Fundamentalism: A Disease of the Mind?
February 15, 2008
Disclaimer: This article is my opinion only, based on my own literary and theoretical research (M.A. in Lit.) and is not intended as “scientific research” or “rhetorical argument.” It is not a proscription against Christians in general, nor should it be implied as a “remedy.” It is a description of my thought processes out of Fundamentalism. Please don’t infer anything else.
The more I interact with Christian fundamentalists, either in church or on the Internet, the more I become convinced it is a disease of the mind, or at least a self-replicating meme or “mind virus.” Having been a Christian fundamentalist myself, I can honestly say that you aren’t in your right mind when you are caught in the throes of religious fundamentalism. As a fundamentalist you close your mind to anything but what ancient texts say. You only listen to certain things and filter everything through the lens of your chosen religion. How can this be normal when we are born without filters of any kind (except pain and pleasure)? Being a fundamentalist is like confining all your thought to the works of Archimedes or to Shakespeare (that might not be a bad idea) and refusing to accept information past that point. It’s like insisting that Greek culture is the only true culture and channeling all of your efforts to seeing that it becomes our culture now.
That being said, there is a certain thrill in suddenly “waking up” and realizing you’ve been deluding yourself for many years. What I once did to become a fundamentalist, I have now done in freeing myself from it’s grasp. You slowly begin to grasp that the fundamentalist rituals you are using are designed solely to keep those delusions fresh and ever present in your mind so that you will quickly fall into line if you have doubts. Hell is an ever present threat. You pull out pat phrases and use terminology of the group rather than honestly grapple with questions that come your way. It’s brainwashing, pure and simple. Why? Because of two simple mental tricks foisted upon the weak of mind and ingrained over time:
1) Never trust your mind or your spirit
2) If it’s not in the “scriptures” don’t trust it.
Using this memetic device over and over, you are guaranteed to become a mental and spiritual robot, willing to take orders from those who will gladly tell you what to do and how to do it. The bible is used as the mimetic tool. Your brainwashers will interpret society and the bible for you, don’t worry about that. You may read the bible, but don’t think about it too much. If you refuse to trust your own thoughts and feelings and keep repeating to yourself that “satan” is trying to lure you away when you read other things, then you have successfully stunted your growth for the rest of your life. Is it any wonder that fundamentalists are stuck in the adolescent stage of life? Is it any wonder that they cry and bawl if they don’t get their way? Is it any wonder that when faced with opposition, they cajole, threaten, use stock phrases and when these tactics won’t work, they become violent and hateful? There’s nothing more evil than the false smile and the “God bless you” of a fundamentalist who won’t accept your view of the world as equally as valid as his. I know! I’ve done it myself and recently too! Because it’s so EASY and so smugly self-satisfying.
I’m over-generalizing here, but many Fundamentalists are people who have had rough lives and are looking for unconditional love. Every fundamentalist I’ve ever met talks of being “saved” from drug dependency, alcoholism, depression, abuse, or suicide. Or a fundamentalist speaks of feeling love for the first time in his life. Rarely does a fundamentalist come from a happy family, unless said family is already steeped in fundamentalism and the believer knows no other happiness. Why? Because happiness does not need the remedy fundamentalism provides: a tightly knit group of like-minded people who resist the larger culture in which they find themselves. Fundamentalists cannot cope with the world as it is. They must invent an ideal world that shelters them from chaos.
In a way it’s admirable that we can divert our attention this way to try to “heal” ourselves, but it is only a tiny, tiny step to full fledged mental health. And, turning to religion is not a necessary step to heal ourselves. There are other routes. Religious fervor is not a cure but a band-aid. Its effects should be temporary, but some never grow out of the fundamentalist mindset and choose to remain in ignorance. The fundamentalist worldview is basically an ideal. These ideals, like political ideologies, don’t really exist in the real world as we experience it with our bodies. These ideas must be invented and grown from revolutionary-like movements, spurred by revolutionary-like messiahs. It’s very, very hard to change the brainwashing of fundamentalism. It requires a strong sense of self and determination and the drive to be aware; to wake up! It requires education, formal or otherwise. This is why trying to reason with some fundamentalists doesn’t work. But I believe it can be done. The fundamentalist can change if they allow themselves to rethink and analyze why they believe. They can change if they perhaps allow themselves to imagine just a tiny bit that their scriptures were written ages ago by men who didn’t have all the answers and who weren’t right 100% of the time. The fundamentalist can change if they can see that their worldview is not necessarily the only “correct” worldview, or that the god they worship does not exist except in their own minds, or that the promises the church keeps teaching them will work, in fact do not work in practice. One has to pull oneself up by the bootstraps, so to speak, and realize the damage done to individuals and to families who fall victim to this mind virus. But it’s also very painful to wake up and not something people willingly take on without a serious jolt to their belief system.
For some, this kind of strength would precipitate a mental break that can’t be borne. For others, mere argument here on this site will not achieve what we hope it will, an enlightenment into reason and hope and a break from the false strictures of religion. It takes so much time to reason with rote answers. It also takes a huge dose of patience and humility to allow others to de-convert at their own pace. But, I’m willing to do it. Look at it as an intervention to save my life. Why? Because I’ve gone through the process and am still going through the process. I want to wake up.
-MysteryofIniquity
Entry Filed under: MysteryOfIniquity. Tags: being awake, bright, christianity, faith, fundamentalism, memes, mind games, Popular, religion.
1.
notabarbie | February 15, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Wow MOI, excellent post and so true. As my sister has gotten more and more involved in Bible studies and “biblical counseling,” I have seen her become more and more unstable. I think I find it so disturbing because, like you, I was right there just a couple of years ago. I was completely steeped in fundamentalism and black and white thinking. I’m actually worried about her because the things she says and the time she spends studying tells me she is heading for some trouble. I agree though, patience and humility is the best way to reach a fundamentalist. No one could have crammed rationality down my throat. It was a long and drawn out process for me to see the flaws, fallacies, and irrationalities in the Christian religion and the mental harm caused by fundamentalism. Thanks for that reminder and it was so well written.
2.
mysteryofiniquity | February 15, 2008 at 12:50 pm
notabarbie,
Thank you! My sister is going through that right now too. It’s painful to watch, because I can see her following the exact same path I did and learning lessons the hard way, but every time I challenge her she gets very emotional and distressed beyond reason. I’m convinced it unbalances you to an awful degree!
3.
Mike | February 15, 2008 at 1:36 pm
MOI,
I dont deny that much of what you described can be true, but I am curious how you would define fundamentalism. I only ask because I would consider myself and the seminary I go to conservatively fundamental, and yet my experience with the people here is so night and day different from what you have described. It would just help me to engage with this article knowing that we are talking about the same thing. Thanks!
4.
Bro. Burton | February 15, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Very well written post, and interesting. I am sorry that this was/is the impression you were left with from “fundamentalist christians”.
I will tell you, not all Christians are like this. We do not all blindly follow what someone else espouses to be true, to the contrary we listen, and research, and allow the Spirit to guide us (I know thats a “pat” answer - but its true), to the Truth.
I find the cartoon interestiing. It implies that scientists NEVER make a huge jump to a tremendously eroneous conclusion. Show me the proof (hard scientific evidence) that says the big bang really happened (there is none that is why it is still called a theory). But yet scientists regularly regard this as fact. They are trying to find the facts to support their wrong conclusion.
There are so many things in this world that have NO explanation, is it so wrong that I choose to follow my heart and my mind, to the only thing that makes sense? There is a Creator.
Prove to me there is no Creator. I will listen to reason, but it must be supported by FACT, otherwise your beliefs are no better than mine - and that means you are still asleep and are being blindly led by those that are “de-converted”
I dont mean to offend, please understand that. But the idea that your beliefs are any better than mine - well I am as offended as you.
5.
mysteryofiniquity | February 15, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Bro. Burton,
You wrote: “Prove to me there is no Creator. I will listen to reason, but it must be supported by FACT, otherwise your beliefs are no better than mine - and that means you are still asleep and are being blindly led by those that are “de-converted.” I dont mean to offend, please understand that. But the idea that your beliefs are any better than mine - well I am as offended as you.”
No offense taken. You see, that’s just it, I’m not espousing any “beliefs” at all. I’m coming out of, not going into, a belief system. Nor am I “blinded” by the de-converted. To me they are fellows along the same path, but not my spiritual leaders. And I have no interest in “proving” a god does or doesn’t exist. Sorry.
6.
mysteryofiniquity | February 15, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Hi Mike,
A religious fundamentalist is someone who believes that whatever scripture they adhere to is inerrant (without error) and inspired by God (i.e. transmitted to the writers without error) and who follows their own interpretations of said scripture as if it were fact. A religious fundamentalist is also someone who believes that the whole world is under their god’s control, including secular governments, and that believers of said god have the right to convert, pronounce upon, or exact justice upon others in this god’s name and in said god’s stead. (a belief in a literal heaven and hell is also necessary for the judgment part).
I just made that up on the spot, so it could be missing some things. The chief quality of fundamentalism for me though is the inerrant scripture idea and the belief that everyone must believe in an inerrant scripture to be Christian.
I hope that helps.
7.
Marge | February 15, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Thank you for raising my awareness of the actual meaning of meme.
I agree that fundamental Christianity is brainwashing (I’ve come to think of it as just another cult) however I wouldn’t go so far as to call it a disease in the popular sense. It’s a choice. In a society where the integrity of family and it’s inherent strenth are at risk, people crave a sense of belonging and a source of validation and guidance. Religion provides a community and “answers” and I think many take comfort in the stories and traditions the way a child finds comfort in the imaginary realm. Your remark that “fundamentalists are stuck in the adolescent stage of life” rings true in so many ways.
Like you and Notabarbie, I have a sister who is blinded. She and her husband are missionaries in South America - I guess perpetuating this dangerous mindset in America was not enough for them. They are so deeply entangled that I often fear for her wellbeing (as a submissive wife to an overbearing, controling, emotionally abusive husband). We both grew up in a home where Christianity was the basis of everything - we ate slept and breathed it. Unlike her, I have no fear in questioning authority. She is one of the few people that I cannot bring myself to tell of my deconversion (even after ten years).
Sometimes I think our society could benefit from a new breed of rehabilitation facilities.
8.
mysteryofiniquity | February 15, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Marge,
I agree that “disease” is a strong word, but I think it fits in the “virus of the mind” category. Diseases do not all have to be physical manifestations. I guess the term could be understood as a dis-ease of the mind. Fundamentalism has the illusion of solving our problems for us, but then creates a whole host of new ones once it’s taken control of our thought processes. We cannot easily rid ourselves of them either. It takes an anti-dote, if you will, in the form of more information and clearer, less biased thinking. Many people choose to live with the dis-ease, even if it makes them feel bad. I know I did.
9.
Paul S. | February 15, 2008 at 3:18 pm
I would applaud you if I thought this was true. But have you really researched other religions besides Christianity as well as research what a secularist/humanist believes? What is it about Christianity that convinces you that it is the Truth (as you put it)? Surely you realize that there are a billion Muslims who are just as convinced as you are about Christianity that Islam is the Truth. Same goes for Hinduism, Judaism, etc.
The difference is that scientific conclusions are based upon the collection of data through observation and experimentation. The scientific method, by definition, does not allow for a scientist to make a scientifically-based jump to a tremendously erroneous conclusion since one of the main components of the scientific method is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so it is available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. So while a huge jump to a tremendously erroneous conclusion can obviously be made by a scientist (from opinion or misapplication of the scientific data), it doesn’t follow that that conclusion would be accepted in the scientific community.
But what you’re doing is applying your own religious presuppositions (that the big bang theory is the wrong conclusion) to try and show that the big bang theory is the wrong conclusion. This is circular reasoning. There most certainly is evidence that the big bang happened. If there wasn’t, it wouldn’t be considered a scientific theory.
You might also want to do a little research and learn how a scientific “theory” differs from the layman’s use of the word “theory.”
10.
Marge | February 15, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Bro Burton & Mike -
Please understand that the label “de-convert” is merely a convenient way of grouping those who have chosen to leave fundamental religion behind, it’s not a defined belief like Agnosticism or Atheism. Indeed by identifying with other de-converts I am neither embracing nor eshewing the existence of God, merely choosing to formulate my thoughts and beliefs on the subject outside of conventional religious teachings.
People everywhere in the world have this strange inclination to not only define their beliefs but to rationalize and justify them. In my long journey away from that mindset of “right and wrong” or superior beliefs, I have come to accept that it’s ok not to completely know what I believe about everything. Definition of one’s beliefs is and should be a moving target. I have my personal reasons for thinking there’s a deity and whether I can prove it or not is irrelevant to me. This mindset allows me to grow and interract with all people with less judgement.
I am always encouraged to see commentary on these posts from those who are active in their religious faiths and look forward to more of your perspective.
11.
Mike | February 15, 2008 at 3:24 pm
MOI,
Okay, that helps a lot. From what you have described, it sounds like an underlying contributor to the distress that you have expressed in your article is these beliefs paired with a strong Modernistic epistemology. I say that because I believe all the things you enumerated (#6), but I treat them with a Postmodern epistemology. While I cannot speak for any of my peers at seminary, my guess is the reason they believe similar things that you have described without acting the way you describe in your post is because of the Postmodern backdrop behind their beliefs. Does that make sense? Could that be the root of what you are describing, or am I way off?
12.
mysteryofiniquity | February 15, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Well said, Marge! My sentiments exactly.Sometimes I think there’s a deity and other times not. Still, like you I choose to exist outside the confines of a religious system that purports to tell me what to believe.
13.
Mike | February 15, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Marge,
I dont know if I have had the pleasure of dialoguing with you before, but I appreciate your comments as well and look forward to continuing the discussion with you
14.
mysteryofiniquity | February 15, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Mike,
Distress? I was unaware of any distress. In fact, I feel pretty good. Mental vacillation with a few self-imposed residual feelings of PTSD, perhaps.
15.
Mike | February 15, 2008 at 3:34 pm
MOI,
Okay, you got me on poor word choice
You know what I mean though.
P.S. It is always a pleasure to talk with you as well
16.
mysteryofiniquity | February 15, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Mike,
I know, I’m just giving you a hard time ’cause I’m not sure how to answer your question.
Are you saying that because there is a different epistemology behind your seminarian education that you and your fellow seminarians see the issue of inerrancy differently than say…seminarians of times past? Not to be an academic snob, but there’s a vast gulf between what is learned by pastors then and now, and how they present such information to their congregations today. Whether or not you are “emergent” or “pentecostal” in your theology, inerrancy means the same thing. Even if we are taught to view different books of the bible as different pieces of literature, the inerrancy of scripture is held as a test of faith. Most in the pew could care less about epistemological reasons behind those beliefs. All they know is that they are told to believe every word of “scripture” and that it is the final word in every argument.
There are Christians who don’t ascribe to this. I would not call them fundamentalists.
17.
What is a “memeR&hellip | February 15, 2008 at 4:24 pm
[...] strength I mustered years ago to break away from the mental control of religion. I was reading an interesting post today on that very topic which linked to the definition of the word [...]
18.
Zoe | February 15, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Great post Moi. I just had a two hour conversation just today that contained a lot of what you’ve written in this post.
19.
mysteryofiniquity | February 15, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Zoe,
I must confess that our recent email conversations and posts at your web site precipitated a reworking of an old post on my site. (bowing) Honor where honor is due!
20.
Godamn | February 15, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Bro, just because we dont understand something, does not mean the first thing that seems to make sense is correct. Thats knowledge from ignorance. The following story illustrates religious beliefs (I strongly suggest reading ‘The Demon Haunted World’ by Carl Sagan) -
The Dragon in My Garage
Suppose I come to you one fine day and say,”Dude, you aren’t going to believe this but there’s a live fire breathing dragon hiding in my garage”.
Although you are skeptical, you feel I should be given a chance to prove what I am saying.
You say, “Show me”.
So, I take you to my garage. But its empty! Nothing wrong with that, you think.
Perhaps the dragon’s out for a walk. You can’t hide in a garage 24/7, it would drive you batty (get it?). Maybe the dragons gone to visit a friend over in Europe or China. Birthday party, perhaps?
21.
Godamn | February 15, 2008 at 5:12 pm
These inter-continental dragons must be every Air Traffic Controllers worst nightmare, what with no communication equipment or flight plans, they are a hazard. Not to mention the effect on passengers, especially those who are afraid of flying. Imagine what it would be like to look out the window and see a couple of drunken dragons with party hats and balloons, grinning and waving to you, there six inch razor sharp teeth glinting in the sunlight.
Theres a phenomena called Radar Angels which causes radars to show something where theres nothing. Stratospheric temparature inversion always seemed to be a weak argument. Now we know that Radar Angels are Flying Dragons.
Anyway, you turn to me and say, “Where’s the dragon?”
“Oh, she’s right here”, I reply, waving my hand around the garage vaguely.
“I forgot to tell you, this dragon is invisible”.
You: Well, ok, then lets spread flour on the floor so we can see the footprints being formed.
Me: Good idea, but this dragon floats in the air, so it won’t form any footprints.
You: Then lets spray some paint on her so we can see the outline.
Me: That won’t work. This dragon is incorporeal, so the paint won’t stick.
22.
Godamn | February 15, 2008 at 5:14 pm
You: Lets use an infra-red sensor to detect the heat from the dragons fire.
Me: Great idea, but this dragons fire is also heatless.
So, you go on proposing ways of testing the dragons presence and I keep giving you a special explanation as to why it won’t work.
Now whats the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon that spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? Wouldn’t you wonder that if there is no way of testing the existence of the dragon, what convinced me about it? What was it that changed my mind from not believing in dragons to believing in them? The only plausible answer would be that it’s all in my head. I may truly believe in the dragon but does that mean the dragon truly exists? Similarly, if god is beyond the realm of perception, how do we know that he is there at all? We can see Dragons in nature just as easily as we can see gods. A flawed and self contradictory book cannot be used to justify its own claims. And lets not forget that the books in the bible were picked from a larger collection of books by humans. There was no objective criteria that was applied to determine which book was true or not.
23.
Godamn | February 15, 2008 at 5:15 pm
It was simply a case of the majority preference. How can we know that the correct books were included? How was it determined whether an author was being inspired by god or not? In light of this we can ask, What evidence does gods theory have that is superior to the dragons? After all, stories of Dragons have prevailed in a variety of cultures for centuries before Christ. Can you disprove my dragon? No? So, does that mean she is real? Why should we assume god is real if we cannot disprove it? It is impossible to disprove a negative. That is why it is necessary for the proponent of an idea to prove its validity, which is possible.
It is very irritating to have people say that Atheists believe god does not exist. Even worse is when Atheism is called a belief. When a theist makes a claim of god, why should it be accepted without proof? How can the rejection of the hypothesis equate those rejecting it as being opposed to the possibility of that idea? Anyone who says atheists must disprove god has to accept my dragon claims are just as valid as those of god and it needs to be disproved in order to be invalidated.
24.
Godamn | February 15, 2008 at 5:18 pm
They must also accept the theories of gods of all the other religions as true until disproved. Infact, any claim anyone makes must be accepted as true, no matter how ridiculous, unless it can be proved false.
Should you have to prove your innocence in a court of law?
Suppose you get arrested and accused of murder. Would it be fair to expect you to prove you did not commit the murder? Even if you were not in the vicinity, you could have hired someone to do it. Can you prove that you did not hire an assasin? Shouldn’t the prosecution have to prove that you were responsible for the crime you are accused of? A negative claim cannot be refuted but that does not mean it should be accepted. Just the opposite.
25.
Godamn | February 15, 2008 at 5:20 pm
It’s not hard to see how a dragon in a garage could become a new religon if we accept claims to be true until proved false. I start worshipping the Dragon in my garage. I claim Dragons are hiding out in garages all over the world waiting for the day when they will take over (Dragon HQ will , of course, be in my garage, since it was where the Revelation was received), and anyone who doesn’t believe in them is going to be roasted by their heatless fire. Millions of other people become believers. Why? Some have felt the presence of The Dragon. A spiritual experience. Some of them have had visitations from Dragonite angels (Drangels - Get it? Deranged angels) telling them to spread the word or else…
Some dragonites show burnt fingers which they attribute to rare manifestations of the dragons fiery breath. There are other ways to burn fingers, but it is for the skeptics to prove that the Dragonites burns were not caused by the Dragon. How could they do it?
26.
Godamn | February 15, 2008 at 5:22 pm
My garage becomes a place of pilgrimage for Dragonites from all over the world. A number of the pilgrims come for specific reasons, like an incurable disease. Some of these are cured. The vast majority are not. But nobody hears about the latter. The ones who are cured believe it was their visit to The Dragon in the Garage that cured them. They feel they have received smoke signals from The Dragon instructing them to spread the religion like wild fire. They would proclaim Him as their saviour (and the roaster of unbelievers). But at the end of the day, the fact is, we don’t know if The Dragon exists or not.
That is why a claim needs objective proof in order to be accepted. Accepting everything that is proferred as knowledge is as good knowing nothing. Attributing somethings existence to god eliminates the possibility of gaining further knowledge of it and as such, is just laziness. Why think of other possible explanations? This one works just fine. You cannot disprove it and it explains everything. Its perfect. As in perfectly worthless. How can we be sure there is no explanation possible unless we search for it? But who would search for answers if god explains everything? Some things are not meant to be understood - but how do you know it is not meant to be understood unless you try to understand it?
27.
Godamn | February 15, 2008 at 5:22 pm
The Big Bang theory has a very simple explanation. Radar. Actually, the same principles of radar only we use the light from stars instead of bouncing waves as is the case with planes. Its called the Doppler effect. As a source of light moves further away from us, its light will shift to the red end of the spectrum, called redshift of light. We know the Universe is expanding because the light from distant objects is constantly shifting towards the red end of the spectrum. There is also the fact that the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic. The uniformity of the Cosmic Microwave Background also indicates a singular source.
28.
Zoe | February 15, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Moi,
Well I’ll be. I’m both humbled and honoured.
29.
Marge | February 15, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Godamn - You have a lot of good points - probably more than I’ll ever know because I stopped reading after the clever dragon story. As mentioned in other recent posts here it’s not considerate of the discussion participants to clog the commentary. I would enjoy reading up on your expanded thoughts in your personal posting(s). It’s best practice to leave shorter comments containing links to the longer text. Thanks.
30.
mysteryofiniquity | February 15, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Uh, what Marge said. You mean dragons don’t exist?
31.
Michelle | February 15, 2008 at 6:12 pm
OK, MOI:
What am I? I really buck at the term “fundamentalist” because of the negative connotations. I don’t want to make people submit to my way of thinking or propose bombing them if they don’t. But I do believe what the ancient Hebrew texts (except Luke, some people think he was Gentile) say about God. I do have faith in Christ for my salvation. I do believe in heaven and hell, although I can’t give you a concrete picture of what they will be. I can say I believe one is fellowship with God, and the other is separation from God. I have experienced something “Holy Other” than me, and am thrilled I am in relationship with Him. I believe He came in the form of a man and lived on the earth and made a way for me to be in Him.
But, I don’t see the danger. This is my belief. I would like others to believe it too - to experience what I experience and to have a life with this same Holiness forever. Am I going to force my belief on anyone? No. That would be totally against what Jesus told me to do. Am I going to shun anyone who does not believe what I believe? No, that would be totally boring since I would probably be all alone. I don’t think any two fallible people believe the exact same thing. Am I hurting someone with this belief? I see it may offend, but how does it hurt? Why am I considered dangerous? Why am I diseased (or dis-eased)?
I am sincerely asking and not intending to sound obtuse.
32.
mysteryofiniquity | February 15, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Michelle,
I believe that when someone uses a text like the Jewish and New Testament scriptures as the final say on everything, that’s where fundamentalism comes in and that’s where the danger lies for the mind because it closes off communication not only with other people, but it closes off education and reasonable thinking for ourselves.
People can believe whatever they wish, but to insist that others must believe the same things they do, based on what a 2000-4000 year old text is saying is, to me, madness. People do not have the authority to tell others that a god exists and therefore they must believe in what that god proscribes without evidence to back it up. To me, there is no evidence.
Like I said, inerrancy of the bible and the insistence on obedience to that bible is the test for being a fundamentalist.
33.
Michelle | February 15, 2008 at 6:50 pm
OK…so…
” inerrancy of the bible and the insistence on obedience to that bible is the test for being a fundamentalist.”
I believe one (inerrancy of the bible) but not the other (insistence on obedience to that bible). I believe we need to listen to one another, hear all points of view, reason and educate ourselves and our children in all areas of academia and most of the cultures (some are just too scary).
Do you see the difference I am trying to make? I am open-minded and yet hold my beliefs closely, but I do not force them on anyone else. I believe the fundamentals of the Christian faith, but I am not going to teach only that to my children. I try to protect them from any obscene culture, and am a bit overly protective, but I don’t want their minds closed. I want their faith to be reasonable. Didn’t God say, “Come, let us reason together.”
So…you see…I believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God but I do not insist others obey it. What does that make me - what’s my label?
34.
Brad | February 15, 2008 at 6:56 pm
MOI,
Wow… I’m following the conversation between you and Mike and want to add my two cents… I think we’re all lining up very well, but need to address the issue of defining “inerrancy.”
Based on your definition, I agree with it. So would a fundamentalist, but I’m not a fundamentalist (as you well know!). The difference is in how we define it.
The fundamentalist would go on to say that, by “innerrancy” they mean that “scripture is truth given by God, and that if it isn’t in scripture, it isn’t true.” (or something like that). It is a very very very literal interpretation of the Bible.
The Reformed tradition (to which all of us over at Confessions of a Seminarian subscribe to) would sat that “scripture is true in all that it affirms.” Where it makes strong statements (i.e. Drunkenness is a sin), we affirm it as true. Where it does not make a statement, we also do not (i.e. Drinking alchohol without getting drunk is not a sin). The fundamentalist, on the other hand, would try to apply God’s truth where it was not meant to apply. This is rooted in Modernistic epistemology, and leads to a lot of “truth,” but very little love.
There are many conservative Christians that believe in the inerrancy of scripture, but also recognize that truth in scripture is not complete truth. There are a lot of questions that scripture doesn’t answer (i.e. When exactly does Jesus come back?). But the questions it does answer are truth and are to be trusted. Belief in inerrancy (should) affirms that where God has spoken about a subject, it is authoritative in that context and where it can be reasonably applied in ours.
Fundamentalists do a lot of adding to God’s truth that isn’t God’s truth. And then they tell each other they have to believe it… or else! We Reformed types like doubting/wrestling/struggling. We’ve found it brings further clarity and understanding to our faith because we are confident that the truth will enlighten our doubts. Make sense?
35.
Brad | February 15, 2008 at 6:59 pm
To supplement that last comment, here’s a post that Jim wrote on the subject. It should give a lot of further clarity on our stance:
http://seminarianblog.com/2007/08/27/bees-inerrancy/
36.
karen | February 15, 2008 at 8:00 pm
It’s interesting that we have so many fundamentalists in this country, and so few willing to claim the term.
I believe that the word has become somewhat “poisoned” over the recent years, particularly in its association with Islamic fundamentalism.
However, there are very precise definitions of fundamentalism available in sociology literature. The basic dividing line is a view of ancient holy texts as literally inspired by god and therefore inerrant. Once something is divinely inspired, of course, inerrancy is a logical follow up (unless a perfect god can make mistakes!).
Bruce Bawer’s excellent book, “Stealing Jesus: How Fundamentalism Betrays Christianity,” is a terrific starting point for those trapped in fundamentalism’s black box who are beginning to see cracks in the walls and want to peek outside to see what’s there.
Terrific post, MOI. I agree with you, and I particularly applaud you for mentioning that fundamentalists CAN break out of the mold, with some help. Certainly I and many here are living proof of that!
37.
Quester | February 15, 2008 at 8:41 pm
It wasn’t long ago when I considered the main problem with fundamentalists was that they were not fundamental enough. Most of the judgements and condemnations I heard did not come from the bible, or came from a few verses taken out of context.
On the other hand, I sympathized with some underhanded evangelists. If you truly believe that only by performing a particular action (even if that is only an act of will) would someone be saved from eternal torment, anything short of eternal torment is a worthwhile act if it results in people performing that act.
Michelle, you say you hold your beliefs closely, but are open-minded. What promises in the bible allow you to be open-minded without fearing the condemnation of those you are not trying to ’save’? Are those promises contradicted by other passages of this inerrant bible?
MoI, I’m glad you call for patience and remind people of the pain of deconversion. I’ve only been here a few months and I sometimes struggle to be patient as someone comes with the same arguments for God’s existence as another did the day before, neither reading any other threads on the site to see those same arguments taken apart. But I try to show patience because I want people to be patient with me as I struggle with my own faith and what I’m still beginning to see as my loss of faith. More than that, I want to live in a world where people are not so scared of damnation or convinced of salvation that they have no problems hurting themselves or others. I do not think that my venting angrily would further either of those desires.
What took me out of my belief of scriptural inerrancy was my belief in scriptural inerrancy. Trying to teach the bible, study the bible, and derive a consistent morality and image of God from the bible, forced me to stop taking the bible as inerrant. For one thing, nowhere in the bible is there any claim that the bible is inerrant. I had not realized that until last year. It shook me, but in other ways freed me from having to fear as much as I did.
38.
Quester | February 15, 2008 at 8:46 pm
[Quester, I fixed it - Paul]
39.
Bro. Burton | February 15, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Go: you say: “Why think of other possible explanations? This one works just fine. You cannot disprove it and it explains everything. Its perfect. As in perfectly worthless. How can we be sure there is no explanation possible unless we search for it? But who would search for answers if god explains everything? Some things are not meant to be understood - but how do you know it is not meant to be understood unless you try to understand it?”
I agree = lets look for other explanations. But. if I choose to accept this explanation, and you choose to subscribe to the belief that there is no belief (?) who is wrong? There is no empirical evidence one way or the other - without faith.
So I choose to believe that there is God. I can find no other explanation that is plausible to me. I look at his creation and stand in awe. So, I place my faith in Him, who has revealed himself to me through his Word.
And I have looked up theory, and my understanding is a theory is NOT fact, if it were it would be a law.
40.
Michelle | February 15, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Quester asked:
Michelle, you say you hold your beliefs closely, but are open-minded. What promises in the bible allow you to be open-minded without fearing the condemnation of those you are not trying to ’save’? Are those promises contradicted by other passages of this inerrant bible?
I believe God when He says all whom I have called will come to Me. I don’t understand it (how that exactly works) but I trust in His character. He is the only One Who can judge because He is the only One Who can see man’s heart. I cannot judge anyone. I have no clue what anyone else has experienced to lead them to where they are - only God sees the whole. I trust in who He is as He has revealed Himself to us in His Word. Do I know all about Him? No, I can’t. I’m just a puny human, on a tiny pea of a planet, in a small galaxy, floating in a vast universe. I am not the final authority on anything, and glad I’m not. I trust in the One Who knows.
I have not found anythng in the Bible that tells me I cannot search for wisdom. Contrary to what some believe, I am told to search for wisdom as a man minds for silver. This leaves me open to enjoy all of God’s creation (that is not obscene - some things are just gross) and search for beauty everywhere. I can appreciate Eastern beliefs without believing the same. I can research all topics without having to adhere to all points of view.
When I say I hold my beliefs close, I mean they are personal and will be glad to share them with anyone who wants to know (thus, the reason for my blog) but I do not condemn anyone, I cannot condemn anyone, I am too small. I leave the things I can’t understand to God. I believe He is big enough.
41.
OneSmallStep | February 15, 2008 at 10:07 pm
MOI,
I haven’t read through all the comments, but did see your definition of fundamentalism. I’m wondering if you can possibly add to it the idea of someone who doesn’t listen, and I’m using this in the same sense of your cartoon. We’ve all come across people who if they hear our belief in God, jump to certain conclusions because that’s what a certain religious book says.
For instance, take evolution, or any scientific field. Many scientists (no, not all) seem to find that the more they study their particular field, the more agnostic/atheistic they become, because of where the evidence leads. Yet a fundamentalist Christian would point to Romans 1 in that all of creation points to God, and then say that the scientist is clearly not using the evidence, and reallyreally knows that God exists, but is just denying it, or living in sin. The fundamentalist has the conclusion, and everything is molded to fit that conclusion.
So if a book is taken as inerrant, in any religion, and part of that book says that everyone knows there’s a God, how well can you truly listen or understand someone who says otherwise? If something is taken as inerrant, can you truly be open to evidence/facts that might contradict the inerrant object?
42.
Thinking Ape | February 15, 2008 at 10:53 pm
OneSmallStep,
Well then we are all fundamentalists in one way in one circumstance or another, aren’t we? I mean, even when I was a fundamentalist, I still listened - I just didn’t agree. Likewise, now we have cases where we are actually expelling tenured university professors for professing believe in intelligent design.
43.
Quester | February 15, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Thank-you, Michelle. I’m glad your beliefs give you peace. You seem less troubled than I am by what God may expect of us in regards to sharing the Christian faith, and how God will respond if we are not appropriately diligent, but I feel no need to give you dis-ease. I do hope you find the wisdom and beauty you search for.
Bro. Burton, should there not be more evidence for something that exists than there is for something that doesn’t? Arguing that there is no evidence that God exists, but at least there is no evidence God doesn’t may be enough for a philosophy class, but surely something more is needed to base a life on.
And you’re right. Theory is not fact. It is simply something that explains all the known facts. If you wish to discard it, please bring some facts with you.
44.
TheDeeZone | February 15, 2008 at 11:10 pm
MOI,
Well said.
I agree with Bro Burton not all Christians are like that. Some of us actually think. I do believe that the Bible contains the inspired word of God & I support evangelism. However, I do not believe that we are to proclaim God’s judgement on the those we don’t agree with “judge not lest you be judge.” I also believe that others may disagree with everything I stand for and that is their right.
Marge, Interesting definition of de-convert.
Michelle,
I agree with your comments in # 32 & 33. Although I don’t think believing in fundamentals of one’s faith makes you a fundamentalist or at least my experince with them. My expreince has been they are something of a modern day Pharasee (sorry for spelling). I think Proverbs 1 backs up searching for wisdom.
Brad, Good difination of a fundamentialist.
I have been called a liberal and unchristian by fundamentalist because of the music I listen (Christian rap & alternative), I wear pants, get into theological debates with my husband and other males, have a degree in ethics and the apparently the worst is that I pursued an MDiv and not a MACE because academically it is a better degree. Had a fundamentalist co-worker at Christian school tell me that the teacher’s lunch table was not the place to discuss thelogoy with men. Gee, if we can’t discuss theology in a Christian shcool where can we discuss it. I will stop before I say something unkind about fundamentalist.
45.
Quester | February 15, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Thinking Ape, I’ve read that Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez claims he was denied tenure for believing in Intelligent Design, but I haven’t heard of any tenured professor who actually lost his job over the issue. Who are you referring to?
46.
OneSmallStep | February 15, 2008 at 11:20 pm
TA,
I did expand upon this, though, in terms of science, and in terms of the cartoon. One goes where the evidence leads, the other makes the evidence fit, regardless. Are there situations where we all use our conclusions to interpret facts? Of course. But I think someone who doesn’t hold one book or creed/tenent to be inerrant might listen better, simply because each situation is its own. As opposed to someone who tells you you’re angry at God because you’re agnostic/atheist. Even when you tell them you’re not angry, they “know” you’re wrong because something in their religion says so.
There’s a big difference between hearing and listening. Even in disagreeing — there’s a big difference in disagreeing with someone because of your evidence, and using your evidence to tell the other person what s/he really thinks/feels/means.
47.
Godamn | February 16, 2008 at 4:15 am
First of all, I sincerely apologize for the clog. I really need to put up a blog. Im just such a big hand (not big mouth) LOL. Sorry, bad joke - you may have noticed, I make a lot of bad puns too).
Bro,
Who is correct? Well, computers, cars and planes dont run on faith. The evidence of the science’s validity is all around you. I cant think of a second that I spend when Im not surrounded by the products of science. Thats why its true. Does religion have anything comparable to show for its own achievements? Science has very tangible returns. Thats why its believable.
48.
Jon F | February 16, 2008 at 5:11 am
Hi MOI,
A great post! I still have a lot of underlying anger in myself over my “fundie years” as I continue to shake myself loose from its grip. I have never heard anyone go as far as to describe fundamentalism as a disease, so if that’s true then my question to you is “what’s the cure?” And along with this, why do some people manage to snap out of it (like the cotributors on this site) and yet others just stay locked in all their lives?
Jon
49.
Godamn | February 16, 2008 at 6:30 am
Jon,
Thats an excellent question. Ironically, it seems to me that most people who leave their religion are the ones who tried to make sense of them and reconcile the contradictions. A lot of people on this site who are exians have studied theology and it was their attempt at understanding their beliefs that led to deconversion. Ignorance plays a significant role in keeping people religious.
50.
John | February 16, 2008 at 8:33 am
Great Post! Been there - I too was once a fundamentalist christian.
“That being said, there is a certain thrill in suddenly “waking up” and realizing you’ve been deluding yourself for many years”
I know what you mean!
although a costly thrill I must say - all those years trapped in a mindset
51.
ninepoundhammer | February 16, 2008 at 9:12 am
What a sad post. Yet, it is not unexpected nor surprising considering the state of sin into which we enter the world. We are conceived at enmity with God and, barring His intervention, remain that way.
I do find it odd that we ‘fundamentalists’ (a very loaded term these days) are derided for our presuppositionalism yet, your argument presupposes that we are wrong. You go so far as to call us DISEASED.
How very enlightened and tolerant of you.
52.
We Put the ‘Mental&&hellip | February 16, 2008 at 9:24 am
[...] ran across a sad posting on a sad blog this morning that initially had me quite vexed. However, as I posted in the comments section, I am [...]
53.
Godamn | February 16, 2008 at 9:34 am
NPH,
Read comments #20 - 27.
You cannot begin with a conclusion you are right. Evidence must be offered. And objective evidence. Read the comments, I dont think you have.
54.
a short hiatus — an&hellip | February 16, 2008 at 9:59 am
[...] said that, I very much enjoyed the d-C post from yesterday, here is a snippet: I can honestly say that you aren’t in your right mind when [...]
55.
isaiah30v8 | February 16, 2008 at 10:16 am
Godam re#53
Thats what I thought too!
I felt that if the bible was true then eventually there would be real tangible evidences proving it. I read the bible focusing mostly on end time prohecies and then used the Internet (which was new to most of the world at the time) to search for “EVIDENCES”.
I was an athiest.
Now I am Christian.
You can read about what I did and found in an article called “Armchair Archeology”:
http://ablebodiedman.blogspot.com/
Yes, my beliefs are based on real evidences!
56.
mysteryofiniquity | February 16, 2008 at 10:29 am
Michelle,
I can sense your anger and that’s ok. You don’t have a label. There are exceptions to every rule. This is not a hard and fast rule, it’s my opinion from coming out of fundamentalism. To me fundamentalism is a disease of the mind. It changes my thinking in not so good ways. It makes me an angry person when I don’t get my way. It makes me see the whole world as evil and only a chosen few as “acceptable to God.” Fundamentalism is any system of thought or any “scripture” that its adherents insist is the right system of thought or “scripture.” You can label yourself. I know I have for years and I’m not going to any longer.
57.
mysteryofiniquity | February 16, 2008 at 10:31 am
Brad,
Points taken and noted. However, I have found very few people outside of academia that would distinguish between those points.
58.
mysteryofiniquity | February 16, 2008 at 10:34 am
Karen,
As always you make good points and I agree that no one wants to own up to the term themselves. Well I owned up to it and am relieving myself of it as well. I believe fundamentalisms of all kinds is harmful to the mind. Thanks for chiming in!!
59.
mysteryofiniquity | February 16, 2008 at 10:38 am
Quester,
You wrote, “What took me out of my belief of scriptural inerrancy was my belief in scriptural inerrancy. Trying to teach the bible, study the bible, and derive a consistent morality and image of God from the bible, forced me to stop taking the bible as inerrant.”
That’s exactly what I found to be true. The more you study and study to see the bible as systematic theology, the more you see that it isn’t. There is no consistency and to ask it of such divergent texts is to do a disservice not only to the God that’s supposed to be consistent, but to the sheep that claim to follow that God.
Patience is extremely difficult, especially when applied to myself. I hate it that I fall back into it over and over. It’s like walking into the same hole again and again and not picking a different sidewalk. I even fall easily back into fundie-speak. Ask Zoe, she’s heard me spout it mindlessly before!
Thanks for commenting!
60.
mysteryofiniquity | February 16, 2008 at 10:47 am
DeeZone,
You are correct, the fundamentalism I am referring to is akin to the thinking of the Pharisees: taking the letter of the law and dispensing with the Spirit. Of course some Jewish scholars would take issue with Christians’ depictions of the Pharisees. My focus is strictly on the bible. The only way to dispel political and religious fundamentalism of all varieties is to get rid of the idea that certain texts are written in stone or handed down by gods or a god. Once you have documents you say are written or inspired by God the discussion is closed and no other view is allowed.
61.
mysteryofiniquity | February 16, 2008 at 10:49 am
ninepoundhammer,
I’m only speaking from experience, with my own diseased mind and in conversation with others. And you’re right it was sad. But I’m much happier now that the conflict is gone.
62.
Brad | February 16, 2008 at 10:53 am
“Points taken and noted. However, I have found very few people outside of academia that would distinguish between those points.”
You are probably correct on that… However, I think that members of a Reformed congregation (because they learn under academically Reformed pastors) live a life more line with that (truth with love). They may not be able to verbalize it as succinctly, but that definition will color and flavor every sermon they hear.
63.
mysteryofiniquity | February 16, 2008 at 11:00 am
Hi Jon!! Good to see you here. I’m still working on the cure. It takes huge mental effort to loosen the grips that fundamentalism had on me, but I think it can be done.
The first cure I found was realizing the bible was written by humans and not inspired by God. The argument that the bible is true because the bible says it’s true (”all scripture is inspired…”
was my first clue.
The second cure was going to university and learning about cultures through literature, philosophy, and science courses. University teaches you how to think and analyze logically. So education, whether self taught or classroom led was invaluable.
The third asset is having an insatiable mind for information and for reading and for asking questions. Not settling for the first answer that comes along. As one pastor told me when I went to him for counseling, “You know you are just smart enough to be dangerous.” Whatever THAT meant!
The fourth thing I found invaluable was to actually explore atheism, agnosticism, and other religions. I acted as if I were converting to other religions and read all I could about them. I wondered why we were always told by our Baptist church that Catholics were non-Christians. So we promptly went through RCIA and joined the Catholic church. Discovering that religions lie to you about other religions was a big help and alos realizing that everyone used the same bible to do it!
Those helped for starters. But the biggest help was having an open mind, something that many, NOT ALL, fundies do not have, because it’s too dangerous to their faith to have.
64.
mysteryofiniquity | February 16, 2008 at 11:01 am
Godamn,
Good point.
65.
mysteryofiniquity | February 16, 2008 at 11:02 am
John,
Welcome! Yes, coming out into the light of reason was a great feeling. It was an eye-opener!
66.
mysteryofiniquity | February 16, 2008 at 11:10 am
OneSmallStep,
Listening is hard when you are a fundamentalist. It takes real openness and humility, something that I haven’t found in the fundamentalist community. Brad and the seminarians who post here are academicians and in academia you are supposed to keep an open mind. However, when you are in an enclosed university AIMED at furthering a system of thought, it can only be open so far. But I appreciate the effort.
Unfortunately, I’ve not run across this out in the real world of churches. I’ve been in Evangelical Free Churches, American and Southern Baptists, Presbyterian, and Roman Catholic. I’ve been ELCA and Wisconsin Synod Lutheran and Churches of Christ. The more liberal churches were much better about taking the bible literally–it wasn’t discussed–but the others were all universal in the belief that “the bible says it, that settles it.” Those who believe this confine their thoughts to this realm and no other. To do otherwise would be threatening and like a virus that is threatened, you fight the bad thoughts or new information until it ceases to threaten you.
I have chosen to get rid of my “thought virus” by allowing antibodies of knowledge in and I’m feeling much better now.
(to use the analogy to its logical extreme) But the first barrier has to be breached and that’s not only listening, but actively seeking and proving for ourselves.
67.
mysteryofiniquity | February 16, 2008 at 11:26 am
Mettalicpea posted a pingback #52 that calls for prayer for those of us who he thinks are still in “sin.” I find this common among believers. Rather than admit that Christians can be deconverted, they will claim that we were never really Christians and are still “in our sins.” This is a clear example of the disease of fundamentalism. When we are in it, we cannot conceive of anyone ever coming out of it. We rationalize our beliefs by citing 1 John 2:19.
It’s so much easier to blame the person leaving that blame the system you think is the Truth. I know, I’ve done this myself.
68.
Michelle | February 16, 2008 at 11:33 am
Hey, MOI:
I’m sorry I came off as angry, it wasn’t my intent. I do get frustrated when I read a “one size fits all” commentary. I try hard not to do this to others, and feel it would be great if the effort was reciprocated. To lump conservative, bible-believing Christians into the same category as those who are “dangerous” and “diseased” is an overstatement, to say the least. I wish no one harm, and most of the people I know who hold my beliefs feel the same, although I cannot speak for everyone. I cannot presume to do so.
In this day when we are fighting against an ideology that does wish us harm, it is necessary to differentiate the terms. Fundamentalist Christians do not want to kill, or give second-class citizenship, to others for not bowing down to their God. Fundamentalist Muslims believe that is what they are called to do. I’m beginning to wonder if fundamentalist scientists or fundamentalist athiests/agnostics do not fall into the same category of “phariseeism.”
Brushing anyone with broad strokes tends to shut down the lines of communication. I don’t think that was your intent. Please, let’s leave off the name-calling and be examples of conciliatory behavior.
69.
Michelle | February 16, 2008 at 12:11 pm
It’s just been brought to my attention that Westboro Baptist would be considered fundamentalist Christian. I don’t understand their confession of Christ - with their hatred for others. I don’t see the Christian side of their behavior.
Many claim the term, but not the Man.
70.
Bro. Burton | February 16, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Marge: re #10
you say: “In my long journey away from that mindset of “right and wrong” or superior beliefs, I have come to accept that it’s ok not to completely know what I believe about everything. Definition of one’s beliefs is and should be a moving target. I have my personal reasons for thinking there’s a deity and whether I can prove it or not is irrelevant to me. This mindset allows me to grow and interract with all people with less judgement”
I appreciate your candor. I hope you did not view my posts as judgemental, honestly it could not be farther from the truth. It is not my place to judge for anyone but myself and my family, what is right and wrong (based on scripture). I think your right, our beliefs to should be a moving target, I just take it a step farther and “check” my beliefs against Scripture.
My prayer is that I not be viewed as judgemental, I want and desire to be thought of as grace filled - the exact opposite of judgement. I do not hold any of you in any type of judgement…. This is a dialouge to help sharpen ones beliefs. I will continue to share my beliefs, and please don’t misinterpret my posts as judgemental
- I haven’t ever intended them to be.
71.
paulmct | February 16, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Very good and very true, MOI. I’ve also noted that many believers were ‘recruited’ from the desparate and troubled. I touched on it in this post:
http://paulmct.wordpress.com/2008/01/17/charity-with-strings-attached/#comments
I also wrote a critique of M. Night Shyamalan’s ‘The Village’ on my blogsite called ‘Beware the Ever Present Bogeyman’, that looks at the metaphorical representation of religion and how it works.
If anyone’s interested, there is also another post there about predatory recruitment tactics called ‘God’s Gift’.
72.
Michelle | February 16, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Quester:
Comment 69 states your point - but these groups are not associated with any known denomination. They may call themselves Christian or Baptist, but they do not hold to any association or leadership outside of their own local leader.
Many take on the name Christian but do not follow the precepts of Christ’s teachings. What Christian teaching tells us to go kill those who do not agree with us? Christ told us to love everyone - even our enemies. Those who have murdered in the name of Christ have defamed His Name.
you say… but I have heard it many a time, from loving compassionate Christians who can not understand why such thinking might be wrong.
I don’t understand how they are considered loving and compassionate if they hold to this thinking. I have many bigots in my family who consider themselves loving, compassionate Christians - I can’t follow their logic. Either they are not as loving and compassionate as they think - or they are not truly Christian (followers of Christ’s teaching). But then, maybe they are baby Christians and have not come to understand all they have professed.
73.
Quester | February 16, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Michelle said, “Fundamentalist Christians do not want to kill, or give second-class citizenship, to others for not bowing down to their God.”
I’m afraid that I’m going to have to ask you the same thing you’ve asked of others: beware of ‘one-size fits all’ commentary.
I’m willing to believe that none of the Fundamentalist Christians you know have expressed this wish in your hearing, but I have heard it many a time, from loving compassionate Christians who can not understand why such thinking might be wrong. It follows biblical principles, after all, to treat those who are not chosen in such a way, or to take a life to save others. Whether it is distrusting or discriminating against atheists, keeping atheists from speaking publicly about their lack of belief, or killing abortionists , there are, indeed, Fundamentalist Christians who want to kill, or give second-class citizenship, to others for not bowing down to their God. Like the fundamentalist Muslims, they believe that is what they are called to do, and they have the scripture to support their views.
As for fundamentalist atheists/agnostics, what fundamentals do they cling to? Their view that… nothing is inerrent?
74.
Quester | February 16, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Nine pound hammer,
We are conceived at enmity with God and, barring His intervention, remain that way.
Under what definitions of “good” and “loving” do you apply such terms to a God who does not so intervene?
I do find it odd that we ‘fundamentalists’ (a very loaded term these days) are derided for our presuppositionalism yet, your argument presupposes that we are wrong. You go so far as to call us DISEASED.
As many of the posters on this site are deconverts, we do not presuppose you to be wrong. We presupposed that Chrisitanity led to Truth, and Christ was the Truth. It is when these presuppositions are found not to bear much weight as we had supposed that people such as I begin to view deconverting as the best option. If you want “enlightened” views to “tolerate” yours, give evidence your views are correct.
75.
Quester | February 16, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Michelle,
They are loving in that they love people too much too see them tormented for eternity and will commit any deed to prevent that from happening. Looking at verses like Revelations 3:16, they see toleration as a sin and recognize that God, through scripture, calls them to be passionate warriors for Christ. They are compassionate in how they wish to alleviate the distress non-believers must be feeling if they hate God and themselves so much that they pretend to be atheists.
Do you truly believe that all of the 2,000 randomly selected people that were interviewed by researchers from the University of Minnesota who claimed to distrust or discriminate against atheists are not part of a larger church body or are only baby Christians?
Or do they simply take Christ at his word when he says he comes with a sword to divide families, that only those who hate their families can be his disciple, that those who are not for him are against him, that persecution is a sign you’re understanding God’s Word and obeying His Will, and other such intolerant condemnations that flow from the mouth of Christ, as reported by inerrant scripture?
76.
Michelle | February 16, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Quester,
I’m not sure what you are referring to - what happened at the University of Minnesota? I was referring to Westboro Baptist not being associated with any Baptist organization.
I haven’t understood those words from Christ in the same way you have stated them. Their (or your) interpretation of His words is not the same as mine. As a pastor (am I correct in thinking you are a pastor - I thought I remembered from some comment), I’m sure you have learned the rules of interpretation. Taking words out of context and away from an overall teaching will cause error. Any action presumed from one scripture, extracted from the whole, would be foolish.
77.
Quester | February 16, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Michelle,
Yes, until tomorrow, I will be a pastor.
What I referred to in #75 is in one of the links I provided in #73. The University of Minnesota performed a survey with the results proclaiming atheists as the most distrusted minority in America. I have not mentioned or spoken of Westboro Baptist. There are enough other Christians teaching similar messages that I do not have to.
And yes, I have learned various exegetical tools and techniques. Please tell me what other interpretations are possible for the verses I’ve referred to, or what context would make these statements of Jesus’ wise and mature, as opposed to (your words) babyish or foolish?
78.
OneSmallStep | February 16, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Michelle,
I would disagree with this simply based on how well the ‘Left Behind’ series has done. Those books are written from the viewpoint of those who are eager to watch the non-Christians get killed, or “get what’s coming to them.”
They may not want to kill themselves, at this time. But there’s a huge part of them that is looking forward to someone killing, or someone making all the non-Christians second-class citizens.
79.
Brad | February 16, 2008 at 5:24 pm
“Until tomorrow”?
80.
mysteryofiniquity | February 16, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Thanks Paulmct! That article about “The Village” sounds fascinating. I’ll hop over and give it a read.
81.
mysteryofiniquity | February 16, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Michelle,
My intention in posting in such inflammatory language is to force people to take a long, hard look at their beliefs. Broad brushes are necessary because dissecting each bristle on it’s own merits is impossible. When enough of a group of people display the same characteristics, then broad brushes can be applied. Atheists and agnostics have too long had to live with these same “broad brush strokes,” as have pagans, wiccans, and any other group anti-thetical to fundamentalism. I find it very frustrating when fundamentalists demand civil behavior and speech, yet insist on giving none in return. There are indeed individuals that don’t fit into the category, but I stand by my broad brush strokes. Fundamentalism in any area is narrow-minded and the source of much heartache in society.
82.
mysteryofiniquity | February 16, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Michelle,
Here are some links to the “fundamentalism as disease” theory, so that you know, I’m not the only one saying it:
http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/tik0709/frontpage/neuroscience
http://www.prodigalsheep.com/archives/2005/12/a_viral_view_of_religious_fundamentalism_1.htm
http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2002/12/deconversion.php
83.
Brad | February 16, 2008 at 5:58 pm
So is it that the doctrine of innerrancy claims that Christianity is the only truth that stems from your complaints? Cause I TOTALLY see how the abusive language can piss you off… not blaming you there at all. But I’m curious as to how you are using the term “narrow-minded.”
84.
mysteryofiniquity | February 16, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Brad,
Are you talking to me?
85.
Michelle | February 16, 2008 at 6:08 pm
I just gave an answer I thought was down-right inspiring, got up to get my dictionary (don’t have spell-check down yet) and the whole comment escaped into blogosphere. I will attempt again, but I know it won’t be nearly as profound.
I commented:
I wish no one harm, and most of the people I know who hold my beliefs feel the same, although I cannot speak for everyone. I cannot presume to do so.
In this day when we are fighting against an ideology that does wish us harm, it is necessary to differentiate the terms. Fundamentalist Christians do not want to kill, or give second-class citizenship, to others for not bowing down to their God.
I should have said, “Of the fundamentalists I know, I do not know of any who want to kill,…”
I guess we’re arguing semantics. I don’t know of any scripture where Christ told us to kill in His name. Anyone who thinks h/she should has misconstrued Christ’s teaching. The verses you alluded to, Quester, do not tell us to take up our swords and kill, do not tell us to hate (a comparison of our love for Christ over others is the most common interpretation), do not tell us to persecute, but to be ready to be persecuted, and they do not tell us to spit those who are lukewarm out of our mouths. Those types of interpretations would be used of the unstable to distort the truth about Christ (my opinion). I chose to give them the benefit of the doubt and call them “baby” Christians, possibly because they were not well taught.
Fundamentalism is a bad word - that’s why I “buck” at the term. To believe in the fundamentals of any teaching is not bad, unless the teaching is bad. Some of you have concluded Christianity is bad, I don’t see what’s bad about loving God and my neighbors.
86.
Brad | February 16, 2008 at 6:11 pm
MOI,
Yeah, sorry, I forgot to address it to you specifically.
87.
mysteryofiniquity | February 16, 2008 at 6:17 pm
I would say I mean all of these:
narrow-minded:
1. Not tolerant of the beliefs or opinions of others, for example: bigoted, close-minded, hidebound, illiberal, intolerant.
2. Not broad or elevated in scope or understanding: limited, little, narrow, petty, small, small-minded.
3. Having the restricted outlook often characteristic of geographic isolation: insular, limited, local, narrow, parochial, provincial, small-town.
All of which you could say about some atheists and agnostics that I know as well. But, since I was a fundamentalist and exhibited all of these qualities at some time or another, and since I experience more narrow-mindedness in churches than I do out of them, I’m using it here to describe Christian fundamentalists who restrict their worldviews to the bible.
I must also comment that I am not talking about ALL Christians or ALL Muslims or ALL atheists or ALL agnostics. I am speaking about those who believe that their god speaks finally and irrevocably through a set of documents they call scriptures, who hold belief in this set of texts as a test of fellowship in church, and who believe that the bible is 100% correct in science matters, and finally who believe that the entire world should be subject to the “laws” in the bible because they believe it is “God’s blueprint” for society.
There, did I cover everything?
88.
mysteryofiniquity | February 16, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Michelle,
There’s nothing wrong with loving your God and your neighbors. I never said there was.
89.
OneSmallStep | February 16, 2008 at 6:34 pm
But what about verses that state of a time when God will destroy/punish the non-Christians? When JEsus will be the one who will spit out the lukewarm? For many who do act in a way that harms others, they would use those verses as justification. Since God will do it at some point, we can also do so, since we follow God. And for those who don’t do it, because Jesus said to love one’s enemies … eventually, those non-Christians will suffer eternal torment. What is the line between not doing something yourself, and following one who will do those things?
90.
Michelle | February 16, 2008 at 6:50 pm
One Small Step,
That’s what I mean when I say the “unstable distort the truth of Christ’s teaching.”
Only Christ through being fully God is able to be Judge. I can’t make any determination about anyone’s soul. For me to execute any kind of judgment would be done from a purely arrogant, self-righteous position. I am not God and should not take on His role. I can rely upon His judgement (how do you spell judgment/judgement?) because He is Holy, Righteous, Pure, Good, All- Seeing, All-Knowing, All-Present,…..all of the attributes of God, Christ envelopes. He is the exact representation of His Father. He is the great I AM.
Anyone who tries to take on His role is deluded.
91.
Michelle | February 16, 2008 at 7:04 pm
MOI,
I read those links. I can’t see how that could make me feel any better about your position. So others out there believe I am infected with a virus, that I might be best cared for if I were put in quarantine? The first article seemed to be saying I am brain-damaged and will never be able to come to a place of “reasoning.” Kind of like Dawkins determining some are the “brights” and others are the “dims.” Are these truly indicative of your position?
I’m trying to understand, but I feel I have just been insulted once again. Why do I have less Creative Intelligence or Emotional Intelligence because I believe there is a God and He has revealed Himself through the Old and New Testaments? Why is it necessary to go to such extreme rhetoric?
92.
Michelle | February 16, 2008 at 7:25 pm
One Small Step,
I just realized when I read my comment back that it might sound as though I am saying you are unstable and distorted. That was not my point. I was trying to say those who would murder in Christ’s name are distorting His teaching.
Sorry for any confusion
93.
OneSmallStep | February 16, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Michelle,
I got what you meant about those who take on the role.
However, I don’t see an answer to this question: What is the line between not doing something yourself, and following one who will do those things? And then to add another question to that — to be Christian is to be Christ-like. Christ will eventually do those things, so perhaps to those who do act “bad,” they are being Christ-like.
I know that you’re saying that since you are not God, you are not in a position to judge. And that God can do those things, because of all the attributes you listed — but if God did something that was not just, or wrong, how would you know?
It just doesn’t seem like an answer to me, in terms of “the line.” I guess, and I don’t mean this in an attack fashion, but to follow that silently is almost like condoning the eternal torment for non-Christians.
94.
Michelle | February 16, 2008 at 8:17 pm
One Small Step,
In past conversations I’ve felt you have a solid understanding of the Tanakh (Did I spell that right? I’m trying to use your term for the Law and the Prophets). Do you come from a Jewish perspective?
I’ll try to be more clear. I see God as revealed through the names He gave us, as He allowed man to see Him. When He revealed Himself to Moses on the mountain and described Himself in Exodus 34:5-7 as the LORD! a God compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in lovingkindness and faithfulness, extending kindness to the thousandth generation, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; yet He does not remit all punishment, but visits the iniquity of parents upon children and children’s children, upon the third and fourth generation.
I bow down to His definition of Himself. I believe He is the Self-Existent One Who holds us all in His Hand. He knows our hearts better than we know ourselves. So I trust in His definition of Himself. I don’t separate Christ from YHWH - through Christ I see the compassion and forgiveness available. I don’t see how One Who sees all and is Holy and full of Love could judge unjustly. Wouldn’t we all like to have a judge like that - who could not make a mistake because He knows and sees everything?
I’m not sure I’m getting to ‘the line” of your question. I’m not able to make a judgement because I would not be just.
95.
Bro. Burton | February 16, 2008 at 8:25 pm
lets play an “if” game…..
If God really exists, and everything in his Bible is true (Christ is our redeemer, sins must be accounted for), wouldnt it stand to reason that God would demand punishment for those sins against him?
We as a society require punishment for breaking the law, we expect that people should take responsibilty for their own actions…
We frown as a society on those who practice vigilateism (sp?), and those that do practice this are dealt with accordingly.
So, God would require us to take responsibility for our breaking of his laws, he would deal with those who practice “spiritual” vigilanteism accordingly. The difference is his way would be perfect and his knowlege would be perfect - there wouldnt be any false accusations or false imprisonment.
96.
OneSmallStep | February 16, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Michelle,
I use the term ‘Tanakh’ because I think it’s more respectful to the Jewish viewpoint, as opposed to calling it the Old Testament, whereas the New one is the new/updated version, and the Jews are simply ‘outdated.’ And I think it’s spelled right.
But what I see in your definition is that you know who/what God is because that’s what He tells you, through the Bible. However, if a person tells you that s/he is just, do you take the person’s word for it? Or do you have some standard of justice by which you measure the person’s claim?
I’m assuming the latter. So when you say God is all those things, what standard is used to determine that claim? To answer your question, what standard do I use to determine that God is all that you or the Bible describe?
But in terms of my question — you say that those who do go after the non-Christians are violating Christ’s teachings and commandments. But you say that Christ/God is entitled to punish eternally, through what portions of the Bible describe as a torment. You wouldn’t kill non-Christians and such. Yet God would, and this is a God that is followed and accepted. If you would (I would think) not stand and watch someone be beaten to death, and are in fact commanded to interfere by God, why would a God be followed that says it is just to torment eternally, and that it’s okay for no Christian to interfere?
I guess — and again, I don’t mean this to attack or belittle — you say that those Christians who do make non-Christians second-class citizens or kill them are violating the Christian living. Yet it’s not violating that to follow a God who would, in the end, torment non-Christians? Who would, in a way, strip them of dignity and pretty much make them second-class through hell? To me, it’s very hard to see a difference between the two ideas sometimes.
I think those who would kill non-Christians would say they are able to make such a judgement, because God tells them that it is just. Or God has made the judgement, and is using the Christian to complete that judgement.
97.
ned | February 16, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Bro. Burton: This is probably not the best forum but maybe you can answer a question that bothered me for a long time. I am asian. If God has a law that he expects us to obey, why is this law only revealed to the jews and not to the asians? The Chinese has five thousand years of civilization. Christianity was introduced only 500 years ago (and when the message finally came, it came with guns). How can I take this law seriously when God didn’t bother to send it to my ancestors? It seems to me that the only reasonable conclusion is either: 1) God only expects his chosen people to obey his law, or 2) Christianity originated from a local cult, which only spread due to the east due to military power of the west.
Every time I talk to an American Christian, I ask this question: How can I be sure that God has a plan for me, when my grandfather grandfather never had a chance to hear his message? If my grand grandfather isn’t included in God’s plan, it’s only obvious that I am not included in God’s plan either. A possible solution is that Confucius was a messenger of God to the Chinese (Confucius’s teaching is quite compatible with Jesus), and since Confucius said nothing about redemption, the whole redemption thing was God’s plan only for the jews. The asians obviously are not descendants of Adams and Eve, otherwise our ancestors would have said something about them.
This is not meant to be ridicule your faith. I am seriously asking these questions and no Christian so far offers any answer to me.
98.
Bro. Burton | February 16, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Ned - I appreciate the question, but I must say that is something that has bothered me for years. I do not know the answer, but I’ll bet one of the other Christians in this discussion can address this. If I dont know - I admiit it
99.
ned | February 16, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Bro. Burton: Thanx. Please do share it with me when you have some idea.
100.
Michelle | February 16, 2008 at 9:43 pm
One Small Step,
First, about the Tanakh, I don’t think Christians use the term “Old” in meaning the Jewish way is outdated. It is meant to be in comparison to the covenants. Jesus said He came to establish the New Covenant (or New Testament) and to fulfill the Law and the Prophets. But maybe you’re right, I know lots of people who teach we don’t need to even read the Old Testament. I maintain it was the Bible Jesus read so why are we to ignore it? We can’t even understand Jesus without it.
Anyway…back to the topic at hand.
I’m not sure how to answer your question:
I guess — and again, I don’t mean this to attack or belittle — you say that those Christians who do make non-Christians second-class citizens or kill them are violating the Christian living. Yet it’s not violating that to follow a God who would, in the end, torment non-Christians? Who would, in a way, strip them of dignity and pretty much make them second-class through hell? To me, it’s very hard to see a difference between the two ideas sometimes.
I don’t understand the torment, I do understand the separation. If a person did not want to worship His Creator on earth, he certainly won’t want to worship Him forever.
The only other way I know how to answer is to say I don’t understand everything about God. I can’t, being the finite being I am. I read what He says about Himself and let Him do the explaining. I want to know as much as I can, but until I see Him I won’t know fully. “We now see in a mirror darkly, then we shall see face to face.” And then I even wonder if we won’t have an eternity to get to know Him even more.
I feel that must sound like foolishness to you, but to me it’s liberating, it really is what I’m living for.
101.
Michelle | February 16, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Ned: If you want me to try and explain, I will.
I don’t know how to link to one of my blogs so I’ll just give you the site and name, and if you are interested you can pop over:
considerjesus.wordpress.com
then search for “jesus is the problem”
I’ve alluded to this problem from my ancestry. It may not give answers, but I’ll try if you want to engage.
102.
OneSmallStep | February 16, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Michelle,
I think from the Jewish perspective, they do find it as a way of saying the Tanakh is ‘outdated.’ I mean, even to say that Jesus fufilled all the prophecies is saying to them that they didn’t quite understand their own religious works.