Life, The Universe, And Everything; Continued

[Sparrow]

[quote

Sparrow,

I thought I'd resurrect your opening query, now that the brouhaha has died down a bit. I won't make you go back through the posts to find what it was that prompted your curiosity. If something occurs to you, I'd be happy to respond to it.

 

Meanwhile, I'm interested in the brand of Christianity you left behind, and what triggered your move, if you care to retell it.

Buddy

 

 

Hi Buddy,

 

I'll come back to this during the day.

 

Thanks

 

Willa

 

Hi Buddy,

 

Thanks for being interested enough to ask, but if you don’t mind, I’ll just gloss over some salient points and I’ll not give too much detail. My story is in snippets around the board here, so if you care have a look around, you’ll find it.

 

So, in brief:

 

My family (Mother and Father, etc) were probably relatively typical of the other people on this forum. It was a strong christian family. I didn’t realize how strong till later in life. Either way, I was a bright kid, so as I was being educated in the sciences, I was also indoctrinated heavily in christianity.

 

To cut a long story short, it was a number of personal tragedies in quick succession, losing a husband and sick child that ultimately got me out of what I see now as plain and simple brain-washing.

 

It started off as desperately needing all the things you are promised by religion, only to find that in your hour of real need that, not only are they not fore coming, they were probably not there in the first place.

 

In the beginning I went through the usual spasms of de-conversion, you know – denial, anger, change, justification, etc and finally accepting the truth for what it is. I eventually arrived at agnostic, but with time, I’ve come to the label myself as atheist – as “godâ€, any god for that matter, can’t possibly exist in the manner defined and propounded.

 

In a nutshell, that’s my story.

 

Thanks

 

Spatz

[Kuroikaze]

OK, with my focus adjusted then, I presume your hope for the future is a secular world with secular government and freedom from religious and political oppression. I can live with that. Is it necessary also to stamp out religions in general, or is there a place for them? Just curious... (just curious if I get squelched or get to stick around in your future world).

Buddy

 

This is a fair question, an no I don't think religion should be stamped out, with force or otherwise. You would not know this of course, but I'm not exactly anti-religious. I actually consider myself to be a philosophical Taoist, I also have interests in Confucian and Zen Buddhists ideas.

 

Of course in each case these religions are non-theistic and non-dogmatic. Of course I don't much care if other people believe in god, though I think they are wrong to be sure, one of my favorite authors is Thomas Paine who was a deist, the fact that he believed in god does not overshadow that I agree with him on many things.

 

What irks me is the people who seem to think there is something wrong with ME because I do not believe in God. That all good moral upstanding people should believe in him, or think that their belief in god necessitates they shove every moral teaching of their own religion down everyone else's throat for "their own good."

 

I've said it in other places on this board, my primary problem with religion is dogmatism (a belief in black and white ethics, and the inability to change ones mind in the face of new evidence), and Christianity seems to have a heavy bent towards it.

 

Of course many people who call themselves Christians are not dogmatists, but most of those people are of the stripe that I would not have recognized them as "true" believers during my days as a fundamentalist. They were the enemy, teaching false teachings, the wolf in sheep clothing that Peter spoke of.

 

(edited for spelling)

[Rime]

Vigile_del_fuoco1, you pretty much summed up my point, and quite a bit more eloquently. Thanks.

[Grandpa Harley]

He's a complete bastard like that... you post. He says something and you think 'she-IT! I wish I'd said that!'

 

Bastard... I'll be in my Gloomy Place...

[BuddyFerris]

... Of course many people who call themselves Christians are not dogmatists, but most of those people are of the stripe that I would not have recognized them as "true" believers during my days as a fundamentalist. They were the enemy, teaching false teachings, the wolf in sheep clothing that Peter spoke of.

Hello, K,

Good thinking. Re your last note, if you were really a fundamentalist, I'd be surprised if you would have accepted any Christian outside your own branch as legit. Without mentioning any denomination specifically, I do remember a fundamentalist missionary from another denomination preaching once in our little American church in Spain. He told us (with little subtlety) that we were almost but not quite correct in our use of the scripture, and that we needed to join him and his branch in correctness. Intolerance incarnate. He wasn't invited back.

 

On a lighter note, at least some things about abusive religion are against the law.

ST. GEORGE, Utah -- The leader of a polygamous Mormon splinter group was convicted Tuesday of being an accomplice to rape for forcing a 14-year-old girl to marry her 19-year-old cousin. Warren Jeffs, 51, could get life in prison after a trial that threw a spotlight on a renegade community along the Arizona-Utah line where as many as 10,000 of Jeffs' followers practice plural marriage and revere him as a mighty prophet with dominion over their salvation.

BF

[BuddyFerris]

Hi Buddy,

 

Thanks for being interested enough to ask, but if you don’t mind, I’ll just gloss over some salient points and I’ll not give too much detail. My story is in snippets around the board here, so if you care have a look around, you’ll find it.

 

So, in brief:

 

My family (Mother and Father, etc) were probably relatively typical of the other people on this forum. It was a strong christian family. I didn’t realize how strong till later in life. Either way, I was a bright kid, so as I was being educated in the sciences, I was also indoctrinated heavily in christianity.

 

To cut a long story short, it was a number of personal tragedies in quick succession, losing a husband and sick child that ultimately got me out of what I see now as plain and simple brain-washing.

 

It started off as desperately needing all the things you are promised by religion, only to find that in your hour of real need that, not only are they not fore coming, they were probably not there in the first place.

 

In the beginning I went through the usual spasms of de-conversion, you know – denial, anger, change, justification, etc and finally accepting the truth for what it is. I eventually arrived at agnostic, but with time, I’ve come to the label myself as atheist – as “godâ€, any god for that matter, can’t possibly exist in the manner defined and propounded.

 

In a nutshell, that’s my story.

 

Thanks

 

Spatz

Sparrow,

I'm sorry for you loss and apologize if bringing it up was uncomfortable. It was a gracious gesture on your part telling it again. It seems we all have painful histories by the time we settle into life; reliving the events seems to be our lot for the later years. I hope you've found peace and others to fill the gaps.

 

Several here have spoken of crisis events where faith just didn't work; nothing happened to help them through. I can understand the personal upheaval of crisis and loss. I wonder how often such a moment of disappointment in God would be the turning point. My wife and I have gone through our share of hell on earth, it seems, and it hasn't been easy. We were reduced to simple survival a couple of times. Perhaps there's something revealing there. There have been a number of (Christian) books on the subject of why bad things happen to good people. They're not a lot of help when you're in the middle of it. The worst of it may be when the church who should be walking with you turns out to be vapor and insubstantial.

 

If you feel like it sometime, I'd like to hear how you managed to leave the church behind. We've lived around and found the local church to be different from place to place; specifically in their ability to be a family and a help. We attended one place for a year, and they were still introducing themselves to us and asking if it was our first time. Others adopted us on day one.

Buddy

Meanwhile, two days down & one to go before we're off to a wedding (which unfortunately means no work for a week. I'm heartbroken.).

[BuddyFerris]

"For instance, in the UK, the conservatives are perhaps the largest block of voters these days. Does that mean that the country has conservative political AND religious leanings?"

 

To explain British politics... We have Three major parties who comprise the Parliament - Labour, Conservative (note capital C) and Liberal Democrat. Labour is more or less the equivalent of extreme left wing Democrats in the US. The Conservative Party is diametrically opposed to most of what Labour stands, and is more or less the equivalent of extreme left wing Democrats in the US. The Liberal Democrats are sort of mid-way between the two extreme parties and the party is more or less the equivalent of extreme left wing Democrats in the US.

 

and yes, they're all supposed to read the same. By and large, what you chaps call 'conservative' the bulk of the UK regard as dangerously right wing, and what you chaps call 'liberal' as 'probably more right wing than we'd like' We have NOTHING like your 'conservatives' and, from the outside world's POV there isn't any distinction between political conservatism in the US and insane fundy clap trap, since we see the same talking heads dropping the god bomb most of the time... Name one mainstream conservative Atheist...

Thanks for the illuminating description; I would never have suspected that from the news. You folks seem so normal (well, except for that left-side driver thing, and the round-abouts. Public engineering tried one in the county, had a wreck a day for the first week.).

Kidding aside, I wasn't aware of the distance between what we each consider the politically moderate position. This will take some thinking.

Buddy

[Grandpa Harley]

It's like trying to explain why 'Constitutional Monarchy' and the house of Lords guarantees us a level of freedom not easily achieved in the rest of the EU. Basically, the armed forces are not bound by oath to the Government of the day, but to the Monarch (actually the Govt is in debt to the Royal Family to more than the gross value of the country, due to a loan in the 1700s in exchange for the 'list' by which they get a stipend. If they called the debt in, the country couldn't pay them back). Thus there is a structure (represented in the person of the Crown) who is the last line of defence to/restraint of Government.

 

IF the queen decided to deny royal assent to an act, things would get very ugly, very quickly. Last time Royal Assent was denied was when Victoria believed that the Govt was 'not acting in good faith'... In the end, the government blinked... and a potentially explosive situation defused. After all, some soldiery would break with the crown, since there is a chance everyone will die rich if it comes off... but 'Semper fidelis' is not only a trait of US Marines...

[BuddyFerris]

Yes, Buddy, there are secular fundies. No contest. And we shouldn't allow that more than the religious type.

 

The tricky part is how do we make the rules?

 

A lot of religious people think it's a conspiracy to destroy Christianity with the theory of evolution. Even though its mechanics are valid and (as far as I know) the theory does not require indoctrination in origins science, and that those interested can pursue it. On their own. And that as we learn more, it changes in subtle ways.

 

Prayer in schools is another one. Apparently, it's necessary for a teacher to lead the children in prayer. I get the usual "The others can pray however they want," but I'm not satisfied that this is being neutral and fair. Besides, it was because Christian children were picking on non-Christians because they weren't saying the right prayers... theirs.

 

Forgive me if I'm wrong, though, it'll be 20 years ago next year that I graduated from high school.

Hello, Rime.

In schools, I understand that staff directed prayer is prohibited with reasonable uniformity now. Students can still pray individually, or as a leader in groups, etc. as long as it doesn't cause a substantial disruption. I had to look it up to find out; I graduated in '66.

 

I haven't yet seen a solution for effective secularization of government and its' agencies. The rule set is almost impossible, particularly when virtually any dogmatic position can be judged to be the equivalent of a religion. 'New age' and Wicca are on the list now along with others. Humanism should probably be treated similarly.

 

So, who's the cute kid with the pumpkin? Nice choice; kids are better than adults.

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

It's like trying to explain why 'Constitutional Monarchy' and the house of Lords guarantees us a level of freedom not easily achieved in the rest of the EU. Basically, the armed forces are not bound by oath to the Government of the day, but to the Monarch (actually the Govt is in debt to the Royal Family to more than the gross value of the country, due to a loan in the 1700s in exchange for the 'list' by which they get a stipend. If they called the debt in, the country couldn't pay them back). Thus there is a structure (represented in the person of the Crown) who is the last line of defence to/restraint of Government.

 

IF the queen decided to deny royal assent to an act, things would get very ugly, very quickly. Last time Royal Assent was denied was when Victoria believed that the Govt was 'not acting in good faith'... In the end, the government blinked... and a potentially explosive situation defused. After all, some soldiery would break with the crown, since there is a chance everyone will die rich if it comes off... but 'Semper fidelis' is not only a trait of US Marines...

So the withholding of royal assent is the equivalent of a veto, but a more volatile act than the US equivalent. Fascinating... so the checks and balances we count on in the US are somewhat similarly represented with the crown serving as the executive equivalent for veto. Does the crown introduce bills to the parliamentary process? I need to go back to my textbooks.

 

So how did the UK move so far to the left politically? I would have expected a fairly strong conservatism post-WWI&II. Plus, on out side of the pond, conservatism seems to increase directly with demographic age; the young are the radical liberals and the older, wiser heads are more conservative. At least that's how it looks on a chart.

Buddy

[Grandpa Harley]

No, the Monarch can't introduce legislation... that's what Govt is for, and the courts to translate that into something resembling 'justice'... The Crown can only Assent, defer, or refuse assent.

 

As to left wing... I think you'll find it's the US that is grotesquely right wing. Look at it's general puppet Govt of choice... Chile is a good example. And North Vietnam was quite friendly to the US , figuring that they'd understand trying to revolt from an oppressive regime (the dregs of the French Empire), and had no love of either Russia or China... and we know how that played out simply due to the fact that the only good 'Commie' was a dead one... a god awful fuck up of blind application of the excessive Right leanings of Government, and JFK's desire to see his College thesis played out...

 

and I'm still waiting for anyone mainstream who's a liberal and a Conservative Christian... libertarian isn't liberal, it's more lack of controls than permission. Laissez Faire... or a conservative who is a Liberal Christian.

[Sparrow]

I'm sorry for you loss and apologize if bringing it up was uncomfortable. It was a gracious gesture on your part telling it again. It seems we all have painful histories by the time we settle into life; reliving the events seems to be our lot for the later years. I hope you've found peace and others to fill the gaps.

 

Several here have spoken of crisis events where faith just didn't work; nothing happened to help them through. I can understand the personal upheaval of crisis and loss. I wonder how often such a moment of disappointment in God would be the turning point. My wife and I have gone through our share of hell on earth, it seems, and it hasn't been easy. We were reduced to simple survival a couple of times. Perhaps there's something revealing there. There have been a number of (Christian) books on the subject of why bad things happen to good people. They're not a lot of help when you're in the middle of it. The worst of it may be when the church who should be walking with you turns out to be vapor and insubstantial.

 

If you feel like it sometime, I'd like to hear how you managed to leave the church behind. We've lived around and found the local church to be different from place to place; specifically in their ability to be a family and a help. We attended one place for a year, and they were still introducing themselves to us and asking if it was our first time. Others adopted us on day one.

Buddy

Meanwhile, two days down & one to go before we're off to a wedding (which unfortunately means no work for a week. I'm heartbroken.).

 

 

Buddy,

 

If you don't mind I won't explain much more of my personal life and anyway, there’s really not much to tell or even really explain. People are different and deal with things differently – which is probably something quite telling about the existence of god and belief itself.

 

Some people expect truth to be truth and for promises to be delivered on and are disappointed to some greater or lesser degree when this doesn’t happen. Others look to themselves (like an abused wife) and make out they’ve done something to deserve the failure.

 

I dealt with it in much the same way as the people on this forum dealt with it.

 

I personally couldn’t see anything more I could have done to make myself a better christian. There simply was nothing more I could do. Of course I’m not the best person in the world – but the truth is, I never will be ….. and nor will any other human being be perfect.

 

So the question is, do I have to be something I’ll never, ever be capable of? Do I have to be more “moral†than god himself before I get the rewards I’ve been promised, ….. OR ….. is it (as it is more than likely is) that there really is no god – and therefore the promises, and everything else we’ve been lead to believe, is not real.

 

I think at the end of the day Buddy, I don’t really care anymore even if there is a god.

 

As far as I’m concerned, I don’t want any part of it or him. If there is a god, I’d tell him he’s not a very good “beingâ€, his rules are insane, his punishment excessive and rewards pathetically piss – poor, and if there is eternal damnation with un-ending torment and conscious pain, then purely out of principle and solidarity for my fellow human-being, I’ll go there and be with all the other of “god’s beloved creations†who weren’t quite perfect enough.

 

The truth is Buddy, there is no invisible, magic sky daddy waiting for us to die so that he either make us suffer for all eternity or make us sit around for unending millennia just to tell him how great he is for giving us 70 plus years - which consisted of a traumatic birth, a mediocre life and a painful exit.

 

There simply is no god.

 

Spatz

[Vigile]

Vigile_del_fuoco1, you pretty much summed up my point, and quite a bit more eloquently. Thanks.

 

Thanks Rime! Welcome to the forums.

[Vigile]

He's a complete bastard like that... you post. He says something and you think 'she-IT! I wish I'd said that!'

 

Bastard... I'll be in my Gloomy Place...

 

You're giving me a big head G. It's probably time for you to take me down a notch or two...

[dano]

SAM HARRIS: The point is that religion remains the only mode of discourse that encourages grown men and women to pretend to know things they manifestly do not (and cannot) know. If ever there were an attitude at odds with science, this is it. And the faithful are encouraged to keep shouldering this unwieldy burden of falsehood and self-deception by everyone they meet—by their coreligionists, of course, and by people of differing faith, and now, with startling frequency, by scientists who claim to have no faith.

[Grandpa Harley]

He's a complete bastard like that... you post. He says something and you think 'she-IT! I wish I'd said that!'

 

Bastard... I'll be in my Gloomy Place...

 

You're giving me a big head G. It's probably time for you to take me down a notch or two...

 

i hate you...

 

[dano]

The Richard Dimbleby Lecture:

"Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder

You could give Aristotle a tutorial. And you could thrill him to the core of his being. Aristotle was an encyclopedic polymath, an all time intellect. Yet not only can you know more than him about the world. You also can have a deeper understanding of how everything works. Such is the privilege of living after Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Planck, Watson, Crick and their colleagues.

 

For the first half of geological time our ancestors were bacteria. Most creatures still are bacteria, and each one of our trillions of cells is a colony of bacteria."

[BuddyFerris]

Buddy,

 

If you don't mind I won't explain much more of my personal life and anyway, there’s really not much to tell or even really explain. People are different and deal with things differently – which is probably something quite telling about the existence of god and belief itself.

 

Some people expect truth to be truth and for promises to be delivered on and are disappointed to some greater or lesser degree when this doesn’t happen. Others look to themselves (like an abused wife) and make out they’ve done something to deserve the failure.

 

I dealt with it in much the same way as the people on this forum dealt with it.

 

I personally couldn’t see anything more I could have done to make myself a better christian. There simply was nothing more I could do. Of course I’m not the best person in the world – but the truth is, I never will be ….. and nor will any other human being be perfect.

 

So the question is, do I have to be something I’ll never, ever be capable of? Do I have to be more “moral†than god himself before I get the rewards I’ve been promised, ….. OR ….. is it (as it is more than likely is) that there really is no god – and therefore the promises, and everything else we’ve been lead to believe, is not real.

 

I think at the end of the day Buddy, I don’t really care anymore even if there is a god.

 

As far as I’m concerned, I don’t want any part of it or him. If there is a god, I’d tell him he’s not a very good “beingâ€, his rules are insane, his punishment excessive and rewards pathetically piss – poor, and if there is eternal damnation with un-ending torment and conscious pain, then purely out of principle and solidarity for my fellow human-being, I’ll go there and be with all the other of “god’s beloved creations†who weren’t quite perfect enough.

 

The truth is Buddy, there is no invisible, magic sky daddy waiting for us to die so that he either make us suffer for all eternity or make us sit around for unending millennia just to tell him how great he is for giving us 70 plus years - which consisted of a traumatic birth, a mediocre life and a painful exit.

 

There simply is no god.

 

Spatz

Well put. I'll not belabor the point further.

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

is there room for others to have a different view and live in the same society.

 

Are you asking that intolerance be tolerated?

Vigile,

Although not within the context of the preceding discussion, you've proposed an astute question. What shall we do with the frothing, intrusive, intolerant members of society who insist on forcing their ideology onto others and insisting that others are completely wrong unless they comply? Careful, it's a trick.

Buddy

 

Ah Buddy, you can't kid a kidder. I'll side with free speech every time, no matter how much it disgusts me. What I will also do is side with free speech and other personal protections against those who would seek to rob them from others. In other words, I personally won't tolerate those who seek to interject their own personal beliefs onto the lives of others through force. This seems like human moral rule number one to me. Precluding homosexuals from forming the type of union they see fit is an abuse of their rights imposed on them by mob rule. No one has a right to not be offended btw. Others are free to their disagreements, but they should not be free to impose their opinions via the legal system as they do now.

 

Note: Here's the first time I noticed using the word "should" that I've been accused of abusing.

Vigile,

'By force', I assume, means political action by a minority to manipulate the law toward personal ends, justified by a narrow agenda. Kind of like using the US constitution in a fashion not envisioned by the authors and contrary to their expressed intent. Yes, I know that objection. Unless you can persuade me that's not what is currently going on, I'll just agree with the premise but probably disagree with what your application might look like.

 

While I can't help but agree that free speech is the preferred environment, we must note that oppression has long been the friend of genuine conviction. Perhaps had the church been repressed in the western world as it was elsewhere, it would have been extraordinarily different as a result. While I can't recommend getting shot at, it certainly does separate the wishers from the doers. There'd be a whole lot fewer do-nothing wannabes.

Buddy

[Grandpa Harley]

TBH, the Church was only 'supressed' elsewhere because it came in like the Borg and as a tool of the invaders. Effectively, they were the running dogs of the invaders, trying to grab souls for 'The Empire' most of time, but a lot of the time they were the architects of the horrors seen... They were suppressed for damned good reason. I really have problems being sympathetic to missionaries getting slotted in some third world hell, since a lot of the time, they're reaping pretty much what was sowed for a number of generations.

[Kuroikaze]

TBH, the Church was only 'supressed' elsewhere because it came in like the Borg and as a tool of the invaders. Effectively, they were the running dogs of the invaders, trying to grab souls for 'The Empire' most of time, but a lot of the time they were the architects of the horrors seen... They were suppressed for damned good reason. I really have problems being sympathetic to missionaries getting slotted in some third world hell, since a lot of the time, they're reaping pretty much what was sowed for a number of generations.

 

This is very true, in Japan for instance Christianity was outlawed by the shogunate (in the 16th century I believe) Foreign Christians were kicked out and many converts were killed. Sad for sure, but politically it was probably the best choice they could have made in the circumstance.

 

The Shogunate wasn't stupid, they could see that in many other countries the westerners had used Christianity as a precursor to taking political and social control, often resulting in a total destruction of their way of life. Japan would be a very different country today if that choice had not been made.

[bush country]

The issue is Buddy, with the bible quotes I made, whilst you have a different interpretation,

You may not have been aware that fundamentalists numbered only around 61,000 per the last US Census statistical abstract. We have 200,000,000+ adults, 160,000,000 Christians, and you're quoting the least viable, least representative sliver of Christianity. You're quoting people who don't show up once in a thousand. There are probably more people here that think they've been abducted by aliens.

 

There are nuts who take it all too seriously, just as you say. Their mental tendencies have nothing to do with Christianity; they're just irrational for now, and perhaps will outgrow their aberrations eventually. Meanwhile, whatever cause comes along, they'll run with it, be it religious or political or whatever.

 

I have to say as a former fundamentalist, dismissing fundamentalist Christians as nut jobs is a little simple minded...which seems to be your main problem (that is you seem to paint Christian groups you don't agree with in very broad strokes.)

 

I also think your number of 61,000 is VERY conservative...remember poles only show what people CALL themselves. Many people who don't call themselves fundamentalist are pretty fundy. Some call themselves Evangelicals, but there is no difference between the two in any practical way. I have a few litmus test questions I would ask of someone. If, for instance, they are against gay marriage I would pretty much consider them a fundy. If they believe having sex outside of marriage is ALWAYS wrong, they are probably a fundy. If they think this is a Christian nation, they are probably a fundy.

 

I also think you are naive if you think fundies, even as a minority, could not take control of the government. Nazis were a minority in Germany but took control, any minority group that is loud enough and well organized enough could take advantage of the right situation to take control of the government. I'm not saying they will in this country for certain, but it is a possibility we need to consider.

 

Not that it matters to the way the conversation has gone for the few days I've been away but I'd like to know what one has to believe to be a fundamentalist christian. The 61,000 sounded way low to me. Here are some numbers a five minute web search turned up...

 

Southern Baptist membership, US, for 2005 - 16,600,000.

Data source: The Southern Baptist Convention

 

Ok, maybe the SBC not fundamental enough. Guess they are classified as evangelical.

 

Assembly of God, USA

Members: 1,627,932

Constituency: 2,836,174 (identify themselvs as AoG, but may not be members)

Data source: Assembly of God/USA statistical report

 

Didn't yet find the numbers for Pentecostals, Church of Christ, Mennonites, Amish, Hutterites, etc.

[BuddyFerris]

Not that it matters to the way the conversation has gone for the few days I've been away but I'd like to know what one has to believe to be a fundamentalist christian. The 61,000 sounded way low to me. Here are some numbers a five minute web search turned up...

 

Southern Baptist membership, US, for 2005 - 16,600,000.

Data source: The Southern Baptist Convention

 

Ok, maybe the SBC not fundamental enough. Guess they are classified as evangelical.

 

Assembly of God, USA

Members: 1,627,932

Constituency: 2,836,174 (identify themselvs as AoG, but may not be members)

Data source: Assembly of God/USA statistical report

 

Didn't yet find the numbers for Pentecostals, Church of Christ, Mennonites, Amish, Hutterites, etc.

Jump in the middle, Tex, and flail around with the rest of us.

We were quibbling over the definition of fundamentalism, which in common usage includes a fundamental set of beliefs with their interpretations, PLUS (and here's the sticking point) plus intolerance for any other interpretation or perspective.

 

Now while the Southern Baptists can be a priggish bunch from some points of view, they don't really qualify these days. I'll admit that they used to, though. Back in the 50's it was not uncommon to come away from church thinking you were the only ones going to heaven. AoG are a conservative bunch but they're wide open to other denominations both in cooperative efforts and cross denominational fellowship. The figures we used early on (61K self-identified fundamentalists) were from the US Census Bureau's statistical abstract.

 

Continuing the dialog, we kind of came to the conclusion that Kuroikaze is pretty much opposed to vocal Christians in general, and considers the majority to be fundamentalists or equivalent.

Vigile, on the other hand, is opposed to political action by a minority to manipulate the law toward personal ends, justified by their own narrow agenda. Unless it's atheists doing it which is fine, because it's not the same when atheists do it.

GrandpaHarley doesn't distinguish between the fundamentalists and other Christians as they are all the dogs of the invaders, responsible for most of history's atrocities. This despite the body count from atheistic totalitarian regimes which exceeds all others combined.

 

The above paragraph is written for the sake of provoking thought. As in many of the judgments passed here, I've ignored or overstated facts, I've impugned motives, and I've oversimplified the grand sweep of historical events. Kuroikaze is actually fairly clear on how Christianity has treated him and others, and he sees evidence of the same extended into society. It bothers him genuinely. Vigile is politically and culturally astute, and most importantly he's thoughtful about the multifaceted dilemma. GrandpaH is perhaps clearer than the rest of us on the significance of the smaller elements and their impact on social change. Not a wicked heart in the bunch, nor an uninformed mind. The thought I'd like to provoke is your presentation of opinion to someone like me or even a new subscriber to the forum. You needn't follow up, of course. Your purpose here isn't for my benefit at all, nor would I presume to task you with such; I'd be a poor correspondent if I didn't respond honestly, though. Some arguments are truly helpful; some are like the above; omission or overstatement of facts, exaggeration of intent and culpability, and so on. The dogged inability to concede a point, however minor, suggests a participation in the same mental gymnastics so abhorred in your opponents. I've caught myself doing the same kind of things.

 

The above has been in the back of my mind for a while. In considering whether or not to send this to the board, I figured you guys know me well enough by now that you understand this isn't a put-down; it's a critique of our ability to exchange thoughts and ideas with real understanding. Doing so is my goal, and not necessarily yours, so you needn't do anything with this. A few insults will be an adequate response.

With respect and admiration for each of you, along with my genuine appreciation for your being willing to engage in conversation,

Buddy

[Grandpa Harley]

"GrandpaHarley doesn't distinguish between the fundamentalists and other Christians as they are all the dogs of the invaders, responsible for most of history's atrocities. This despite the body count from atheistic totalitarian regimes which exceeds all others combined."

 

Bullshit. You'll be saying the holocaust didn't happen next... lack of prussian blue...

[Grandpa Harley]

Or we could swallow what you're trying to shovel, the Christians have always been apolitical innocents abroad, accidentally blamed for those nasty Atheists who run the western world from behind the scenes... Damn that Adam Weishaupt and the ZOG, eh?