Fundamentalism Blows

[The GM]

The following is only my POV. I’ve recently begun to think about this stuff in a more critical light as opposed to my initial thoughts on the matter which basically amounted to an ‘ew’ reaction, much like when you step into a pile of dog crap.
I’ve come to think that all forms of fundamentalism are bad. I don’t limit this leaning to religious fundamentalism. If there were an equivalent term for atheist fundamentalism, I’d say it was as repulsive as the religious variety. Even as a kid, I knew there was something creepy about fundamentalism. I grew up in a fire and brimstone type atmosphere. Church, tent revivals, faith healings, and other related events were the norm for me. Attendance was required. Unlike some folks who find the act of going to church to be a pleasant social outlet, I often found it scary, overwhelming, and confusing. God was to be praised and feared. The end was nigh. My childhood TV pals weren’t Burt and Ernie, but a constant stream of Pat Robertson and Jim and Tammy Faye. Nuclear war was coming. The Russians, led by the Anti Christ would bring about the rapture, and you better have your soul in order before that occurred! By the time I was 5, I had been ‘faith healed’ of a congenital eye problem I have. (For the record, I’m still blind as a bat.) I remember very clearly being on the stage and the preacher floor flopping the faithful left and right. I couldn’t feel any other worldly presences, but all of the adults were collapsing to the floor when the preacher touched them, so I did too. The preacher pronounced me healed; too bad it didn’t actually affect my sight. When I mentioned this, I was told that only the faithful get a miracle, so I had to believe harder. By the time I was eight, I was so scared of God that I wouldn’t even speak his name for fear that I might attract his wrath somehow for interrupting him in the middle of some more important task. I remember crying my self to sleep many times, wondering why God was going to blow up the planet and what would happen to all of the sinners who were doomed to a fiery eternity. At fifteen, I patently refused to attend church anymore. The pressure of worshiping a god who seemed bent on killing everyone on the planet had me resenting all religions. Any questions I asked that fell outside of the church doctrine were immediately answered with long drawn out lectures which I termed ‘God talks’. The answers really never cleared anything up for me, and in fact, created more unanswerable questions. I finally gave up trying to force the dogma to make sense and let it go.
Fast forward to today. I am not afraid anymore. What I am is a bit disgusted. Fundamentalism essentially slams the door closed on healthy discourse, questioning of church officials, exploration of alternate views, etc… Fundamentalism is a roadblock to communication. I love my family, but there are some things we simply can not discuss because fundamentalism gets in the damn way. I would guess, in part, that’s the reason I’m talking about some of this stuff here. I need to verbalize my frustration in some way. I haven’t ruled out the possibility of a creator by any means, but I also don’t think he/she/it is standing at the ready with a finger on the trigger waiting to blow us all away either. I’m pretty lucky to have a very diverse group of friends who believe in everything from atheism to animism. Their views are interesting, although I may not buy any of it. At least they don’t try to tell me their way is the one true way, and hey, if lighting a positive energy candle once a day helps my pal make sense of the world, good for him. So fundamentalism isn’t the same as religion, yes? What I find discouraging is the cavalier attitude I’ve found towards fundies. These people really, really, really, really believe in what they are saying, although IMHO that belief is driven by fear. As soon as fear enters the equation, minds close like traps. Fundamentalists of any sect don’t need our derision. This only strengthens the hold that their fear has over them. Ex. ‘See, I knew those atheists/wiccans/UFO-ers are just trying to lead me astray. This guy not only challenged my beliefs but he called me names, thus hurting my feelings, thus making me not like him, thus confirming my initial dislike of his ‘weird views’. My preacher/imam/clergy was right, I should shun him.’
What is the solution to opening up fear closed minds? I dunno, but if someone can figure it out, box it, and sell it, they’d become a billionaire.
BTW, my tone of voice isn’t really snarky here, more like weary with a touch of anger but not at any forum member here.

[geni]

I don't think you are going to find many people here dissareeing with you. Welcome the forum.

[shemp]

Welcome to the forum. You'll find a lot of people who agree with you here, and some who don't. Good Luck.

Even though I wasn't brought up in a religious household, I grew up sure that God was watching. I began to wake up when I was 12. I had a leg operation, and was walking with the aid of crutches. One day, I went grocery shopping with my mom, and I was standing alone looking at something on a shelf while she had gone further down the aisle. A woman and a little boy passed behind me, and I heard the boy whisper "What happened to him?" His mother whispered "He did something bad and God is punishing him." That didn't make sense to me, and was the day I began questioning religion. Today I'm free of this nonsense, and not afraid of any deity.

[MLynn]

Welcome, GM - and thank you for your post! It nearly brought me to tears. I'm a Xian, but I agree with you that all forms of fundamentalism blow, s*ck, etc., etc. I'm very much moderate in my beliefs and practice - it's the only way I can be true to myself and to others. I hope this Forum provides you with a haven and a way to make new friends. Keep posting! :)

[Atlas]

Welcome GM,

I agree with Geni. You'll find little disagreement.

As to your comment on derision, sure the fundies don't need it. But ridicule is a powerful eye-opener to anyone on the fence. It undercuts their authority which so many cling to and wield like a blunt force instrument.

And to be honest, you can't really reason with fundies. Faith is something that is virtually unassailable by logic. Sure it may increase doubt, but fasting and mortification of the flesh can bring you back to the loving arms of the faithful.

Actually trying to reason with fundies and Jihadists puts them on the same level as rational beings. From the outside it appears that thoughtful people are engaging in a dialogue to resolve a dispute that honestly could go either way. Whether an opponent is promising chaos and destruction or merely eternal hellfire - it's more a sign of mental illness or insidious power manipulation, neither of which cowers in the face of logic but may shrink from exposure to unrelenting ridicule.

[triadboy]

Welcome!

Read some Joseph Campbell. He spent his life studying world mythologies. Christianity is just another mythology. However, today we don't understand the symbols of this mythology anymore. We are too far removed. For instance, the Virgin Birth - many other myths contain virgin births, but this was supposed to convey a spiritually pure birth - not an actual birth to a woman who never had sex. Mythological symbols meant to address and comfort nomadic desert tribes - with time - became distorted and misunderstood.

[Dymanic]

The world is complicated. People are complicated. Trying to figure stuff out takes a lot of work. It can be exhausting, frustrating, and overwhelming, because the more you learn, the more you realize how much you still don't know; how much you can never know; how there is always more than one way of looking at things. I actually find it quite understandable that so many would choose fundamentalism (in any of its many forms) as an alternative to wrestling with all that complexity, uncertainty, and ambiguity. It's like... a place to rest your head. A place where things are simple; where ideas hold still. Provided that one could reconcile oneself the to rules that apply in such a place, I can see how that could be quite comforting, and I almost envy those who are able to do so... almost, that is, but not quite.

For one thing, I suspect that many who seek that comfort remain unsatisfied, finding themselves unable to reconcile themselves to the rules -- and this despite their most adamant claims to the contrary (when you really, really, really believe something, you don't have to have it constantly reinforced).

But mainly, I guess what it is is that I somehow consider it a moral obligation to continue to make the best possible effort to figure stuff out, even in the face of the acknowledgement that: "vanity, vanity, all is vanity". Fundamentalism is giving up. I can understand that, and I may at times almost envy it, but one thing I cannot do is admire it.

Childhood is traumatic, period.

Atheism is the red pill.

Welcome to the forum.

[The GM]

Thanks for the welcome, everyone although I’ve been lurking for sometime so I’ve read a lot of what you guys have said.
Couple thoughts. Dynamic talked about how the world is complicated. Go tell it on the mountain. ;) Then S/he said that fundamentalism was like a place to rest your weary head. I would disagree. It’s more like putting on a pair of shoes that are supposed to be your comfy ones, except they aren’t. They pinch your toes and give you blisters, but you wear them anyway because you’re afraid to try on a new pair. After all, the new pair might be worse than the old ones and so you hope you’ll break in the old ones and they will become what you want them to be, but they never quite fit. Still, you wear them and after awhile you get used to the irritation and rationalize that it isn’t so bad, other people have worse shoes, you should be grateful for the ones you have. S/he also snuck in a Matrix reference concerning atheism. (Cool flick, btw.) I have as many questions regarding atheism as I do about deism. I don’t see atheism as the great Pez dispenser of logical ideology. That way of thinking still leaves unanswered questions. I’m still looking though, so my opinion could change over time.

Atlas piped up with the idea that fundies should not be put on the same level as rational people. Where do we put them, then? In mental wards? Is this necessary? Is dialogue impossible on all fronts? I certainly hope not. As I have already admitted, fundamentalism gets in the way of dialogue w/ my family. To be fair, if I really had to talk about something that was in opposition to what my family believes, they would hear me out. It might be a frustrating discussion, but I’d still be loved, appreciated etc…when it was all said and done. So, communication is possible when respect happens on both sides. How do you do that? By building relationships I guess. However, relationship building can never occur if there’s animosity on both sides. I understand what your post was saying, Atlas, and I’m not bagging on you. ;) Just playing a little devil’s advocate.

Michelle said I almost drove her to tears. For goodness sake, don’t feel sorry for me! My post isn’t about my poor abused childhood. ;) Sorry if I led anyone to that conclusion. I was just giving a little background as to how I’ve arrived at the thinkin’ spot I’m at today.

Oh, and Shemp shared a story that had happened to him. What a terrible thing, and far worse than anything that happened to me. :(

[triadboy]

Originally posted by The GM
I don’t see atheism as the great Pez dispenser of logical ideology. That way of thinking still leaves unanswered questions.

But that's the beauty of it! There ARE unanswered questions. Through science, these questions are slowly answered. Religion - on the other hand - has everything all figured out.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by GM

It’s more like putting on a pair of shoes that are supposed to be your comfy ones, except they aren’t.Yes, your metaphor of the shoes works for me, and that's just what I meant by saying I suspect that many who seek that comfort remain unsatisfied. The popular solution to this problem seems to be to take every possible opportunity to sing out about how wonderful those shoes feel, to anybody who is willing to listen. Or even if they aren't. In fact, maybe especially if they aren't. And try to sell them a pair. If you can get them singing about how great those shoes feel on their feet, maybe you won't notice your own blisters so much.

And while your post may not have been about your poor abused childhood, what you related does qualify as abuse in my opinion. The adults in your life were emotionally needy, and your indoctrination was part of a process by which they sought to satisfy their own emotional needs. Whether or not you recognize it as such, whenever an adult -- especially a parent -- places his own needs (as he percieves them) above those of a child, the groundwork for an abusive situation is in place. That it was well-intentioned goes only so far in mitigating the damage. Your post suggests that you do feel some anger about that, though you direct it toward 'fundamentalism' rather than toward your family. For all I know, that may well be the case, but if you aren't being honest with yourself about who you are really angry at, that may continue to be an obstacle to improved relationship building.

And as far as unanswered questions, as triadboy pointed out, science does slowly answer them. Unfortunately, every answer seems to produce a host of new questions, leading to the inevitable conclusion that we will never have it all figured out. If that's 'beautiful' it is beautiful in a disturbing, frightening, and depressing way; something in me wants to have things figured out, and it wants it bad.

P.S. I'm a 'he'.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by triadboy


But that's the beauty of it! There ARE unanswered questions. Through science, these questions are slowly answered. Religion - on the other hand - has everything all figured out.

That´s exactly the point. There are QUESTIONS. Asking questions is the first step towards wisdom.

[evildave]

I don't have unrealistic expectations to ever have "all the answers", and certainly do not assume that one little black book full of inconsistencies, blood and gibberish has them laid out for me... if only I twist around the words I find there in the right way.

Technically, I am plain 'agnostic', but it's more fun to take the extreme position to argue a point.

Sure I'll admit there "could" be a god, but only when you admit that there also "could" also be a lot of other things besides a "god". Purple squiddy things, invisible pink unicorns, fairies, leprechauns, sprites, etc.

Maybe the universe came from a fart from the mystical uber-donkey? It appears to serve the same purpose as setting up a "god" to do it.

Added: Certainly, such a 'theory' would appeal to jackasses.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by evildave
Technically, I am plain 'agnostic', but it's more fun to take the extreme position to argue a point.

The world will be a better, safer place when it is populated by only agnostics and atheists.

[MLynn]

Originally posted by triadboy


The world will be a better, safer place when it is populated by only agnostics and atheists.
Could a misfit Xian like myself join you? I still ask questions and need answers too.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by MLynn

Could a misfit Xian like myself join you? I still ask questions and need answers too.

Yes, you will be allowed to stay with us, but you'll need to bring the chips.

[MLynn]

Originally posted by triadboy


Yes, you will be allowed to stay with us, but you'll need to bring the chips.
Oh, thank you - you are SO much nicer than those so-called Xians at RR! And yes, I will bring chips galore!

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by The GM
T I don’t see atheism as the great Pez dispenser of logical ideology. I don't really have anything to add just yet--although I probably will. I just loved this phrase, that's all. Welcome!

And I agree, that was a terrible thing for someone to say about Shemp. Makes me wish for time travel, so current-Shemp could go back and say things to the lady...

[MLynn]

Originally posted by Mercutio
And I agree, that was a terrible thing for someone to say about Shemp. Makes me wish for time travel, so current-Shemp could go back and say things to the lady...
Ditto - it's amazing the terrible things adults say to/around children that affect them the rest of their lives. I once overheard a mother tell her not-so-obedient son, "are you going to be an angel son or a demon son today?" And her tone of voice made a chill run up my back.

[The GM]

Lots of good points to consider here. Thanks for the warm welcome, everyone!
One thing I do have to clear up, however. Dynamic made a comment that he considered my upbringing to be abusive or potentially abusive. I will clearly say I don’t believe that’s the case as everything that my folks did in regards to my religious tutelage came from a position of love. In true abuse situations, it isn’t about love, it’s about control. To say that my folks abused me is unfair to them and also unfair to real victims of abuse. I’m no victim.
Was it uncomfortable at times? You bet it was, it shaped the person I am today. Would I question fundamentalism today if I hadn’t seen what it can do first hand? Most likely not. I’d just see it as kooky practice and move on. I base this assumption on how my friends have reacted when I’ve explained my upbringing. They don’t really get it or understand why I’m so frustrated with it.
Having said all of that, I think open communication can occur with fundamentalists of all stripes if relationship building occurs first. Now someone is about to pipe up and say, ‘yeah, well what about XYZ group. You can’t talk to/ reason with them!!!’ I’d probably agree that the most delusional groups of people are gonzo. However, your average Joe Fundamentalist would be more likely to listen to reason if A. He likes you and B. Feels safe to discuss contrary matters with you. The reason he clings to his beliefs is because of fear, I guarantee it. Fear locks him up in a little box from which he can’t see the way out.
Let’s face it, life is scary. None of us are getting out alive. It can be overwhelming to think that your time could be over at any moment. I think this fear can overwhelm and be used against people. Now I guess I don’t blame Joe Fundie for this, although I’ll put a heaping helpin’ spoonful of responsibility on church leaders who propagate that fear. On the other hand, Joe Fundie needs to accept responsibility for his own life, but can he do that if he is afraid to alter his world view?
I’m rambling out loud again…;)

[MLynn]

Originally posted by The GM
I’m rambling out loud again…;)
Aww, it's good for ya - many people ramble out loud here (heheheheheheh) :p

[Scoobmaster]

Welcome GM!

I am fairly new around these forums also (but I admit to a long history of lurking ;) )

You echo my sentiments perfectly. I frequently have "over-the-partition" debates with my co-worker (a die-hard Christian fundy) and the close-minded thinking is scary. On one afternoon I told him that if enough indisputable evidence ever turned up I would have no problem accepting that he was right (I quickly added that I think it HIGHLY UNLIKELY - but not IMPOSSIBLE) I then turned the question around on him and asked that if irrefutable evidence turned up that FALSIFIED his beliefs would he yield and change his mind. His answer (a scary one, but one I expected) was a resounding NO! followed by NEVER. He then began rambling on about "truth is truth" and he KNOWS THE truth............

[MLynn]

Originally posted by Scoobmaster
Welcome GM!

I am fairly new around these forums also (but I admit to a long history of lurking ;) )

You echo my sentiments perfectly. I frequently have "over-the-partition" debates with my co-worker (a die-hard Christian fundy) and the close-minded thinking is scary. On one afternoon I told him that if enough indisputable evidence ever turned up I would have no problem accepting that he was right (I quickly added that I think it HIGHLY UNLIKELY - but not IMPOSSIBLE) I then turned the question around on him and asked that if irrefutable evidence turned up that FALSIFIED his beliefs would he yield and change his mind. His answer (a scary one, but one I expected) was a resounding NO! followed by NEVER. He then began rambling on about "truth is truth" and he KNOWS THE truth............
You've brought up some things I've been thinking about a lot lately. Before the terrorist attack on 9/11/01, I was sort of in the moderate to fundie realm of christianity. Since then I have done much thinking and although I know in my very deepest being I will always be a Xian, I am more moderate in my beliefs and practice. If someone were to give me the proof I needed to be an a-theist - well, then I'd have to do more thinking (I like to think). On April 1st I "pretended" to be an atheist for the day and it was an interesting experience. The worst part was being stuck with De_Bunk's Gellar avatar most of the day!

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by GM

...everything that my folks did in regards to my religious tutelage came from a position of love. In true abuse situations, it isn’t about love, it’s about control.I agree. In fact, perhaps one of the defining characteristics of fundamentalism is the lack of any distinction between love and control.

My personal experience as a parent is that there is often a very blurry line between doing what I feel will make the child a better person and doing what I feel will make me a better parent. It seems inevitable that at least some of the time, my focus will be on the latter. That is fine and dandy as long as my motivation for being a good parent is entirely for my child's benefit -- but I would be lying to myself and to you if I claimed that this is always the case. The truth is that I also have some purely selfish reasons for wanting not only to be a good parent, but to be seen being a good parent. When the kid isn't going along with that game plan is when the (unavoidable) control aspect of parenting can become destructive.

[tdn]

Originally posted by Dymanic
I agree. In fact, perhaps one of the defining characteristics of fundamentalism is the lack of any distinction between love and control.

It's not so much a characteristic of fundamentalism as it is of abuse, but often times the two go hand in hand.

This book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0262631849/qid=1083087926/sr=8-3/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i3_xgl14/103-6638785-8308614?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) explains the correlation beautifully, although it certainly does have a bit of a left wing bias. I recommend it because it is a great read, and in no way endorse it purely for the fact that my girlfried wrote it and if you buy lots of copies then she will get millions in royalties and then I will get to live with her in a beach house in Hawaii.

Honest.

[Checkmite]

Greetings, GM.

We've all had run-ins with fundamentalists. Although I was never raised in a fundamentalist-saturated environment, a short while ago I had my own run-in; you can read about it in this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34892&highlight=hellbounds).

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by GM

I think open communication can occur with fundamentalists of all stripes if relationship building occurs first.I'm not sure if relationship building is a necessary precursor to open communication, or if it's the other way around. I have a hard time seeing fundamentalism as being conducive to either:

(Jesus said):
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter againds her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.
And a man's foes shall be they of his own household."
-Matthew 11:34

All too often though, the first order of business seems to be along the lines of protecting oneself against individuals who have chosen to cling to such a doctrine; any communicating or relationship building that is going to happen needs to follow along after. Having said that, I will also share with you that several of my closest personal friends are fundamentalist Christians. With one in particular, I have had many stimulating theological discussions, which occassionally have become rather heated. There seems to be a mutual understanding that we both stand to gain from learning to disagree with a system of beliefs (or lack thereof) without disrespecting the person as an individual. That isn't always easy, yet we have both somehow been willing to work on it. (The key word there being 'both').


To say that my folks abused me is unfair to them and also unfair to real victims of abuse. I’m no victim.
I think the term currently in fashion is: survivor.

The reason he clings to his beliefs is because of fear, I guarantee it. That is a point well taken. I consider it forgiveable (if somewhat rude and presumptuous) when a so-called 'believer' seeks vicarious relief from the torment of his own doubts by trying to win me as a convert to his belief system. I may even discuss it with him if I have time, and if I am in the mood (which may or may not be the case if he has accosted me on my front doorstep or in some other inappropriate manner). But if I do, it will be with the awareness that his emotional investment in the outcome of the conversation will be greater than mine; he has come to me, driven by his own emotional needs. In years past, I think I failed to recognize my responsibility in such a situation; youthful self-centeredness was an obstacle to compassion. But even now that I am able to see the sufferring that drives that sort of behavior, it still isn't easy to decide what the most compassionate course is. In any case, I will do something no child is capable of doing, and that is whatever is necessary to insure that he understands that I will expect him to respect my personal boundaries. Conversion by forceful coercion doesn't fly in the free society in which I live, a point which apparently still manages to escape some fundamentalists.

[The GM]

Dynamic,
We're all 'survivors' in a fashion, aren't we?;)
I admire people who have been brutalized in one form or another and pick up the pieces and move on, really I do. Because of this, I won't put myself on the 'woe is me' train. Yeah, fundamentalism has scared me, I think it's designed to do exactly that. What I don't understand is why so called faith 'leaders' feel the need to use scare tactics to get their message out. I refuse to live in fear, so I guess fundamentalism couldn't keep its hold on me. Also important to note that my break with that way of thinking was not pain free. There was lots of self doubt and what ifs going through my head. In the end, it was compassionate people, not abrasive ones who helped me think it through. So when I see people go on flame bait campaigns to these fundy sites, I cringe a bit because I know they are driving the people they want to help away.

On a slightly related topic, I have a JW who comes to my home the second Monday of every month like clockwork. He's an old guy, pretty polite. Knocks on the door, asks me how I'm doing and other small talk. He drops off a copy of the Watchtower and Awake and tells me to give them a read. He never tries to enter my home, he respects my personal space, and as a result, I'm nice to him. By definition, he's a fundy, through and through, but damned if he acts like it. I bet he gets the 'word' out more by being friendly than by doing crap like what happened to Joshua in the mall. Sometimes I read his magazines, sometimes I don't have the time and pitch them. Point being, fundies don't have to scare people to get them to listen. This particular JW has figured that out...not that I'm going to join their cult anytime soon! Why do other fundies assume they have to scare Jesus into you? I would again cast the spotlight on their leadership, who teaches them by word and deed to do those kind of acts.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by The GM

We're all 'survivors' in a fashion, aren't we?
Actually, not all of 'us' are. (http://www.childrenshealthcare.org/)

[The GM]

Yeah, that's some pretty sick $#!+. Clearly abusive and insane. I never was a part of or witnessed anything like that. Even with my faith healing experience, I was still taken to optomitrists and doctors.
Although would you agree that such degrees of fanatacism are the minority even in the fundamentalist community? I think this is clearly the case otherwise we'd be hearing about this sort of thing all the time. Also, as a caveat, I would add that child abuse isn't the sole providence of fundamentalist parents by a long shot. (Not that I think you're implying that.)
Some people are abusive, some kids die. This blows, no matter the religious leanings of those involved.

[the_ignored]

Originally posted by MLynn

Oh, thank you - you are SO much nicer than those so-called Xians at RR! And yes, I will bring chips galore! The irony is, if you use the word "Xian" on RR, they get mad!

From Christine, a mod there<~~from one of the most messed up threads (http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?p=1560143#post1560143) I've ever seen on that site:
Take your arguments to the Apologetics forum. You won't be asked again.

Oh, and if I see you refer to the members of this board anywhere on this board by the derogatory term, "xians" again, you are outta here. If you want to stay, have a bit of respect for your hosts.We, on the other hand, even tolerate "death threats", right, Riddick?

Too bad Christine seems ignorant of history: http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/xmasabbr.asp

Oh yeah, Welcome to the forum "The GM"! I just keep getting off into these rants. That's why they ignore me. :wink8: Yeah, the people here won't give you any trouble...the one who would are the very few who give all of us trouble! Heh


With thanks to WinAce for help in digging up some info...

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by The GM

...I never was a part of or witnessed anything like that...I understand. While what you described in your opening post is merely disturbing, the examples shown on the site I linked are deeply disturbing. So it is a matter of degree.

Although would you agree that such degrees of fanatacism are the minority even in the fundamentalist community? I guess I tend to consider 'fanaticism' and 'fundamentalism' to be roughly equivalent in meaning, though I am prepared to be corrected on this if I am mistaken.

Some people are abusive, some kids die. This blows, no matter the religious leanings of those involved.I certainly agree with that. I am of the opinion that abuse can be emotional or psychological as well as physical. I also feel that certain kinds actions of may qualify as 'abuse' even though they do not result in death, and they may qualify as abuse even though far worse examples may be found.

Maybe we can take it as a given that parents who become abusive are emotionally unbalanced, and perhaps even go so far as to speculate that the same types of emotional imbalance which drive people to substance abuse and other forms of self-destructive behavior may as easily lead them to fanaticism and fundamentalism, whether the focus be religious, or political, or even something to do with celebrities, or Star Trek, or whatever.

When a crack addict mother lets her children go hungry because she spent all her money on dope, one way of looking at it is that she was doing the best she could with the emotional tools she had, just that her best wasn't very good. It might well be that heaping blame upon her would not serve as part of a solution -- but then, neither would denying the fact that she neglected her kids.

But this thread really isn't about crack addict mothers or any of those other things, it's about fundamentalism, and why it 'blows'. I think one of the reasons it blows is that it encourages a style of parenting which causes deep emotional scarring. As is the case with domestic violence and substance abuse, this creates a self-pepetuating cycle -- which may go a long way toward explaining how such primitive superstitions have persisted for so long. Identifying the perpetrators as such might not be of much value in the healing process, but on the other hand, neither is denying that they did anything wrong -- the pedagogy of fire and brimstone is a form of brutality (period).

[The GM]

Thanks again for the warm welcomes!


Back to Dynamic’s thought provoking points. Let’s toss some definitions out there.

fa•nat•i•cism (f -n t -s z m)
n.
Excessive, irrational zeal.

fun•da•men•tal•ism (f n d -m n tl- z m)
n.
A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

So while fanaticism can certainly be a part of fundamentalism (we’re seeing a lot of this in the Middle East right now, for instance) fanaticism can also apply to any number of non religious situations. Fundamentalism is a philosophy, fanaticism is more like a mental disorder, no religion required.
As for blame, I think it should be assigned. Would I blame the parents? Sure, ignorance is no excuse for what happened to those kids. But the people I’d really go after are the ‘leaders’ who these people consulted in each one of those case studies who specifically told them not to seek medical help. The leaders were looked upon as the ‘authority’ on such matters, they willfully accepted that position of authority, and they should pay the consequences, period, end of story.
This leads back to my point, which is that I have trouble dumping on Joe Fundy. He lives in fear, fear propagated by the authority figures in his church/mosque/temple/ whatever. It’s the leaders, those who assume power and control over those living in fear who should be directly challenged, whether that be through debate, litigation, or incarceration. In the meantime, what do you do with old Joe? I think you use patience and compassion to punch through the fear. It’s easier to reach out when someone is already reaching for you.
I could be rambling again, though. ;)
I am interested in solutions the fundy communication block. I’ve read all of the RR threads, obviously sarcasm and trading of insults doesn’t work. It drives people like that deeper into their fears for a whole host of reasons that I talked to Atlas about earlier. Any thoughts on solutions? Bueller?

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by The GM

This leads back to my point, which is that I have trouble dumping on Joe Fundy. He lives in fear, fear propagated by the authority figures in his church/mosque/temple/ whatever. It’s the leaders, those who assume power and control over those living in fear who should be directly challenged, whether that be through debate, litigation, or incarceration. In the meantime, what do you do with old Joe? I think you use patience and compassion to punch through the fear. It’s easier to reach out when someone is already reaching for you

I'm with you, and I agree, it's a tough one. For one thing, challenging leaders often seems only to serve to reinforce the hold they have over their minions. But as soon as we start thinking in terms of 'punching through', we may already be off on the wrong track. I find that keeping my own side of the street clean is usually enough to keep me pretty busy, and I feel that before I can ever be of much help to anyone else, I need to start there.

[JAR]

If a religion is true, I should take it seriously and be a religious fundamentalist.

If a religion is not true, then I shouldn't practice it all.

There is no in-between. A diety doesn't kind of exist and kind of not exist. He or she either exists or doesn't exist.

[MLynn]

Hey, GM - I read your 6:53 a.m. post and thought about what might break through the fear. I even went back to the RR website to get an idea of the where the posters' heads are at. Sorry to say that even I, a christian myself, would not fit in at RR. The word, "entrenched" comes to mind.

I don't think I could get through to them, so how could anyone else? Being at JREF is a breath of fresh air. Checking out RR with all the flaming, angry "smilies" was kinda creepy. :(

[Eos of the Eons]

Hey, I just posted a thread on peoples' opinions that atheism will doom us all.

Reading GM's posts reminds me of why people think that, but I've seen people express the opposite in this thread.

My son started going to a church with another family a few times a month. He saw a kid accidently drip some icecream onto a car, and my son said that kid wasn't a christian because he was bad.

I had a few things to say. He now says he is basically agnostic.

All I can say is, even with the extremism GM grew up questioning it.

There was a debate once over whether people are born religious or not. It seems to me people are born and they can be prone to go one way or the other.

Were some people born skeptics? Seems so. Skeptics can be religious as I've seen a lot of religious folks here that are also wonderfully skeptic. Would that be the best of both worlds?

I don't know. No matter what, I cannot come up with how there can be any gods or deities or whatever. Cannot reconcile that with my other knowledge on how things work. I love science labs. They make sense.

Keep that critical light burning!

[Fordama]

Originally posted by JAR
If a religion is true, I should take it seriously and be a religious fundamentalist.

If a religion is not true, then I shouldn't practice it all.

There is no in-between. A diety doesn't kind of exist and kind of not exist. He or she either exists or doesn't exist. Whether or not one is a fundamentalist isn't a measure of how "serious" one is about god. It's a matter of how the religious texts that you believe are to be translated. Fundamentalist tend to be literalists to an extent, and yes, if you think you are getting exact information from god's mouth I guess it would tend to make anyone more fanatic. If one thinks the writings are more like parables to help guide people through their lives then one is probably going to be less fanatical.

Fordama

[Atlas]

What makes a fanatic? Not all fundamentalists are.

There seems to be moment of awakening to a fundamental truth that changes us into zealots.

A smoker who quits is awakened to the addictiveness and destructiveness of the habit in the struggle to quit and often becomes zealous in the effort to awaken and change others. They can be rude and insensitive in their effort to "help" you see the light.

A non-Christian can find himself in a low moment where he is awakened to the truth of his own sinfulness which transforms him into a zealot for the Lord. Ready to pick up the sword if need be to "help" others meet God.

Islamic truths are just as transforming but they hold nonbelievers in even lower esteem that other religionists.

When a believer is awakened to the truth of the underpinnings of their own beliefs they can become the zealous skeptic that denies any belief that does not meet an observed standard and will seek zealously to change in others those same beliefs he once held precious.

How can you communicate with fanatics and fundamentalists. Well, with the fanatic a blunt instrument helps - or else you must become a fanatic. There really isn't any good way to communicate for they have divorced themselves from reason.

For fundamentalists it's a little different. Knowing the terrain is absolutely necessary in my opinion. If they are Bible literalists, that is the filter through which all of life is strained. Unless you know how to present ideas that will pass through the filter you'll be talking to a wall.

Within the broad terrain there is often a special path that allows for interchange. It can be the concept of authority, or love, or parenthood, or just family in general. If this filter can be found and substituted between say, Christians and Atheists, there can be mutual respect and useful exchange about all the important ideas either side may harbor. The ideas must always be presented in such a way that it will pass through the other person's filter. Otherwise the two are speaking different languages, and talking more slowly or more loudly only increases frustrations and anger.

[JAR]

Up above I accidentally said, "If a religion is not true, I shouldn't practice it all."

I meant to say, "If a religion is not true, I shouldn't practice it at all."

[Graham]

Originally posted by JAR
Up above I accidentally said, "If a religion is not true, I shouldn't practice it all."

I meant to say, "If a religion is not true, I shouldn't practice it at all."

I like the original version - most religions have at least some good parts buried in the ridculous supstitions and dumbass rituals.

"Prove all things, hold fast that which is good" - 1 Thesselonians, I believe, used to be my school motto.

Dump the crap and keep the good bits, in other words.

Graham

[The GM]

Wow! Lots of good stuff popped up while I was out. I’d like to address some of it.

Michelle (I hope that’s your name, I think I read someone else refer to you that way. If I’m wrong or you’d prefer I address you by your handle, tell me!) was talking about the RR board. I am very familiar with this brand of fundy thought; it’s close to what I grew up in. I admit, once a year on Mother’s Day, I go back to this kind of church out of respect for me mum. At first, this was torture for me. I didn’t want to see these kinds of people, shake hands with them, or hear what they had to say. Now I can do this and not feel that old pressure. Mostly what I witness is an environment that is filled with fear: Fear of God, Fear of the Apocalypse, Fear of going to Hell. I can’t make myself be afraid and I try to set an example of what it’s like to *not* be afraid of God. It’s a better life on this side of the fence. Maybe being a good example is an answer? I dunno. You’ve been over at RR. What do you think?

Eos, who has the coolest damn avatar I’ve seen here, talked a bit about whether one is born w/ fundy tendencies or not. Good question. I have two other siblings, so three kids growing up in the household. Sibling number 1 has the fundy leanings we grew up learning about. Sibling number 2 is moderate and laid back in belief (could have something to do w/ his very gorgeous and somewhat religious SO, though.) I am the black sheep, constantly questioning, always looking for answers. Also, I would add that situational circumstances can fuel fundamentalism. For instance, we had two cases of nearly fatal, chronic illness in our family. I have no doubt our church habits would have been different had we all been healthy. Again, fear feeding fear.

Jar and Fordama chatted a bit about fundamentalism vs fanaticism. I posted the definitions I found at dictionary.com for each word. Fanatics don’t require a religion (ever been to a MLM meeting? Then you know what I mean. J ) Fundamentalism can be a channel through which fanaticism moves, but so can lots of things, kinda like the example Atlas brought up about smokers. Speaking of Atlas, he talked about the ‘terrain of discussion.’ While this is a bit different from his earlier posts in which he said you can’t reason w/ fundies, I’d be interested in seeing what else he has to say on the subject, like if he’s done this, how he opened the discussion, where it led, etc…(If you’re willing, of course. If not, you’re 100% free to tell me to buggar off. ;) )

Graham said, “Dump the crap and keep the good bits, in other words.”
An excellent piece of advice and can apply to many areas of life, I’m sure!

Critical thinking ain’t easy. Screw it; I’m joining evil dave’s purple squiddy worship. ;D

[MLynn]

Originally posted by The GM
Michelle (I hope that’s your name, I think I read someone else refer to you that way. If I’m wrong or you’d prefer I address you by your handle, tell me!) was talking about the RR board. I am very familiar with this brand of fundy thought; it’s close to what I grew up in. I admit, once a year on Mother’s Day, I go back to this kind of church out of respect for me mum. At first, this was torture for me. I didn’t want to see these kinds of people, shake hands with them, or hear what they had to say. Now I can do this and not feel that old pressure. Mostly what I witness is an environment that is filled with fear: Fear of God, Fear of the Apocalypse, Fear of going to Hell. I can’t make myself be afraid and I try to set an example of what it’s like to *not* be afraid of God. It’s a better life on this side of the fence. Maybe being a good example is an answer? I dunno. You’ve been over at RR. What do you think?
Although my name isn't Michelle, I like it - it can be your pet name for me if you like. I've only gone to the RR board a little because, well, the threads are very "fundie" and banal. Some of the people are well-meaning but biblically, well, ignorant. Oh dear, I'm digging myself into a hole...there must be other christian
forums that are more moderate than RR. I don't like the "let them burn" attitude, and everyone who doesn't share THEIR dogmas is a troll, blah, blah. It drives me nuts. I like it here - sure, Triadboy asks tough questions that I can't answer, but he said I could stay as long as I bring the chips! What kind should I bring?

[The GM]

Originally posted by MLynn

Although my name isn't Michelle, I like it - it can be your pet name for me if you like. (snip) Triadboy asks tough questions that I can't answer, but he said I could stay as long as I bring the chips! What kind should I bring?

Oh dear! :eek: Well, if I'm going to give you a pet name, it's certainly going to be more glamorous than Michelle. Sorry 'bout the confusion.
As for the chips, best not be any of those diet kind. Salty cardboard gets a definite thumbs down from The GM.
As for the RR people, yeah, I understand what you're saying. It can be easier *not* to deal with that kind of view.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by The GM
Fundamentalism can be a channel through which fanaticism moves, but so can lots of things, kinda like the example Atlas brought up about smokers. Speaking of Atlas, he talked about the ‘terrain of discussion.’ While this is a bit different from his earlier posts in which he said you can’t reason w/ fundies, I’d be interested in seeing what else he has to say on the subject, like if he’s done this, how he opened the discussion, where it led, etc I believe the comments from my earlier post that are being referred to are these snippets from my first post in this thread.
<blockquote>And to be honest, you can't really reason with fundies. Faith is something that is virtually unassailable by logic....

Actually trying to reason with fundies and Jihadists puts them on the same level as rational beings. </blockquote>I made a mistake in pushing all fundamentalists into the unreasonable group that also includes fanatics. While the continuum of human thought spans through emotionless rationality to the emotion laden and fear and anger driven thought processes of the irrational Jihadist, almost everyone's thought floats, in some regard, on a sea of emotion.

From our own perspective we do not admit the emotional component, but believe our own clarity of thought was the result of simple truth revealing itself to the prepared mind.

But our own emotional component is revealed when we talk to fundamentalists who rise easily into the heat of argument and engage us in the frustrating battle we all know.

In order to navigate the "terrain" common to the believer and the nonbeliever we must admit the emotional sea churns beneath us and seek to elevate the discussion off that sea and into the more airy reaches of rational thought.

I have 2 siblings and a parent who ascribe to somewhat different flavors of Christian fundamentalism. My brother is a young earth creationist type, an elder in his church. My Mom is devoutly Catholic, and my sister is kind of a love of Jesus evangelical.

They are all good people and would do what they could to help me if I ever was in need. I have challenged them up front and personal but withered as I witnessed the surge of emotion I inflamed. I have over the years adopted a different strategy that allows me to disagree with their assertions that the Lord is the answer when we are together and in discussions with my many other siblings.

This involves nothing more that validating their positions and stroking their egos prior to presenting an alternative. In my last post I alluded to the filter through which we perceive our world. Validation is best done using that filter.

For instance, if they say you must have faith, you can retort that you understand that Abraham had Faith when he took Isaac up the mountain to sacrifice him. You can work any angle of that story to make your point for the situation at hand. Preachers twist lessons out of these stories all the time. They pass through the filters easily.

But the main way to retain a high ground is to be so well versed that you can adopt a Socratic approach and through a series of statements and questions lead the believer where he will not go if you merely tell him to go there.

That is, raise a Bible story that you know they know about, referencing a current real life situation, and ask them to tell the story and how it relates. This validates them and their belief. It forces them out of their current prejudiced thought pattern and introduces other variables. But all the while doing so in a comforting set of symbols that they are familiar with.

This works very well with my Mom and my evangelical sister whose first thought is God and who seldom delve much deeper. My brother, being an elder, uses the technique, with a lot of preaching, himself. He usually knows when he's being manuvered and will steer to a different quote or story. When it's my turn though, I can bring it back and make him answer. We both know what we're doing and can laugh about it and accuse one another of it without giving offense. As long as I approach them within their own symbols, stories and comfort zone I can then get at inconsistencies in the Ressurection, Heaven and Hell, good and evil, science and religion, and liars and frauds. There is some remarkable agreement. There is still a lot of disagreement but we part amicably both believing there may be hope for the other after all.

Someone like you, GM, who was raised hearing all the stories, the lessons, and interpretations would be good at this if you understood it as a game. Perhaps you have used the technique already, maybe even without realizing it. With our parents we can be naturally deferential if we're not too busy being rebels. It's work for sure sometimes, but you seem to realize the value of your parents to you, if you are willing already to submerge your own disbelief and validate theirs by accompanying them to church.

As I often do once I get started I don't know how to stop. So I'll just quit. I'll be interested in how you implement and describe your own strategies, GM.

[Eos of the Eons]

These stories about growing up in religious households are quite interesting. You should hear the stuff I grew up with. Talk about whacky and confusing, but I did finally read a psychology book when I was 13, and figured out my mom was a paranoid schizophrenic. I find her scaring me to death all the time is not so different than what people like GM and others have been through in a more fanatically fundy household. Can you imagine a whole group of people saying things my mom did?

It seems to me that is what the fanaticals are, and since religion (rather than stories about people going in your body and molesting you) is widely accepted, and how does a kid deal with waking up and finding out everybody around you is sharing differing degrees of the same delusion? It would be like a whole majority of people believing that other people drive red cars just to bug them personally, and you can see that is just not true.

GM and others don't have the comfort of reading a book that helps you understand why people are so crazy, instead you have the whole world telling you that you're evil for not believing what they do. That would have drove me insane...or more insane :P

Eos, who has the coolest damn avatar I’ve seen here, talked a bit about whether one is born w/ fundy tendencies or not. Good question. I have two other siblings, so three kids growing up in the household. Sibling number 1 has the fundy leanings we grew up learning about. Sibling number 2 is moderate and laid back in belief (could have something to do w/ his very gorgeous and somewhat religious SO, though.) I am the black sheep, constantly questioning, always looking for answers. Also, I would add that situational circumstances can fuel fundamentalism. For instance, we had two cases of nearly fatal, chronic illness in our family. I have no doubt our church habits would have been different had we all been healthy. Again, fear feeding fear.

Hey thanks! I'm glad I brought her back since she suits me and my name better. The glowering puppy was fun for a while, but now I feel my blue avatar is just more like being back to normal.

I know what you mean abut fear feeding fear. My husband and I lost our best friends to fanaticism after their first child was born missing a heart chamber and died. They believe toxins (in shampoo, toothpaste, cleaners, vaccines, etc.) caused it. They have no clue about genetics having only high school educations.
They can't fathom that it wasn't their fault, that and they couldn't do anything to prevent it. That way of thinking is a horrible burden, and now they pay 5 times the price for their all natural "safe" alternatives compared to what you pay in a regular grocery store for everything. She sells the crap to get a more discounted price, but you still are paying through the nose. And that toothpaste tastes like it was made with Buckleys (probably was).

While I have had to completely cut my mom off, there seems to be a balance that can be reached in families for the most part. I feel for you all. I just can't have my mom doing to my kids what she did to me. They don't need to be turned into anxiety ridden depressed souls (a lot of what I see in fundies for their fears).

[aries]

Hello :)

As this will be, in a longer while, one of my last posts in this Forum, (due to an upcoming paper and then an exam,) I wonder why so many American (and Canadian ?) Churches are preaching hate instead of love, fear instead of compassion ?

This is a sociological question, by the way, not a religious one.

In Denmark (and Yes, it is the Denmark from the movie, "the Prince and me":D) where I live, religion is seen as a private matter, something others aren't allowed to mix in, (nobody's else's business than my own).

It is also illegal to ask an applicant (to a job) or an employer if he believes or in what he believes.

We do, of course, have some fundamentalists in our midst, but somehow there low key as opposed to what I have observed in the US. And then do not count for more than, say may 5-10 percent of the population, tops.

The fundamentalists here in Denmark of course also are against
same sex marriages, (which in Denmark are called 'registered partnerships), abortion, and homosexuals. But somehow, they do not seem to so cranky and weird ad the fundamentalists in the US/Canada.

I.e. the science/evolution vs. creationist debate that is so heated in the U.S., doesn't nearly exist at all. And I know of no fundamentalist in Denmark, that would attack, bomb or kill Doctors which partook in, or carried out abortions.(the doctors).

[I am merely pointing this out, I do not want to raise the whole abortion issue.]

So, from a socioloigical point of view, (as I have a degree in sociology) I'm amazed, and stunned. What inthe US society could have give rise to the fundamentalistic views of the churches ?

And was it always so ?

And, most churches that are fundamentalist in the US, are they not Lutheran (or Evangelical) churches ?

Just somethings to ponder...

best
wishes
aries

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by The GM
Atlas piped up with the idea that fundies should not be put on the same level as rational people. Where do we put them, then? In mental wards? Is this necessary? Is dialogue impossible on all fronts? I certainly hope not. As I have already admitted, fundamentalism gets in the way of dialogue w/ my family. To be fair, if I really had to talk about something that was in opposition to what my family believes, they would hear me out. It might be a frustrating discussion, but I’d still be loved, appreciated etc…when it was all said and done. So, communication is possible when respect happens on both sides. How do you do that? By building relationships I guess. However, relationship building can never occur if there’s animosity on both sides. I understand what your post was saying, Atlas, and I’m not bagging on you. ;) Just playing a little devil’s advocate.

Well put GM. The idea that fundamentalists are irrational is a perspective, based on specific rules constructed by people promoting the perspective. All it shows is that people can fit into a constructed definition.

If the point is just to ridicule and place people beneath you as far as intellectual standards and what not, nice going. You've succeeded in putting down others and making yourself feel better about yourself relatively speaking.

If the point is dialogue with the "other" it's a poor start. I get the feeling that a common sentiment on this forum is that dialogue is useless/hopeless. Bad attitudes lumped on top of bad attitudes.

Many, if not most people on this board, come across as frustrated. You've tried to be reasonable with the fundamentalists and it just doesn't work. You're fighting against a faith different from your own. Whether or not these people are rational/irrational, they are content and have children and pass their ideas from generation to generation. Does that make the ideas correct? No. At the very least they are serviceable and communicable. Does it matter if the ideas are correct? I don't know. They keep having children and living long and satisfactory lives. Are you appealing to a universal standard of objective truth? If you are, where is the harm to the individual if their take on that truth is different from your own? If the only harm is derision from the type of person on this forum, it's a rather harmful life.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by triadboy


But that's the beauty of it! There ARE unanswered questions. Through science, these questions are slowly answered. Religion - on the other hand - has everything all figured out.

Not so. Rather, your opinion about religion has religion all figured out.

If you really think that religion has everything all figured out, you are showing that you don't understand religion. And that display makes the things you say very unpersuasive to those who do understand religion. Unless that is the point, to be unpersuasive. You're welcome to have your incorrect conception of religion of course.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by triadboy


The world will be a better, safer place when it is populated by only agnostics and atheists.

I do find such statements of faith reassuring...we all have beliefs and faith that are unprovable, don't we. When people say such things I see the similarities between us all.

As long as the atheists aren't like Kim Jung Il and Stalin of course, but that goes without saying.

The key is good conduct, applied to a universal standard. Surely we all agree about that as well. It isn't what you believe, or what you don't believe, but how you act. I'd retract that statement if you could prove to me that atheists don't do things like murder other people or act in similar nefarious ways.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by The GM
Let's face it, life is scary. None of us are getting out alive.

Hey GM, yours is a refreshing voice and I look foward to having discussions with you.

Many people here would disagree with your statement that "life is scary". Some people will say that life is life, life ends in death, and such facts, as they are reality, aren't scary but just the overall deal. Fear is a defense mechanism that would lead people to things like relgion, I think that is how the theory works. So, a contrived and artificial fear is solved and defeated by a contrived and artificial system of belief.

Now, an admission that "life is scary" suggests that it is scary for everyone. Thus, people who don't think it's scary have constructed some kind of mental defense against that reality. That construct, of course, doesn't necessarily have to be religion. It could be rational and well-balanced atheism.

As for me, I don't know if life is scary. I don't know if I have ever thought that life is scary. Of course certain things about life are scary. Would that make life as a whole scary? Maybe. I don't think so. I do know that many people on this board will adamantly argue that life isn't scary. And I do know that many Christians will adamntly argue that life isn't scary. What do they have in common? A belief system that tells them that life isn't scary.

Now, is there an objective true standard that insists or proves that life is scary? I don't know to be honest.

It can be overwhelming to think that your time could be over at any moment. I think this fear can overwhelm and be used against people. Now I guess I don’t blame Joe Fundie for this, although I’ll put a heaping helpin’ spoonful of responsibility on church leaders who propagate that fear.

Not all church leaders propagate that fear. Rather, they propagte a more liberating way of thinking. People often approach religion (or any ideology) when they are at their lowest point. At their most maleable/susceptible? Sure, why not. How many people have come to atheism/agnosticism after years of frustration. It works the other way too. Maybe the real fear is mental discontentment? Just about everyone on this list waxes adamant and authoritative about what they say and what they believe. It is good to feel such power and such contentment that you can talk that way. The key is THAT you believe, and how firmly you believe it, not necessarily what you believe.

More about fear. It's like people here NEED or HAVE to believe that the *other* is motivated by fear. To me that appears like a defense mechanism, or an aspect of wishful thinking. Are other people motivated by fear? Like anything, some are and some aren't. But some people here need to insist that the *other* is motivated by fear. That says more about the person making the judgment than about the person being judged.

On the other hand, Joe Fundie needs to accept responsibility for his own life, but can he do that if he is afraid to alter his world view?
I’m rambling out loud again…;)

I think fundamentalists do accept responsibility for their own lives, so much so that their beliefs compel them to alter their lives from what they were before and act in a certain way. Such personal changes do display a person taking control of their lives.

As for world views, how many people here are willing are able to alter their world views? Once you find a satisfactory world view, is it OK to stick with it through thick and thin, as you would a satisfactory spouse?

GM I look forward to hearing more from you, I'll be back in a week or so, school is just about wrapped up for me.

-Elliot

[triadboy]

Originally posted by elliotfc


Not so. Rather, your opinion about religion has religion all figured out.

If you really think that religion has everything all figured out, you are showing that you don't understand religion. And that display makes the things you say very unpersuasive to those who do understand religion. Unless that is the point, to be unpersuasive. You're welcome to have your incorrect conception of religion of course.



I study religions. Name something that religion does not have an answer for. Any religion.

[The GM]

Holy cow! Look at all these great posts! I have so many thoughts on what people have discussed, let me see if I can organize my ideas!

Let’s start from the top.

Atlas was chatting about how he communicates with his family. Very informative and gives me some ideas about potential solutions. He then wanted to know how I ‘deal with it.’ For the longest time, it was through avoidance. Not through avoidance of actually seeing my family, but as an unspoken mutual ‘I won’t bring it up if you don’t ’ kinda thing. Now, very recently I had a constructive and in depth conversation w/ dear old Mom concerning the validity of religion. (Note: Not the validity of God, just religion.) I kinda snuck in the backdoor. She was concerned about the rise of pagan (read, Satan inspired) religions. I usually would have just nodded and changed the subject, but I decided to try to make it a teaching moment instead. I told her it was bunk, that Wiccans, Druids, and other ‘witch’ religions were complete and utter bunk. She asked me if I believed in evil, which I do, but I made a simple point. If spells and magic were real, then everyone would want to learn how to do it and thus further their own agendas. We wouldn’t have a war w/ Iraq, we’d just have our top sorcerers place hexes on our enemies. We wouldn’t have doctors roaming the halls of hospitals, it would be shamans. I basically said that it’s ridiculous to fear something that does not exist. Satan can’t work through pagan magic because their so called magic simply doesn’t work in the physics of our world. She had honestly not thought of that before and at the end of the conversation she said, much to my amazement, and had me nearly falling out of the chair, “You’re right to be skeptical and what you said makes sense.” The conversation had no Bible beating, no dueling scripture quotes, just me and Mom talking rationally about why it’s nonsense to be afraid of pagans and their Satanly influence. I was in a great mood for the rest of the day because if nothing else, maybe I helped eliminate a false fear.
So the short version of that story is, I’m still learning. J

Eos talked about her friends who blame themselves for the loss of a child. Terrible, and then if they joined an MLM to combat it, even worse. I am really sorry that happened to them. MLM organizations are easily as fundamental as some religions complete with belief systems, strictures and scriptures. The good news it that it’s easer to escape an MLM than it is a typical fundy religion. (If that’s what they are doing, which it rather sounds that way from your post.) The average MLMer drops out after 2-3 years, sometimes a little more or less. Should your pals decide to get out, and should you decide to support them again, they should return to their regularly scheduled selves when they are outside of their ‘chain of leadership’. I wish you and them the best of luck on that topic. As far as your mother, you have my complete understanding and I wish it were different for you, but good for you for making the decisions you feel are right for your family.

Aries wanted to talk about the sociology of fundamental behavior in the US/CAN. I believe I read somewhere (and someone correct me if I’m talking out my butt here,) that only 10% of the population is fundamentalist. The reason I would guess you hear more about fundie behavior here is because of a bigger population in the US/CAN, so obviously larger number of fundies than in Denmark.
About who is fundamentalist? Anyone could be. Now, my spouse is Lutheran by habit. (By that, I mean my spouse was raised that way, went to the same church throughout childhood, but does not actively practice now.) When we wanted to get married, we were turned away by the childhood church and minister because we were pregnant. Sex before marriage is a sin, God does not condone sin, thus no marriage for you! Now, my spouse and in-laws were shocked by this sudden ‘betrayal’ of the church. I grew up in this sort of thing, so it just kinda rolled off my back. They immediately withdrew their support (financial and otherwise) from the church they had gone to for 20 years. I couldn’t work up the nerve to be upset like they were because I understood that it was the law of one man (in this case, the minister) who had prevented the marriage, it was not God’s law. We ended up getting hitched in a different synod of the Lutheran church, one that wasn’t so fundy prone. However, that incident forever damaged the relationship my spouse and in-laws had with the church. So yes, some sects of Lutherans are fundy, some not. Same could be said for any religion I think. Now I wasn’t raised Lutheran, but Southern Baptist style, and I would say they are far more fundy than the Lutherans could ever dream of being, but this is only my perspective, and statistically, I could be wrong here.

Elliotfc gave me compliments that made me blush. S/he put some questions to Triadboy that I had thought of but had been a bit too shy to call him to the carpet on. Elliot also talked about how fundies accept complete control of their lives. Here we disagree because I’ve heard the statements ‘Just give your life to Jesus, God handles everything, It’s Satan at work,’ so many times that it’s obvious you aren’t encouraged to take control of your own life. More often than not I see these kinds of statements as excuses for poor decision making. Didn’t pay your bills? God will provide. Little Johnny got little Suzy knocked up? It was Satan’s spirit of lust. And so forth. People may be disciplined to the religious practices, but are they really taking control of their lives, or are they finding a convenient scapegoat for their problems? To be fair, probably a bit of both, but I dislike excuses, particularly excuses that relate to failures based on repeated poor decision making.

[The GM]

Originally posted by triadboy


I study religions. Name something that religion does not have an answer for. Any religion.

According to the Bible, God created Adam and Eve. They had two sons, Cain and Abel. Cain slew Abel, leaving Adam, Eve, and Cain on the planet.
Who did Cain mate with to propogate the human race?

[triadboy]

Originally posted by The GM


According to the Bible, God created Adam and Eve. They had two sons, Cain and Abel. Cain slew Abel, leaving Adam, Eve, and Cain on the planet.
Who did Cain mate with to propogate the human race?

Incest, baby!

...laws against brother-sister intermarriage were not introduced until the time of Moses. Before then, there were few genetic defects (mutations) that today make it inadvisable for close relatives to marry.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/feedback11-6-2000.asp


Keep 'em coming.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by elliotfc

More about fear. It's like people here NEED or HAVE to believe that the *other* is motivated by fear. To me that appears like a defense mechanism, or an aspect of wishful thinking. Are other people motivated by fear? Like anything, some are and some aren't. But some people here need to insist that the *other* is motivated by fear. That says more about the person making the judgment than about the person being judged.
And then you have those people who need to insist that the *other* needs to insist that the *other* is motivated by fear. Seriously, though, your objection seems reasonable enough -- in fact, I find myself in agreement with most of that entire post.

For me, the most fascinating aspects of human thought emerge when it addresses human thought itself. My view is that the most important task which our brains evolved to perform is to make reasonably accurate guesses as to what other humans are thinking, and reasonably accurate predictions as to how they might react to various situations. A critical aspect of that is the ability to examine the essential motivations that lead a person to reach his conclusions. Perhaps most fascinating of all is that it is often much easier to do this accurately when the subject is a person other than oneself.

[The GM]

Originally posted by triadboy


Incest, baby!
Keep 'em coming.

*Laughs*
Very good! You're on the ball. If you're willing to take Bible facts for 300, here's question number 2.

According to the good book, Earth is about 6,000 years old. We know that Christ was born 2000 years ago, give or take a few. That leaves 4,000 years between creation and Christ's birth. We are told that the only way into Heaven is through a personal relationship with Jesus. If this is the case, then what happened to all of the hapless souls who lived prior to Christ's birth and thus couldn't have a relationship w/ him? Are they burning in the fiery pits of Hell now and for eternity?

*As a side note, you seem like a pretty bright guy, Triad, so you probably see where I'm going here but play along for the sake of argument and the amusement of the peanut gallery.:D *

[triadboy]

Originally posted by The GM
According to the good book, Earth is about 6,000 years old. We know that Christ was born 2000 years ago, give or take a few. That leaves 4,000 years between creation and Christ's birth. We are told that the only way into Heaven is through a personal relationship with Jesus. If this is the case, then what happened to all of the hapless souls who lived prior to Christ's birth and thus couldn't have a relationship w/ him? Are they burning in the fiery pits of Hell now and for eternity?


It depends on who you talk to. This is a lovely thing to bring up to xians because it speaks directly to the Xian religion. There are guesses that say Jesus ministered to the Pre-Jesus masses during the 3 days of his resurrection. There are those that say "In the Beginning was the Word..." shows that Jesus was around at the beginning and so if people followed the Mosaic Laws they were saved. There is also the belief that there is a place called Paradise where everyone in question goes - a waiting room for Heaven.

But what it REALLY comes down to is this - Christianity is a bigoted religion. Christians are going to Heaven - and if you are not one of them you are going to hell. Even if you are a Hindu and heard of Jesus only once - you are going to hell. Even though God supposedly created and loves the Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. - He will send them to hell because they didn't immediately reject their faith - and begin following Jesus! (The arrogance!) Tribal gods are not good for this world.

Things like this are unexplainable, because they are derived from philosophical mistakes - written by men - in the bible.

When someone asked St Augustine - What was God doing before the beginning? He replied, "Creating hell for people who ask questions like that."

[The GM]

And there ya go. Religion doesn't have all of the answers. If it did, there wouldn't be so many of them let alone alternative beliefs because there would be nothing to question.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by The GM
And there ya go. Religion doesn't have all of the answers. If it did, there wouldn't be so many of them let alone alternative beliefs because there would be nothing to question.

Wrong. Just because I didn't post a quote from a Christian source does not mean they don't have one. That particular scenario, though, speaks to the bigoted nature of xianity - so I rambled off on my own.

Do you honestly believe your question doesn't have an "official" answer?! I'll dig around a bit - but rest assured - the church has the answer.

[triadboy]

St. Paul's writings teach that salvation may have been once attained by strictly following Jewish law. However, since Christ's ministry, it is dependent upon one's faith in the saving power of Jesus' death and resurrection.

I snatched this from ReligiousTolerance.org. (forgot to copy the link)

[The GM]

"May have been" is key in your research. Lots of things "may have been" and your former statement that some of this stuff depends on who you talk to is correct. Anyone could list question after question about religion and follow the trail until there are no answers or the answers are based on wild speculation/conjecture and have no basis on the original religious text on the subject (ie, the Bible, the Koran, the book of Shemp or whatever.) I guess myself and others could keep asking questions about various religions and you could keep looking stuff up, but eventually you'd run into stumbling blocks and questions that couldn't be answered. For instance, I could continue on my current line of questions which would basically cummulate in 'We know God has changed the rules many times and in regards to important things like who we can choose as a mate and how one gets into Heaven. How many more times is he going to change the rules, and if the Bible is subject to never being editted, how can we find out about these rules changes before it's too late?'
Well, the answer is, 'who knows?'
And for some people reading this the answer would be 'who cares?' :)

Religion of all types is full of holes, mostly, because in my belief, religion is the work of man and not the work of God.

I'm willing to be corrected, but from where I'm sitting right now, religion doesn't hold all of the answers, not even close.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by The GM
...what happened to all of the hapless souls who lived prior to Christ's birth and thus couldn't have a relationship w/ him? Are they burning in the fiery pits of Hell now and for eternity?


According to the Bible - Yes! It seems unfair, but no one said God was fair.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by The GM
I guess myself and others could keep asking questions about various religions and you could keep looking stuff up, but eventually you'd run into stumbling blocks and questions that couldn't be answered.

All questions are answered by the good book.

...religion doesn't hold all of the answers, not even close.

Of course, it doesn't - but no matter how hard the question asked - Xianity will provide a labored, painfully obtuse answer.

[The GM]

It may be, but shares that distinction w/ other religions. Check out the Ayatollah's answers to today's tough Islamic questions.
http://www.sistani.org/html/eng/main/index.php?page=4&lang=eng&part=1

I especially enjoyed the temporary marriage thing.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by The GM


I especially enjoyed the temporary marriage thing.

It's like a religiously approved affair! News to me.

[The GM]

Yeah, although it has a lot of applications. Of course, premarrital sex is a sin, so we can't have any of that. Fortunately for the fee of a dowry, you can marry any lady you want for a night and the Ayatollah gives it the OK. If you're already married, you can have a fling, courtesy of a temp marriage. If you want to try out a potential bride, you can use your temp marriage as a testing ground to see how well your beloved will respond to your absolute authority as a husband. If she doesn't work out, no harm, no foul, move onto the next lady. It's all very interesting stuff.

[the_ignored]

Here's another reason (http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=353) why...

[Atlas]

Originally posted by the_ignored
Here's another reason (http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=353) why... And a chillingly insightful reason it is.

[fishbob]

Yeah, fundamentalism has scared me, I think it's designed to do exactly that. What I don't understand is why so called faith 'leaders' feel the need to use scare tactics to get their message out. I refuse to live in fear, so I guess fundamentalism couldn't keep its hold on me.

Yer my hero.

[Bottle or the Gun]

Originally posted by The GM
I think this fear can overwhelm and be used against people. Now I guess I don’t blame Joe Fundie for this, although I’ll put a heaping helpin’ spoonful of responsibility on church leaders who propagate that fear. On the other hand, Joe Fundie needs to accept responsibility for his own life, but can he do that if he is afraid to alter his world view?
I’m rambling out loud again…;)

Ye who sows fear, shall reap the $$$$$.