Fundamentals

[Ouroboros]

slave to emotion, we call it slave to sin. you make a good point. but i am further along than this. in the begining my faith was extremely based on feelings. now i feel like i have a wisdom in the faith. now i can worship and praise the Lord, even if i don't experience that profound feeling. i don't try to be a good person because of feelings, i try to be a good person, because of the experiences in my life has lead me to believe that living a christian life is what is right for me. what will make me the happiest.

You see, that's my point. "Happiest" have the connotation of "emotion". You like it and/or love it, therefore you do it or believe it.

[freeday]

slave to emotion, we call it slave to sin. you make a good point. but i am further along than this. in the begining my faith was extremely based on feelings. now i feel like i have a wisdom in the faith. now i can worship and praise the Lord, even if i don't experience that profound feeling. i don't try to be a good person because of feelings, i try to be a good person, because of the experiences in my life has lead me to believe that living a christian life is what is right for me. what will make me the happiest.

You see, that's my point. "Happiest" have the connotation of "emotion". You like it and/or love it, therefore you do it or believe it.

 

you got me on that one. faith does revolve around emotions. but it is more than that. it also involves a great deal of discipline. something that emotions are not associated with. ask the muslim about his ritualistic habits. that involves a great amount of discipline.

[Antlerman]

so i will bring up my point, that we keep circling around, does humans create God based on thier beliefs and customes. is that the reason for the stark contrast in the OT and NT. or does God allow his word to be interpreted differently as long as the common goal of obeying Him is achieved. i personally look at what i have learned and how my life has been better walking with the Lord and fully believe there is a God. now which religion is the most accurate, i am not a 100% sure on that one. but i can deduct several from the list that i do not agree with.[/color]

Occam’s razor, the simplest explaination is usually the right one: It looks like a human creation, it is a human creation. However to look at it from your perspective, that God “allows” things to be interpreted differently, so long as he is served: You would have to say then that all religions fall under this allowance, since they all serve the idea of God. Every devottee of every religion is receiving the same benefits you do, else they would not be following them. But what more than that, it does come back to what I say that the OT and the NT are human creations, human “interpretations”, as you put it, of the idea of God. And therefore as I said, “Man creates God in his own image”.

 

The only time it’s really bad is when it deprives someone of liberty. In that case, that’s not an image of God that I would find benefical or useful towards the greater ideals of human society where both the individual and societal needs are fulfilled. It’s a tough balance, but that’s why the OT worked for that culture, but is abhorant to ours today. Our sensiblities are not desert-tribal in nature.

 

i like your wording of change rather than losing faith. the thing i like about christianity, is that it is not supposed to be condusive for the modern day life style. lets face it, it shuns premarital sex, drugs, alcohol and whatnot. i feel that my religion is not supposed to change for the benifit of the person, rather, the person change for the benifit of the religion. that is why i feel it to be true, you have to change your ways, not the other way around.

This is all good and fine for someone, whose values are conservative in nature, but alas, people are people and the forces of evolution both in nature and in society are unstoppable. When you try to halt social evolution you have repression and dictatorships. It doesn’t work. It represses the human spirit to positive change and to me, it anti-spiritual. There is always a tricky balance to allow freedom, yet maintain a sense of identity to the society. When that sense of idenity refuses to budge, people are persecuted and burned at the stake. Life is assaulted. Religion is notorious for intolerance like this. Yet despite all of its efforts to keep God (or society) “the same yesterday, today, and forever”, change happens. It does it on blood-soaked ground sometimes, but it still happens. It is unstoppable.

 

So when you say the person should change for the benefit of the religion, you should really understand that this is saying that the person should change for the sake of the society . The “religion” is simply as social vehicle for cultural identity. Man creates God for himself, and collectively society holds a consensus view of God that is adopted as the culture’s God. Now you may start to see what I mean when I say the religion must change to accommodate the changing society. If it does not, it will cease to function as a usable tool for that culture.

 

Society will change. We are no longer isolated out in little tribes in the desert where we can have the luxury of our regional idols, and go to war against the other gods (tribes), and where personal identity and culutral identity are much more tightly entwined. We live in a global, cosmopolitan society with instantaneous communication and knowledge of other tribe’s cultures, values, gods, etc. Individual personalities now have a wide array of things to identify themselves with, and a conservative culture will constantly find itself fighting against at the expense of the individual.

 

Our sense of God or social identity must evolve to deal with this new reality, or we fall into utter disconnect with the world. This is where fundamentalism is born from, is an inablity to adjust to the modernization of the world, and the shared borders of other cultures. A non-flexible belief system will harm that society. But, at the same time it is understandable the rate of change is so rapid, it may not be possible for the natural course of religious systems to keep up with that change.

[Ouroboros]

you got me on that one. faith does revolve around emotions. but it is more than that. it also involves a great deal of discipline. something that emotions are not associated with. ask the muslim about his ritualistic habits. that involves a great amount of discipline.

Actually, I could argue that is an emotional drive too. Moral duty doesn't require traditions or rituals.

 

What does usually feelings of fear and guilt result in? If you have an abusive parent, and the kid is afraid of their life, and they also always feel guilty. The guilt usually from the parent keep on saying "it's your fault", "you did it", "I can't work, because of you", and so on. What will the kid do? Either they work extremely hard on pleasing the parent, or they rebel and get violent. Does it sound familiar in the light of current events in middle east?

 

Here's an interesting part of Islam. Your bad deeds and good deeds are weighed on a scale. If the scale flips to the "good" side, you go into Heaven, if not, you go to Hell. So Muslims work hard on pleasing Allah. There's one way of getting a free pass to Heaven (kind of the being born again shortcut), and avoiding the problems of getting the scale to the "good" side, you can die as a martyr. That's why suicide bombers can go on a sin rampage just before their act, because when they kill themselves, they go straight to heaven, without having to account for their sins.

[freeday]

so i will bring up my point, that we keep circling around, does humans create God based on thier beliefs and customes. is that the reason for the stark contrast in the OT and NT. or does God allow his word to be interpreted differently as long as the common goal of obeying Him is achieved. i personally look at what i have learned and how my life has been better walking with the Lord and fully believe there is a God. now which religion is the most accurate, i am not a 100% sure on that one. but i can deduct several from the list that i do not agree with.[/color]

Occam’s razor, the simplest explaination is usually the right one: It looks like a human creation, it is a human creation. However to look at it from your perspective, that God “allows” things to be interpreted differently, so long as he is served: You would have to say then that all religions fall under this allowance, since they all serve the idea of God. Every devottee of every religion is receiving the same benefits you do, else they would not be following them. But what more than that, it does come back to what I say that the OT and the NT are human creations, human “interpretations”, as you put it, of the idea of God. And therefore as I said, “Man creates God in his own image”.

 

The only time it’s really bad is when it deprives someone of liberty. In that case, that’s not an image of God that I would find benefical or useful towards the greater ideals of human society where both the individual and societal needs are fulfilled. It’s a tough balance, but that’s why the OT worked for that culture, but is abhorant to ours today. Our sensiblities are not desert-tribal in nature.

 

i like your wording of change rather than losing faith. the thing i like about christianity, is that it is not supposed to be condusive for the modern day life style. lets face it, it shuns premarital sex, drugs, alcohol and whatnot. i feel that my religion is not supposed to change for the benifit of the person, rather, the person change for the benifit of the religion. that is why i feel it to be true, you have to change your ways, not the other way around.

This is all good and fine for someone, whose values are conservative in nature, but alas, people are people and the forces of evolution both in nature and in society are unstoppable. When you try to halt social evolution you have repression and dictatorships. It doesn’t work. It represses the human spirit to positive change and to me, it anti-spiritual. There is always a tricky balance to allow freedom, yet maintain a sense of identity to the society. When that sense of idenity refuses to budge, people are persecuted and burned at the stake. Life is assaulted. Religion is notorious for intolerance like this. Yet despite all of its efforts to keep God (or society) “the same yesterday, today, and forever”, change happens. It does it on blood-soaked ground sometimes, but it still happens. It is unstoppable.

 

So when you say the person should change for the benefit of the religion, you should really understand that this is saying that the person should change for the sake of the society . The “religion” is simply as social vehicle for cultural identity. Man creates God for himself, and collectively society holds a consensus view of God that is adopted as the culture’s God. Now you may start to see what I mean when I say the religion must change to accommodate the changing society. If it does not, it will cease to function as a usable tool for that culture.

 

Society will change. We are no longer isolated out in little tribes in the desert where we can have the luxury of our regional idols, and go to war against the other gods (tribes), and where personal identity and culutral identity are much more tightly entwined. We live in a global, cosmopolitan society with instantaneous communication and knowledge of other tribe’s cultures, values, gods, etc. Individual personalities now have a wide array of things to identify themselves with, and a conservative culture will constantly find itself fighting against at the expense of the individual.

 

Our sense of God or social identity must evolve to deal with this new reality, or we fall into utter disconnect with the world. This is where fundamentalism is born from, is an inablity to adjust to the modernization of the world, and the shared borders of other cultures. A non-flexible belief system will harm that society. But, at the same time it is understandable the rate of change is so rapid, it may not be possible for the natural course of religious systems to keep up with that change.

 

 

i don't know if i think the society is devoloped by the religion, i think the government is what shapes and molds the societies, not religion. when i think back about learning world history, it was the rulers and governments we learned, not thier religions. if a government did not have a seperation of church and state, then it would influence it some. and i don't see how christianity has become irelavant for the society today. our technology might be greater than ever, but the theology hasn't changed much. we are still discussing Jesus' existence, just like they were 2000 yrs ago.

 

you got me on that one. faith does revolve around emotions. but it is more than that. it also involves a great deal of discipline. something that emotions are not associated with. ask the muslim about his ritualistic habits. that involves a great amount of discipline.

Actually, I could argue that is an emotional drive too. Moral duty doesn't require traditions or rituals.

 

What does usually feelings of fear and guilt result in? If you have an abusive parent, and the kid is afraid of their life, and they also always feel guilty. The guilt usually from the parent keep on saying "it's your fault", "you did it", "I can't work, because of you", and so on. What will the kid do? Either they work extremely hard on pleasing the parent, or they rebel and get violent. Does it sound familiar in the light of current events in middle east?

 

Here's an interesting part of Islam. Your bad deeds and good deeds are weighed on a scale. If the scale flips to the "good" side, you go into Heaven, if not, you go to Hell. So Muslims work hard on pleasing Allah. There's one way of getting a free pass to Heaven (kind of the being born again shortcut), and avoiding the problems of getting the scale to the "good" side, you can die as a martyr. That's why suicide bombers can go on a sin rampage just before their act, because when they kill themselves, they go straight to heaven, without having to account for their sins.

 

i thought this particular idea was only for a small portion of radicalist muslims. i forget thier name now.

 

but i agree with you, there is a major difference between worshiping out of fear and worshiping out of love.

[Antlerman]

i don't know if i think the society is devoloped by the religion, i think the government is what shapes and molds the societies, not religion. when i think back about learning world history, it was the rulers and governments we learned, not thier religions. if a government did not have a seperation of church and state, then it would influence it some. and i don't see how christianity has become irelavant for the society today. our technology might be greater than ever, but the theology hasn't changed much. we are still discussing Jesus' existence, just like they were 2000 yrs ago.

The religion is created by the people. It promotes the society that the people who created the religion want. Like I said, we create God and feed him so he can feed us. Religions don't come out of nowhere. The reason you have the Baptists is because people created it, and people sustain it. There are plenty of dead religions because they were no longer useful to people. Why did they die, if they create societies?

 

Christianity is most definitely becoming irrelevant to today's society. That's why you have a rise in fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is reactionary. It exists because the middle is faultering. Fundamentalism is the edges of the bell curve of society - the statistically in terms of normal distribution. Fundamentalism is symptomatic of the middle needing to balance itself back into a redifned, more relevant religion. Society redifines it, so it can help society define itself. Society is in a state of flux to adjust to the rapid modernization I went to great lenghts to try to explain above.

 

You say the theology of Christian hasn't changed much in 2000 years? Then why are you in a Baptist church and not crawling on broken glass as you pray to the Virgin Mary? (Just one of several thousand differences in beliefs.)

 

Religion in born out of a society and the two then exist in a symbiotic relationship. Many "prophets" have come along with a new religion. Only the ones that had market appeal survie and grown and evolve. Christianity is a sucessful lifeform. Think evolution.

[RHEMtron]

Antlerman... whenever you decide to publish your book, let your fellow ex-c's get first dibs. I know ill personally buy it in a heart beat.

 

Maybe you should include a copy of your music with the book. Itll be good to listen to, while reading.

[freeday]

i don't know if i think the society is devoloped by the religion, i think the government is what shapes and molds the societies, not religion. when i think back about learning world history, it was the rulers and governments we learned, not thier religions. if a government did not have a seperation of church and state, then it would influence it some. and i don't see how christianity has become irelavant for the society today. our technology might be greater than ever, but the theology hasn't changed much. we are still discussing Jesus' existence, just like they were 2000 yrs ago.

The religion is created by the people. It promotes the society that the people who created the religion want. Like I said, we create God and feed him so he can feed us. Religions don't come out of nowhere. The reason you have the Baptists is because people created it, and people sustain it. There are plenty of dead religions because they were no longer useful to people. Why did they die, if they create societies?

 

Christianity is most definitely becoming irrelevant to today's society. That's why you have a rise in fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is reactionary. It exists because the middle is faultering. Fundamentalism is the edges of the bell curve of society - the statistically in terms of normal distribution. Fundamentalism is symptomatic of the middle needing to balance itself back into a redifned, more relevant religion. Society redifines it, so it can help society define itself. Society is in a state of flux to adjust to the rapid modernization I went to great lenghts to try to explain above.

 

You say the theology of Christian hasn't changed much in 2000 years? Then why are you in a Baptist church and not crawling on broken glass as you pray to the Virgin Mary? (Just one of several thousand differences in beliefs.)

 

Religion in born out of a society and the two then exist in a symbiotic relationship. Many "prophets" have come along with a new religion. Only the ones that had market appeal survie and grown and evolve. Christianity is a sucessful lifeform. Think evolution.

 

how does the middle faultering (or better yet what is the middle) creating fundamentalism. according to wiki, fundamentalism is fairly recent phenominon, but wouldn't you say paul and peter established the basis for fundamentalist.

 

isn't a fundy someone who is very literal in the interpritation. how would this create leaway in the religion to better associate with the changing society.

 

if you at europe, their churches are bare compared to ours. the religion was not conforming to the society. so the society turned thier backs on them. i predict the same will happen here sooner or later.

[Antlerman]

how does the middle faultering (or better yet what is the middle) creating fundamentalism. according to wiki, fundamentalism is fairly recent phenominon, but wouldn't you say paul and peter established the basis for fundamentalist.

I think understanding what fundamentalism is, is vital to everything we are discussion, in every post, in every thread. Understanding that fundamentalism is a social phenomenon, helps put a very human face to what is otherwise put forth by its advocates as some all-transcendent “Truth of God.” When we understand the origins of fundamentalism and what drives it, it helps to put things into a more balance perspective for a reasoned discussion about questions of “truth”.

 

First, fundamentalism really isn’t a recent phenomenon; it’s just that term being used to describe something about a drive against modernity that describes this aspect of it. There have always been elements in religion that push back against the absorption of surrounding cultures into the identity of a culture that had a common religion.

 

The first instance, as I recall, of scripture being touted as “the word of God”, began in the 1st century BCE with Ben Sira. He started a “fundamentalist” movement against what he saw as the Hellenization of the Jews. The scriptures to him were more than the history and cultural identity of the people, they were the infallible words of God himself, thus elevating scripture to the status of ultimate authority against the modernization of the culture, the “evolution” of the faith.

 

Though this may sound all good and noble, it really is about cultural values. No one can claim to truly know what that “absolute truth” might be, because afterall they are fallible men themselves. So what you really have is people clamoring for positions of influence in the direction of a culture, latching onto “political vehicles” that have appeal to the mass populous. It’s like I said earlier about election time and the use of “sound-bites”, “buzz words”, etc. It is the making of complex issues, into to simple and emotionally appealing promises for general consumption.

 

You recall how I pointed out in our discussions about Evolution how that the ID folks, once their ideas were evaluated and summarily rejected by the scientific community, ran out to the public for mass support to try to give their ideas credibility? Same thing here, excepting that we’re dealing 100% with religious ideas here instead of the empirical sciences. Latching onto nostalgic desires, to go back to the simple days where, "girls were girls, and men were men”, and rallying support for their promises of the “real truth”, is really social and political at its heart.

 

People like things to be simple, to be clear, to be defined, “act this way, don’t act that way”; this is right, that is wrong;” Its all about society defining itself, and religion has ALWAYS been the tool of society to enforce its own rules for itself.

 

So to answer the question “wouldn’t you say Paul and Peter established the basis for fundamentalism?” Umm… lets’ put it this way, they established something that they thought was a better system for the world they lived in, and modern 20th century Christian fundamentalism are reacting against modernization in the culture by trying to define what they think was what Paul and Peter established.

 

In other words, all modern fundamentalism is doing is trying to create an alternative culture based on a model of what they think the early church was. Since realistically there is no way to know or emulate exactly what early Christianity was in all its beliefs, attitudes, practices, rituals, etc, their approximation of it is their version of the original, or “The Truth”, as they wish to promote it to the masses.

 

Here’s a blurb from the article you referenced on Wiki that I think has something to contribute to this to understand it better:

 

 

 

Fundamentalists believe their cause to have grave and even cosmic importance. They see themselves as protecting not only a distinctive doctrine, but also a vital principle, and a way of life and of salvation. Community, comprehensively centered upon a clearly defined religious way of life in all of its aspects, is the promise of fundamentalist movements, and it therefore appeals to those adherents of religion who find little that is distinctive, or authentically vital in their previous religious identity.

 

The fundamentalist "wall of virtue", which protects their identity, is erected against not only alien religions, but also against the modernized, compromised, nominal version of their own religion. In Christianity, fundamentalists are "Born again" and "Bible-believing" Protestants, as opposed to "Mainline", "liberal", "modernist" Protestants, who represent "Churchianity"; in Islam they are jama'at (Arabic: (religious) enclaves with connotations of close fellowship) self-consciously engaged in jihad (struggle) against Western culture that suppresses authentic Islam (submission) and the God-given (Shari'ah) way of life; in Judaism they are Haredi "Torah-true" Jews; and they have their equivalents in Hinduism and other world religions. These groups insist on a sharp boundary between themselves and the faithful adherents of other religions, and finally between a "sacred" view of life and the "secular" world and "nominal religion". Fundamentalists direct their critiques toward and draw most of their converts from the larger community of their religion, by attempting to convince them that they are not experiencing the authentic version of their professed religion.

 

Many scholars see most forms of fundamentalism as having similar traits. This is especially obvious if modernity, secularism or an atheistic perspective is adopted as the norm, against which these varieties of traditionalism or supernaturalism are compared. From such a perspective, Peter Huff wrote in the International Journal on World Peace:

"According to Antoun, fundamentalists in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, despite their doctrinal and practical differences, are united by a common worldview which anchors all of life in the authority of the sacred and a shared ethos that expresses itself through outrage at the pace and extent of modern secularization."

 

isn't a fundy someone who is very literal in the interpritation. how would this create leaway in the religion to better associate with the changing society.

I’m sorry I’m not entirely clear what your question is? I don’t think a literal interpretation will help religion better associate with a changing society. I think religion needs to be flexible to survive a changing environment. Like I said you can’t stop evolution. Like are rock again the constant flow of a river, literalism will be worn smooth and eventually weather away into nothing. Think of the strength of a willow versus the oak? In a storm of high winds, which breaks and which survives?

 

if you at europe, their churches are bare compared to ours. the religion was not conforming to the society. so the society turned thier backs on them. i predict the same will happen here sooner or later.

Exactly. I agree, and the rise of fundamentalism in this country is a sign of this implosion that is happening. If Christianity is to survive, it must change. Fundamentalism will not stand the long haul by defining the middle. It will always be on the edges of curve. The bulk of society has to particpate in the world.

 

Later I will talk more about normal distribution in society (the bell curve) and where fundamentalism falls on this and why.

[freeday]

Antlerman:

 

excellent post. everything you said about fundamentalist would be correct about me. would i be correct to say the basis for a fundy would be that they think they are the only ones correct in thier religous beliefs. i think this is what i am catching from this in a nutshell. when you look at religions on a whole, i did think the reason for the decline in christianity worldwide was due to it's strict nature. i was under the impression this is why the european churches failed. but when you look at muslims, i find it much more demanding and strict than my religion. yet it has grown tremendously. i think the heart of any religion will be fundamentalism. and i think that it should be. a person doesn't want to be part of a religous sect that doesn't think they are the "truth".

 

so the question would be why the decline in christianity. since fundamentalism would be essential in both muslims and christianity. yet one has grown and the other has not. so i don't think the fault lies in that fundamentalist have not changed to adapt to the society. i have my own beliefs, but i think they would be irrelevant to this discussion since you are not a religous person.

 

as far as the catchy phrases, i have seen many different churches use a variety of ways to influence people into believing into Jesus. its all politics, they are just swaying someone to believe the way they do. but there are people on the other side that use the same tactics. it's not just christianity doing it.

[Skankboy]

a person doesn't want to be part of a religous sect that doesn't think they are the "truth".

I'd have to disagree here Freeday. In the western religions/philosophies perhaps, but not so much in the eastern traditions. Certainty is a strength only in the short run. It provides a sense of confidence and reassurance in your thinkings, but leads to a false impression of reality and a rigidity of beliefs that is most detrimental in the long run. Why do you think that even within the "bride of christ" there are so many disagreements of doctrine? It is because certainty is unatainable in reality. Any set of beliefs that contends it is the ONLY truth is deluding itself to the extreme...

 

IMOHO,

[Amanda]

Titus 1:12 Even one of their own prophets has said, "Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons." 13 This testimony is true.

This statement is paraphrased from Epimenides of Knossos, Crete, who was a satirist. The statement was meant as an hyperbole, which means it was supposed to be an absolute. So when he said Cretans are always liars, he meant always. This is the reason why Paul screwed up there, because ol' Ep meant this statement as a joke; being a Cretan, how could that testimony be true if all Cretans lie?

 

Dhampir, thanks for this information! I didn't find anywhere in these teachings that pointed to which prophet it was. Researching Epimenides, you are clearly right. It seems he was of a shamanistic religion of Asia, yet supported the belief in Zeus. It seems he may not have been of the Jewish religous right as I had presumed... because of the urging to know that these were Jewish fables, not truth. Do you know what religion the Cretans practiced? Also, in my research it says that at the time, they did not understand about the paradox caused by this statement.

 

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

 

It is not clear when Epimenides became associated with the Epimenides paradox, a variation of the liar paradox. Epimenides himself does not appear to have intended any irony or paradox in his statement, "Cretans, always liars", nor did Callimachus, nor the author of Titus, nor Clement. In the Middle Ages, many forms of the liar paradox were studied under the heading of insolubilia, but these were not associated with Epimenides. The earliest unmistakable reference to the Epimenides paradox as it is known today is an article by Bertrand Russell on the theory of types dating to 1908.

 

As far as the Cretans, they can be liars and still not lie ALL the time. Heck, they can be liars and not know it! BTW, I think the Cretans were the religous right (fundamentalist) of those days that were reading the Bible literally and urged not to be that way in these verses....

Think, think, think! It's fine to think, problem is you have no substantiation for any of these things. Same as with Freeday, and SOIL before him.

 

Dhampir, I 'thought' they were of the Jewish fundamentalist right because of these verses urging them to understand that those were just Jewish fables... not literal truth, and to recognized that these commandments were of man. I'm certainly open to other perspectives. I assure you... I know I am far from having the absolute Truth. Again, I want to thank you for your insights... it has been really appreciated.

 

 

You got the correct translation. It's not irrational, but your interpretation is is just an interpretation. You read it as you want to read it, right?

 

-------------------------

 

Many ways of reading this part, how do you know your way is the right way?

 

HanSolo, I don't know. I can only share my perspective, and hopefully have an open mind to those who have other perspectives. I start thinking about it, perhaps encounter additional information, and hopefully am able and willing to make a more knowledgeable conclusion. As always, thanks for your insights... as they have had a bearing on altering my thinking more than once.

[Ouroboros]

You got the correct translation. It's not irrational, but your interpretation is is just an interpretation. You read it as you want to read it, right?

 

-------------------------

 

Many ways of reading this part, how do you know your way is the right way?

 

HanSolo, I don't know. I can only share my perspective, and hopefully have an open mind to those who have other perspectives. I start thinking about it, perhaps encounter additional information, and hopefully am able and willing to make a more knowledgeable conclusion. As always, thanks for your insights... as they have had a bearing on altering my thinking more than once.

I think my comment was directed to Freeday and not to you, but to put a little more spin to the topic, our knowledge and what we consider truth is all based on our own minds perception of things. Skankboy said something good: truth is an approximation of reality. I really like that, because it sums up the problem of what real truth or objective truth is or isn't. We all come to our own conclusions and our own truths, and we base it on what we experience and what we think. Depending on the situation and resources and abilities we will come to different conclusions. Only someone that have the highest possible IQ, and have all knowledge that can be obtained from our history and what everyone said and done, could have the best approximation of what really occured in history, and what really was the "truth". And there's no human being that can claim to have all those conditions met.

 

So it leaves it to research, evidence, hypothesis, testability etc to give us enough documents (or artifacts) for each one of us to process. Gain maximal knowledge to get the best estimate of what is most probably true. Hence the scientific method, and study, and reasoning are the only tools (or so far the best tools) that can guide us, when all other systems are based on only internal arguments.

[Antlerman]

Antlerman:

 

excellent post. everything you said about fundamentalist would be correct about me.

So you are acknowledging that at the heart of your fundamentalist approach to faith is a cultural impulse against the modernization of the world’s philosophies, and a nostalgic turning the clock back to the perceived “good ‘ole days”? This is what I said in my previous post. Again, man creates God, or a faith system to reflect their cultural values and support or feed it in order for it to serve as a standard of social order for their values. Again, as I put, we create God and serve Him so he can serve us, “God” being a faith system.

 

This then established, “what came first, the chicken or the egg?” I say undeniably that culture came first, then religion. I get them impression that you think that order is reversed in some inexplicable way, that religion created culture and society out of nothing? Frankly that makes no sense to me, but that’s what it sounds like you’ve said in the past by stated you feel religion or governments create the society. I cannot agree with you on any level. Though it’s true religion or government enforces the rules of a culture, it’s the culture that “hired” that religion or government to do this for them. The culture adopted that system they wanted and collectively follow its rules by choice.

 

The point I am making is that cultures and societies are made up of all sorts of values from all sorts of places. The culture and values of your society in Mississippi did not originate from, nor follow the society of the New Testament. They are cultural values you participate in and which influence your world view, just as the culture of my region influences certain values that differ from yours. Now here’s the crux of it, your values are NOT those of Apostle Paul, Peter, Jesus, James, or whoever, any more than mine are; any more than those in Ohio; any more than those in Kansas; any more than those in China, Korea, Australia, India, Pakistan, or Rome itself!

 

No, what you have are the values of your culture believing that those are the “true” teaching, original values of the adopted symbols of their faith. They then hold these “models” up, sticking their own spin of culture values on them with the blessing of divine sanction on them, and use them as a tool to promote, teach, and ensure their own adopted cultural values are maintained. “God” is being used to serve them.

 

Your “truth” is only valid for those it has meaning for. It is a veiled fundamental “truth”, that will not be reality for everyone. It’s a belief it is “the Truth” for the purpose of empowerment, but it doesn’t stand up to examination under that literal expectation. Its ultimate “truth” is that it’s a particular culture’s idea of its own “truth” only.

 

would i be correct to say the basis for a fundy would be that they think they are the only ones correct in thier religous beliefs. i think this is what i am catching from this in a nutshell.

It’s not the “basis” for being a fundi. A desire for to retard or halt social progress is, however it is a feature of fundamentalist beliefs. What I said in the last two paragraphs shows why people hold these sorts of reactionary beliefs to be the only truth, it’s because it empowers it to serve their chosen culture as an authoritative standard.

 

 

when you look at religions on a whole, i did think the reason for the decline in christianity worldwide was due to it's strict nature. i was under the impression this is why the european churches failed. but when you look at muslims, i find it much more demanding and strict than my religion. yet it has grown tremendously.

No. The idea that Christianity worldwide is in decline is a fallacy. Worldwide it has been on the increase over the last several decades, and Fundamentalist Protestantism is predicted to surpass world-wide Catholicism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. It’s growing the most quickly in South America, Asia, and Africa where functioning governments, social programs, etc are barely hanging together. Fundamentalism offers promise of order, promise of answers and this is extremely appealing to people in those situations. Of course, we in the G8 nations know what a crock of crap this is.

 

What you are seeing is from a cultural bias as a North American. In the industrialized G8 trading nations, with health care, public education, functioning governments, highly intelligent, educated people are not buying into Christianity, and it’s become a culture war between those who say “thanks, but no thanks”, what they call “the rise of secularism”, and the extremists who think that everything they say is the right way.

 

This is heart of our conversation we are having, and at the heart of every conversation on this web forum.

 

What “Culture” is, is your upbringing, your moral center, your identity. Our cultural bias in North America has had the luxury of a huge middle class that all think and act the same way, and from there, we all assume that everyone thinks like us! We created an industrialized nation, that once we were rich enough, we turned to ourselves and said, “We need to better ourselves, everyone needs a better wage, etc.” In the last 50 years we have been lulled in to complacency that this is the way things should be, but now that middle class has been dissolving, changing. That’s why we have this Christian Fundamentalist backlash!

 

Being in an industrialized nation brings a higher level of education and knowledge. With education comes the realization of choices. When people have too many choices they become confused. Then comes nostalgia; the pining for days of ignorance, the desire for simplicity. It’s a human impulse.

 

Take ordering from a menu. If there’s too many choices people become frustrated and generally opt for the places with simpler choices on the menu. Why do you think you see a herd of SUVs all corralling into the drive through at McDonald’s at lunch time? McDonald’s is bad food on every level! It is consistently bad, BUT it is predictable, and predictability is extremely important to people.

 

The truth is our prevailing culture is a culture of consumerism. We use it to drive our economic system. This culture, gives us a sense of how smart we are because of all our choices. We entertain ourselves by going to shopping malls (which by the way is why you see Churches popping up in the malls now. It’s where all the people have gone! ). But the illusion is that though we like that sense of choice, we don’t know how to handle it. So what the marketing geniuses focus on is mediocrity. It’s all shitty, but they're full of choices. Mediocrity sells. It’s cheap, plentiful and available year round. Same thing dressed up differently and called choice. It gives people a sense of reward; that we figured it out. “I found a really great deal”. It is all driven by the middle class. It has totally impacted our society.

 

Fundamentalism is the fast food of the religious world. It’s cheap, easy to read menus, and it appeals to our sense of choice, but it is crap food. It’s tasteless processed potatoes out of the grey, chemical-soaked soil of the industrial French Fries! It’s intellectually devoid of real substance and flavor. What you are seeing in happening in our society is moderate Christian churches failing here in the States and in Europe. People are getting secular. Their needs are being met in other ways: social circles, philosophies, arts, and other forms of spirituality. American and European churches are struggling with keeping up with changes in our cultures. The reality is that in the U.S., the most radical forms of fundamental/evangelicalism are not really on the rise, but they are becoming a louder voice as the middle in imploding.

 

Just this week here in the Twin Cities an evangelical pastor of his mega-church over in St. Paul got sick and tired of those in his congregation coming to him to promote some Republican political agenda from the pulpit, refusing to allow them to set up Pro-Life tables in the lobby, introduce Republican candidates, announce an anti-gay rallies, etc. He stated that the church should not get entangled in politics and that the message should be religious in nature.

 

Here’s the point freeday, many of the most vocal political in his church were terribly offended and called him a compromiser of truth, etc, and drug off 1000 people out of the church, BUT 4000 people remained and were sighing relief that something was finally said!! So what you and I see in this country is an illusion that this face of the evangelicals is really getting bigger and bigger. It is really more just the few being more and more vocal and political.

 

There is some growth into Fundamentalism/Evangelicalism from those leaving the imploding middle, but this is not because it offers the answers to them, but simply more a place to go for the time being until the middle can find itself again spiritually in a modern, educated society. It Christianity in the industrialized nations cannot find itself, then eventually Christianity will become increasing less and less a part of the industrialized nations, as it continues to grow exponentially in the 3rd world.

 

Essentially you cannot compare what happens here in the States directly with the history of Europe, or with the growth patterns in the non-industrialized nations.

 

Now, in light of all this, “The Truth” is really not as simple as we would hope it to be, is it? Fundamentalism, getting back to the original, is an impossibility. It is an utter illusion. “The Truth” is a total fallacy. It is all about cultures and societies struggling to define themselves by various means in a civilized world. There is no simple truth. The promises of the fundamentalist is the McDonald's cheese burger to the complexity of life in an industrialized society, and the tragic illusion of stability and answers to those struggling in the 3rd world, being preyed upon by the missionaries.

 

Now the big question. Then what is the answer?

[chefranden]

Boy, Antlerman, they must have taught you well at Flores Hobbit University!

 

Well said and written.

[Antlerman]

Boy, Antlerman, they must have taught you well at Flores Hobbit University!

 

Well said and written.

Thank you. Yes it was an amazing school on the island of the very small, in a time long ago before the modern gods were born

[freeday]

Antlerman:

 

great post. very well thought out. it is hard for me to fully understand your point. you write from a stand point where you do not believe in religion. where as i beleive in religion.

 

i definitely understand your point about people sticking with the norm, maintaining a routine. it is what makes people feel comfortable. and i would venture to say that at least 50% of the people who show up at church, just go out of routine. and i would imagine that this is conservative.

 

when you bring up the point about religion trying to adjust to society. what makes you think this? this is something i am having a hard time getting past. are you trying to imply that science has shot down a lot of ideas about the bible? and that christianity is trying to explain thier way out of it. is this the point you are trying to make. the church i go to would very much be a fundamentalist in thought, they preach most things that does not go (or endorse) with our changing society. yet it has grown expiditionally. you may say that people are seeking the middle, trying to get back to the good ole days. but i don't think that is what it is about. i feel that they teach a way to live your life that would most please Jesus. and if you beleive in him, wouldn't you want to do that.

[Amanda]

the church i go to would very much be a fundamentalist in thought, they preach most things that does not go (or endorse) with our changing society. yet it has grown expiditionally. you may say that people are seeking the middle, trying to get back to the good ole days. but i don't think that is what it is about. i feel that they teach a way to live your life that would most please Jesus. and if you beleive in him, wouldn't you want to do that.

Freeday, I know this was not directed to me, yet I have a couple questions for you.

 

You seem to me to have a really good attitude. I came on this site with more fundamentalist ideas than I had realized. This place was a real eye opener!

 

1) Do you think God would ever want you to suspend a talent given to you called reason? Would "he" give it to you and tell you not to use it, but to believe some one else's interpretation instead of thinking for yourself? If something is true, it can be tried and tested through analytical thinking, and what would be wrong with that? It could be that sometimes we have to revise our beliefs as a "truth", as we mature individually and as a society, don't you think? (I'm not necessarily saying the Bible is wrong, just maybe consider the way we interpret it may be wrong sometimes.)

 

2) How do you feel about those who do what is right just for the sake of doing what is right? Could these be mature people who believe in themselves as being the authority and governing power of their life for their own integrity? To do what is right for someone else, or to do it because that is who they are... which is better?

[Dhampir]

expiditionally

I hope this was a joke.

[Amanda]

expiditionally

I hope this was a joke.

Dhampir, I think he meant exponentially. I make mistakes like that... especially when I've had one martini too many. Do you think we're driving Freeday to drink?

[Dhampir]

Probably a cross between that and this: expeditiously. Still spelled wrong though.

[freeday]

the church i go to would very much be a fundamentalist in thought, they preach most things that does not go (or endorse) with our changing society. yet it has grown expiditionally. you may say that people are seeking the middle, trying to get back to the good ole days. but i don't think that is what it is about. i feel that they teach a way to live your life that would most please Jesus. and if you beleive in him, wouldn't you want to do that.

Freeday, I know this was not directed to me, yet I have a couple questions for you.

 

You seem to me to have a really good attitude. I came on this site with more fundamentalist ideas than I had realized. This place was a real eye opener!

 

 

1) Do you think God would ever want you to suspend a talent given to you called reason? Would "he" give it to you and tell you not to use it, but to believe some one else's interpretation instead of thinking for yourself? If something is true, it can be tried and tested through analytical thinking, and what would be wrong with that? It could be that sometimes we have to revise our beliefs as a "truth", as we mature individually and as a society, don't you think? (I'm not necessarily saying the Bible is wrong, just maybe consider the way we interpret it may be wrong sometimes.)

 

2) How do you feel about those who do what is right just for the sake of doing what is right? Could these be mature people who believe in themselves as being the authority and governing power of their life for their own integrity? To do what is right for someone else, or to do it because that is who they are... which is better?

 

i do have a good attitude towards life, and this place has been a real eye opener, i am very thankfull to have found this site.

 

1. you are assuming that all people have the talent to preach, which i do not. i have a confidence in our pastor. he has a Phd in biblical theology. he is wise beyound my years. i enjoy learning from his experiences. just asking, what points of my interpretation would you consider wrong, and the reason behind it?

 

2. i can't say who is right or better, that would involve judging others. i have several athiest friends, 2 of them i can think of right now, are the nicest people i know of, they would bend over backwards to help someone.

 

but that is not what christianity is about. it is about having a blind faith, someone to turn to during hard times, someone to give us strength to keep moving forward when all we want to do is shut down. recieving forgiveness that no other source can give. and a hope that someday, despite how hard our lives may have been, we will rejoice on streets of gold in the end.

 

 

expiditionally

I hope this was a joke.

Dhampir, I think he meant exponentially. I make mistakes like that... especially when I've had one martini too many. Do you think we're driving Freeday to drink?

 

 

spelling is my weak point, plus when i wrote it, i was at work and in a hurry. you will know if i have been drinking, i curse a lot.

[Skankboy]

but that is not what christianity is about. it is about having a blind faith, someone to turn to during hard times, someone to give us strength to keep moving forward when all we want to do is shut down. recieving forgiveness that no other source can give. and a hope that someday, despite how hard our lives may have been, we will rejoice on streets of gold in the end.

 

Freeday,

 

I can understand where you are coming from. I used to be where you are. The thing is, I no longer believe that sin actually exists. No sin, no need for forgiveness. I used to look for outside confirmation of my actions, now I know the only forgiveness I can truly recieve is from myself.

 

And while I can see how the promise of future "streets of gold" can help you through tough times, I can't help but think it robs a person of truly experiencing today.

 

I have the same strength I used to, the same resolve during hard times to keep going in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. The difference is that now, I know these resources come from me and not from any external source...

 

IMOHO,

[Amanda]

1. you are assuming that all people have the talent to preach, which i do not. i have a confidence in our pastor. he has a Phd in biblical theology. he is wise beyound my years. i enjoy learning from his experiences. just asking, what points of my interpretation would you consider wrong, and the reason behind it?

Freeday, no, I'm not assuming that at all. I suppose a spiritual teacher is one that fits a person's specific growth at that time of their life. I agree that it can be beneficial to listen to those whom we perceive as having more wisdom than our self. I'm not saying that you're wrong about anything, I just don't understand how, it seems to me, a lot of us do and have suspended reason to accept many 'fundamentalist' concepts. Also, I'm curious to know how one can accept this:

but that is not what christianity is about. it is about having a blind faith,

This, to me, seems to also say that one needs to suspend 'reason' and I don't see any advantage to that. Just because I don't see it doesn't mean there is not a valid purpose... I just don't know what it is.

 

and a hope that someday, despite how hard our lives may have been, we will rejoice on streets of gold in the end.

I'm curious to know if you take that literally or metaphorically speaking? IF you do take it literally, I'm wondering how you justify that with reason, my friend?

 

spelling is my weak point, plus when i wrote it, i was at work and in a hurry. you will know if i have been drinking, i curse a lot.

Yeah, math is my weakness... so maybe that is why I'm having a hard time figuring these things out?

However, if spelling is your weakness... when you come on here drinking... maybe you won't be spelling your curse words right?

[NotBlinded]

No, what you have are the values of your culture believing that those are the “true” teaching, original values of the adopted symbols of their faith. They then hold these “models” up, sticking their own spin of culture values on them with the blessing of divine sanction on them, and use them as a tool to promote, teach, and ensure their own adopted cultural values are maintained. “God” is being used to serve them.

Yes, and I think it is obvious when the National Motto became, "In God We Trust". What motive is there to that motto other than using God to serve the US? This was a political move to tell the world that God is on our side.