Top 10 Signs You're A Christian Fundamentalist
From: - ExChristian Net10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.
9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.
7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the"atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" --including women, children, and trees!
6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth ( 4.55 billion years) , but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a couple of generations old.
4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs --though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."
3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.
2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that theremaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.
LINKS: -
Fundamentalism
Fundamentalist Christianity
Christian Fundamentalism Exposed
Why The "Fundamentalist" Approach To Religion Must Be Wrong
"A characteristic of religious fundamentalism is to perceive the world as an arena of continuous battle and to nourish it with anger and the desire for revenge. " - Ilter Turkemen
You Might Be A Christian Fundamentalist IF...
~*~
- If you think the most important aspect of the Ted Haggard story is that Mike Jones is a man. (I think that IS the most important aspect and I am an atheist.)
- If you refuse to take a snake bite kit when hiking.
- If you think "Hard Music" is music that's difficult to play.
- If you use the words "thee, thou or fornication" in everyday speech (you can be doubly sure if you pronounce the latter word "fornification".)
- If you purposely call Santa "Satan" and then coyly act as if it was an honest mistake.
- If you believe that a fat preacher has the right to preach about the virtue of self-control.
And some suggestions from readers of my blog.
You might be a christian fundamentalist if : -
- If you denounce homosexuality, but spend more time talking about it than even gay people do.
- If you make a big deal about giving their life jacket to another passenger on a sinking ship because you think they can walk on water...
- If, after being told there is only one god you accept from your monotheistic preacher that God is in Heaven and the Devil is in Hell.
- If you think calling yourself a christian fundamentalist gives you the right to say or do what you want and disregard the beliefs of the entire world as Bush and his perverted version of fundamentalism has done.
Feel like adding to the list? Leave suggestions in the comments.
The Fundamentalist's Theme Song
quotes , fundamentalist , fundamentalism , christian fundamentalist , christian , top ten , monotheism , polytheism , bible literalism , bible literalist
posted by beepbeepitsme | 1:19 pm
55 Comments:
Hey boss, I'm not an athiest or a Christian or an ex-Christian or an enemy of Christians, but thanks for giving me a good laugh. That top ten list is worth repeating.
By the way, a simple change to the numerics in your blog template will make your formatting snafu disappear.
RE murat:
Suffice it to say that I think that islamic fundamentalism is equally ridiculous.
I am not sure if anyone has created a top 10 list for islamic fundamentalists, maybe they are afraid they will get their head lopped off.
RE: formatting snafu?
I have snafu?
Now that list is good...:)
The video on the other hand, was really quite scary. That poor kid was terrified...
What an excellent list!
I am conflicted about this woman. When I saw the original programs I couldn't stop watching. At first I was annoyed but then it occurred to me that she really has some mental health issues. Her anger suggests that her faith is easily threatened.
It also brought to mind Dawkins child abuse statement.
That's a pretty good list. You're right about most of them, in my opinion. I'm not sure about #1, since I have never met an atheist in person who knew hardly anything about the Bible or Christianity, and I have only encountered one or two online who had a smidgen of knowledge. Even some of those in the former-pastor-now-atheist mold, whom you might expect to know a thing or two, are astonishingly uninformed about all kinds of important matters related to the Bible and Christianity. It makes one wonder if they perhaps apostatized because they never understood in the first place ...
Fundamentalists generally do know a lot about the Bible, at least that's true of the few I've known. It's the "liberals" in all branches of Christianity who tend to know little about the Bible. That's okay, though, since being a Christian is about repentance, trust in Jesus, and the life of discipleship that flows out of that. You can know very little about the Bible and still be a Christian, even a very good one! Christianity is no more about achieving a certain level of knowledge than it is about performing a certain amount of good works.
I consider myself a fundamentalist atheist. Is that possible, Beep? Do I need counselling? Should I enter a re-education facility? Is my life over? Should I declare myself a weak fundamentalist? I wait your advice!
RE agkyra
"I'm not sure about #1, since I have never met an atheist in person who knew hardly anything about the Bible or Christianity, and I have only encountered one or two online who had a smidgen of knowledge."
I have met lots of atheists who know a lot about the bible, the koran and numerous other "holy books."
This is not to be interpreted as SHE claims to know everything about the bible. ;)
The other part of the comment is what constitutes knowledge? And specifically, what constitutes "knowledge concerning the bible?"
As the bible seems to be taken literally, metaphorically, and figuratively, (depending on who claims the knowledge of it), "knowledge of the bible" seems quite arbitrary and subjective.
"No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means." - George Bernard Shaw
RE: "It's the "liberals" in all branches of Christianity who tend to know little about the Bible. That's okay, though, since being a Christian is about repentance, trust in Jesus, and the life of discipleship that flows out of that."
"Liberal christians", the bane of the conservative religious ideologue. Perhaps you can find a passage in the bible which will allow you to put them in concentration camps of something? (Just joking)
Being a christian is about faith. It stems from the original Nicene Creed which was adopted at the First Council of Nicaea in 325CE.
The Nicene Creed was devised as an article of faith which serves to explain what a christian is.
So basically, if you agree with that article of faith, you can call yourself a christian. Some christian sects have modified it slightly, but the creed respresents what a christian believes, and a person is defined as a christian according to what they believe.
Basically a person is a christian if they believe that jesus was the son of god who was sent to earth to save people from sin and that all who believed could be saved from eternal damnation.
Of course, it is hoped that through this belief, the actions of the individual will comply with the belief; but people are still christians regardless of their actions. If their actions do not meet "requirements", they are still christians, just ones who have sinned.
A lack of sin isn't a prerequisite for calling oneself a christian.
Certainly the concept of sin and the presence of sin would appear to be the prerequisite.
RE daniel: I am not sure what a fundamental atheist would be?
Someone who fundamentally doesn't believe that god doesn't exist?
I'm sure there are plenty of atheists who think they understand the Bible. Plenty of people think they understand lots of things.
The books of the Bible are written by authors to communicate to readers. The task of exegesis is to understand what the author was trying to communicate to his or her readers. Because most atheists care very little about the Bible, except insofar as it serves their polemical interests, they don't bother to get the training they need to interpret it correctly, let alone take the time to do it. Exegesis is labor. It takes lots of background knowledge, lots of patience, mastery of all kinds of languages and secondary literature, etc., etc. Atheists aren't interested in putting in that kind of work in interpreting the Bible, and I wouldn't expect them to be.
The most important knowledge about the Bible is an understanding of what it is communicating. Some atheists might know more facts about the Bible than some Christians, but the Christian will almost always know better what it is communicating.
Nicea was an important council (the first ecumenical council), but Christian faith does not stem from that. Someone has misinformed you. In fact, Christianity is continuous with the life and ministry of Jesus. Jesus called twelve disciples, systematically trained them, and sent them out. They went into the world and preached the gospel, won converts, and planted churches. The Acts of the Apostles will fill you in on how it transpired.
It's important to understand that Nicea addressed a particular aberration in Christian faith, the Arian heresy, which said that the Son of God was created, not eternal. Nicea settled that theological dispute (for a time) and helped to distinguish authentic Christianity from aberrant forms of it such as the Arians.
I don't want to define too precisely what it is to be a Christian, especially not in this forum. (That, in case you're not aware, is where the term "fundamentalism" originates. Some conservative Christians around the early 1900s published a series of articles delineating the "fundamental" things a Christian must believe.) Saint Paul puts it simply this way: "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" (Romans 10:9).
RE:
"I'm sure there are plenty of atheists who think they understand the Bible. Plenty of people think they understand lots of things."
It seems like I forgot rule number 1 in the "believer's handbook".
Claim that only people who believe in the book and what it says can understand it. How convenient.
An appeal to authority perhaps? I think so. Where would religions be without their appeals to authority?
An appeal to authority such as: "You can only understand this book through an authority's interpretation of it and I am the authority on the subject." Once again, how convenient.
RE: "Atheists aren't interested in putting in that kind of work in interpreting the Bible, and I wouldn't expect them to be."
Atheists probably realise that "talking snake" refers to a "talking snake" whether it is in aramaic, greek, latin or english.
RE: "Nicea was an important council (the first ecumenical council), but Christian faith does not stem from that."
Evidence the existence of the christian bible outside of its origins in catholicism.
And I don't mean evidence of some ancient texts, we know they exist, what doesn't exist is the bible, outside of the history of catholicism.
And it is the ancient catholic bible upon which modern christians have evolved their beliefs, not from ancient texts which may or may not have survived the editing process.
RE: "Saint Paul puts it simply this way: "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" (Romans 10:9)."
If you wish to imply that all people who confess with their mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in their heart that God raised him from the dead, that they will be saved, then this is not true according to the bible.
As there is one unpardonable sin according to the bible, so professing that jesus is lord is not going to save you if you have blasphemed against the holy spirit.
Mark 3: 28-29
"I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."
There's always a catch in the fine print.
Theoretically, I can, as an atheist, go to heaven, as all my supposed sins are pardonable except the supposed unpardonable sin of blaspheming against the holy spirit.
It may be considered a sin to not believe that Jesus is Lord and a sin to not believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, but according to the bible, these supposed sins are pardonable.
So belief won't automatically get anyone to heaven, supposing that such a place exists.
agkyra:
I'm sure there are plenty of atheists who think they understand the Bible. Plenty of people think they understand lots of things.
-GROAN- Here we go again - it doesn't mean what it says.
The books of the Bible are written by authors to communicate to readers.
Yes, readers of that era.
The task of exegesis is to understand what the author was trying to communicate to his or her readers. Because most atheists care very little about the Bible, except insofar as it serves their polemical interests, they don't bother to get the training they need to interpret it correctly, let alone take the time to do it. Exegesis is labor. It takes lots of background knowledge, lots of patience, mastery of all kinds of languages and secondary literature, etc., etc. Atheists aren't interested in putting in that kind of work in interpreting the Bible, and I wouldn't expect them to be.
Like whom? Barker? Price? Both of those fellows have degrees in theology. Your side of the fence is losing people all the time, many of them well-degreed.
So I need to learn Aramaic, Greek, etc.? Ridiculous. Most people don't have the resources (in 3rd world countries) to embark on that sorta thing. When you're talking about millions upon millions of people, all speaking different languages, clarity is far more important than ambience.
I say the documentation sucks. That alone debunks the whole thing. It's not even historically accurate, fer cryin' out loud.
The most important knowledge about the Bible is an understanding of what it is communicating. Some atheists might know more facts about the Bible than some Christians, but the Christian will almost always know better what it is communicating.
Time for a chorus of 'Feelings, nothing more than feeeelinnngs'.
Nicea was an important council (the first ecumenical council), but Christian faith does not stem from that. Someone has misinformed you. In fact, Christianity is continuous with the life and ministry of Jesus. Jesus called twelve disciples, systematically trained them, and sent them out. They went into the world and preached the gospel, won converts, and planted churches. The Acts of the Apostles will fill you in on how it transpired.
Ummmm...bullshit. Beepbeep is very up on the bible. So am I. So are most atheists.
'Properly read, the bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived'. - Asimov
It's important to understand that Nicea addressed a particular aberration in Christian faith, the Arian heresy, which said that the Son of God was created, not eternal. Nicea settled that theological dispute (for a time) and helped to distinguish authentic Christianity from aberrant forms of it such as the Arians.
Not to mention Iraeneus & Hippolytus waging war against the Gnostics.
Word has it Constantine died an Arian (how's THAT for irony?) on his deathbed.
Kudos for the effort, but your approach is all wrong. Most of us did a lot of research & 'soul-searching' prior to our 'deconversion'.
So, to clarify:
A. Most atheists are up on the history (history informs the debate)
B. Most of us weren't badly hurt by an xtian
C. Many of us were 'raised' in the faith (I was only marginally: I almost converted, but did the research FIRST)
D. Most of us are fairly balanced people (I for 1 don't hit any orgies, drink, or 'sin' hedonistically)
I hope that saved you some time.
For my part, I doubt ole JC even existed.
The point in all this, however, is that it doesn't matter how well atheists know the Bible--or any other holy book. (Or, it only matters insofar as said holy book is the subject under discussion.)
Atheism is the lack of belief in god/s. Pure and simple. It is not a rearguard action against Christianity
To me, it's all summed up in the final words of that clip...that "after consideration" she decided to accept the money.
Wow Beep brilliant!....Although I'm glad I watched the video before I read the funny list, rather than the other way around...cox that video was scary!!! Not only that but it reminded me of the time my friend's mother went over the deep end at a christmas party.In adddition to lighting a million candles just like Carrie's mum, she started spouting off about baby jesus,the evil of abortion, and the perils of adultery and homosexuality. Which covered about ninety per cent of the people at the party! She's quite harmless but the incident was quite shocking. And the worse thing is nobody could suggest she take any medication...coz she's a Christian Scientist!!! Oh well...that'll teach me to avoid parties with religious fanatics...as for the list I've got two suggestions....
(1) If they denounce homosexuality, but spend more time talking about it than even gay people do
And my fave...the one I'm hoping will really happen one day....
(2) If they make a big deal about giving their life jacket to another passenger on a sinking ship....because they think they can walk on water...
Glug.Glug.Glug....
Yup, she's a "gawd warrior". She attacks fast food joints on a regular basis. The 50 grand won't go far.
You guys have seriously got to be more careful about what you write.
I haven't made any appeals to authority. Did I say that only believers can understand the Bible? I did not, nor do I believe that. You need to re-read what I actually did say and respond to what I said, not something else.
People dabble in a lot of different areas of interest. People like to invest, so they dabble in finance and economics. People like politics, so they dabble in political science. People like computers, so they dabble in programming or electronics.
Atheists dabble in the Bible and in biblical and church history. You haven't even been properly introduced to the subject. That is not to say that you have to believe it to understand it, but it is to say that you have to do a certain amount of work. For example, your comment about the origins of the Bible in early catholicism. There are so many confused and conflated concepts in there, I don't know where to begin. Are you talking about the whole Bible (Hebrew Bible and Christian Scriptures?) or just some of the Bible books or what? Do you have in mind the concept of canon? If so, are you referring to the OT canon or the NT canon or both? If you're referring to manuscripts, are you forgetting the early papyri and uncials? What about the Bodmer papyri or the Chester Beatty manuscripts? What about the Muratorian canon? "Catholicism" can mean lots and lots of different things, and it's not at all clear how you're using it. What do you mean? You cite Mark 3:28-29 in contradiction to Romans 10, but you assume that they're speaking about precisely the same thing? Are you able to make an exegetical argument to that effect, or does your saying so make it so?
As for Ka's comments, he also needs to re-read what I wrote and respond to what I wrote. Don't make assumptions. If I say something you don't understand, ask. I will take the time to clarify for you. I take pains to use non-technical language and express myself so that laypeople will understand. I have no idea who Barker or Price are. Did I claim that a person needs to know Greek or Hebrew to understand the Bible?
Ka, here's one piece of advice that will take you far if you heed it: learn to argue. You need to learn to make a claim and then support it with evidence and argument.
For example, "Ummmm...bullshit. Beepbeep is very up on the bible. So am I. So are most atheists" is not an argument. In fact, that is an appeal to authority. It amounts to "You're wrong because I and other atheists are authorities on the Bible."
I recommend that you obtain (and master!) a copy of Philosophical Writing by A.P. Martinich (Blackwell, 1996).
Careful reading, careful thinking, careful writing.
One last thing: in case you're tempted to misconstrue this as an appeal to authority, don't. Stop. Think. I'm not saying that you should believe me because I'm an authority. I'm fully prepared to make arguments (I made the preliminaries in my previous comment) -- it's what I do for a living -- but until I see evidence that you're able and prepared to reciprocate, I'll leave off. At the very least you should show respect. Making a good faith effort to understand what the other person has said, addressing his actual arguments, and responding with an argument yourself are important constituents of respect in this kind of discussion.
I bet she has eaten most of it away already.
Literally.
You may be a fundamentalist Christian if, after being told there is only one god you accept from your monotheistic preacher that God is in Heaven and the Devil is in Hell.
That's two.
No one ever said a god or goddess had to be a good thing.
Have I mentioned the talking snakes?
But you did imply that atheists do not understand the bible because they do not have the training to do so.
This is, in itself, an appeal to authority. Let's refresh what was said.
"Because most atheists care very little about the Bible, except insofar as it serves their polemical interests, they don't bother to get the training they need to interpret it correctly, let alone take the time to do it. Exegesis is labor. It takes lots of background knowledge, lots of patience, mastery of all kinds of languages and secondary literature, etc., etc."
"They don't get the training they need to interpret it correctly" sounds to me like the bible cannot be taken for what it is. It is a book. I am as intellectually capable of understanding the bible as I am any other book.
I don't require special training to understand the jottings of 2 thousand year old tribesman who thought that bird blood could cure leprosy.
RE: "Atheists dabble in the Bible and in biblical and church history. You haven't even been properly introduced to the subject."
Religious claims don't differ greatly from one religion to another. They all require faith that the written word of their book is true.
And of course we won't interpret your appeal to authority as an appeal to authority.
I am sure that as a modern day shaman, it doesn't do to have people question your supposed knowledge or the supposed authority you claim as a result of your being privy to "specialized knowledge."
Afterall, I am sure we just wouldn't be able to understand it and we would need an authority who has "specialized knowledge" on the subject. So specialized in fact, that we just have to take his word for it.
"The task of exegesis is to understand what the author was trying to communicate to his or her readers."
Could you clarify here please Agkyra? Do you mean that we shouldn't take the texts simply as the authors wrote them but that we must interpret them to somehow find some other, deeper meaning that the author may have had in mind, or do you merely mean placing the texts into context with their time frame?
Beep, as you usual, you are confused about what constitutes an informal fallacy. Let me clarify for you precisely what makes the appeal to emotion (the fallacy you incorrectly accused me of at Jewish Atheist) and the appeal to authority fallacious. It seems clear that you don't understand that, and it's the root of your now frequent false calls.
When we want to think critically, it's because we want to get to the truth about something. It's because we want to believe more true propositions and fewer false ones. To that end, we must only consider arguments that address the truth or the falsity of a proposition. I'm now going to illustrate how the appeal to emotion and the appeal to authority violate that goal and then give examples of legitimate, i.e., non-fallacious uses of emotion and authority in argument.
The fallacious appeal to emotion is a fallacy just because it doesn't argue for the truth of a proposition. It argues instead for some kind of practical benefit that will result if you believe it. "If you believe that x, you will feel good, therefore you should believe that x." The fact that someone feels good or feels bad doesn't have anything to do with the truth or falsity of proposition x, which is what we should be concerned about and nothing else. Similarly with the appeal to force: "You should believe that x, otherwise I'll chop your head off." The fact that you'll chop my head off doesn't have anything to do with the truth or falsity of x, so it's a fallacy. I wouldn't point that out to the guy about to chop your head off though!
The fallacious appeal to authority is much like the example of the guy about to chop your head off. It amounts to saying that you can't think for yourself; only I can think for you, therefore you must believe what I say. It could be an appeal to social or organizational authority ("You must believe x because I am your employer [and will fire you otherwise]") -- which has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of x -- or to intellectual authority ("You have no choice but to believe what I say because you're not able to attain the kind of learning that I have.") The correct response to the latter form is, "Thank you, but I will think for myself. Why don't you just give me an argument with some evidence and I'll form my own conclusions. Perhaps a reading list will help me get up to speed on this subject."
Now then. Emotion can be a perfectly legitimate source of information about the world and it is not fallacious to use emotion or any other feeling as a basis for believing something. In fact, that's one of the main tenets of some interpretations of empiricism. It's not a fallacy at all. The difference between the fallacious and the non-fallacious version has to do with the thinker's goal. In the fallacious appeal to emotion, the thinker is being asked to disregard truth or falsity and to believe based on some practical outcome like feeling good. A good emotion is the goal of the thinker in that case. In a non-fallacious appeal to emotion, the thinker is concerned about the truth and is using emotion as evidence to arrive at it.
And so forth with the appeal to authority. The fallacious appeal to authority says that the thinker isn't really able to think for himself. The non-fallacious appeal to authority says that, even though you could do your own research here, let me fill you in on some facts you should consider in doing your own thinking.
There are legitimate authorities, also known as "subject matter experts." Imagine that a physician diagnoses you with cancer, and your response is to tell him not to worry, that you will simply eat lots and lots of celery while standing on one leg on the roof of your car and that ought to take care of it. He calmly tells you that your proposed remedy will not in fact take care of it, and to believe him because he's a physician after all and has been through years of medical training and understands how cancer works. How do you reply? Fallacy! Appeal to authority! Of course not. He is a subject matter expert. You're free to believe in your own remedy, sure. You're free to ignore his advice and take your own, of course. You would be a fool to do that.
If you don't want to listen to me, why don't you track down an atheist philosophy professor -- someone with credentials -- who will confirm what I say. I can't get through to you. Perhaps you'll listen to what he or she says.
As it happens, I am a subject matter expert on the subject of the Bible. Yes, I am affirming outright that many atheists (nearly all that I have ever spoken to) don't have the training to interpret the Bible correctly. That doesn't mean that they are incapable of interpreting it correctly, just that they haven't taken the time or even learned how.
Imagine if I were to make some inane comment like the following: "Atheists believe that evolution is the origin of the universe." Or, "Atheists don't have any explanation for ethics." Or, "Atheism teaches that God doesn't exist because it's a way to maintain separation of church and state." The first statement confuses distinct categories, the second is just plain wrong, and the third shows that I don't know what I'm talking about at a very fundamental level! If I made comments like that to an atheist of average sophistication or above, I hope he would gently correct my errors at first. If I persisted in the errors, especially with a belligerent tone, I would expect him finally to say, "You just don't know what you're talking about." That's not an appeal to authority. It's just his exasperation from talking to someone who genuinely hasn't taken the time to lay the groundwork for an intelligent discussion, not a fallacious appeal to authority.
You guys just don't know what you're talking about.
Ted, thank you for the first intelligent remark I've read on here. I'm not saying that we need to find a hidden, deeper meaning, but just that we need to do a responsible job of interpretation, which might mean we don't confine ourselves to the surface meaning. For example, beep earlier quoted a passage from Mark in response to my quotation from Romans. Mark is a gospel, and it's part of a narrative genre. To interpret a saying of any character in any narrative, you have to take account of the genre itself, the narrative setting, the characters, the plot, the trajectory of the dramatic episode, etc. Sometimes just quoting the words will suffice, but not always. Beep's quote from Mark is one of those instances when it will not suffice. Any competent biblical interpreter, believer or otherwise, will agree.
Consider the book of Romans. That's an epistle, a letter written by a specific person (Paul) to a specific congregation, the church at Rome. It develops a long argument; he has a clear train of thought. It was written to address particular needs of the church. What are those needs? What are Paul's concerns? How does the passage I quoted fit into his overall argument?
The surface meaning is a fine starting point but a terrible ending point. If you want to understand a text, you have to work with the text. You have to get into the world of the text, and the world that the text itself comes from.
If beep wants to say that Mark contradicts Romans, she'll need to give an argument that the saying in Mark, interpreted in its narrative context, contradicts the saying of Paul, interpreted in its epistolary context. It's not at all obvious that it does (in fact, it does not).
This will be my last comment on this thread. If anyone has further questions, I can be emailed at the address on my blog.
Hi
First I have to say you know you are a Christian Fundamentalist if you think calling yourself that gives you the right to say or do what you want and disregard the beliefs of the entire world as Bush and his perverted version of fundamentalism has done.With perverted unbridled Religiosity on both sides of this so called Islamists issue, the entire world is in trouble.
Just wanted to make sure you got my reply to your comment on my site. This is interesting. Now I will look around.!
an average patriot said...
beepbeepitsme
Glad to hear from you!
You are correct! The Iraq Invasion was ill conceived and not planned at all. Bush thought he would have his way from the beginning because he is the decider and the head of the strongest military in the world or so he thought.
He has found out the hard way that this does not matter as he should have known had he learned any lessons at all from Vietnam and his own words that this is a different enemy we are fighting.
You are right about Islamic countries and Bush was advised about it and attacking Iraq in order to set up his new middle east order but he ignored it.
Here is why he did this. You let me know what you think please!
From 9/11 he has been following a plan. Fighting terrorism was not it. It was just the reason he needed to attack Iraq and start to implement his new middle east and world order. Please read the following and you will understand everything.
As you may remember, Bush was looking for something to happen that would put the country and the world behind what he already had plans to do. 9/11 gave him that something. He has been lying and misleading right from the beginning.
He had plans right from the beginning to establish a new societal, middle east, and world order. That is why it was important to him to whip up a media and public fury which of course, he has done.
He used the excuse of 9/11 to attack Iraq and unsettle the middle east guaranteeing the loss of Afghanistan, Iraq, and the entire middle east. If fighting terrorism was his goal he would have stayed in Afghanistan. He lied to our troops and us from the beginning.
He did this so he could further his idea of a new middle east and world order. Of course lying all the while and whipping up as much support and frenzy as he could in the media and minds he controls until he can fully implement his plans..
At this point it behooves him to continue to ignore reality and continue to whip up a frenzy so he can continue staying the course in order to further prosecute his new middle east and world order.
We are all shamelessly being used so Bush can follow his plan for new order. I wrote this 3 years ago but it is more obvious today. Let me know what you think? I won't get any deeper but it gets worse from here.
http://www.anaveragepatriot.com/downloads/Manuscript2
RE: "The fallacious appeal to emotion is a fallacy just because it doesn't argue for the truth of a proposition. It argues instead for some kind of practical benefit that will result if you believe it."
I agree as to what constitutes an appeal to emotions and an appeal to authority, you just don't seem to be aware that you make them or that religion in general makes them.
What you fail to realise is that I do not see ANY truthful proposition, which is why I consider christianity to be basically an appeal to emotions.
The concept of christianity is also an appeal to an invisible authority which is not sufficiently evidenced in, at least, my opinion.
You continually reiterate how we don't know enough about the bible because it needs "special training" and instruction in order "to interpret it correctly", and yet you, for some reason unbeknownst to me, do not equate this with an appeal to your supposed authority on the subject.
And I don't claim that YOU specifically are trying a fallacious appeal to emotions, I am claiming that religions in general do that, especially the religions which offer a "get out of death free card."
RE: "To interpret a saying of any character in any narrative, you have to take account of the genre itself, the narrative setting, the characters, the plot, the trajectory of the dramatic episode, etc. Sometimes just quoting the words will suffice, but not always. Beep's quote from Mark is one of those instances when it will not suffice. Any competent biblical interpreter, believer or otherwise, will agree."
Ok, I will take into account the genre. The bible is an collection of ancient myth, folktales, legends and folklore written by a variety of people in order to create a state religion which would politically enhance the power of the roman empire.
Oh, I forgot the other rule in the "believer's handbook." Believers never quote out of context, only atheists do.
Or, when in doubt, cry "out of context" or " you do not have the training to interpret it correctly."
I consider all of you to be charlatans. Some deliberately so, some naively so.
RE: " Any competent biblical interpreter, believer or otherwise, will agree."
And of course this is not to be construed as an appeal to authority either, especially as you have now labelled anyone who disagrees with you as incompetent.
RE: " If beep wants to say that Mark contradicts Romans, she'll need to give an argument that the saying in Mark, interpreted in its narrative context, contradicts the saying of Paul, interpreted in its epistolary context. It's not at all obvious that it does (in fact, it does not)."
I realise that Calvinists don't pay much attention to the unpardonable sin. Afterall, those damn catholics do pay quite a bit of attention to it.
Yes, I forgot, one of the other unwritten believer rules.
That is: - The bible says what I say it says.
But Bernard Shaw still said it best. "No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means."
When you have time, come back and tell me about the "talking snake theory". That is my favourite part.
RE: "In a non-fallacious appeal to emotion, the thinker is concerned about the truth and is using emotion as evidence to arrive at it."
Pardon? A non-fallacious appeal to emotion. Where is that referenced in logic?
And since when has someone's emotions been considered a credible test for veracity?
I feel that you are wrong. There is the evidence. Yup, works for me.
RE Patriot:
I don't really comment on politics associated with Iraq much.
But I think the PNAC document spells it out pretty clearly concerning the bush administration's motivations.
Especially considering that some of the major players in the bush administration are signatories to the PNAC document.
Elliott Abrams,Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, I. Lewis Libby, Dan Quayle,Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. (to name just a few)
PNAC
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
agkyra:
As for Ka's comments, he also needs to re-read what I wrote and respond to what I wrote. Don't make assumptions.
My reading comprehension is just fine, thanks.
If I say something you don't understand, ask. I will take the time to clarify for you. I take pains to use non-technical language and express myself so that laypeople will understand.
Condescending tones will get you nowhere. I'm betting I can understand ANYTHING you throw at me. This 'you don't understand!' argument is old, old, old, & cuts zero ice.
I have no idea who Barker or Price are.
Dan Barker & Robert Price? You need to get out more.
Did I claim that a person needs to know Greek or Hebrew to understand the Bible?
Right here, & I quote: "mastery of all kinds of languages" - unless there's another set of languages the bible is written in?
Ka, here's one piece of advice that will take you far if you heed it: learn to argue. You need to learn to make a claim and then support it with evidence and argument.
If you think you're going to pull the old 'dictate the premises' trick w/me, you're in for a sorry surprise, my friend.
For example, "Ummmm...bullshit. Beepbeep is very up on the bible. So am I. So are most atheists" is not an argument. In fact, that is an appeal to authority. It amounts to "You're wrong because I and other atheists are authorities on the Bible."
See, I'm going to have to call you on that, seeing as I was simply pointing out your error, in re: 'most atheists dabble'.
Thus far, severely unimpressed.
I don't need a degree to disagree: a common trap of the theist.
Do take your 'schooling' elsewhere.
hi beep! great post as usual. I love the 10 things & cringed at the christian lady. Ugh! i've met people sorta like that. They try to take all the joy out of life.
Boy, your commentors are a wordy bunch.
Ted, thank you for the first intelligent remark I've read on here.
Well, I'm not sure I'd go quite that far, it certainly hasn't been my experience here...
To interpret a saying of any character in any narrative.... etc...
I was going to say that I think that although that may be true for a fictional tale, which on the surface seems to be what you describe here, but for a work of non-fiction, as I assume you believe Mark to be, then the author would probably have taken pains to ensure that what he or she wrote was exactly what he or she meant and as you say, on the surface at least, Mark seems to be very clear, as non-fiction writers always try to be. This is even more true for Romans I think, simply because Paul was writing to a specific group of people as his audience on a specific subject.
These books were both written around the same time (late 50's early 60's), one in Italy, the other sent to Rome from Jerusalem by astute and well educated people. If they are meant to be works of non-fiction then I think it's a bit presumptuous of us to think that 2000 years later, we know more about what they were "trying" to say than they were able to inarticulate at the time.
So, if these works are not works of fiction, then from both a literary and spiritual perspective I think that the only valid interpretations that can be made are ones of intent. Did I really mean it when I denied the holy spirit, or was I just lashing out in a moment of weakness? Do I really belive in my heart when I confess with my mouth, or am I just paying lip service? In which case, there is definately one unforgivable sin, despite what you believe or confess.
But then I saw this;
This will be my last comment on this thread.
What? He can't bait me like that then run away can he Beep? Surely there's rules...:(
Great post, although you've got me worried with that second list you've got:
1. Agree with you about the most important aspect of the Ted Haggard story.
2. Have done a lot of hiking and have never taken a snake bite kit - does a first aid kit count?
3. Being a musician, the term 'Hard Music' means exactly that to me - music that's difficult to play.
5. I do this all the time. Does "for comic effect" count?
That's four out of six. So I guess that means that I'm a Christian Fundamentalist.
Scary, huh?
ted:
What? He can't bait me like that then run away can he Beep? Surely there's rules...:(
He sent me something via email (or posted it? I can't find it on my blog at all), & here is the content of the message:
"Here are three possibilities you don't seem to have considered:
1. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2.
2. The destruction of the temple by Titus in A.D. 70.
3. John's vision of the apocalypse.
These have all been advocated by different scholars. These are just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are many more possibilities. Do you have any arguments or reasons to give about why one of these should be preferred above the others or why they should all be rejected? I'm afraid you won't have succeeded in your demolishment objective until you do.
No name calling! Just rational argument, please. After all, don't atheists pride themselves on their use of reason?
(In case other readers wonder about my tone, this person first took the initiative to interact with me here. You can evaluate the quality of argument yourself.)
Also, do you care to offer your ideas (with supporting evidence, of course, preferably something that can be observed in the text itself) about what "the present distress" is that Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians?"
I've seen this sort of proselytization before. It's a retreat behind scholarship, poison the well (note how he complimented you alone?).
I was waiting for the inevitable 'Oh, but you're thinking in a hellenistic mode, & it's written symbolically.'
So I'll answer it here, since I've nothing to hide.
1. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2.
A bad opium trip.
2. The destruction of the temple by Titus in A.D. 70.
I have no idea why this got brought up (except that maybe he thinks I'm just a 'dabbler', & wants to expose me to more bibble)
3. John's vision of the apocalypse.
A madman's dark vision, poisoned by wormwood.
The bibble is crap, pure & simple. It's historically inaccurate, it's chock full of unfulfilled 'prophecies' (except for Daniel, which was written in the 10th CE, not the 2nd), & it contradicts itself so regularly, it's worthy of TP, not much more. It has the occasional witty phrase, but I can pick up a book by Ellison, Bukowski, or Mencken, & find that, so I'm not going to waste too much time on the bloody thing.
In short, the only reason I'd need a degree in scatology, is so that I can determine which kind of horse the manure came out of.
Damnit! Who scared off all my fundies?
There is no fun without a fundie.. ;)
RE dikki:
I can't really see you as the christian fundamentalist type, but good try ;)
RE KA:
I am more and more convinced that religion is an emotionally, psychologically satisfying, addictive experience that they are having with themselves. One that they assume everyone else is feeling and experiencing in the same way.
Kind of like mental masturbation with the bible minicking a fetish object such as "Playboy."
They convince themselves that they are having a relationship with the gal/guy in the photo and that she/he wants them as much as they want her/him.
They feel good while they are doing it, but afterwards they have the lingering doubt of - "but am I just playing with myself?"
KA: Thanks for that, I felt cheated...:)
note how he complimented you alone?
Surprised though I was, I couldn't help it. As usual, his arguments go round in circles and always come back to "the bible says so" or "you just don't understand". I just wanted to see how he'd go if I got pedantic. Not well, or so it seems...:)
Beep Beep - you have been rerading too Much Richard Dawkins
(You have seen the discussion on youtube between him and Haggard haven't you? - I assume it's still there?_
(I could hemail it to you - if'n you want b_xvi at yahoo.com.au)
I have so been forwarding your stuff onto (embarrassed) former fundamentalists who have become
medical doctors and seen just how shitty real life is...
Yours in Brimstone
Benedict
RE benedict
Yeah, I have seen haggard and dawkins at haggard's mega church on youtube.
I figured Haggard was gay from that interview. He acted like a man with something to hide. And considering the ensueing scandal, it appears that he HAS been hiding something.
Hiding the sausage, I would suspect.
BBIM:
I am more and more convinced that religion is an emotionally, psychologically satisfying, addictive experience that they are having with themselves. One that they assume everyone else is feeling and experiencing in the same way.
Just like stoners assume everyone is a stoner.
They feel good while they are doing it, but afterwards they have the lingering doubt of - "but am I just playing with myself?"
Snort, chuckle. Careful, love, ere the chorus thunders 'Intolerant!' ;)
ted:
As usual, his arguments go round in circles and always come back to "the bible says so" or "you just don't understand". I just wanted to see how he'd go if I got pedantic. Not well, or so it seems...:)
He certainly ran off a lot faster than Bubble Boy anonymous Daniel. That comment he left on my blog - I have no idea which thread he posted on, nor am I trying to dig it up.
I always kinda enjoy how xtians tend to try to wiggle out of their errors in logic, especially by the pitiful effort to reverse the accusation on the accuser. 'I know you are, but what am I?' is so very common. Along w/'you need to learn how to debate properly'.
Artful, most are not.
BBIM:
I am more and more convinced that religion is an emotionally, psychologically satisfying, addictive experience that they are having with themselves. One that they assume everyone else is feeling and experiencing in the same way.
Just like stoners assume everyone is a stoner.
They feel good while they are doing it, but afterwards they have the lingering doubt of - "but am I just playing with myself?"
Snort, chuckle. Careful, love, ere the chorus thunders 'Intolerant!' ;)
ted:
As usual, his arguments go round in circles and always come back to "the bible says so" or "you just don't understand". I just wanted to see how he'd go if I got pedantic. Not well, or so it seems...:)
He certainly ran off a lot faster than Bubble Boy anonymous Daniel. That comment he left on my blog - I have no idea which thread he posted on, nor am I trying to dig it up.
I always kinda enjoy how xtians tend to try to wiggle out of their errors in logic, especially by the pitiful effort to reverse the accusation on the accuser. 'I know you are, but what am I?' is so very common. Along w/'you need to learn how to debate properly'.
Artful, most are not.
RE: liberals:
""Liberal christians", the bane of the conservative religious ideologue. Perhaps you can find a passage in the bible which will allow you to put them in concentration camps of something?"
Check this out. :)
Ecclesiastes 10:2
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."
RE under:
Yes, the bible also states and "sittith on the righthand of the father". There certainly was a preference for the righthand in ancient times. What was it based on?
Of course, I will suggest that it was based on superstitious beliefs that mean nothing. Someone like you however, you believes in the existence of talking snakes, for example, might see that as a god's proof that all lefthanded people should be killed, or persecuted in someway.
(I may have to blog about stevie wonder's song "Superstition" next.)
It's also interesting how some people conflate 2 separate meanings of the same word.
As in "right" - correct
And in "right" - a position in space (righthand, right ear etc)
The same conflation does not appear with "left" unless you are a superstitious person.
"Left" in any dictionary doesn't mean "wrong" as far as I am aware.
But "left" certaining does pertain to a position in space (lefthand, left ear etc)
One possible explanation for the preference of the righthand and all things on the right, is the practice of early sun worship.
Prior to the evidence of early sun worship, there doesn't seem to be a discernable preference for left or right. Early stone age tools which have been discovered show no preference towards one side or the other.
Righthand preference may have originated with early sun worship.
In the northern hemisphere the north is to the left, the Sun rises in the east, culminates in the south (to the right) while moving to the right and sets in the west.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solstice
As the sun was worshipped as a god, god (the sun), appeared to have a preference towards the righthand side of the sky, as it seemed to be moving from the left to the right.
In a world based in many superstitious beliefs, this gave the idea of moving to the right and the right hand side a superstitious religious significance.
For, if it was good enough for their beloved god to prefer the righthand side, it better be good enough for them to prefer it as well.
Superstitions when assumed as truths infiltrate many areas of human existence. As the religions evolved, they retained parts of their superstitious pasts.
What seems to happen is that the superstition, which ancient people would have considered knowledge, would have been then become part of many of their other cultural, religious, and social beliefs.
So, we still have some people believing that if you throw salt over your left shoulder, you can blind the devil with it.
And we still have people believing that the son of god will sit on the righthand of the "father" (father sun, I would suggest), because the "right of the sun" is considered the "good position."
And we still have people who believe that "the heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."
Eventually, no one questions the origins of the belief, it is just assumed as being true.
A bit of a stretch Mercy, but nicely done just the same...;)
under_the_mercy:
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."
Ummm....I'm fairly sure they didn't have liberals back then.
They tended to stone them, if memory serves.
Now, that was scary! and sad.
It never stops surprising me how most of fundies are basically mentally hill or with some kind of problems to relate to reality. If religion wouldn't exist, these people would probably make up their own or go fundamental about something else.
RE jones:
I think a lot of them have control issues which is why many of them have this inbuilt desire to not only control their own lives, but everyone elses.
It is a very paternalistic attitude. "I know what is good for you syndrome, so do as I say."
When they are capable of doing what they demand from of others, I might listen, but I doubt it.
Basically I think that many of them spend their lives looking for the "evil" in others and never seeing it in themselves.
Reading Agkyra's arguements.... even if he is right (or correct or not-left...)
still doesn't exclude the possibility that non-athiests (say for example christians) may not be able to interpret the bibble*
That said, Beep Beep - When you refered to christians being scared off, so far they have mostly sounded fairly male.
It got me thinking, I really am having trouble thinking of any female evangalists of faith**, I wonder why that is?
Any ideas?
Benedict
* Thanks Ka - I like that, 'bibble', it really does feel apt
** Maybe Maggie Thatcher
I really am having trouble thinking of any female evangalists of faith**, I wonder why that is?
Any ideas?
Sorry to jump on the question Beep, but I feel eminently qualified to answer... If it doesn't show, I'll fess up here and admit that I spent quite a bit of time as a fundie xian. I was with the Assemblies Of God, seriously god bothering, speaking in tounges, evangelising on weekends and the whole 9 yards. Then the hypocrisy lept out and slapped me. Anyway, I once wondered about this (out loud) and it as all explained...
Paul was a chauvanist and had very definite ideas about the roles of women and evangelising wasn't one of them. In fact, he seems quite adamant that women should leave it all to the men or to their husbands (see 1Cor 14:34-35). We even scored a couple of sermons on the subject after our pastor realised that some of us thought that the women in our church were intelligent enough to be included and make a contribution...:(
That said though, if you want a crazy fundie evangelical, this lady should provide you with everything you're looking for I think...:-)
Ted: I agree. Christians are Paulians.
Beep: There's no doubt in my opinion. I also think that Paul is a major factor in the subjugation of women in society over the last 2000 years or so...
Actually, "left" does connote "bad" in many languages—even English. Ever been paid a left-handed compliment?
The Latin word for 'left' is 'sinister', which only carries its secondary meaning in English but variants of it in modern Italian and Spanish retain both meanings.
In French, the word for 'left' is 'gauche', which also means clumsy or awkward (in both Fr. and English). The German word 'linkisch' (which means 'leftish') means 'strange' and 'awkward'.
The word for 'right' does in fact carry a double meaning in most languages.
More sinister goodness here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-handed#Linguistic_suggestion
Yeah pjb, I agree that it has been used to connote "bad" - it is the origin of these beliefs that interests me.
They appear to be based in supersition. (surprise surprise)
Relax guys, it was a JOKE.
under:
Sure it was..
Post a Comment
<< Home