Fundamentalist
I am asking for anyone to claim they are a fundamentalist. I am NOT asking you to tell me who is a fundamentalist in your opinion. I am asking for someone to admit they are a complete fundamentalist. Please.
posted by TXatheist at 11:31 AM
37 Comments:
Sorry, can't stand up and say "ME!" on this one. There are parts of me that come close (was raised one...) but I'd have to go into defining it and you don't want that plus it is messy... Do you think you actually have any real fundi's reading or following any of the conversation (anymore) anyway? Just curious.
I replied to your comment on my blog, thanks for stopping by.
And I'm really enjoying the book- I need to get my notes collected (from inside the margins) and send them to you. I'd promise "soon" but I don't know how long and I don't want to lie. Thanks though.
Thanks. My point is no one ever claims to be a fundamentalist and some people over at Off the Map were offended to some small degree I said they were. We both live in Texas and I would presume there are fundamentalists or at least I think there are millions of them but no one claims to be one.
tx, I think one issue is that Christians don't usually use that word of themselves. Can you post the list of beliefs that you would say make someone a fundamentalist and then ask people which of those they ascribe to?
I agree with you that there are probably lots of Christians out there who hold the beliefs normally thought of as making a Christian a fundamentalist, but I don't think most of the Christians who regularly post at Off-The-Map do hold them all. Maybe some of them do.
If you want to find out, you could state your list of beliefs that define 'fundamentalist' and ask if they hold all or any of them.
If you do that you might get asked to further define some beliefs, like you did when you asked who takes the Bible literally (I think that was your question?) If you don't want to deal with that, it might be best not to ask. Because - knowing how Christians are - they might well feel that they need to add more nuance to parts of your definition before they can say 'yes' or 'no' to it.
By the way, Siamang posted a map on Off-The-Map (the discussion board) of what percentage 'Christian' each state is. Peter posted that he understands better why you feel the way you do given how 'Christian' Texas is.
Here's the link to the thread where Siamang posted the map:
Where are the religious?
Ir, that's my point. Almost none of them see themselves as fundamentalists. I was on thegreenknight blog and he says he a liberal xian. I posted the ideas of fundamentalism and he proclaimed only 2 of the 4 basic ideas were something he'd agree to. I said that is what I'm talking about. He acted as if the two he believed in were logical. They were just as mythical in science as the other two. My point remains, imo, most xians are fundamentalists but like to claim they are moderate, liberal or a true xian. I say no, you're a fundy. I used the basic description of christian fundy from en.wiki encyclopedia.
I think Siamang and I both look for our news on infidels.org/wire. I saw that chart of religious yesterday. There are quite a few charts within that website that are interesting. Texas is full of baptists and NY is full of catholics, cradle catholics imo.
I remember some people used to refer to themselves as fundamentalist Christians. They were Baptists, and did this to try to differentiate themselves from the mainstream Christians, who they tended to lump in with non Christians. But looking around, I see that you are right. Nobody refers to themselves as fundamentalist Christians anymore. But plenty of people *do* refer to themselves as Conservative Christians.
Intriguingly, the rise of this term seems to coincide with the rise of "liberal" as a political insult. A quick Google search shows that most people tend to use "fundamentalist" as a criticism. So what you may be seeing is a shift in the language, perhaps consciously or unconsciously (or both), to try and pull these radical Christians into respectability, and denegrate their opposition.
Language is important, as you know. Controlling it gives one great power. But language is just a mask. The people who used to be comfortable referring to themselves as fundamentalists now refer to themselves as conservatives.
I missed your post on Green Knight where you defined fundamentalism. Would you be willing to post your definition here? I want to see how I do on your criteria.
Given that if I agree with one point of say, 4 typical fundy beliefs then sure, I'll say it: I'm a fundamentalist. To though that's like saying that all evolutionist say man came from monkeys. It's un-informed. I'm not sure what you are saying are the four basic beliefs of fundamentalists are so it doesn't really seem fair to ask for somebody to stand up and claim they are something when how we define the same word could be very different. In your eyes I may be a fundy but from the "fundy" perspective I'm crazy liberal. I can live with that because it doesn't really matter to me what the label someone sticks on me to fit me into a catagory they can better understand, I don't believe what I believe for them anyway so call me whatever you want, it doesn't offend me. (Ok, but that's not saying I want to be called names or anything... I'd just as soon not particpate if it came to that but I don't think it would with you.)
BTW, I do know people that call themselves fundamentalist- I argue with them more than most people. But Ir is right, Christians don't usually use that term to describe themselves they stick with terms they feel have less negativity "Conservative Evangelical" is the one I hear the most. I agree with you, in Texas there are a lot of fundy's.
So if I'm a fundamentalist I'm one that usually votes democrate, hates when people picket abortion clinics, funerals, and movie theaters, reads books my church doesn't want me to read, asks a lot of questions, has wondered if there is a god, teaches my children about other faiths (and not in the "beware of these legions of satan" kind of way), and a host of other "bad habits" for a fundy but some of my beliefs may be the same (whatever those may be but I'm not real sure...) so I guess I am one.
TX, is this what you want: that Christians who have beliefs you consider irrational or contradicting science will admit it?
If so I think you'd get further if you dropped the word 'fundamentalist' altogether and said "I find this list of beliefs irrational and contradicting science. Do you have any of these beliefs? If so does it bother you that they are irrational and contradict science?"
This is my observation about Christians trying to talk to atheists (and vice-versa). The ones who insist on talking Christianese or atheistese don't get anywhere because all the respondents do is argue about the definitions of words, or statements. To get somewhere you have to break things down into words and concepts which mean the same thing to both of you.
Your insistence that some Christians are fundamentalists and your complaint when they won't admit it seems very similar to me to a Christian insisting that atheists are lost or totally depraved or hell-bound and complaining if atheists won't 'admit it'. What atheist is going to say "Hey, that's me! Pin that big label right here!"
James,
Here are the criteria from wiki encylcopedia
Church which distilled these into what became known as the "five fundamentals"[3]:
Inerrancy of the Scriptures
The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus
The doctrine of substitutionary atonement through God's grace and human faith
The bodily resurrection of Jesus
The authenticity of Christ's miracles (or, alternatively, his premillennial second coming)[4]
Ir,
Do I think the supernatural beliefs of xianity are nonsense? yes. Do I accept that xians think I'm going to hell? yes. I did initially wonder why Jim H said "the lost", but as soon as I realized it was anyone who wasn't xian I didn't think about it for another second. It's all in their terminology and I"m fine with them thinking that. That doesn't make it true but I understand they think I may go to hell, am lost and even work for Satan. It's part of the supernatural beliefs they have. That is the difference imo between xian and atheist. They believe in the supernatural and that's where science stops.
Ir,
Do I think the supernatural beliefs of xianity are nonsense? yes. Do I accept that xians think I'm going to hell? yes.
Yes, but - some do and some don't think you're going to hell. Some genuinely don't know and they aren't just saying that because they are trying to avoid saying that they think you're going to hell. They mean it.
If you assert that they all are sure you're going to hell, when some of them aren't, it's going to be impossible for you to have a conversation with them that makes any sense (imo).
'Christian' can mean so many different things these days that any general statement about Christians is not going to be true of all of them.
What about Spong? I would pretty much guarantee he doesn't believe you're going to hell.
I did initially wonder why Jim H said "the lost", but as soon as I realized it was anyone who wasn't xian I didn't think about it for another second. It's all in their terminology and I"m fine with them thinking that.
Yes - it's terminology - you're absolutely right.
Off-The-Map is in large part a ministry to Christians, so he uses words they use to connect with them and their ideas. I think his own preference is to refer to people who aren't Christians as people Jesus misses very much rather than people who are lost.
Of course, since you don't believe in Jesus I don't expect you to agree with that and maybe to you it has no significance that he would rather not use the word 'lost'.
That doesn't make it true but I understand they think I may go to hell, am lost and even work for Satan. It's part of the supernatural beliefs they have.
Some Christians. Not all Christians.
That is the difference imo between xian and atheist. They believe in the supernatural and that's where science stops.
Some Christians. Not all Christians. What about Spong? I think he and many other Christians accept scientific findings and whatever they believe about the supernatural it has to reconcile with science and not contradict it. Christians like Spong don't believe in the virgin birth or the physical resurrection of Jesus. They believe in God but - not God-who-is-a-person. I don't know how to describe their belief exactly; it's like - when you are more kind to others and when you are caring about making the world a better place, then you're closer to God - but God is not a person. Jesus is not God, in their thinking. Jesus was a human who showed people a better way to live.
Anyway, bottom line - there are big differences between people who call themselves Christians and if you ignore those differences I think you will find yourself continually up against Christians saying "that's not what I believe" - it will be like trying to pin down jello.
Okay, fair enough:
> Inerrancy of the Scriptures
I do not believe that the Scriptures are the literal word of God.
> The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus
I believe in the deity of Jesus, but most Christians do, regardless of whether they're fundamentalists or not.
The virgin birth is an interesting question. I, for one, don't believe that the Virgin Mary remained a virgin after having Jesus. Christ had brothers, the eldest of whom was named James. That's an Anglican/Episcopalean belief.
And it should be noted that the word "virgin" has changed in the past 2000 years. Back then, it had nothing to do with whether a person had had sex before. Virgin only referred to any unmarried woman.
And there was a tradition in the Holy Lands of that time known as "night running", wherein the fiance of a betrothed woman would visit every night, to do what two people in love tend to do. The purpose was to try and conceive a child before marriage, since such a thing would prove that a marriage would be fruitful, and a pregnancy would ensure that the marriage would take place.
In that respect, it's not really surprising that the Virgin Mary was pregnant at the time.
> The doctrine of substitutionary atonement through God's grace and human faith
Faith alone isn't sufficient to save one. You take an atheist, a Christian, a Jew and any other faith example you wish to put up, and you have them all lead the same basic good life, who gets to go to heaven? As a Christian, believing in a loving God, I have great difficulty believing that God would be such an egotist that he'd shun the others for living lives that are as good as a Christian's.
Indeed, I would argue that the Atheist would find himself with a substantial advantage, since he or she was living a decent life, without expectation of a reward in the afterlife.
C.S. Lewis noted this: faith alone isn't enough to save one. It is by our actions in life that we are judged.
> The bodily resurrection of Jesus
> The authenticity of Christ's miracles
Again, I believe in those things, but so do most Christians, regardless of whether or not they are fundamentalists.
> (or, alternatively, his premillennial second coming)[4]
I do not believe in a coming apocalypse as suggested in the Book of Revelation. And the fundamentalists who see one coming have seriously misread the book (it doesn't mention the Rapture) and seriously misunderstood its intent. I talk about this in detail [here](http://www.bowjamesbow.ca/2005/05/12/rescuing_christ.shtml).
Now, Wikipedia's definition of fundamentalism is fair, but applying that to all of Christianity is too much of a broad stroke. You're going to get near universal Christian agreement on at least two of the points you raise (the divinity of Christ and the truth of his resurrection). But when you say that puts us, say, 40-60% in line with fundamentalism, I have to ask you what it is that makes fundamentalism a problem.
So we believe in the divinity of Christ and the truth of his resurrection. So what? If we do this in the privacy of our own Churches, how is this a problem? How does our personal beliefs affect your ability to work with us on daily activities that have nothing to with those beliefs?
The wikipedia definition of fundamentalism doesn't cover those characteristics that make fundamentalism a problem: a denial of the need for a separation of church and state; a belief in God's vengence; a belief that anybody who doesn't strictly adhere to those fundamentalist values is "lost" or bound for hell.
Most Christians do not accept this, which in my opinion takes them out of your categorizing of fundamentalism than our acceptance of 2 or 3 of the values listed in Wikipedia.
Ir,
It doesn't matter if they are saying I'm going to hell is the point. It's malarchy. They could tell me I'm getting 72 virgins for being an atheist and I wouldn't care, it's malarchy. I know xian means multiple things. It's so far across the board it has almost no meaning except you believe in god and jesus. After that it almost makes no sense except to that person. Calling me lost is like me callng them stupid. They don't see themselves as stupid and I do. They see me as lost and I don't. I know that's harsh but god/jesus/heaven/miracles are stupid to me. Please tell me how god is not supernatural and I'll see your point. They believe in god thus the supernatural. If spong doesn't believe that stuff, great. Then I will begin to embrace xians and their beliefs when his is the most fundamentalist view not the most liberal. If a person says they believe in god and jesus I don't care if I am up against the wall. Their belief is stupid to me, the end of conversation. They can have their jello and I don't want to hear them describe how they understand god, it's absurd to me.
Jim,
Most xians believing in the deity of Jesus=fundamentalists. That's all I'm saying. You can deny it but I label that a fundy. No one wants to be called one but I refuse to not call them one. Like I told green knight, only being half as bad as Falwell is not a prize. I didn't want to go there but I will. Mary wasn't married. That makes Jesus a bastard. That's even better to hear but another belief xians don't want to believe, hear, accept. Mary had sex with a guy to get pregnant, not god. If you believe god got her pregnant, fundamentalist view. The faith thing goes both ways. Jesus said faith alone in me is enough and then said faith without works is dead. Contradictory but you can rationalize it to yourself. I really think it's a convenience depending on how a xian wants to view it. What makes fundamentalism a problem even if only 2 points are believed. They are not true scientifically. My problem with you and your church members believing it? Nothing. Sharing that nonsense with me and my kids in school. Everything. That's why our evolution in science problem exists. That's how ID is getting a foot in the door in some places. Your ignorance bleeds out into the real world and we all have to tread lightly on that ignorance in the public realm because there are so many of you.
Most xians believing in the deity of Jesus=fundamentalists. That's all I'm saying.
Well, then, I ask you, what is your problem with fundamentalists? You're obviously using the label as a criticism, so what exactly are you accusing me of?
Sharing that nonsense with me and my kids in school. Everything.
But I _don't_ do this. I accept evolution as the likeliest theory as to how we came to be.
Jesus was a deity to you? I don't think perpetuating the idea that Jesus was God or a god or a man that had supernatural powers or talked to someone with supernatural ability(God the Father) is reasonable. I consider that fundamental religious belief to be bad and false. You may or may not. I do have a problem with that. I'm glad you accept evolution, any other stories are not based on science and that should be stressed with just as much vigor as Jesus being a deity.
Jesus was a deity to you? I don't think perpetuating the idea that Jesus was God or a god or a man that had supernatural powers or talked to someone with supernatural ability(God the Father) is reasonable.
Some people believe in flying saucers, or bear superstitions that seem unreasonable to some. But that in and of itself doesn't define a person's worth. What people choose to believe is mostly irrelevant to me, until we see the actions informed by that belief. I have good relations with many different people with faith and without. They all have roughly the same ability to share my interests, make friendly conversation, share confidences, have relationships, et cetera.
There are numerous ways that one can look at the world, and it is possible for Christians to think critically and use the scientific method. I use a picket fence between the miraculous aspects of my faith, and the scientific reality of the world, but good fences make good neighbours.
I consider that fundamental religious belief to be bad and false. You may or may not. I do have a problem with that. I'm glad you accept evolution, any other stories are not based on science and that should be stressed with just as much vigor as Jesus being a deity.
So I ask again: why do you care about what I choose to believe? Is it a person's personal beliefs that bother you, or is it the actions that arise from that belief?
It is my Christian beliefs that lead me to advocate against teaching intelligent design as science. It is my Christian beliefs that lead me to believe that I am no better or worse than any individual who believes in a different faith, or choses not to follow any particular faith.. It is my Christian beliefs that lead me to oppose the actions of Jerry Falwell and their ilk -- actions which I find to be unChristian.
Knowing that I am a Christian, would you treat me with the same disdain if I offered to buy you a beer and talk about anything other than religion as you would somebody who tried to convert you, or force a school board to teach intelligent design?
You don't really know me, and yet you seem to assume that I exhibit the behaviours of people like Jerry Falwell and his ilk simply because of my religion. You are ascribing the characteristics of a small group against individuals that you choose to associate with that group.
Which is the definition of prejudice. Which is the sort of intolerance that makes people like Jerry Falwell so intolerable.
James,
Do you think I said your actions were unreasonable? No, your belief is unreasonable to me and it's irrelevant completely if you believe in Jesus. I explained that your belief is similar to Falwell's. Am I right? I did not say you go out and make ignorant comments like him, that's an action. I would disagree with your action. I also do not agree with your belief and the evolution idea is something we do agree on. We do not agree on god. Neither of us has performed an action that I find immoral. I disagree with a religious belief that you and that Falwell has. I can't argue with you in that you believe it's your xianity that makes you oppose ID. I can only hear whether you agree with evolution. I keep evolution and religion separate, you may not. I will not agree evolution is a product of god but you may, however, that additional comment is a faith concept and there is where we disagree.
Well, then, I would have to ask, if you wish to label most Christians fundamentalists, what is an unfundamentalist Christian? "Fundamentalism" is an adjective, which implies a difference between an alternate that has moved away from the fundamentals.
Who are the unfundamentalists? What makes them Christian?
If you cast your net too wide, you'll end up catching most of the group in your net. In that respect, why call them fundamentalists? Isn't "Christian" enough of a description?
John Spong, he realizes the supernatural bible stuff is nonsense. He utilizes the bible/god/jesus to find moral points and subscribe to them but he dismisses the supernatural. The net of fundamentalists is full but they refuse to abandon the supernatural so they'll never get free from the net.
Jim,
Greenknight finally censored my views so I might have to do the same to you. Sorry, but the only way xianity survives is because it's not challenged nearly enough. You can tell him I called him a coward but I doubt he'll care. Most xians don't like the truth.
Well, that's Green Knight's business, since it's his site. And this is your site, so you should proceed as you see fit. But I am still interested in your answer to my last question.
My site, if you wish to comment on it, is here.
Oh, I'm sorry, I missed this:
"John Spong, he realizes the supernatural bible stuff is nonsense. He utilizes the bible/god/jesus to find moral points and subscribe to them but he dismisses the supernatural."
But this generally describes me, and most Christians, though I believe in the divinity of Christ. I've already told you that I never ascribed the Bible as a historical document. So we believe in a handful of miraculous, scientifically unprovable ideas, but in everyday action, most Christians are like John Spong. So, how is a handful of beliefs held privately such a threat to you that you need to challenge them? How do their beliefs affect you?
You've already admitted that actions affect you, rather than beliefs, and it is the actions of people like Jerry Falwell that you have a problem with. The Green Knight and I have the same problem with people like Jerry Falwell. So, why attack people like the Green Knight who, in terms of facing off against the actions of the religious right, are your natural allies?
That's so not funny. Most xians think god is literal, jesus performed miracles and literally rose from the dead. That they are going to heaven after they die. That's no where near Spong and if you think most xians believe like Spong you are kidding yourself to make xians appear more rational than they are. The bible has some history to it yes, but most if fabricated nonsense. These ignorant irrational beliefs are why ID is sneaking into school and why evolution is not being taught. Why xian kids ostracize non-xian kids. The parents teach that xianity is a superior position instead of keeping it to themselves. The Green Knight is 90% like Falwell except GK is a censoring coward. He and most xian bloggers boot the atheist view. That's the same as Falwell spewing hate, it's never openly criticized. You want me to pat GK on the back. Hardly, I kick him in the same corner as Falwell. GK doesn't get a prize for only being 90% as bad.
I did go to church and I went to the largest one that was quite cracked. I seriously was waiting for them to hand out the “Coolaid”. I am going to keep a low profile, until they have accepted me, and I don't appear as much as of an outsider. Then I will begin my operation. I will first see what things; speech, presentation, movie, they will let me do. If people are completely unwilling, I will begin an extension to the War on Easter campaign. I make many many copies of the DVD and give them to people. I will post many flyers about atheism, skepticism, and thoughtful criticisms of their religion. I have chosen this church, not because it will be easy, but because it will be hard. The people in it were chanting and waving their hands about as if they were having epileptic seizures... I knew a few people there that were already very suspicious of my appearance in their church. They knew, or at least suspected, that I am an atheist. It was very awkward meeting friends and neighbors that knew I was an atheist. I received a few dirty looks from some. LOL! Anyway, you know what I was talking about now.
> That's so not funny. Most xians think god is literal, jesus performed
> miracles and literally rose from the dead. That they are going to heaven
> after they die. That's no where near Spong and if you think most xians
> believe like Spong you are kidding yourself to make xians appear more
> rational than they are. The bible has some history to it yes, but most if
> fabricated nonsense. These ignorant irrational beliefs are why ID is
> sneaking into school and why evolution is not being taught. Why xian kids
> ostracize non-xian kids. The parents teach that xianity is a superior
> position instead of keeping it to themselves. The Green Knight is 90% like
> Falwell except GK is a censoring coward. He and most xian bloggers boot
> the atheist view. That's the same as Falwell spewing hate, it's never
> openly criticized. You want me to pat GK on the back. Hardly, I kick him
> in the same corner as Falwell. GK doesn't get a prize for only being 90% as
> bad.
I see. You are linking belief to action at an almost 1-to-1 ratio. You are saying that because I believe that Christ was the son of God and that he performed miracles, that I am contributing to the intrusion of Intelligent Design into our public schools, and to the ostricizing of non-Christian children by Christians. You are saying that because I am a Christian, I believe that I am superior to you.
The problem is, this link is not a logical one. Most Christians, though they believe in their faith, don't believe that Intelligent Design should be taught as science. Most Christians -- where I live, at least -- live alongside people of other faiths, including Atheists. Most Christian children attend public schools, and are exposed to different points of view. Most Christians realize that believing you are superior to _anyone_ is actually sinful behaviour (remember, Christ called on us to be humble. Jerry Falwell sure ain't that) You have a blinkered view of what Christians are by virtue of the fact that you are living in Texas and getting a steady diet of the hatemongering of people like Jerry Falwell.
Come up to Canada sometime. Most people here are Christian, but cities like Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal are very multicultural, with a great mix of people of different cultures, races and religions living in general harmony. Even the smaller centres don't have the problems of religious nuts trying to hijack our public schools as is the case in Texas. My own family and circle of friends contains many Atheists, Baptists (but not Southern Baptists), Anglicans, Catholics, Wiccans, Buddhists, Jews and Muslims. We respect each other. We know that we are all equally good people.
Earlier in this thread, you supplied a definition of what Fundamenalism is, as supplied by Wikipedia, and it's more than likely that people like Jerry Falwell either believe or claim to believe those five criteria you supply. But to that I say, so what? If Jerry Falwell believed ONLY those five fundamentals, he would not be nearly the problem that he is. What makes him a problem is, off the top of my head:
1) The denial of the need for a separation of Church and State.
2) The belief that God condemns those that don't follow his limited vision of "the truth".
3) His refusal to accept scientific facts that conflict with his literal interpretation of the Bible, and his willingness to ascribe such conflicts to some conflict with devilish forces.
4) His refusal to show God's love to those he disagrees with. His willingness to libel those same people with statements that incite hatred.
About the only principle in the five fundamentals which leads to problems 1, 2 and 3, and others, is the fundamental belief of "the Inerrancy of the Scriptures" (when you believe you have a hotline to God, I can see why that might make you feel a bit self-righteous), but I've already told you that this is where Jerry Falwell and I part company. This is where most Christians and Jerry Falwell part company. Most Christians do NOT consider the Bible to be the literal word of God. The Catholic Church doesn't. The Anglican/Episcopanean Church doesn't. The Presbyterian Church doesn't. The Methodists don't. We're getting up to a level of about 70-80% of believers, if not more. We know the history of the Bible, how it was written by individuals which we charitably say were "divinely inspired by God". We know that these words by fallible individuals were translated many times by other fallible individuals, over a period of thousands of years, through several different cultural filters. We know the book is full of contradictions, and to claim that it is "inerrant" is utterly foolish. It can only be taken as a guideline, if that, filtered through reason and common sense.
And once you make that leap, you begin to realize that all humans are in the same boat, struggling with the question of where we came from, how we came to be, and what we should do now that we're here. Is there a God? Isn't there? Can we truthfully claim without a shadow of a doubt that a faith like Buddhism, which teaches the same "live in balance, respect your neighbour" credo as the central message of Christianity, is somehow wrong and foolish? Is the Atheist who sees no afterlife, but who still lives a life as good as any Christian's truly "lost".
Believing in the virgin birth (again, here different Christians have different interpretations of the scriptures; according to the times, it's as likely that the child was physically Joseph's, and the fact that Mary was pregnant before her wedding day was a joy to the family rather than a shame as it would be today in Texas) and the deification of Jesus or the authenticity of his resurrection and his miracles, does not lead one down the path that Jerry Falwell has taken. Those things are just fluffery. What's important is trying to suss out what Jesus *said*, which is precisely the approach that John Spong takes, and which is precisely the approach that most Christians take, admittedly without his longstanding expertise and academic background.
Because I acknowledge that the Scriptures were written by fallible people, and translated by fallible people, with whole tomes left out because they weren't translated into Greek and Latin (the Christ-child gospels of the Coptic Christian Church of Egypt and Ethiopia are a fun read, what with five-year-old Jesus bringing clay pigeons to life and killing and resurrecting his friends -- the boy was a handful!), then I would argue that I am not a fundamentalist, because I have rejected the one fundamental that suggests that Christians are any closer to the truth than you are; the one fundamental that makes "Christians" like Jerry Falwell a problem to you.
And I would point out that I'm not a minority within the Christian Church. If Jerry Falwell actually read his Bible and believed in all of it, he wouldn't ignore the section about the need pray in private rather than on the streetcorners (or the television waves), and not calling attention to yourself as being somehow more righteous than others. He wouldn't ignore the sections that state that God loves _everybody_, including homosexuals. And he wouldn't ignore the facts that science puts in front of him, like the evidence that supports the theory of evolution, or even the existence of the dark side of the moon. The rest of us, which pray in private, and accept the evidence of their eyes, even though it apparently contradicts a few passages in the Bible, don't get noticed, because the media hardly ever reports on the daily activities of normal, reasonable people.
Remember, the good people of Dover, Pennsylvania voted out by a landslide school trustees who advocated teaching Intelligent Design. How many of those voters do you think were Christian?
You have a picture of Christians which is inaccurate, because loudmouths like Falwell tend to get more attention than quiet worshippers like me -- who incidentally don't attend Church every Sunday. And I know that it's near impossible not to respond to Falwell's aggression with hostility. But you are making assumptions about me based on a flawed criteria. You are prejudging millions of other people, and are acting aggressively towards individuals like the Green Knight who doesn't do the things that make Falwell such a problem. You are calling the whole religion backward and barbaric, even though most of its believers are as congenial as you are.
In short, I respectfully put to you that you are acting more like Jerry Falwell than most Christians are. And given how much Jerry Falwell angers you, that's somewhat sad and ironic.
P.S. Have you read Phillip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" sequence of young adult fantasy? I think you'd like it a lot, as it really champions the Atheist viewpoint quite well. Even though it challenged my faith and made it stronger, I feel there's no reason why we each can't take a good book and make what we will of it.
I did a five-part review of the series which is sure to have Falwell sh*ting his pants, once it comes to his attention, here.
James, I love His Dark Materials! I'll try to find time to read your comments on it.
We had some discussion about the trilogy on Off-The-Map, which is where I met TXatheist.
I will say it again. Believing 90% of the garbage Falwell does makes you nearly as bad. I didn't say anything about actions unless you considering perpetuating that religious nonsense as action. I definitely wouldn't say you think you're better than me. You're right it's not logical in thinking anything like Falwell. I really wish you'd stop saying most christians don't like ID and creation science. When only 10% of the USA thinks evolution happened without the work of any god, that makes 90% ungrateful or respectful of science. Also most xians do think that xianity is a better religion and they are worthy of heaven. It's a subtle arrogance so again you are pretending or unaware of that self-assessment of xians. I have said in the past that Canada is more religiously progressive than the US. In all seriousness, that's great. If you don't agree with the 4 points you mentioned great. That's going against the bible which is what humanism is about. Realizing the bible is bad to use a law or moral guide. The bible is not anymore right than any other mythology book. The bible can't be scientific because it's mostly wrong on everything but some tiny historical facts, definitely wrong on science. And the bible clearly does say to have no other gods when there is nothing wrong with that. You abandoning the nastiness of the bible is a good thing. You should if you want to avoid those 4 things. Most xians do consider the bible the inspired word of god, nearly the same thing. It's myth and nothing more. It's a story with fictional characters, less some tribes/people and nothing more. I won't say it's the literal word of god because to even state that is ridiculous. Falwell thinking it's the word of god is just as ridiculous. If there is a god he would never send some nutjob like jesus or have someone write such a contradictory book like the bible. The Green Knight and Falwell do not think much differently. So what if GK thinks Bush is dumb. Most atheists/humanists knew that before the 2000 election. When a guy says his favorite philosopher is Christ you consider him a fool. Seriously, abandoning the 4 criteria you mentioned is a great first step. Abandoning the ignorance of the bible itself is another step. Falwell will never do it. You are like him more than I by far. Nothing Falwell believes is in my line of thinking. You and him use the same barbaric myth to justify your moral ideas when the book is a horribly flawed piece of contradictory ignorance. I will try to look for Pullman but I don't care for sci-fi or Isaac Asimov and he's an atheist. Just don't like fiction that much. Including the bible:)
I consider myself to be evangelical fundamentalist with a monotheistic belief system. There I just proved your theory wrong of no one ever claims to be a fundamentalist. Let me guess by your logon you are an atheist which means a=no theist=God. How arrogant
Think of the greatness of the sun. It silently rises and sets each day, painting our skies with magnificent colors. Yet every second, millions of tons of hydrogen are destroyed in explosions that start somewhere near the core of our sun, where the temperature is 13 million degrees Celsius. That's hot. The earth's entire oil, coal and wood reserves would fuel its energy output to the earth alone for only a few days. Tongues of hydrogen flame leap from the surface with the force of one billion hydrogen bombs! They are thrust up by the enormous thermonuclear explosion at the core of the sun where 564 million tons of hydrogen fuse each second to form helium. Almighty God created it, and guilty sinners have to face Him on the Day of His Wrath. What an unspeakably fearful thing.
Dan,
How arrogant? It's no more arrogant to say that I don't believe in the tooth fairy and I'm sure you do the same. That hardly constitutes arrogance but I could say the same for you. Of all the gods man has conjured up you think you have the right one.
Dan,
I'm surprised you understand science and yet don't realize that it's a completely natural process concerning our little sun. There are billions of suns in the universe, our sun isn't special as a natural occurance. I'm no more worried about your god than you are worried about facing Allah and not bowing down to him.
I am asking David Wallace Croft to admit he is a complete fundamentalist atheist. Please.
This time last year, I was a strict Southern Baptist fundamentalist of my own accord, not of my moderate upbringing.
Other than that, can't help you there.
I don't think I've ever met a fundamentalist atheist. That's like finding a realistic christian.
http://thomashawk.com/hello/209/1017/1024/Johnny%20Cash%20Finger.jpg
And PZ, you self-deluded insignificant NUTCASE...
the ORIGINAL *KING OF TERROR* VIDEO.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGsOqPDkIZY
the *MODEL* of mental health:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zBEbfiaZTfc
"Look at the ANGLE OF THE KEY....see that, see that...."
what an idiot this Randi is.....a REAL CRITICAL THINKER....
Visit:
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/3283/P0/
to see how we stopped James Randi's fraudulent MILLION DOLLAR PARANORMAL challenge.....
watch carefully the consequences of Randi's *idea*.....
For over 40 years James Randi Zwigert (is this even a REAL NAME?) has had total control over who and how the testing was conducted, yet despite all this he has terminated the challenge.
The ONLY REASON why the challenge was stopped is because he lost and refused to pay.
Apparently, Randi likes to break the rules when it serves him:
"14. This prize will continue to be offered until it is awarded. Upon the death of James Randi, the administration of the prize will pass into other hands, and it is intended that it continue in force. "
Great force.....it's over......
where is my MILLION DOLLARS, you LITTLE *NO-NAME* FRAUD
PS: Almost Forgot: Love the IRONY of the *BULLSHIT* sign over Randi's ugly head....
Post a Comment
<< Home