always a few bad apples though. And I would argue, at least for Christianity, that they are probably not Christians.

[version]

Originally posted by benb:
I imagine that the whole world would cringe, save for the few that whose minds are clouded by the same delusional haze as a result of knowing truth (in their sense) but not the whole truth.

I think it is too bad for us when we only hear the about the fringes of any group. When was the last time you heard of these Fundamentalists doing any good, be they Christian, Muslim, or whatnot? Not very often. I know there is more good coming from Christianity than it seems in the news sometimes, and I am sure not all Muslims want to fly planes into buildings or blow up Israel's buses. Unfortunately whenever Muslims are in the news, it is usually because they killed a few people. It is much harder to find good news, and to sell good news than bad.

So don't be decieved into thinking that all Fundamentalism is bad, Christian or Muslim or Political. There are always a few bad apples though. And I would argue, at least for Christianity, that they are probably not Christians.

True, one person's fundamentalist, is another's freedom-fighter. it's funny though, because if you ask any Muslim, even the most placid, they will probably tell you that, yes , they are a fundamentalist, and by that they mean to hold true to the core of their religion, and as such they are fundamentalist in nature, since they have to follow the basic tenets of their faith.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by - - e r i k - -:

I am not the one that kept bringing my name up with jr high grade personal attacks. Complain to them.

Originally posted by gadster:
Actually, funny how you continuously make such an arse of yourself, you dropkick.

Because I am the one in here making immature personal attacks that don't belong in the forum.

Complain to the crybabies that show no restraint in brining me up in any topic when they feel they need to spread their hatred upon.

[ThinkInsane]

Attention

This is a good topic, with lots of room for dialog, discussion, and discourse. I'm really getting sick of people driving an interesting topic into the ground, for no other reason than someone they don't like voices an opinion, even if it's on topic.

You don't have to like Zimphire, but that doesn't mean he has no right to participate. If you really don't want to hear what he has to say, by all means, put him on ignore. Do not, no matter how much you dislike him, derail the thread by attacking him, or anyone else. It's stupid and childish, and it doesn't support your chosen cause.

Look at it this way: You are against christian fundamentalists. One posts here, supporting their beliefs/position. You try and shut them down. You are doing the exact same thing you are accusing them of. It's hypocritical. It ruins good threads. It's immature. It pisses me off.

I'm tired of seeing good, interesting threads, destroyed because people can't tolerate someone that doesn't agree with them.

And no, I am not specifically defending zimph here. Unfortunately, zimph is the one that seems to gather the most animosity directed at him, deserved or otherwise. This applies to everyone. I don't want to see good threads locked anymore because of a childish need to say "I'm right and your wrong".

Keep it on topic please.

[Earth Mk. II]

My only big problem with Christian Fundamentalism is a faith based one, and when it gets to that point, why bother flippantly discussing it on the internet aside from verbal masturbation? Besides, the basis of Christian Fundamentalism, where it came from, and how it differs from other Christian faiths (Protestant, Anglican, Byzantine Orthodox, Latin-Rite Catholic, or otherwise) could be a whole topic - even a whole section of the forums, depending on the scope- unto itself.

Personally I think fundamentalism in general, or at least where faiths and religions are concerned, can lead to mental laziness in other areas. It's a way of thinking that can foster a "black or white" attitude about the world.

Not that this is a necessary outcome, of course. It's very possible to believe in creationism (in the sense that God made the world in 7 days as we know them today, not in the sense that God was somehow closely related to the creation of the world and universe in a way that science can neither prove nor disprove), yet still be aware of and study evolution in a scientific endeavor. One of my best friends in high school did - and he was the only creationist in the school that I was aware of. I gotta respect him for that. (Of course, it helped that he wasn't an asshole about it.)

Fundamentalism - or any set of beliefs for that matter - only becomes a problem when you forget that your mind has an amazing ability to critically consider your own ideas or beliefs without necessarily rejecting them and other ideas or beliefs without necessarily accepting them. That's all education really is, right? Everything else is just knowledge.

[Zimphire]

I couldn't tell you HOW many Christians have messages me saying they were too afraid to post their minds in here because of the way people treat me. There is more Christian bashing going on here than anything else.

When people complain about "hate crimes" and not accepting people for the way they are, little do they realize when they are doing it too.

Yes, MacNN has a lot of Christians in the closet that are afraid to come out because of all the persecution they get if they admit they take the Bible literally.

This is one of just many pvt messages I have gotten over the past year.



Now, I am sure there are people that are more than happy they are running off Christians.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by chris v:
Here's a quick and easy tutorial picture for you boys and girls:



CV

Yet another indespensible tip from a friendly mac-head.

[Chuckmcd]

I would wager that even though my denomination is technically and "evangelical" denomination that most people here would view my beliefs as Fundamental Christianity.

The problem is when people, like this baptist minister do things that are completely against the what the Bible preaches. he is labeled as a fundamentalist and then any who holds to the "fundamental" teaches of the religion is cornered and considered a right wing nut. I have been called everything from an idiot to a child molester because I won't back down from the basic premises of the Christian faith, and that's just on these boards. I have tried very hard to not insult anyone, or give anyone any reason to believe that I do not live out the beliefs I claim to hold.

Scripture (I'm speaking from a Christian perspective) must be taken literally, and figuratively. It's called Hermeneutics, read the Bible the way it was meant to be read. Parables are not literal, books of the law are, but they are not all applicable in the same way in the same way today, for a number of reasons. You must read scripture as it was written to truly understand it, even then there will be differences in interpretations, but I tend to believe, as it is in the book of James, that someone who is actually living out what they claim to believe is more sincere than one who uses it as a shield, or a crutch.

You don't have to agree with me, most won't... but that doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to speak my mind, or share my faith. If no one is ever converted, fine... it's not my job to change people it's my job to do what I believe is right, and not be ashamed of who or what I am.

<edit> I have a sinus infection, excuse the grammar, and repeating myself repeating myself repeating myself. Got to love sinus medication.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Chuckmcd:
I have been called everything from an idiot to a child molester because I won't back down from the basic premises of the Christian faith, and that's just on these boards.

As I have as well.

Scripture (I'm speaking from a Christian perspective) must be taken literally, and figuratively. It's called Hermeneutics, read the Bible the way it was meant to be read. Parables are not literal, books of the law are,

I agree 100%.

[awcopus]

Great thread. Here are a few thoughts.

I think that a major problem in the world today is the belief that "faith" (the acceptance of things as real and true for which there is no evidence or rational explanation) is a proper way of deriving knowledge about the world and establishing justice.

Faith as a willful evasion of reality (this world we live in, "we" as distinct unique individual human beings in it) has probably enabled more evil to be done than any other way of thinking I have encountered. Faith is a firm, inexplicable defense against reasonable thinking and reasonable action. People who act on faith feel completely justified by virtue of their faith, regardless of the nature of the action they are about to take and its consequences. Faith also implies a kind of submission to an unquestionable authority (posit the idea of a deity or a state or a leader) who it is invariably claimed is acting through the faithful (they are always instruments, not the prime movers of their own actions).

Faith is the dynamite that makes evil erupt in sudden and frightening ways in the world.

After the Nuremberg trials, an American psychologist (name escapes me) interviewed a range of Nazis who had been involved at a variety of levels in some of the most vile behavior humans are capable of. He was trying to get at what lay at the root of their evildoing. He drew several conclusions. One of them had to do with an unusually high affinity for strict obedience, which manifested in the trials as defendants' insistence that they had no moral culpability because they had followed orders. The other idea he came up with was that fundamentally evil was the absence of empathy. The Nazis responsible for the atrocities simply never regarded the human beings they were rounding up and annihilating as human beings.

The link in these ideas is a flagrant lack of respect for facts of reality (each of us is not only responsible for what we do but moreover we have a moral responsibility to base our decisions and actions on a common sense understanding of their results in the world). Faith contradicts these conclusions utterly.

People accepting the idea that the human beings they are abusing or killing aren't really human beings, the mental short-circuit that makes it possible for people to do this is FAITH-- a way of not trusting the evidence of their senses and moreover acting in direct contradiction of that evidence in light of their certainty about the existence of a superior way of knowing the world and the difference between right and wrong (again, posit statism or mysticism).

One of the claims to authority that religionists will cite when confronted with humanist propositions about the world and human behavior is that only religion provides a proper moral framework. I disagree. A firm, black and white sense of morality is only possible when we divorce it from something as utterly subjective as religion and derive it from facts of reality.

Human beings take the form of individual human beings, each with certain common traits, but also with unique traits and situations. For example, we're all mortal, we're all capable of storing data, we're all capable of making mistakes, we're all unique personalities capable of selecting our own ends. The unique traits have to do with our varying levels of intelligence, styles of personal expression, and then of course our circumstances (distinct place in the world, distinct economic circumstances).

Point is: Every person is an end in his or her self. Every person has a right to pursue ends of his or her own choosing as long as he or she respects the equal right of other people as individuals to do the same thing. Justice ought to be about protecting that freedom of action, ensuring that all human relationships are based on mutual consent.

That's all for now.

[vmpaul]

Well said awcopus.

[awcopus]

Originally posted by benb:
So don't be decieved into thinking that all Fundamentalism is bad, Christian or Muslim or Political. There are always a few bad apples though. And I would argue, at least for Christianity, that they are probably not Christians.

Benb, I appreciate your diplomacy here, but I can't resist pointing out how unique your perspective is along the continuum of human civilization. We are free to observe the good and bad in this and that religion and adopt some of one or none of all precisely because we live in a relatively secular society where religionists may influence politics but they do not run the show. No doubt many people who are religious are decent, but are they decent in proportion to how religious they are or how religious they aren't? Or in proportion to how much of their lifestyle and manner of thinking and acting is driven by mystical dictates....

In other words, with respect to this thread's initial topic, fundamentalism, I think it's safe to say that the good and decent people of all religions are the ones who don't take it very seriously, or who take it seriously but in a very compartmentalized way (as in, tonight I'll be religious for a couple of hours but then it's back to my secular life for the rest of the week).

[awcopus]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Well said awcopus.

Thank you, vmpaul.

[thunderous_funker]

awcopus nailed it right on the head. Brillitantly done.

Oringially posted by benb:
The dangers are not taking tenents literally, the danger is not taking all of them literally.

I would say exactly the opposite. I understand your sincere desire to defend Piety, but I think there must be some recognition that Fundementalism is not Piety.

There is no avoiding the inherent contradictions that stem from a literalist and Fundamentalist view of scripture. To belive otherwise to lapse into exactly the kind of dangerous mindset that awcopus so eloquently presented: those for whom all actions are Divinely justified.

Paul Hill and other terrorists didn't ignore part of the scripture, as you suggest. On the contrary, they took the Bible literally when it told them murder is not murder when God commands it.

They didn't forget Exodus 20:13, they remembered Dueteronomy 7:2.

For the Fundamentalist, there are countless scriptural references to support the its not murder when God orders the hit, its Obedience to the Divine Will. They would be damned if they didn't kill the Abortionists.

Anyone who is seriously interested in taking a compelling, illuminating and disturbing look into the phenomenon of Fundamentalism, look no further than Krakauer's fantastic new book.

I cannot recommend it strongly enough. It should be required reading for every American considering our current predicament.

[awcopus]

Thanks, Thunderous. I will check out the book next time I'm in B&N.

For clarity's sake I'd like to give a quick example of what I'm opposed to.

"This above all is the most important thing. Everybody who does not love tomatos is morally inferior to everyone who does love tomatos. Moreover, proof of your love of tomatos is that you forsake the freedom to eat any meal in which tomatos are not present, and you convert people into tomato-lovers, and anyone who refuses to love tomatos and prove that love consistently will be considered below those whose love is demonstrable."

Now, if most people took this above paragraph on faith as an absolute truth, imagine the range of human behavior that would ensue, the laws, the conflicts, the lack of progress as humans get all bent out of shape over something so very silly and so very arbitrary. The problem isn't with the idea that tomatoes are tasty and deserve to be loved by people who love them. The problem is that tomatoes (or anything for that matter) should only be eaten by people who have REASONS to enjoy partaking of them.

Change "tomatoes" to "2+2=4" in the above example, or to anything nonsensical or absolutely correct. Leaving aside the nature of the thing one is asked to have faith in, the problem is the act of accepting things as true without taking the time to figure them out first.

The main reason that this is a problem is that YOU CANNOT REASON YOURSELF OUT OF A POSITION YOU DID NOT REASON YOURSELF INTO IN THE FIRST PLACE. So, once you accept the idea of things being true based on faith, you can't think about them anymore without a supreme effort to get back to a mindset where you allow yourself to trust your ability to think about anything. I've met people who were raised on faith-based ideas and have finally been able to liberate themselves from the oppression of believing in things for no reason. It is not an easy path, these people are heroes to me.

[Johnnyboysmac]

awcopus: A brilliant, and very lucid post - thanks heaps as I found it most illuminating and helpful

thinkinsane: Thanks for helping 'keep it together'

zimphire: I for one bear you no ill-will

thunderous_funker: thanks for the book reference, I'll be checking it out as well

originally written by thunderous-funker:

There is no avoiding the inherent contradictions that stem from a literalist and Fundamentalist view of scripture. To belive otherwise to lapse into exactly the kind of dangerous mindset that awcopus so eloquently presented: those for whom all actions are Divinely justified.

Paul Hill and other terrorists didn't ignore part of the scripture, as you suggest. On the contrary, they took the Bible literally when it told them murder is not murder when God commands it.

They didn't forget Exodus 20:13, they remembered Dueteronomy 7:2.

For the Fundamentalist, there are countless scriptural references to support the its not murder when God orders the hit, its Obedience to the Divine Will. They would be damned if they didn't kill the Abortionists

This makes an awful lot of sense to me, as yes, if one takes a 'recipe' of 'unswervable and unshakeable faith', totally 'literal' biblical interpretation, either in part or in whole I guess one can wind up justifying whatever action one chooses to take, or point of view one wishes to proclaim.

Hence perhaps the actions of the Baptist minister, or the Catholic church with its murderous inquisitions etc.

Or, perhaps, even when things are set down as 'laws' and not parables, as in the ten commandments, as in 'thou shalt not kill' we still manage to justify making wars, and indeed have military priests to give counsel and spiritual advice/admonition to the troops in this day and age.

Certainly in WW1 & 11, it was pretty common I believe for both sides to have prayer etc before battle asking for divine protection etc, both sides opposing, but both praying to the same God with the same sense of deep-rooted faith/belief in the 'righteouness' of their side.

awcopus wrote:

We are free to observe the good and bad in this and that religion and adopt some of one or none of all precisely because we live in a relatively secular society where religionists may influence politics but they do not run the show. No doubt many people who are religious are decent, but are they decent in proportion to how religious they are or how religious they aren't? Or in proportion to how much of their lifestyle and manner of thinking and acting is driven by mystical dictates....

Very true, I guess we in the western world are very lucky to be living in liberal democracies where the affairs of the state are not dictated to by religious groups, as used to be the case back in the middle ages etc, when the church was all powerful politically.

We have freedom of speech, but should I develop a particular religious fanatical bent, I can talk about it, and lobby for it, but I can't force it via the political system upon others who may not wish it upon them.

Which is what a secular democratic society is about.

And thank goodness for that, as history teaches us the consequences of what can happen when religious fundamental/literalist fanatacism and the state co-exist, both in western european history, and that which confronts the world today in parts of the middle east.

Nonetheless, sometimes I do feel that the language and methods used by some of the Christian fundamentalists in western society can result in physcological violence upon minority groups, such as gay folks for example, when their lifestyle, whether choosen, an accident of birth, predetermined by genetics, behavioural upbringing or whatever, is deemed to be 'sinful' & 'not of God' etc.

It has been quite apparent that many fundamentalist/literalist biblical extremists, lead by their unswerveable and unshakeable faith, whilst not usually perpetrating physical violence per - se, are demonstratably quite unloving, and essentially UnChristian in their attitude towards such minority groups, and would gladly see them deprived of their basic civil rights, as long as they conformed to their particular religious point of view.

No doubt their ushakeable faith, backed up by their fundamental and literalist interpretations of scripture makes them feel justified in their actions.

But as been pointed out, not all Christians are fundamentalists, or project their ideas this way, so I hope I'm not generalising excessively here, or seemingly pillorying mainstream Christianity and Christians in particular, as that is not my design at all.

Still, the discussion is proving most interesting and illuminating, and hopefully growth and harmony inducing to all

Anyway, that's all for now

Cheers

Johnboi....

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Johnnyboysmac:

zimphire: I for one bear you no ill-will

Then we have no problems.

Regardless of what you believe.

[benb]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Paul Hill and other terrorists didn't ignore part of the scripture, as you suggest. On the contrary, they took the Bible literally when it told them murder is not murder when God commands it.

They didn't forget Exodus 20:13, they remembered Dueteronomy 7:2.

For the Fundamentalist, there are countless scriptural references to support the its not murder when God orders the hit, its Obedience to the Divine Will. They would be damned if they didn't kill the Abortionists.

I would have to politely disagree here, because the fact still is that if this was his reasoning, he didn't know the whole truth, all the tenents. I don't know exactly why you mentioned Deut. 7:2, it has little relevancs to the subject of Paul Hill. But regardless, he still forgot Galatians 3:10-10 which say "All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: 'Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.' Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, 'The righteous will live by faith.' The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, 'The man who does these things will live by them.' Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: 'Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.'

See, Hill missed one important point. The reason he is not bound by the law, the reason he can eat pork, the reason that he does not have to be circumsised, the reason he does not have to offer sacrafices for himself and his family is because he is not bound by the law. To use OT law as justification for pre-emtive murder is just as ludicris (sp. heh) as him offering sacrifice. He understood some, not all. If he truly understood, he would have no justification, and one would hope that he would not have comitted that act.

But I think that we are coming from two completely different perspectives here, and that we will never agree. You assume that the Bible is flawed, I do not.

Cheers!

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by benb:
I would have to politely disagree here, because the fact still is that if this was his reasoning, he didn't know the whole truth, all the tenents.

<snip>

But I think that we are coming from two completely different perspectives here, and that we will never agree. You assume that the Bible is flawed, I do not.

Cheers!

History has forcibly demonstrated time and time again that nearly any monstrous action can be justified with creative interpretation (or literalist reading) of the Bible. Its not for me to prove this point, it is a matter of record.

To suggest that those interpretations is wrong is useless. Of course they are wrong, we don't agree with them! By saying that "correct" interpretation would avoid all such controversy is to essentially be reduced to the useless truism "if you thought like I did, we wouldn't have a problem".

Its not a question of the Bible (or any other religious text) being "flawed" necessarily. Its a question of the dangers of Literalism (because certain passages of the sacred texts are truly troubling if taken literally) and, more to the point, the dangers of Fundamentalism--the idea that for the self-proclaimed Righteous or Chosen, all actions are justified. ALL actions.

Basically it is a question of moral foundations that goes back to Socrates:

Does morality come from God? Or is it Universal and even Gods must obey it?

This fundamental question has raged through the ages, especially in Christianity where theology and philosophy were virtually inseperable for ages.

For the Fundamentalist (of any sect) the only Moral Law is Obedience to the Divine Will. Once you've taken that dramatic step, interpretations of the Divine Will become very serious issues. Most religious texts insist that God expects the Obedient to stamp out evil ruthlessly and mercilessly.

To take the other moral road is to recognize that even Diety operates within a Universal Moral Order from which not even Diety is exempt. If God ceases to be Moral, God ceases to be God. If this rational, reasoned approach is applied to scripture, it becomes abundantly clear the Principle is more important than the Law. Actions are not chosen by Obedience to Divine Will, but by reasoned, studied and rational effort to apply Moral Principles to complex moral crises.

The Rationalist recognizes that killing "sinners" would be immoral. The Fundamentalist recognizes that refusing to Obey any Divine Order (even one that seems on the surface to be immoral) is the greatest sin. If God Orders it done, there must be a reason even if it doesn't make sense (like murdering "sinners").

[awcopus]

Originally posted by benb:
But I think that we are coming from two completely different perspectives here, and that we will never agree. You assume that the Bible is flawed, I do not.

Benb, you assume that the Bible has no flaws, but certainly you would conced that there are propositions in the Old Testament that are (in some cases extremely) inconsistent with propositions in the New Testament.

The point at which we look at this bound text and realize how incongruous so many sections are with one another and how anachronistic so many of the assumptions in it are vis-a-vis our world today... maybe that's the point at which we can agree that this is a text that merits a high degree of scrutiny and critical analysis before we would decide whether to use it as a guidebook or reference for describing the nature of the world or defining moral behavior.

That's reasonable, right? Encounter a complicated text that contains many contradictions, makes illogical claims beyond human experience, you're going to be extra-critical of it, especially when people cite it as an absolute and clear path to moral living.

Yet, this rarely happens among deeply religious people. Precisely at the point where they ought to think more rigorously, they turn off their rational faculty.

Most faith-bound believers' response to the Bible's internal contradictions is to ascribe them to the mysterious, ineffable nature of God. People don't reason themselves into believing in God or taking the Bible literally. They are indoctrinated with this view from a impressionable age and socially pressured to accept it.

The Bible is a book. Thanks to the inexorable power of the human mind to understand the world and act within it to innovate and create and think and act independently, it is not the only book. <phew> One trembles to consider how dark a place the world would be if the Bible were the final book. The last idea. Fortunately, as this and other mystical texts become increasingly irrelevant over time, humanity's prospects for a bright and adventurous and peaceful future rise.