November 30, 2004

• Unbeknownst to this person, there are liberal Christian biblical literalists, too.
• Where's f8xy lately, anyway?
• gone witnessin'
• These people make steam come out of my ears & my blood pressure rise unfeasibly.
• Jesus, what a complete mess. There's hardly a single sentence in this article which isn't either nonsensical or infantile. Demonstrate that Jesus was not a mere example or moral teacher. No mere "example" or "moral teacher" would ever claim that the destiny of the world lay in His hands, or that people would spend eternity in heaven or hell depending on whether they believed in Him (John 6:26-40). The only "example" this would provide would be one of lunacy These are the laughable ideological contortions necessitated by someone who wants to convert people who are already Christian. Demonstrate that nature and Scripture, properly interpreted, do not conflict. God has communicated to humankind both by general revelation (nature, or the observable universe) and special revelation (the Bible). Since both of these revelations come from God - and since God does not contradict Himself - we must conclude these two revelations are in agreement with each other. While there may be conflicts between one's interpretation of the observable universe and one's interpretation of the Bible, there is no ultimate contradiction. Can this guy hear himself talk? If two things seem to be in contradiction, it must be because they actually DON'T contradict each other, apparently. I'm surprised he doesn't just say that it's the Devil's fault. Also, how does he know that God doesn't contradict Himself? Did God tell Ron Rhodes so? Debunk the caricatures liberal Christians often have regarding evangelicals irony...making...head...explode...!
• Hasn't anyone told him that the Bible has been written and re-written several times, with whole chapters thrown out to suit the prevailing attitudes of the most powerful Christians of the time?
• clockzero: you misunderstand... these are theories of general revelationtivity and special revelationtivity...
• No mere "example" or "moral teacher" would ever claim that the destiny of the world lay in His hands, or that people would spend eternity in heaven or hell depending on whether they believed in Him (John 6:26-40). Ah, the Book of John. Written c. 90-100 or so, it contains almost no words that Jesus actually spoke (according to the research done by the Jesus Seminar). I feel as though that fact invalidates this particular argument.
• Don't misunderestimate these people...
• Ya know, I used to be able to ignore this stuff, but I'm getting to the point that I want to grab these jerks by the neck and shake 'em a bit... Books by this individual include the following: Alien Obsession: What Lies Behind Abductions, Sightings, and the Attraction to the Paranormal When Cultists Ask (co-authored with Norman Geisler) Heaven: The Undiscovered Country Angels Among Us: Separating Truth from Fiction Christ Before the Manger: The Life and Times of the Preincarnate Christ Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Mormons The Culting of America The New Age Movement The Counterfeit Christ of the New Age Movement When Servants Suffer: Finding Purpose in Pain The Counterfeit Gospel of Mormonism (co-authored with Norman Geisler, Frank Beckwith, Phil Roberts, and Gerald and Sandra Tanner) The new prayer... "God save us from crazy Christians... amen"...
• These people are a danger to modern civilization. Mainstream Christians also deserve a fair ration of contempt for not calling these people on the carpet and giving them a free pass on this sort of bullshit because they're afraid they might be seen as "unchristian" if they did.
• Oh- um, I thought this piece was satire. Someone please tell me it was satire. Otherwise I'll be forced to hide under my desk.
• We've done this thread about 1000 times already...it's getting kind of tired. It's interesting though, that if you replace "Christian" with "Moslem" in any of the comments above, there would be howls of protest and the poster would be labelled a troll and summarily banned.
• What on earth is behind the nearly world-wide resurgence of religious fundamentalism? It isn't just America, the fundamentalist evangelical churches are spreading like crazy in Africa and Latin America. Militant Islam and its madrassas are not just in the Arab world but in much of Eurasia, even Indonesia. Even some of the Hindus in India are getting cranky and intolerant. My whole life I have been a smug but gentle athiest, condescendingly regarding my religious friends as subject to (mostly) harmless superstitions that mankind was soon to outgrow. But I am starting to wonder if I am on the one on the wrong side of history. Did Galileo, Newton and Darwin live for nothing?
• ...and by Moslem, of course I meant Muslim. I can spell, honest...It's still early...
• It's interesting though, that if you replace "Christian" with "Moslem" in any of the comments above, there would be howls of protest and the poster would be labelled a troll and summarily banned Yeah, I really hate how the populist trigger-happy MonkeyFilter admins have ruined this site. /rolls eyes Your criticism is just laughable. When was the last time MoFi pledged its allegiance with Hamas and Islamic Jihad? I at least will readily point out that Islamic extremists are about as despicable as Christian (or any other) extremists. Want to bet that tracicle will label me a troll and summarily ban me for this comment? IHBT, probably. Oh the shame!
• That's because Islam is the ONE TRUE FAITH, you accursed dog of the desert! Apostate! Djinn! Eater of bacon and various pork-related products!
• What on earth is behind the nearly world-wide resurgence of religious fundamentalism? I think it's the the last gasp of the marginalization and ultimate refutation of the concept of God. As science continues to progress, it disintegrates the idea of mystery, and it is mystery that prompts the existence of God. Thor was once the progenitor of thunder, but when those big noises in the sky were sussed as sound waves emanating from lightning strikes, Thor and his cronies went the way of the Dodo. When things that were once unknown become explained by science, the intellectual space where God exists becomes smaller and people, who are not generally known for their willingness to give up ideas that they hold as true in the face of refutation, hold harder onto their previous beliefs and declare them louder. Similarly, as we are all brought closer together, by modern communication technologies, global ecomonics, etc., those who see themselves as different/better seek increasingly to highlight those differences/betterments, to separate Us from Them. Today's seeming resurgence of religiousity is, I think, the last gasp of a dying creed. God's thunder is daily being seen as just the child of lightning, and those who have spent their lives cringing from the sky are unwilling to replace an awesome creator who knows all and loves unconditionally with simple waves of sound.
• What Fes said.
• You people obviously haven't seen the Max Grisbon movie "The Slapping of the Ass", which took a modern-day look at the old custom of pelting old women with snowballs. snowballs for Jesus.
• I may be an atheist, but even I have to admit that pelting old women with snowballs is big fun, especially in more northerly climes. When I pelt, though, Jesus is only tertiarily involved, and mostly on the receiving end.
• The religious issues of the day are sadly not as simple as 'who causes thunder?' Science has no illuminating answers for 'should we use embryonic stem-cells to look for cures for Parkinson's disease?' The question here is not factual, but semantic. What does 'thou shalt not kill' mean? Even unfettered by Christian beliefs, can one answer yes to the embryonic stem-cell research question with no doubt? I am very sympathetic to your position that the rise in fundamentalism is just a sign of desperation by the religious right. I doubt it is because the concept of God is being refuted. Rather, I think the concept of organized religions is on the wane.
• As it has been, and apparently ever shall be, gods, superseded, become the devils in the system which supplants their reign, and stay on to make trouble for their successors, available as they are, to a few for whom magic has not despaired, and been superceded by religion. -- William Gaddis, The Recognitions
• Yes, fuyugare, one can. I see it a bit differently from Fes as well. It's not so much that this is a last gasp of a desperate agenda. It's a natural progression when people as a whole are not able to understand or not encouraged to understand the science behind things. It also doesn't help that for many of these issues, the scientific approach is one of a grey area, which confuses/turns off people who are comforted by a black and white worldview.
• fuyugare: I can see the point. But to use your stem cell example, is not science - tempered with ethics - ultimately a better arbiter of that question than the pronouncements of God? Instead, God and his commandments dominate the discussion because they provide an easier, more direct methodology for coming to a conclusion. Where an ethical science must carefully determine when/where/how stem cells, so close to the building blocks of life that they are while at the same time so full of promise, are used? The theologist can dispense with the foofaraw of experimentation, discovery and philosophical examination and simply point to Moses' tablets. But you point out the primary weakness of science: it has no inherent morality. Science and technology most often provide tools, which like any hammer may be used for good or evil. That is where ethics must necessarily be added. While I am a pragmatist and a bit of a utilitarian in this regard, as always it is in the application where science finds its challenges. At the same time, I don't see that an atheist cannot have an ethical code, In this, I am reminded of that same commandment: whereas a believer, though it be proscribed, can kill in light of the idea that God may will it and that the person killed is now sent to an afterlife where reward or punishment (and thus: justice) awaits, the atheist has no such excuse. An atheist kills a man, he takes everything from him, and consigns him to nothingness. That, it seems, would force the atheist to hold life more preciously. Which is to say: there can (and is, imo) a secular morality that can be just as encompassing and, ultimately, beneficial to society as the religious morality. While a secular morality may be based in honor, or propriety, or the unstated baseline good of the most efficient procurement of happiness for the greatest number. Religion need not be present for a man to have ethics and be a Good Man.
• This just in: God and the devil are the axis of good--evil (self link, of course).
• But seriously, I think the rise of fundamentalism is more a symptom of the alienation that comes with modern science and communication technology. A fundamentalist world-view pretends to grasp power back from the scientists and techies. We saw the same thing in the beginning of the 20th century, when the Pentecostal revival broke out in the US and then spread around the world. Industrialisation was the alienating phenomenon back then, however.
• Fes: we agree then that religion is not the necessary construct it once was. I shall not cry when the last of the great world religions dies, or perhaps cry just a little at the cultural desiderata that will have inevitably shared their fate. Certainly no one will claim that morality requires a religion. 'Morality' and 'ethics' can as such be seen as extensions of highly stable behavioral patterns: think of the prisoner's dilemma where the selfish agent naturally picks the morally correct action. God, however, is not limited to religion. If--as the religious believe--God is the source of morality, then the principles of stable social interactions that give an atheist his morality and ehtics form his God(s). The time is ripe for some clever aspiring messiah to realize that a religion free of God, with a generous but not suffocating amount of deism, would be immensely popular. I would buy stock in his/her enterprise.
• I STRONGLY disagree with the heretic Fes. As a dogma of my faith I don't believe that there has been a "rise in fundamentalism" at all. I am firmly convinced that worldwide levels of "fundamentalism" have been constant since GAWD created the Earth exactly 3,622 years ago. But feel free to convince me otherwise, as I'm looking for a new religion (hopefully one involving less goats).
• Is the goat meat too stringy for you, quid?
• In all seriousness, I have to wonder whether fundamentalism has been more or less constant, and has just gotten more press lately. Though then, this may be a stereotype I carry of fundamentalism as a traditional thing, something that one generation after another is reared to believe. Do they really draw in that many converts? Maybe they do. It's possible. This, though. When Servants Suffer: Finding Purpose in Pain If they're going to bring back medieval self-flagellation, they get points for effort there. I admit it. I hate the attitude that goes along with it, but hey, at least it takes more effort than whining and throwing around a few pamphlets. Could be, you know, helping people or emulating Christ's actual deeds on earth in bringing people together, but oh, that's just too hard for mortal men. There's blaming and hatred to be done!
• I have to wonder whether fundamentalism has been more or less constant, and has just gotten more press lately. I too wonder if we are talking about a rise (a) in the USA (b) over the last 50 or so years (c) of a specific kind of Christianity (d) that is not tolerant of goat-worrying.
• Fundamentalism on the rise? I'm not so sure...I think they're just more politically involved these days...in all religions. Doesn't anyone remember witch burning?...the Spanish Inquisition*? Today's fundamentalists are tame, by comparison. * Please try to control your inner geek and refrain from making Monty Python references...thank you
• human authors...composed and recorded without error His revelation to humankind (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21). uh-huh. without error. so, tell me again why there are so many different versions of the bible? why the christian, muslim, and jewish accounts of the old testament (all three religions share that history) are so different? why the dead sea scrolls haven't been fully translated yet? (hint: 'cause they are contradictory to currently accepted bible!) i loves me some fundies. they always get a good discussion going - over how annoying they are, mostly.
• I will pray for you, caution live frogs, that perhaps one day you will change your name to "rejoice! live jesus!"
• Sunday! Sunday! Sunday! (sorry... shuffling off to hell now. I'm sorry, I have 7 years of bad church jokes stored up.)
• Help! Help! rocket88 is being oppressed!
• As a liberal Christian, I have to ask: why does this author find it necessary to "witness" to me? Um, by self-identifying as a Christian doesn't that mean I don't *need* a witness? I've um... had one? Leave me alone and go witness to some heathen! I think that fundamentalism has grown a bit in the US -- I grew up in a church that was liberal when I was a kid and is now very fundamentalist (why I no longer go) -- but I also think that the fundies have become *very* adept at using the media. For goodness' sake, they turned Kerry's liberal Catholicism into a *bad* thing in the election! Anyone remember JFK? Dorothy Day? In olden days, if you were a mainstream Christian, that meant that you *had* to be socially liberal! Only snake-handling, tounge speaking, holy rolling weirdos (I'm exaggerating a bit here) were extreme right-wingers. Where are liberal Christians? Where are our voices in the media? Who'll step up and take Christianity away from the bigots? The fundies are giving us a bad name. sorry -- this is a sore spot for me... I get tired of all Christians being dyed with the fundie brush, but I'm also tired of us liberal Christians just hanging out and allowing it to happen
• If the Democratic party distances itself from the gay marriage movement and the "remove God from money and the Pledge of Allegiance" movement, the liberal Christians will come back, and a Dem will occupy the White House.
• ...if the Republican party distances itself from the anti-gay movement and the "shove my religion down everyone's throats because I believe it and everyone should, goddammit" movement, moderate Republicans may come back. Hell, I might vote for them if that were the case.
• Lurking these days, Wolof, but thanks for noticing ;-)
• I didn't really take issue with this that much, and I'm a liberal Christian. Of course, many moons ago I was a Southern Baptist, so I understand the mentality behind this kind of thing. It comes off as more condescending and judgmental than it's meant to be. And I agree with rocket88 -- though I doubt there would be bannination, I wonder very much if the condemnations would be as loud if it were Islam, or indeed any other religion in question. Having said that, this particular passage pissed me off a bit: For, indeed, the liberal version of Christianity lacks an authentic spirituality to help people and give them hope in the midst of life's problems. Former liberal Christian Alister McGrath said that, among other things, liberalism's "pastoral weakness became especially evident to me." He said "liberalism had little to offer in the midst of the harsh pastoral realities of unemployment, illness, and death." Sez who? My experience has been exactly the by-God opposite (no pun intended). I've been to a lot of conservative churches, and a lot of liberal/moderate churches, and the latter were far and away busier at feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc., than any of the former. The conservative churches I attended were focused almost solely on preaching to the masses, not as much with feeding them. This kind of blanket assessment strikes me as something Mr. McGrath can roll in a ball and shove up his rectory.
• *waves at f8x*
• Oooooooh I will not rest from mental fight Nor will the sword sleep in my hand Until I have converted f8x and middleclass to the Hindoo-ism And they join my Vishnu-worshipping boy band
• *witnesses f8x* *waves* *signal gets sadly misinterpreted by goat standing quite close to f8x*
• Only if I get to play the spoons. Or the washboard. Wait, what kind of band?
• caution live frogs: What do you mean, that the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim accounts of the Old Testament are different? What the Christians refer to as the Old Testament is the main religious text of the Jews; it's not like they (Christians) have their own version of it, though they may interpret it differently than Jews tend to. I don't know about how the Qu'uran treats it, but I imagine it's similar.
• *waves back at everyone, falls over accidentally* *gets up, smiles sheepily*
• Wait, quidnunc, I'm confused. Are the fans supposed to worship Vishnu, or the boy band? Let me know, because I've got an altar that may need redecorating. God's primary attribute is said to be love. His holiness, judgment, and wrath are practically ignored. Thus, it is not surprising that liberal Christians hold out the hope of immortality for all people. The idea that any will spend eternity in hell is rejected. I'm afraid they've got me dead to rights here.
• LarryC asked: "Did Galileo, Newton and Darwin live for nothing?". I fear you got the wrong heroes here. Darwin really is a kind of positivistic hardliner. So there is nothing wrong with that. But Newton actually thought, that his most important work might be his theological writings. He wrote two treatises in defence of arianism, which makes him some kind of heretic by the standards of all those churches that subscribe to the Nicean Creed (afaik all major ones), but it cannot be argued that he both was a religious man and subscribed to the principle that scripture and nature cannot contradict, which is a thing that seems not well received in this discussion. Galileo's trial, which is often cast as a lone hero's insistence on the truth, actually was more complex than is usually imagined: Galileo was a political highly active courtier, at some time in favor with both the Medici and Pope Urban VIII. The theory that earth orbits the sun was originally brought up by Kopernikus, and was at that time just that: A (at that time) not very credible theory. The argument that weighed against it, ultimately brought Galio's fall too: The lack of an observable paralax. It is doubtful if Galileos presentation would have met our scientific criteria(Warning: Lengthy article with thorough discussion of Catholic theology). By going public with a claim that lacked the scientific footwork to back it up and further escalating the theological significance, Galileo did a thoroughly bad job of defending the heliocentric model. But those are only my two cent. I feel that people have no respect for the facts, and that makes me somewhat angry. Sorry LarryC, no offense meant. Hmm. I wrote a good deal more than I intended to do. Please forgive this posts low information content and insufficient references.

• Be loving. Liberal Christians sometimes view evangelicals as narrow-minded and unloving. For this reason it is all the more important that all of your personal encounters with liberals be marked by love.

  RAR! Ladies, I'm ready to be witnessed to!

• By going public with a claim that lacked the scientific footwork to back it up and further escalating the theological significance, Galileo did a thoroughly bad job of defending the heliocentric model.

  And, of course, the Catholic Church, operating with the threat of execution, is the proper arbiter for scientific discourse. Weasel words, says I.
• Clockzero: as you can see from this list, the Jewish holy books and the Christian versions of the Old Testament are not exactly the same. In fact, the various Christian versions differ.
• Some clarification: Fundamentalism is

  a. A religious movement, which orig. became active among various Protestant bodies in the United States after the war of 1914-1918, based on strict adherence to certain tenets (e.g. the literal inerrancy of Scripture) held to be fundamental to the Christian faith; the beliefs of this movement; opp. liberalism and modernism. (earliest example 1923) b. In other religions, esp. Islam, a similarly strict adherence to ancient or fundamental doctrines, with no concessions to modern developments in thought or customs. (OED)

  What people refer to when they talk about a rise of Fundamentalism really means a period of religious revival, which just happens to be largely fundamentalist in character in Christianity (and has driven the redefinition of the word for Islam). There have been other periods of popular religious revival, ie. times when it seems like religious feeling and interest run particularly high. In England, this happened during the Civil War in the 1640s and 50s; American historians similarly talk about a "great Awakening" (early 18th century?). It need not be fundamentalist - in the English Civil War, the Baptists were very fundamentalist, but the Quakers were decidedly not (for example, they interpreted Revelations to be a metaphor for the struggle in the human heart, not a prediction of the end times). Yet, they are both coming out of the same period of revival. Just my bit to add - I also just wanted to say this discussion is really interesting and insightful, especially fuyugare's and Fes's comments, thank you.
• Hi, f8x. Glad you're still with us even if you're not commenting much. Your impeccably courteous defense of your beliefs got us into some seriously good discussion, way back when.
• elrick33 - I can only take so much. Galileo? Galileo not a hero? Then why did the Indigo Girls write a song about him? Huh? Why wouldn't they write a song about Copernicus? Don't fuck with the Indigo Girls.
• I've always thought that the current rise in religious fundamentalism is a natural result of a rapidly changing world. Whenever things change too fast, people get scared, and religion can be an extreme comfort to people. The more scared they are, the more fundamentalist they become. And one of the things I've noticed about a lot of fundamentalist religions is that you don't get to make a lot of your own choices. This spares you from thinking about issues and constructing your own views. Having a religion that has an answer for everything is comforting to some, they always have something to fall back to, there are never any dark, scary questions because everything is already answered, and if its not answered, then it's heresy. And as they grow more and more dependant on this fall-back, they will become more and more fundamentalist as they fight to keep thier worldview intact. I've had arguments with fundamentalists in class, and several flat out refused to listen to what I had to say about the Bible. The impression that I got from them was fear.It's extremly frustrating to have an argument with someone who won't listen to you, but I suppose thats how the fundies must feel about liberals too, so I do listen to them, I just don't often agree.
• That came off as a lot more offensive than I meant it, I'm sorry.
• Incidentally, the worst part of this silly article is his use of 'dialogue' as a verb. WHAT. THE. FUCK. Ron Rhodes?! Wonder of wonders! Ron's page is the first hit on a Google search for 'dialoguing'.
• Hey path. Glad I've been missed ;-) I've missed everyone as well. I've had a particularly busy past three months and have reduced my online time quite a bit. I hope that changes soon, but until it does, I must, alas, lurk about when I can.
• I've been gone for a while as well, been trying to get rid of that nasty antisupernatural bias I've sported for so long. Can't say I succeeded. I'm as antisupernaturally biased as ever.
• As a supernatural myself, I'm offended, freethought. Perhaps I can witness to you?
• You may witness to me, though, truth be told, I like saying "antisupernatural" more than being anitsupernatural. Perhaps I'm merely going through a prepostantisupernatural phase?
• I know a certain He who can answer all your questions, friend.
• Of course, if you don't listen to the answers, you'll burn in hell for all eternity. But don't feel any pressure.
• *waves to f8xmulder* Glad you're back.
• We've done this thread about 1000 times already... it's getting kind of tired Amen, brother. But ain't no stopping the "Look, ma, I figured out religion is stoopid!" crowd. Welcome back, f8x!
• *waves* hey beeswacky, languagehat! What's the good word?
• No offense, Hawthorne, but the way christianity is being practiced in this country and around the world these days, I feel that I'm in the majority of persons nationally and throughout the world who have had about as much of organized religion as we can stand. Anyone who wants to get in my face about 'witnessing' these days is going to hear just about every expletive I can think of.
• mk1gt, your awesome rage is like that of Narasimha, the half-man and half-lion avatar of Vishnu, who descended to defeat the demon Hiranyakashipu! Would you like to join a boyband?
• I guess I should clarify, I had to run off to work. In short, I condemn all religions, whether they be christianity, buddhism, quakers, islam, hindi, judaism, etc. etc. A Pox On Thee. There, I guess that's pretty all-inclusive. As far as awesome rage, I guess you could say it's more along the lines of complete disillusionment. I don't want to say I'm an atheist, just someone who's aware of how the founders of all of these religions have ultimatly had their meanings twisted and mis-interpreted so much as to bear pretty much no relation to their antiquated, outdated intents. Pretty much sums up american politics as well... On the whole, I'm quite happy to live life the way I am, knowing that by doing good to my fellow human beings and wishing them no ill will is going to, hopefully, be looked on in a more positive light by whatever deity may or may not exist than those who wrap themselves in the bible, koran, flag, etc. and live their lives in complete and utter hypocrisy to what those religions allegedly preach.
• And yes, I would like to join a boyband!
• My mother would be disappointed to find out I found religion to be stoopid, and she'd smack me for talking dum-Ba.
• Amen, brother. But ain't no stopping the "Look, ma, I figured out religion is stoopid!" crowd. This is unnecessarily snarky. You may have been around here forever, but I and lots of other folks haven't. It's not a played-out thread for some. But I suppose I really should have studied your past comments on religious threads before posting this, just to make sure this would be of interest to you. And while we're here, the point of the post was really more to show how conservative Christians look at their more liberal brethren (never mind the non-religious). It's a different angle, at the very least.
• mk1gti: I'm in pretty much the same boat as you vis-a-vis organized religion, though I respect the many good things I see what may be the majority of religious groups do for people (give them a community, remind them to be accepting and forgiving, etc.). I meant for this post to be different in that it's straight from the horse's mouth, if you will. I believe it's important to understand what other folks think, especially if they can form powerful groups, and this is more than just some liberal bloggers take on the religious right.
• [um, "...liberal blogger's..."]
• HawthorneWingo I read something recently where more 'liberal' christians are trying to take back their churches. I wish them the best of luck, I don't think 'God' is a hateful bigot in a pointy white hat...