Christianity vs. Fundamentalism

[kwassa]

Since the endless cyclical argument goes around here about what Christianity means politically in this country, I would like to suggest that the real enemy is fundamentalism, in all religions. Not Christianity, which has endlessly varied sects and denominations that emphasize very different and sometimes opposite ideas.

It is simply the concept of the "true believer" who thinks that they possess the absolute truth, versus those who are wise enough to know that no one has that knowledge. These "true believers", who might not even have their belief based in religion at all but believe in secular doctrines such as communism, facism, or whatever, are dangerous regardless of what their belief systems are. The error is that they have absolute truth on their side.

Right now we are under attack in Iraq by Islamic fundamentalists. Same problem. Hindu and Muslim fundamentalists get into it with each other all the time. Nationalism can also be a form of "true believer", in that all the good people live in one nation, and others are less than. It can also be based on race, or ethnicity, or what ever...

A good book on the subject of fundamentalism that I would like to recommend:

"The Battle for God, A History of Fundamentalism" by Karen Armstrong.
I am about halfway through, and it is very, very good.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. great point

fundie christians are no better than wahabis, or fundie hindus who bomb Sihks.

[manic expression]

77. Out of curiosity

when did Hindus bomb Sikhs?

Believe me, I'm just wondering.

[eallen]

2. Yep. Fundamentalism, not religion generally, is politically dangerous.

That doesn't make the more moderate varieties of religion rational. But those who hold them are better neighbors and fellow citizens. ;D

[xchrom]

3. fundies are not christian -- they worship the bible.

it's an idol to them.

they break the first commandment.

second they do not love ''thy neighbor as thy self'' .

they break the second commandment.

third they believe in their own righteousness above everyone elses -- this is abhorent to the teaching of christ.

[beam me up scottie]

4. They're still christians. nt

[xchrom]

8. if you worship the bible

you are not christian.

[beam me up scottie]

10. When did they declare they worship the bible?

If they worship the christian god, they are christian.

[xchrom]

37. they lock god into the bible

as in the Literal Word of God -- they worship a dead thing -- not the living god.

that's idolatry.

[beam me up scottie]

38. They think god is dead?

Okay, I'm being facetious but you get my drift.

They are christians-just a very different kind from you and the other liberal believers.

[Shell Beau]

40. You can claim to be a Christian.

But that doesn't mean jack. Actions speak louder than words.

[Az]

43. Has little to do with it

The actions of Christians throughout history give us a very very wide understanding of what Christians in action can imply. Simply put actions may be loud but they are meaningless in this issue.

[Shell Beau]

46. No they aren't! People who are out there judging

every Tom, Dick, and Harry for being gay or having an abortion or whatever are going against what I believe to be Christian. I, as a Christian, do not want to judge anyone as it is not my place to do so. Preaching one part of the Bible while ignoring every other part isn't Christian IMO! Condemning people to hell and calling them doers of the devil isn't Christian. Claiming to try to be Christ-like and going against any and everything he would do, isn't Christian. So I can say I am a Christian all day long, but if my actions go against what a Christian is, then I am just talking hog-wash. Now, OTOH, some people have different ideas of what a Christian is.

[Az]

48. "what I believe to be Christian"

That is the key.

Some people look at the bible and see it professing to say that homosexuality is an abomination. Evil. They also see the bible telling them not to abide evil. That intolerance of evil is good. They are not judging the person. They are rejecting the evil that is tearing them down.

That is what they believe it means to be Christian. They believe that concern for the person's immortal soul is cause to berate their behaviour. Because they are endangering their soul and others as well. They truly believe that they are doing good. They believe they are fighting satan.

You are missing how people can twist and turn things when you have a dualistic system such as provided by Christianity. When there is a soul seperate from the brain it creates a problem. You can do all manner of harm to a body in the hopes of saving a soul. They are seperate in people's minds and thus can be treated differently. Anything to save the soul can be warranted and has been at various times in history.

Love the sinner hate the sin is the mantra the modern inquisition goes by. They love the soul of the person but hate the actual person they are. Of course they don't see it that way. The person they relate to is the soul they have imagined is beset by demonic forces compelling them to behave baddly. And they do it all in the name of Jesus Christ. Because they believe that is what it means to be Christian.

[Shell Beau]

49. I know all of that goes on! I know!

But not all do that. And I am sick and tired of being labled as one that does. Sure those things can be twisted, what can't? But as I said, God knows what is in our hearts. And that is what matters.

[Az]

52. I understand your anguish

But it's like the proverbial tarbaby. The more you struggle with it the more you become entangled with it.

The path here is not to deny that those individuals are Christians. You must assert that you believe that their interpretations are inaccurate or flawed. That they walk a misguided path.

You nor I have the ability to distinguish in a clear way whether they are Christians or not. The only way to do that would be to read their minds. And as a skeptic I am not waiting for that ability to show up. Aside from having Jesus descend and playing a global game of duck duck goose there is no way to seperate the good Christians from the false Christians in an authoratative manner.

[beam me up scottie]

54. "duck duck goose"

:spray:

The visual is priceless.

[Shell Beau]

59. And I don't have issues with how you deal with it.

For me it is crystal clear. I have had personal experiences with God. That is enough for me. It's not for you, okay! Good. That's that. Why is it an issue? Why feel the need to disprove the Bible or God? It's impossible to disprove or prove and it pisses off those who believe and to me it serves no purpose. It just creates animosity. And it further divides us and that is not what we want, right?

[Az]

64. Trust me

We are not trying to disprove the bible or God. I believe it is quite clear that we both understand that we disagree on those matters. There will be the occaisional atheist that pops up and proclaims there is no god, but they are just blowing off steam and make no impact on the dialog in any productive way.

Our conversations here are more about clarifying each other's positions and eradicating misconceptions about each other. In normal societal structures atheists and theists do not normally gather together and discuss such things. Our beliefs on these matters tend to be core ideals around which we build our social circles. Thus there can be a lot of confusion about what a particular group believes.

This is not a debate about whether god exists or not. I have been involved in enough of those to tell you that the dynamics would be quite different if it were. This is an exercise in trying to get to know each other.

:hi:

[Shell Beau]

65. Okay! Well I wish I could further our discussion but

I am gone for the day! Have a good weekend! Why can't everyone be as civil as you? Oh well, there is an ignore feature (when it works again) See ya! :hi:

[Maat]

75. And I would argue that I, personally, shouldn't focus on their path being

misguided.

I should just say, to myself, "This is not the path I choose. It is self-destructive. This is not the path that I will advocate to my friends."

[beam me up scottie]

53. But the ones who DO "do that" are christians.

I thought only your god could know what was in the hearts of christians.

[Shell Beau]

60. Whatever. I will have an intelligent, non-sarcastic discussion

with Az. Thanks.

[beam me up scottie]

62. About flying monkeys?

Yeah, those deep intellectual conversations about flying monkeys are out of my league.
:rofl:

[Shell Beau]

63. You are finally right about something!

[beam me up scottie]

68. This was a question I posed to christians last night:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=31982&mesg_id=32114

Brentos (and Az-but he's an atheist so he doesn't count) explained why they think some christians feel this way.

I asked because I really wanted to know.

[salvorhardin]

23. You don't see "The No True Scotsman" fallacy in your argument?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

[kwassa]

61. There is a fallacy in your fallacy

from the Widipedia passage you referenced:
"Of course, if the issue in question is outside the area normally covered by politics or religion, the "no true Scotsman" term may still be appropriate. "No true Christian puts sugar on his porridge" is an example of such a statement, as the use of sugar on porridge is not perceived as a moral issue for which one could turn to religion for answers."

However, behavior is an issue one could turn to religion for answers, therefore, one could easily say "No true Christian would discriminate against homosexuals" for instance. The Scotsman fallacy doesn't apply.

[jonnyblitz]

32. good try but I don't buy it. just an attempt to deny all the bad

and damage that has been inflicted by your fellow christians. just say they aren't "real" ones and that is that. Please.

[sui generis]

5. it's also semantics

when a conversation is in full pitch, without interrupting oneself to differentiate between "good fundamentalists" and "bad fundamentalists", "christian fundamentalists" becomes shortened to christians, and it's not necessary an attack on all christians everywhere.

But to some prickly people here, it is a personal mortal assault no matter what you say . . .

I think if we mostly started with just trusting each other (or at least giving the benefit of the doubt) here in our conversations on those topics then a lot of hurt feelings on DU could be avoided altogether.

As an atheist I certainly don't hate christians, but I use the term myself very loosely to mean medieval minded fundies, most often christian.

I know, it's lazy, but if not taken out of context most people understand.

[kwassa]

7. It is not semantics at all; use language ACCURATELY

Don't use the word "Christian" loosely. Christians would be rightly insulted by that. Don't use it interchangabley for "fundamentalist" if that is what you actually mean!

[sui generis]

9. I do use language accurately - listen accurately

how about that.

Re read my comments. If I am speaking among friends and we are speaking in context, they will understand after the first "shortening" of the cumbersome highly accurate pre-apologized for phraseology what I mean, and if they don't then they probably should butt the hell out of the conversation, because I don't want my conversation hijacked by an asshole looking to be persecuted and outraged and offended rather than listening WHAT I'm saying.

Nobody here on DU is the ultimate arbiter of language and those who think they are, least of all.

[kwassa]

12. So, you will continue to misuse the word in a shorthand that insults?

Why would you continue to do that, when Christians here are insulted by it?

What possible postive purpose does it serve?

[beam me up scottie]

13. You mean like you continue to misuse atheist?

Why would you continue to do that, when atheists here are insulted by it?

What possible postive purpose does it serve?

[kwassa]

16. I only use the dictionary definition; I do that with "Christian" as well

I will stop on the "atheist", for what to me is an agnostic position.

It does not serve a positive purpose any longer.

[beam me up scottie]

18. And Sui is using the dictionary definition of christian.

You're all one big happy family according to Webster.

[kwassa]

26. Uh, no, it says nothing about family.

[beam me up scottie]

28. So you're a dictionary fundamentalist.

What a narrow way to view the world.

[sui generis]

14. yes I am

I take that challenge -

look Kwassa, it's clear you didn't comprehend what I wrote. If you are one of those people who runs around, dropping into conversations and getting offended because you need attention, then so be it.

I wouldn't include you in a conversation on the topic as a result, after the first time, because I don't have time to be jerked around by my remarkably sensitive use of language. However, in a group of strangers I do modify the way I speak, for the record. I am not a christian bigot, if that's what you're getting at, and you and christians everywhere (except the bad ones and the fundamentalist ones and the ones who think they're really still jewish and the other ones who hate fags and the other ones who don't do blood transfusions and the other ones who don't allow birth control) should not take offense.

I do not, however, let a stranger dictate how I should speak on the topic of religion. If I am interested in what someone has to say, as a general rule, I'll give them wide latitude for their idiosyncracies, because stopping to correct their grammar, spelling, and excruciatingly PC language would be annoying to them.

[kwassa]

15. then you will get the reaction you deserve

and no, I won't butt out. I will probably be one of those people reacting to your insults against Christians.

Words have meaning; some people here seem to want to re-define them.

Prepare to be misunderstood, for good cause.

[sui generis]

17. I reposted

with less combative language.

Do not misunderstand me, I am not misunderstood.

:evilgrin:

[kwassa]

35. Responding to your re-post

And attempting to say this without rancor:

First, I didn't drop into this conversation, I started this thread.

Second, to use the word "Christian" to essentially mean "Fundamentalist" is not a sensitive use of language. My point, to put it simply, is that it is an insensitive use of language. It is not for Christians to get over this use, when it is being used to represent beliefs they find appalling and in no way represent their religious or political views.

The issue is much larger than being PC or language police, it is an essential misunderstanding of the Christian world. If you care at all about the opinion of the vast majority of Christians, you will take care to use the word as it is commonly understood by them, which has nothing to do with the views of the right wing at all.

And, with no intention to insult you, I've reread your posts several times, and I understood precisely what you were saying on the first pass.

As I said in another thread, here is the a Christian association of churches in the US.

http://www.ncccusa.org/

Representing 45 million Christians. Tell me what part of their politics that you disagree with.

[beam me up scottie]

11. Fundamentalists are not christians?

Well, spank my ass and call me Shirley.

I do believe they would disagree.

[arwalden]

20. Hi Shirley!

:hi:

What a bizarro thread this is!

[beam me up scottie]

21. Damn, Alice.

I think we're through the rabbit hole.

[salvorhardin]

24. Sometimes you've got to wonder

What that giant caterpillar is smoking and whether or not the magic mushroom he's sitting on is a better trip.

[beam me up scottie]

30. Snort!

Hypocrisy is annoying, isn't it?

[Shell Beau]

42. IT SURE IS!! So is imperfection but we are both!!!

All of us at some time in our life have been a hypocrite. Unless you are the exception.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Shell Beau]

41. Lots of people claim to be something. That doesn't make it so.

A Christian isn't necessarily all about the Bible. It is about actions and how you live your life.

[Az]

44. By your understanding

That is the crux of the problem. Who's interpretation of Christianity is the right one? Without that little tidbit of information its difficult to pick out the real Christian in a crowd.

[Shell Beau]

47. Of course it is. No one ever said it was easy.

There are lots of different ideas of what a "real" Christian is. But, in my heart, I know that I am. Some people may disagree (fundies as they are called), but I believe the Lord sees in our hearts and knows our true intentions.

[Az]

50. I believe that you are a Christian

But as there is nothing here to verify whether you have the right beliefs or not I also have to take other's at their word that they are Christians as well. Even if I suspect that have got every single message wrong. I nor you are the final arbiter of who or what is a Christian. If you are right they may one day find out that they were not a Christian. If the skeptics are right we will never find out what a true Christian is.

[Shell Beau]

51. For me it is clear. I said it wasn't easy, but to me

it is clear. I don't ask that anyone believe what I do, understand what I believe, but I ask that people accept it. Don't trash it b/c it is sacred to me. If you believe in flying monkeys, great! Good for you. I may personally think it is silly and ridiculous, but who am I to say you are wrong? And why would I want to put you down for that when you hold it so close to your heart?

[Az]

55. If someone believed

that drilling a hole in their skull would open their mind's eye... I would try to stop them. Its because we care about each other. It's because we come to value the things we hold true and believe that others would value from our insites. It is natural for humans to try to share their joys and ideas with one another.

But as we develop our understanding we learn to not force our views on others and that there are limits to what we can share with each other. In cases where we believe the other may be in jeapordy we tend to override our reluctance to intervene. So there is always a constant ebb and flow amongst believers and nonbelievers of various things.

[Shell Beau]

57. Okay! I was being somewhat facetious with the flying monkeys!

Let's not compare apples and oranges. We have free will, we have our own minds. Believe what you want. I don't agree, but so what? I will not call you silly and stupid for believing it. I think we all have personal reasons for feeling and believing the way we do. We, as humans, should respect that (unless it is serial killing, drilling holes in your head, etc.).

[Az]

66. I hope I have not given the impression

That I was calling you silly or anything. If I have given that impression I appologise. It was not my intent.

And as an aside. The drilling holes in heads thing. Thats real. It's called trepanning. There really are people that do this and believe it opens a spiritual path way to the mind's eye. Its a really really bad idea that some people really believe.

[Shell Beau]

67. Yikes! That sounds painful.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Double T]

6. Fundamentalism is the root cause of a lot of evil......

which is in direct opposition to most religions. Thanks for the book recommendation.

[beam me up scottie]

19. We are being attacked by islamic fundamentalists in Iraq?

Funny, I thought we were being attacked by Iraqis who want their occupiers to leave Iraq.

[kwassa]

25. I'll bet every suicide bomber is a fundamentalist from outside Iraq

one of the unintended side effects of our occupation is to create a haven for the terrorists that used to flock to Afghanistan.

[beam me up scottie]

27. Why that's just what King Georgie said!

They're enemies of murka too!

And they hate us for our freedom!

[jonnyblitz]

31. haha...but if we use the same line of reasoning the OP uses

they aren't "real" Islamics if they are fundamentalists. Perhaps the only fundalentalists that aren't "real" are the christian ones. :shrug:

[beam me up scottie]

34. That is odd. You never hear muslims using the No True Scotsman

fallacy.

[muriel_volestrangler]

69. Sarcasm? I can't tell.

Google returns 54 results for "bin laden is not a real muslim". "not a real Christian" returns 889 results; "not a real Muslim" 679 (and remember there are far more English-speaking Christians on the web than English-speaking Muslims). Some extremists describe Shiites as "not real Muslims", and so on. There are plenty of Muslims who reject others who call themselves Muslim.

[beam me up scottie]

72. No, but I should have clarified.

I do not see DU muslims, or those on other forums I visit, using the No Real Scotsman fallacy.

I have seen more than a few state that Bin Laden and others like him do not understand the true meaning of islam.

They seem to be in agreement with the christians on DU who say the same about their fellow christians instead of insisting that bad people aren't "real" subscribers of their religion.

[jonnyblitz]

74. yes...but are the christians the ones that are claiming the muslim

fundamentalists aren't real muslims. i wasn't referring to what muslims call the muslim fundamentalists. christians claim their fundamentalist counterparts are not "real"...yet they arent differentiating the muslim fundtmentalists from the "real" muslims. that might be confusing..it looks like one of our liberal christians is willing to seperate real from fundatmentalist when it comes to christians but not for the muslims.

[kwassa]

36. I never said that fundamentalists were not true Christians

If they consider themselves Christians, then they are.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Patiod]

22. I'm deeply uncomfortable with any fundamentalism

Islamic, Christian (either Catholic or Protestant), or Jewish.

I don't know much about Islam, but I know there are wide range in practice among Jews, Protestants, and even Catholics (no matter how hard the Pope tries to pull more liberal parishes in line). Not good to paint all religionists with the same brush.

[onager]

29. Not even the "fundamentalist" catchphrase willl work

I grew up among perfectly decent Xian fundamentalists, including some of my relatives. I can thank some of them for making me the Belligerent Atheist I am today.

Their Xian Fundamentalism required them to be "in this world, but not of it." They viewed political meddling, with its inevitable entangling of secular and religious goals, as just about the worst kind of offense against their beliefs.

AFAIK, until the rise of political preachers like Jerry Falwell in the 1980's, that was the more common definition of a "fundamentalist."

[salvorhardin]

33. I think...

I think that what happened is that an even insaner branch of Christian belief took over mainstream fundamentalism vis a vis the reconstructionists/dominionists.

[trotsky]

71. "Every head shall bow, every knee shall bend."

They're just being good Christians, following the bible!

[onager]

73. That's been updated

"Every head shall bow, every wallet shall open."

[Az]

39. Combine Dogma and Authority and you are going to get trouble

Doesn't matter whethere there is a god behind the authority/dogma or not. The combination of these two factors in any social or moral group and you have established a camp from which you begin to distance yourself from everyone else. And because the dogma tells you yours is the only right way and the authority backs it up ... well pretty soon everything that doesn't agree with you becomes evil.

People seem to prefer certain answers. It's more comforting to think that someone knows the truth. The real truth. Doubt and uncertainty bring so much stress and confusion. Its so much more appealing to believe that someone somewhere knows whats going on. This just happens to be the appeal of conspiracy theories. The notion that somewhere someone is pulling all the threads and making things happen. Someone knows whats going on.

Its a recurring theme in the human psyche. Control. We want control of our environment. Control of things happening around us. Try as we might we can't seem to get it. Eventually we realise that we do not have control. So we look for things that do have control. We are drawn to individuals our groups that seem to have control. This is how Dogmatic Authoratative groups form up. They come to believe that there is a source or a doctrine of how things really are. That if one abides by this doctrine things will be controllable or guided by a benevelent master. That everything will be alright.

Do not threaten this system. For if you do you are the ultimate in evil. You must be dealt with as quickly and fiercely as possible. Whether this means being taken to the re-education camp or being chucked on a bonfire depends on the individual group. But in either case the person you were cannot be allowed to taint the mind of the group. It may introduce doubt and uncertainty.

If a system, religious or secular, can embrace doubt and uncertainty it is far less likely to become detrimental to society. Doubt and uncertainty seem to allow society and our humanity to guide it away from pitfalls. It allows us to look where we are placing our feet as we make our journey. But it is that looking ahead that absolute faith so reviles. It is that doubt that it fears. And certainty is so much more comforting.

[trotsky]

70. The so-called "danger" of "true believers"

Naturally someone who claims to have all the answers should be viewed with suspicion.

But the real danger lies in taking your incomplete logic to a reasonable conclusion: that all points of view are equally valid and should be treated as such.

People who think disease is caused by sin or demons are then just as right as people who think it's caused by micro-organisms or DNA damage.

People who think aliens hitch rides behind comets are just as right as people who say they're just dirty iceballs from the outer lifeless regions of our solar system.

The long and short of it is, sometimes we DO have to decide that one method of thought has the correct answer, and others do not.

[JerseygirlCT]

76. Completely agree

fundamentalism, and the absolute certainty that seems to go with it, is the problem, leading as it does to a lack of respect for others.

There's an inherent contradiction in most religious fundamentalism, in that most of their faiths stress a version of the golden rule, yet the strictures of the fundamentalist belief lead to disdain and even hatred for those who refuse to share their beliefs.