Fundamentalist Christianity

[brian]

And welcome to comparative-religion.com, Eldanuumea! It's very nice to see you here as well.

It would be fascinating for you to explain more about the Mennonite Church one day - perhaps in another thread?

Either way, you're quite right about the power of tradition. I've often been amazed at how easily priests can sometimes define their members' beliefs - as if the decisions of what to believe, and why to believe so, are left to a third party - the priest - to decide.

I've also been sometimes surprised by a general ignorance of Christianity itself in general - a particular example being of how little some have actually read of the Bible.

On the one hand, I can entirely understand that if someone finds themselves in a position of Personal Faith with God, that reading books is not necessarily going to strengthen, diminish, or even validate that relationship with the Divine.

On the other hand, though, Christianity is generally a sphere of specialised beliefs, and certainly can be so within denominations. So to call oneself "Christian" without a deep exploration of the subject seems more than a little strange.

I guess that's the case with belief and traditions in general.

[WHKeith]

Dead-bang on target, Eldanuumea! In my fundy days, we thought of the Bible as THE revelation of God to his followers. Lip-service was paid to the notion that He was found in His creation, as presented in Romands 1:20, but in my circles that was still a bit suspect. After all . . . how does talking to an oak tree bring you to an understanding of Jesus and salvation?

So, the Bible was it, the ONLY way to see the mind of God clearly. Revelation worked, yeah, but look how often people used their minds and wandered off into heresy? One needed the Bible to check one's more, um, direct communiques from God, to make sure they weren't leading to error.

And this single-mindedness about scriptures, to my mind, is fundamentalism's single greatest weakness. It embraces a dangerous all-or-nothing pattern of thinking: either the Bible is ALL literally true, or there's no way we can know WHAT is true and what is metaphor. More than that, there is no room for alternate interpretation and, to my mind, at least, there are numerous passages that MUST be personally interpreted, because the passage itself is not clear on the point. Example: is the Beast and the Whore of Babylon described in Revelations a historical reference to Nero and Rome? Or to the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church? Or to a yet-to-be revealed Antichrist? Or to all three at once?

I mean no offense to any on this forum. My point is that all four of those interpretations have been advanced by people interpreting Revelations literally. Many hold that Revelations is referring to ALL THREE, a kind of stacking of prophecies one upon the other to really drive home the theme. In fact, there is no internal evidence that any one (or all!) of these interpretations is THE correct one . . . and they ARE all interpretations--i.e. someone had to read the passages and put his own meaning to them. The meaning is not self-evidently clear or obvious.

Paul built a lot of his theology of faith-over-works on a seemingly literal interpretation of that unfortunate misunderstanding in the Garden of Eden. If Adam and Eve were not literal people eating literal fruit offered by a literal serpent, what did that say about a literal resurrection and literal salvation? For the fundamentalist, the whole concept of salvation hangs upon the rather slender thread of Original Sin, the idea that because of Eve's sin, we all are somehow tainted--"For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God."

Once the fundamentalist Christian starts questioning the literal interpretation of even one passage in the Bible . . .

Oops! He could end up like me!

[Siege]

And how exactly is this a bad thing? ;D

[WHKeith]

Siege! Shhh! This is the CHRISTIAN board! Low profile! Low profile!

[Arch]

Fundamentalism seems to be a fear reaction. Someone who fears is more aggressive. The fundamentalists are afraid of losing faith, it is an insecure faith, so they strike out in defence?

[wkrossa]

Originally Posted by Eldanuumea

Christian fundalmentalism is intimately tied to the perception of the Bible as the literal word of God. The fear is that departure from the text will lead to perdition. The problem is that this assumes a single correct hermeneutic, or system of interpretation.
We bring to scripture our preconceived notions, our private expectations, our personal experience, our prejudices.
Fundamentalists insist that everything they teach be based solely on the Bible, but they do not recognize the primacy of tradition in their churches. Tradition is every bit as important to most "fundies" I know as it is to Catholics.
One interesting paradox I've noticed in this Bible-belt part of America that I inhabit......most of the students I teach have been brought up in church. Ostensibly, they've heard doctrine taught and preached all their lives. But when questioned about such basics as the trinity, salvation by grace, the incarnation, etc., they actually know next to nothing about their own faith tradition.

In 'The Battle for God' Karen Armstrong points out that fundamentalism is essentially a reaction of fear. People place their identity in a system of belief and any challenge to that system will evoke a survival response which can be violent. Rush Dozier also covers this in his excellent book, "Why We Hate'. The amygdala, an evolutionary remnant in the brain emotes basic emotions related to survival. The amygdala works in conjunction with the more advanced cortex to create systems of meaning that validate the expression of its very base drives- to exclude, dominate, and destroy the differing other. It is oriented to very animal-like response and action. And because it places its very identity in the system of meaning, any 'attack' or undermining of the system is perceived as a threat to survival and hence the often violent response of fundamentalists to modernism or secularism, which has progressively undermined mythical systems. Fundamentalists are responding in a very animal-like manner. But yes to Armstrongs suggestion that we ought to be more understanding of the fears of fundamentalists. I feel however that we ought not overly molly coddle the fundamentalist/conservative spirit but help people to grow up and realize that in light of the emerging information we now have about reality and life, it is time to radically rethink the spiritual/God. THe Western religious approach (Eastern is not much different- from 50,000 feet all religion looks the same) with its primitive themes of exclusion, insider/outsider, male domination, Fall/salvation mythology, and apocalyptic nihilism is no longer a credible approach for explaining the universe story.

[mac1]

Hi WHKeith, I've been away for a while (computer problems) but I'm about again now. I am simply facinated by what makes someone believe in the irrational. I have a keen interest in philosophy, and I agree with Decartes in the notion that the only thing that I can be 100% certain of, is the fact that (a) I exist and (b) I have experiences (or sense-datum as Bertrand Russell would call them). Past that I conjecture that there is a world, other people do exist, there is a planet etc. but none of it can be 100% proven. What is suggested to me in non-fiction books about the world arround me is all simply accepted and not necessarily true. I do not necessarily know that Iraq exists as all my knowledge of it is obtained through the media, second-hand if you will. If i cannot have 100% faith in the real world, I cannot at any level comprehend how anyone could have that same level of assertion about the writings in an ancient book. The notion of Fundamentalism is completely alien to me, yet it facinates me from a, (and don't take offense from this,) purely psychological perspective. If you could answer a few questions for me I would be most greatful:-

(1) (a) When a passage in the bible does not make any sense in the modern day real world, does the mind of a Fundementalist Christian subconciously create a way in which the unthinkable is true, or does a fundamentalist have to read the bible and concoct their own solution for this? ie. The example of "Why there are there dinosaur bones?". "God put those there to test your faith."
(b) Does the mind of a fundamentalist have to figure that out, or are there books explaining away any discrepancies that may exist in the real world?
(c)Is the process simply word of mouth?

(2) (a) Do Fundamentalists accept the fact that the bible has been rewritten many, many times, and may be prone to error in a chinese-whispers-esque fashion, particularly through language-to-language translations.
(b) If they do not accept such errors, what is the counter-argument?
(c) How is the fact that there are many different versions of the bible explained?
(d) Do fundamentalists only adhere to one?
(e) Do different fundamentalist groups adhere to some version, and others to another?

(3) (a) You yourself turned away from Fundamentalism. Is it common for Fundamentalists to eventually turn away from their faith due to a realisation that all they believe cannot really be proven to them?
(b) Or do most simply deny such doubts as a lack of faith, and try to be more faithful? In such circumstances, one would assume they would tell no-one, so I understand if you do not know the answer to this one.

I will leave you with those for now, but I have a load more questions. I realise that there is a lot there, and I would really appreciate it, if you could address at least some of my curiousities. Much appreciated.

[Greybeard]

Originally Posted by mac1

I think it is ridiculasly unlikely, but is anyone here consider themselves a fundamentalist christian?

(I would imagine the open minded nature of this site would deter any fundamentalists, but if you are members, please do say so, as I have a lot of questions I would like to put to you.)

Given the sarcasm in your post it seems you are not as "open-minded" as you pretend to be.

What christian belief in particular do you find so "ridiculas"?


-Greybeard

[Nogodnomasters]

My question is why is Christianity under Monotheism? They worship three gods.

[I, Brian]

Hi Greybeard, and welcome to comparative religion.com! I'm not too sure what parts of the Bible mac1 may agree or disgree with, but he's certainly posted an interesting list of questions, if anyone wishes to even begin to address them.

As to Christianity worshipping three gods - technically incorrect Nogodnomasters, as it's three aspects of god. There's criticism and there's splitting hairs.

[emong]

Fundamentalist Christians have always fightened me. Not only for their lack of interprative skills, but also for their propensity to quote from the Old Testement.
I believe Christ when he implied that eveything that came before him was in the past.
I see God as treating his flock as children in the Old Testement, and as treating them as rational adults in the New.

Unfortunately, the Fundementalists still want to be treated as children.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste friends,

this is a problem that is pandemic, in my opinion.

we Buddhists have our fundamentalists as well... though one would have to think carefully on this to get the full import of that saying... in any event, fundamentalist attitudes are not part of the doctrines...

there are areas of the world where this is especially problematic... in particular, the situation in Sri Lanka amongst the Christians, Mulims and Buddhists. the crux of the issue is that Sri Lanka has prohibited evangelising by law.. and the Christians invloved in that effort there (3rd hand report, hearsay evidence) are using tactics that cause the people to be upset with them. in particular, they seem to be saying to the poor people.. if you convert, we'll give you food, medicine and money. if you don't, we'll let you and your familiy starve. that tends to get the local Buddhists all worked up... sigh...

our best option is to ensure that such mindsets do not find homes in our consciousness and influence our thinking to such a degree that we are willing to spend lives to make a point of doctrine.

[Greybeard]

hi mac1,

I interspersed my replies to your post below.
I put my replies inside dotted lines.
(I hope this formating works.)

First, I must say I do not speak for any position but my own.
So do not take my reply as the "fundamentalist" position etc...


-regards,

Greybeard


--original post------------------------------------------
Hi WHKeith, I've been away for a while (computer problems) but I'm about again now. I am simply facinated by what makes someone believe in the irrational. I have a keen interest in philosophy, and I agree with Decartes in the notion that the only thing that I can be 100% certain of, is the fact that (a) I exist and (b) I have experiences (or sense-datum as Bertrand Russell would call them). Past that I conjecture that there is a world, other people do exist, there is a planet etc. but none of it can be 100% proven. What is suggested to me in non-fiction books about the world arround me is all simply accepted and not necessarily true. I do not necessarily know that Iraq exists as all my knowledge of it is obtained through the media, second-hand if you will. If i cannot have 100% faith in the real world, I cannot at any level comprehend how anyone could have that same level of assertion about the writings in an ancient book.


-----start reply-------------------------------
First you say that you are 100% certain you exist.
Second, you are not sure the world around you "really" exists.

Really?

How can you be sure that you "really" exist?
What proof do you have?
Do you live your life (if you really have one) in line
with this view of reality?

For example, would you pour a pot of boiling water over your head?
Would you stand in the middle of a highway during rush hour traffic?

I think you would not do that.

Why?

Because you know with 100% certainty that you would be burned
in the first case and flattened by a truck in the second.
It would "really" hurt, every time you did this if you were lucky
enough to live through the first testcase.

In fact you could not survive very long in the "real" world if you
acted in line with your stated belief that it may not really be there.

So either you do not really believe what you stated, or you are living
at odds with your stated belief.

Think about it.

----end reply--------------------------



-----original post---------------------------------

The notion of Fundamentalism is completely alien to me, yet it facinates me from a, (and don't take offense from this,) purely psychological perspective. If you could answer a few questions for me I would be most greatful:-

(1) (a) When a passage in the bible does not make any sense in the modern day real world, does the mind of a Fundementalist Christian subconciously create a way in which the unthinkable is true, or does a fundamentalist have to read the bible and concoct their own solution for this? ie. The example of "Why there are there dinosaur bones?". "God put those there to test your faith."



----start reply------------------------------------------
The Bible makes no mention of dinosaurs or their bones.
This does not mean the Biblical view negates their existance.
The Bible does not say the earth was created in 4000BC, that was a bishop.

Also, just because something does not make sense to you does not mean it is wrong. You may be reading something into the text which it did not mean to say.

The notion of "God put it there to test your faith" would seem to imply that God is devious and deceitful. This is not the charactor of God as portrayed in the Bible.

Perhaps some specific example of what you were referring to would help here.
----end reply-------------------------------------------



------ original post------------------------

(b) Does the mind of a fundamentalist have to figure that out, or are there books explaining away any discrepancies that may exist in the real world?
(c)Is the process simply word of mouth?



-- start reply-------------------------------------------
Give some example if discrepancies?
I do not know of any.

In general the Bible is not a science book.
That is not the purpose of it.
However, I do not know of any false statements etc...
---end reply ------------------------------------------


-------original post---------------------------

(2) (a) Do Fundamentalists accept the fact that the bible has been rewritten many, many times, and may be prone to error in a chinese-whispers-esque fashion, particularly through language-to-language translations.
(b) If they do not accept such errors, what is the counter-argument?
(c) How is the fact that there are many different versions of the bible explained?
(d) Do fundamentalists only adhere to one?
(e) Do different fundamentalist groups adhere to some version, and others to another?



--start reply---------------------------------------------------

Actually, the proven accuracy of the Bible tranlations is past debate.
The Bible we have today is 100% the same as the ancient versions.

For example, in Jerusalem you can go the "Shine of the Book" and
see the Dead Sea scrolls which contains most of the Jewish Bible and dates from before Christ to ~150BC or so.

So you can see with 100% clarity that the Bible is unchanged during the past 2000 years.

As for the errors which you suppose might creep in "chinese-whispers-esque" it just did not happen.

In today's cheap world of fast food, the internet and 15 minutes of fame per celebrity, we cannot appreciate the seriousness of the scribes who maintained and copied the ancient Bible. Copying the text word-for-word was a lifelong obsession for them.

For example, the scribes took the personal name of God so seriously that they would wash themselves before even writing it.

The number of copies of the ancient Bible numbers in the many thousands. They have been cross-checked to ensure consistancy.

Compared to the Bible, the number of copies other ancient books are very few and far between.


Here is a thought:

If the eternal Creator of the universe decided to give the book
of Truth to mankind don't you suppose this same Creator could
and would preserve it without corruption for a few thousand
years of our history?

--end reply---------------------------------------------------





-------original post-----------------------

(3) (a) You yourself turned away from Fundamentalism. Is it common for Fundamentalists to eventually turn away from their faith due to a realisation that all they believe cannot really be proven to them?
(b) Or do most simply deny such doubts as a lack of faith, and try to be more faithful? In such circumstances, one would assume they would tell no-one, so I understand if you do not know the answer to this one.



---start reply---------------------------------------------------
Is a small child's safety dependent on tightly clutching his father's
hand or does the father hold the child safe in his arms?

for the Christian:

Faith is not you holding on to God.
Faith is God holding on to you.

In my experience it was not some shortcoming on God's part
which drove me from church but rather some nasty treatment
by "Christians".

It is best not to confuse the actions of people with those of God.
Don't let the silly actions of some people keep you from pursuing
the God of the Bible.

As for only believing those things which can be proven to you,
do you really believe that?

How do you know your mother loved you? Can you really prove it?
How do you know the sun will rise tomorrow?
Where were you when the universe was created?
What is the true nature of the atom?
Is death real?
What happens after you die?

Do you even understand how a TV or a computer works?
(but you use them regardless)

I know that I cannot undertand everything and I accept that.

However, the Bible does not ask you to accept it on blind faith.
The Bible presents a view of reality which you can test to see if it
fits the "reality" of what is out there.

For example, the Bible says God is personal and has a moral code of right and wrong. This moral code is is the fundamental law of the universe regardless of whether some individual accepts it or not.
It is given to us in the Bible.

How we respond to it is our business.

While it may be fun to mock some silly fundamentalist nuts,
if doing that causes you to miss the reality of the Bible
and Christianity it would be a fatal mistake.

If you read the Bible you will find God does not accept excuses.

----end reply ------------------------------




--------original post-----------------------

I will leave you with those for now, but I have a load more questions. I realise that there is a lot there, and I would really appreciate it, if you could address at least some of my curiousities. Much appreciated.


-------start reply---------------

We all have questions.
Don't ever stop questioning.

I hope this helps you with some answers.

-Greybeard

------ end post-----------

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Greybeard

Actually, the proven accuracy of the Bible tranlations is past debate.

The Bible we have today is 100% the same as the ancient versions.

...

So you can see with 100% clarity that the Bible is unchanged during the past 2000 years.

...

If the eternal Creator of the universe decided to give the book of Truth to mankind don't you suppose this same Creator could and would preserve it without corruption for a few thousand
years of our history?

Actually, of the earliest known "complete Bibles", such as the Codex Sinaiticus, none of them is the same as any modern version in terms of content.

In other words, there is certainly some degree of change, or "corruption".

Issues of discrepancy involve certain books being omitted or excluded, not to mention actual passages from invidual books accepted as canon as being removed or else altered.

There is the very real suggestion that copyist notes were often both ignorantly and flagrantly incorporated into the actual text itself.

Give me a few days and I'll collect some resources together on this subject and start a new thread listing a range of examples of this.

Purpose is simply to illustrate early Christian roots.

[Nogodnomasters]

The accuracy of the Bible??? I am not too sure on that one. First off there are about 25% of the words are in dispute for translation. I am not too sure how accurate one can get.

In dating the Exodus there is NO time period which is 100% archaelogically correct. Every era has major flaws if we consider the whole Bible.

The Noah's ark nonsense- Does anyone besides children and old people believe the world was covered with water during the age of man? This is wrong. period. There is no debate on the topic.

There are 2,000 errors or contradictions in the bible. Books have been written on it. Who was created first man or the animals?

First God divides the children of Noah according to their tongues in one chapter, and right in the next chapter everyone has one tongue and their tongues must again be confused. What's with that?

Joshua kills Jabin, King of Hazor and levels the city. Then in Judges 4:2 Jabin is again a powerful King of Hazor. Exactly how did the city get rebuilt and repopulated in such a short period of time? Archaelogy does not support this scenerio. This is what is called a literary doublet. We have the same destruction of the city told two different ways. One must be WRONG.

There are thousands of these. Just trying to figure out who is Joseph's father can give you a headache. The guy has got two genealogies in the Bible and they are different.