Are The Religious Moderates Better Than The Fundies?

[Open_Minded]

She remained silent because, in this case, her working with the liberal christian could be seen as "supporting" christianity in general (my guess). Unfortunately, I'd be willing to be your student was better off not having an atheist chime in for exact same reason though. It would have, in my opinion, instantly shut off any dialog as the fundamentalist mindset is already one that "atheists are evil" so anyone that agrees with them must be wrong.

 

I think it's great he tried to do the article, don't get me wrong. That's exactly the type of stuff that needs to be done (and even more if possible).

 

We agree here - Skankboy....

 

More of this kind of thing needs to be done ... .but in order for it to happen we have to get beyond our own biases. She may have been concerned about "supporting" Christianity in general - but that's her bias - and it interfered. The article would have been in a campus newspaper on a pretty liberal university campus. My guess (knowing the campus) is that an article highlighting the different liberal points of view - both theological and sectarian - would have been well received.

 

We all have biases - every one of us. And the fundies are leading the charge because they play to the biases and we cave in.

 

The reason I've been so insistent in this thread is because (not only am I tired of being stereotyped as a person) but - in the larger sense - I'm tired of biases getting in the way of working towards change. I deal with this all the time in interfaith dialog - we should be working together for change in the larger culture - but we're remaining silent because we're concerned about how it might look if we speak out together. (sigh)...

 

It's not just atheists and agnostics - we all do it. But, there is an attitude amongst the interfaith group I'm involved in that it's not even worth taking the time to ask two groups of people to get involved in social campaigns. Those two groups are Atheists/Agnostics and Muslims. Both groups - every time their asked - turn us down.

[Amethyst]

Do you mean in the general sense of everyday living where nobody is getting hurt? If so, it seems the logical implications would mean that:

• if you don't contribute to a thread on these forums you agree by default with your silence.
  
• if you don't activate against Christianity in your country and throughout the world you agree with it by default with your silence. These forums hardly count as activating against Christianity.
  
• ad infinitum
  

In other words, you are claiming that silence is taking on a responsibility. How does this correspond with the general atheist position that the burden of proof regarding God's existence is the responsibility of the person who claims God exists? With this statement we are saying silence is not taking on responsibility.

 

 

I agree with Ruby. Here is yet another example. So many of us have to remain silent to avoid family strife. Should we then invite family strife and ostracism by being rude to those in our families who are still fundamentalists, and always arguing with them vehemently whenever they bring up religion, despite how much it may hurt non-fundamentalists in the family? Sometimes you have to pick your battles.

 

I also agree that these forums are hardly taking action against fundamentalism. I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of people who post here feel they cannot take action due to living in an area where there is discrimination, sometimes extreme discrimination, against non-Christians. How can we expect people to be willing to speak up when they might well lose their job, their home, or their marriage? I do not think it is fair to expect them to take action when they might lose everything as a result.

[R. S. Martin]

Gramps, I think you missed this post.

 

This thread has gone wild so it's easy to miss something but I'm really interested in your answer.

 

Silence by default is enabling by default...

 

I'm trying to understand the logical implications of this position. Under what circumstances do you consider their silence to be enabling by default. Did you read the article I linked in the OP? In that case, they are most definitely enablers.

 

Do you mean in the general sense of everyday living where nobody is getting hurt? If so, it seems the logical implications would mean that:

• if you don't contribute to a thread on these forums you agree by default with your silence.
  
• if you don't activate against Christianity in your country and throughout the world you agree with it by default with your silence. These forums hardly count as activating against Christianity.
  
• ad infinitum
  

In other words, you are claiming that silence is taking on a responsibility. How does this correspond with the general atheist position that the burden of proof regarding God's existence is the responsibility of the person who claims God exists? With this statement we are saying silence is not taking on responsibility.

 

You can't have your cake and eat it, too. If silence is not taking on a responsibility when it comes to atheists having to prove God's nonexistence, then perhaps it is not taking on a responsibility for Christians when they do not to activate against fundnamentalist religion.

 

If I am missing your point, perhaps you will clarify. You know I think you're a good guy. I don't agree with your position on how that fifteen year old girl should have been handled but over-all you're okay in my book, Gramps.

 

I see Amethyst has responded to part of this post, which should also be taken into consideration, i.e. causing strife within families by raising religious issues in family gatherings in order not to be enablers of fundamentalism. I don't think you would agree that this is ethical.

[GraphicsGuy]

In regards to the overall topic title "Are The Religious Moderates Better Than The Fundies?" it really does depend on the person. That's the case on any subject.

 

I'm finding that I am dealing with more and more religious moderates lately and I would far rather deal with them than with the fundies. At least the moderates are NICE and they accept me as I am...that's all I really care about. Even if I don't understand the "why" of what they believe, I really don't care if they believe or not.

 

As I said, I'm running into more and more of them...OM, soj, my parents, two on YouTube, the Unitarian Universalists I've met, and I'm sure there are more that I know...we just haven't talk of faith/belief yet.

 

Nobody is going to stop religion overnight so I would hardly consider anyone to be an "enabler". It's really a shame the moderates can't take a different name, because the fundies have soiled the name "Christian" for far too many.

 

Maybe the fundies should start calling themselves "Paulites"...???

[white_raven23]

But, there is an attitude amongst the interfaith group I'm involved in that it's not even worth taking the time to ask two groups of people to get involved in social campaigns. Those two groups are Atheists/Agnostics and Muslims. Both groups - every time their asked - turn us down.

 

 

The problem I have with Moderates, not only do the best of them encourage people to tolerate religious extremists by extension (as I posed in the peanut gallery thread). But they seek to rework christianity into something more palatable for people in this modern age of tolerance.

 

Why is that a problem?

 

Well, how many times has it been done? HOW many versions of christianity are there again? How many times has the religion undergone reforms?

 

My point is....it's been done. And re-done. And done OVER. But the core problem with christianity remains. It is still based on an intolerant and flawed book.

 

It doesn't matter how many coats of paint you slap on a bucket, or how ornate or sturdy you craft it's handle, so long as there's a hole in the bottom it's never going to carry water!

 

So modernists carry on the work of all the reformists that ever came before them. And ultimately....we still wind up having christianity. A "new" and "improved" christianity.....but HOW improved? Even the Fundamentalists who claim to take a literal interpretation of the bible are "improved", after all....the fundies of the past persecuted unto death those people they labelled "witches" and "heretics". So....not killing other people outright is a successful "reform", but killing people slowly by inches through hatred and intolerance continues. And true, the Modernists are working for tolerance, which is great, but how much success is really possible when both the Fundies and the Mods are STILL both workng from the same book?

[Alice]

OK, this is something I've briefly alluded to in either this thread or the CINO peanut gallery ... and is something I've been thinking about quite a bit today. I don't know if the way I'm thinking is correct and O_M and Soj, I'd welcome your input here because I don't know if I'm on the right track ...

 

It strikes me that the view that liberal Christianity is watered down fundamentalism isn't necessarily reflective of the situation.

 

I know its what literalists think of liberalism and this is banded as an insult, but isn't liberalism a completely different way of thinking? ....

 

 

In terms of having a moderating effect the influence of fundamentalism within the wider Church - I accept this aspect of liberalism ... but outside of this, in terms of belief systems are we actually talking about a single continuum with no religious belief at one end, liberals in the middle and fundamentalists at the other end? I'm not sure that we are.

 

I mean - we are making the assumption here that someone who believes in the power that can be derived from metaphors would move to literal beliefs if they became more extremeist ... but why are we thinking this? Fundamentalism to my mind denotes a mind set where only one world view is seen as valid and at the extreme ends they are willing to impose this world view on others with increasing levels of violence.

 

Is it likely that an extreme liberal christian would attempt to enforce extreme metaphors and open mindedness on others with force?

[R. S. Martin]

It's irrational to claim that not only atheists are welcome here, but anyone of the ex Christian persuasion, be it deist, pantheist, buddhist, spiritualist, etc... and then to dog on those who use the Christian label, but who are obviously not Christian in the sense of the word from that which we escaped.

 

I have heard other deists questioned here, though not many. I remember Thur getting grilled about his Nordic religion before. Though the grilling of deists are not as strong as for xtians.

 

In other words, why is it ok to be irrational about the belief in Satanism on this board, for example, but it is not ok for somene like OM to choose her own very inoffensive, IMO, definition of Christianity?

 

Irrational is irrational. The reason they are not pounced on is because the focus is on ex-c people, not atheists. People jump on anyone with a xtian label because xtianity has harmed so many.

 

Accepting her is not a popularity contest, it's being consistant with the way we treat other exers on this board. I've never seen OM make a claim. She has, on occasion when asked, shared her perspective, but in a non confrontational, IMHO sort of way.

 

The only reason "I" accept both OM and Soj is "not" any form of agreement with them. I most certainly feel they are wrong. However, like Thur, who does NOT push his beliefs on people, neither do they. Plus they show understanding for the ex-c point of view.

 

Pascal's wager holds sway over a lot of people. Timid, emotional people tend to be victim to it more so then stronger willed people. Even if it is *only* subconscious, pascal's wager I see as being strong in them both.

 

It's like this, they discard nearly all of the dogma of xtianity, but fall short of the total de-conversion mark due to pascal's wager, and that alone. It is a phase, or stage of their learning process. It's kinda like, "I will say and beleve whatever I want, as long as I claim xtiainty, I will be OK".

 

The bottom line is really where did they get xtianity from in the first place?

We ALL get it hand me down. We do. And it comes from the book. There is no historical evidence to support their claims, nor scientific. It is like superstition in a way, like not walking under a ladder, or letting a black cat cross your path. There is no religion behind either of those beliefs, but some rational people still believe them.

 

Xtianity originates from the bible, the RCC chose which books you are allowed to have in it, and *they* edited it throughout time to suit their needs. To take a book with such "shady" origins, and pick it to tiny little pieces, disregarding the VAST majority of it, and holding on to so little of it, is grasping at straws. Deep inside I think they know this.

 

I believe they BOTH hang out here, and get along so well with us because they are actually ONE of us. They just have not found the courage and will power to overcome it.

 

I notice time and again, even in checkmate's debate, that OM tends to answer with book-sized responses. I might even get one for this. Really, if you cannot make logical sense about your position without writing a book, then your beliefs are truly found "wanting". Common sense and logic, rational thought, never needs elaborate long winded explanations.

 

Sooner or later they both will see what so many have tried to tell them at this site. It is only a matter of time. I honestly feel strongly we will eventually be reading BOTH of their de-conversion testimonies eventually, they may not agree with that, but I am willing to take side wagers that at least ONE will either vanish from this site, or write a de-conversion testimony within one year of today. Any takers? Winner can be paid by paypal. Accepting any amount for the wager.

 

That's called "Michael's Wager" lol Pascal, eat your heart out!

 

Pot calling kettle black? You're not short on words yourself, you bastard.

 

Now if you had actually read--and absorbed/digested--all of OM's posts and had some kind of intuitive sense for picking up genuine sincerity you would know that Open-Minded is anything but weak. Few people have stood up for their beliefs through thick and thin as she has this past week or so. She has done so with finesse. I disagree with the basic tenents of the Christian religion but I agree with the work she is doing in striving to unite humanity with human understanding and compassion. Because a large population of humans are Christian and will respond only to Christian leaders, we NEED people like OM.

 

Open_Minded is a badly needed bridge in our society. By being a member on these forums and also a member in our society's dominant religion, she bridges a very deep and all-but-unbridgeable gulf in our society. So in answer to the question of the OP of this thread, it seems that moderate or liberal Christians are fine so long as they are sincere in who they are and in touch with their feelings, if they know what they stand for and do so with conviction.

 

I think this is why I have so much respect for my thesis supervisor. He knows what he believes and he stands up for what he believes. As a human being, he also has limited knowledge and he admits those limits quite readily. He can give book-length answers if that is what is needed or he can give concise one-sentence answers if that is what is needed. And when he knew that I, as an atheist, needed support against my fundamentalist family's misinterpretation of scripture, he volunteered his educated interpretation of that scripture.

 

That's two examples of moderate/liberal Christians lending their support and help where it is needed at cost to themselves. The article linked in the OP speaks of moderate religionists who are so nice every day of the week but when it comes to helping a person in need they're just not there. By their silence they are enablers, just like Gramps is saying. My guess is, those moderates are not in touch with their feelings and don't care for anyone outside their own skins. All they want is lovey-dovey feel-good religion; enough religion to keep them out of hell but not enough to actually hamper their everyday life too much.

 

That's basically what I'm getting out of this thread so far. Thanks for all your contributions. Yeah, it got rather heated. Friends and foes got made, it seems. I hadn't counted on that but I guess I should have foreseen it when I started such a hot topic. All I was thinking of was the article of that Muslim girl fleeing for her life and some stray comments made here and there on these forums. Okay, feel free to continue the discussion folks.

[Grandpa Harley]

Gramps, I think you missed this post.

 

This thread has gone wild so it's easy to miss something but I'm really interested in your answer.

 

Silence by default is enabling by default...

 

I'm trying to understand the logical implications of this position. Under what circumstances do you consider their silence to be enabling by default. Did you read the article I linked in the OP? In that case, they are most definitely enablers.

 

Do you mean in the general sense of everyday living where nobody is getting hurt? If so, it seems the logical implications would mean that:

• if you don't contribute to a thread on these forums you agree by default with your silence.
  
• if you don't activate against Christianity in your country and throughout the world you agree with it by default with your silence. These forums hardly count as activating against Christianity.
  
• ad infinitum
  

In other words, you are claiming that silence is taking on a responsibility. How does this correspond with the general atheist position that the burden of proof regarding God's existence is the responsibility of the person who claims God exists? With this statement we are saying silence is not taking on responsibility.

 

You can't have your cake and eat it, too. If silence is not taking on a responsibility when it comes to atheists having to prove God's nonexistence, then perhaps it is not taking on a responsibility for Christians when they do not to activate against fundnamentalist religion.

 

If I am missing your point, perhaps you will clarify. You know I think you're a good guy. I don't agree with your position on how that fifteen year old girl should have been handled but over-all you're okay in my book, Gramps.

 

I see Amethyst has responded to part of this post, which should also be taken into consideration, i.e. causing strife within families by raising religious issues in family gatherings in order not to be enablers of fundamentalism. I don't think you would agree that this is ethical.

Proof of an inconsistent and illogical 'God' being laid at the feet of the claimant is not the same as not telling some red neck idiot in your congregation to shut his yap since he don't speak for you! To mix the two is muddying the water IMO... They claim the cult, then they can take responsibility for the actions of other people in the cult. It's not the same as blaming all black people for Chris Rock, it's more placing their position that 'church is family'... well, it's time they locked some of the nutters in the attic and took their place as the majority view...

 

Seems to me that the Acts of Pilate should be reintroduced into Canon, since that's what the liberal Christians largely do... or come here and bleat about the wonders of Liberal Chrisitanity like there is such a thing as a Good Nazi... (Godwin!!!)

[sojourner]

Hi Alice

 

I think you hit on what I was saying as well. Extremism is in all areas of religion and non-religion.

 

That is what I think OM, myself and most of you here have in common, is a dislike for extremism no matter the flavor.

 

I refuse to be force fed others interpretations of the bible, or any book for that matter or any religion and even non-religion. I have always been a rebel at heart. My husband and those that know me know they cannot fence me in and they give me the room I need to explore. I think that is what you all sense in OM and myself and so you wont find either one of us trying to force our views on anyone here.

 

One of my favorite authors is Bede Griffiths, he is too liberal for most of my friends but for me he totally inspires me. The thing about

Bede that I can see in OM is that he was willing to humble himself and enter into a religious system in order to work within that system to bring about reform and more freedom. His influence has spread far and wide. Here he felt called to go thru catholicism to become a catholic monk so he could make his way to India and live adopting the culture in an ashram for the rest of his life building bridges of communication between christians and hindus. He saw the beauty in their religion along with many other religions and wrote numerous books on interfaith relationships. He never felt it was his call to evangelize India but to love her and know her intimately.

 

I see OM has a heart like that. God is just to big to folks like that to be contained in some set of creeds and I can relate very much to that heart.

 

sojourner

[Grandpa Harley]

Christianity, in all it's forms, seems to be a prosletyzing cult.

 

Is this a 'true' statement?

[sojourner]

I think in some ways yes that stmt is true for many in christianity Grandpa, but not for everyone.

 

Honestly there are many folks that when they die like Bede that I mentioned, hindus that knew him thought he lived and died a wonderful hindu, christians that knew him intimately thought he lived and died a wonderful christian. Acutually he wrote on all kinds of religions and felt he found truth in every one that he studied.

 

there are 'christians' that are not out to prosletyze the world but rather to know God thru this worlds many cultures, religions and arts.

 

Those folks could never fit into a 'form', a 'cult' nor be categorized as prosletyzers imho because even though they may identify with one particular religion more than others they can see truths in all of them. So rather than be prosletyzers they merely commune with folks.

 

sojourner

[sojourner]

Michael,

 

I honestly dont see myself deconverting but where I will be in my beliefs seeing I am so willing to question, seek, study and challange things, who knows? I surely dont.

 

But I will say this. If I recall Pascals Wager is about leaving the door cracked so that in case there is a very real hell you havent totally closed the door on God. I do not believe in eternal torment. So I honestly dont think that is inside my heart, if it is, its well hidden from me and only apparent to you.

 

I wrestle with things and that is what I love about you all here. You give me the freedom to read your journeys, glean from your previous wrestlings and learn while you continue to challange me in ways no one else does. That is priceless to me.

 

Anyways, who knows, I never say never anymore, but at this time in my life God is much to real and vast to be left behind.

 

sojourner

[Grandpa Harley]

Pascal's wager is more a gamble on everyone but Christianity is wrong... which is the problem with it... in the end, if you look at it logically (alien concept but bear with it...) Gambling there is no god is no worse than gambling there is a God and he's Christian...

[Open_Minded]

(Open_Minded @ Dec 20 2007, 08:41 AM) *But, there is an attitude amongst the interfaith group I'm involved in that it's not even worth taking the time to ask two groups of people to get involved in social campaigns. Those two groups are Atheists/Agnostics and Muslims. Both groups - every time their asked - turn us down.

The problem I have with Moderates, not only do the best of them encourage people to tolerate religious extremists by extension (as I posed in the peanut gallery thread). But they seek to rework christianity into something more palatable for people in this modern age of tolerance.

 

Hello White Raven -

 

You know I respect you and I accept your position. This entire thread has aired my opinion - and then some .....

 

On, these things we will probably never agree...

 

But, here's the thing - and it's what I was addressing when I responded to Skankboy (whom I also respect a great deal). We don't have to agree on these things to work together in the larger culture.

 

If there is a social issue that we both agree on - then sometimes it works in favor of that social issue to take public stands TOGETHER.

 

Fundies - of all shapes and sizes - are having their way with the world because the rest of us not only remain silent - when we do speak up we don't do it together. We don't work together - it's the oldest trick in the book "divide and conquer". President Bush is a master at it - he used fundy religious issues to pull the fundies in - he knew damned well the liberals would never organize and work together against that - and he was right.

 

His campaigns were filled with "family values" rhetoric - and all the liberals who complained about it - did their complaining solo. If we had all pulled together and worked together to show the diversity of liberal points of view we might have stood 1/2 a chance. But no... that would mean Atheists and Agnostics and Liberal Christians, and Liberal Jews, and Buddhists, and Liberal Hindus, etc... all actually working together to shut them up .... and to do that we'd have to transcend our own bias....

 

And human beings that we are - we haven't been able to do that. I have hope that in time we will - but right now we haven't been able to truly transcend our own prejudices long enough to work together for common good.

 

 

Alice:

 

It strikes me that the view that liberal Christianity is watered down fundamentalism isn't necessarily reflective of the situation.

First - thank you for your regular level-headed responses on this thread. I do appreciate them.

 

This one statement hits the nail on the head... one of the things that has bothered me consistently is this idea that as a liberal Christian I'm just a softer/gentler fundy.

 

Words like "intellectual dishonesty" also sting....

 

Liberal Christianity has nothing to do with fundamentalism. It's not intellectually dishonest to read the Bible taking into account archeology, form criticism, historical context, etc..... This is how any liberal reads and studies the Bible - the same way any scholar reads and studies any ancient literature. Reading the Bible this way is a lot of things - but it is NOT intellectually dishonest - if anything it is the ONLY intellectually HONEST way to read the Bible.

 

This one topic alone could suck up an entire thread - and I don't have the time to delve into it as deeply as I'd like. But, I've seen Ruby hit this very point many times in discussing the school she attends and the professors she's learning the Bible from. In going after fundies on this board - this way of studying the Bible is used to take down a fundy, literalistic view point. But, when I use this same way to study and read the Bible then I'm suddenly "intellectually dishonest". It's a puzzle to me ...

 

At any rate - Alice - your assessment is on target. I don't see my approach to Christianity having anything to do with the literalism that is so prevalent in Fundamentalism. It's like night and day - and a completely different world view.

[Legion]

I’m going to heaven Lieutenant Dan. –Forest Gump

[Jedah]

Sorry- I only read the first page.

 

I honestly believe that moderate christianity doesnt exist. Ive grown up around christians all my life watching them through the eyes of a nonbeliever. Ive been to many churches. What really exist's is not fundy xian ->moderate xian-> liberal/apathetic xian. Id say its more like Fundy xian-> Fundy xian who wants to hide their true beliefs->liberal/apathetic xian . The reality is most "moderate christians" are really just fundies that want to hide their true beliefs because they dont want to be seen as either extreme. Its a social thing. By pretending to be neutral they gain the respect of both groups...

 

 

... but when it comes to something blatantly illogical like christianity you really either follow it like a sheep or have your doubts and/or dont care.

 

In other words: Most moderate christians are really just fundies who dont want to be seen as fundies because of the negative view many people have on fundamentalism . Its the same thing as people who stay quiet during a college philosophy class debate. Do they have no opinion ? Of course they do. They just dont want to be seen on either side.

 

You could also call them "smart fundies". Fundies who have come to realize that non-fundies dont really give two shits about the stuff that flies out of their mouths, and have thus learned to shut it.

[Alice]

Jedah,

 

I would encourage you to take the time to read the rest of this thread.

 

The map you have made may not be the territory ....

 

Comparing the different ways we all 'see' the world is a useful and enlightening exercise.

[Amethyst]

In other words: Most moderate christians are really just fundies who dont want to be seen as fundies because of the negative view many people have on fundamentalism . Its the same thing as people who stay quiet during a college philosophy class debate. Do they have no opinion ? Of course they do. They just dont want to be seen on either side.

 

With respect, I have to disagree. When I was in my moderate/liberal stage of Christianity, I did not believe in the same thing as fundies. I was a cherry picker, like most are, until I realized I wasn't being honest with myself by believing in the part of my religion that was warm and fuzzy, but not the parts I didn't like. Most regular Christians I know are like that -- believing in only the warm and fuzzy parts, and they go to church because that's where their social life is. They just haven't realized that the world doesn't end if they can admit to themselves if they don't really believe it, and that the more accurate label for their beliefs is really universalist, deist, agnostic, atheist or whatever.

[Legion]

Alice you are always so kind and diplomatic. I like it.

[Grandpa Harley]

Comparing the different ways we all 'see' the world is a useful and enlightening exercise.

 

 

Although the pet liberal isn't above Ad Hom when it suits her... which says a lot but then I'm evil incarnate... I'd have moved St. Francis to violence and swearing...

[Legion]

but then I'm evil incarnate...

Bullshit Gramps. You’re a candy with a soft creamy center and a hard bastard coating.

[Grandpa Harley]

Feh! You grinning loon...

[Grandpa Harley]

Incidentally, saying Ex-C's don't do anything is specious and spreading blame... (which I established OM dislikes... nothing like a devil's advocate 'It's not MY fault... they're to blame' to root out the essential hypocrisy... but I'm callous, not calculating... )

[Antlerman]

Good god. I just haven't had the time to read much on-line latey and I discover this. Page after page. I feel really sad about this. I try my best to post a voice of moderation from the atheist perspective. OM, not only has earned my personal respect intellectually, she has also won my my personal friendship. Jumping on someone for the label Chrisitian is to me as distateful as the fundamentalist damning those who are identified as Gay. It violates the human spirt of both mind and heart. It leaves me limp.

 

Fundamentalism is the problem. It begins and ends with the individual and the choice to either move beyond this sort of crap, or to go to fucking war.

 

I'm sick of it.

[Legion]

Say it again Antlerman.