Fundamentalist Christianity

[beedubaya]

I was raised Fundamentalist Christian but as I have become more educated through high school and college, I am starting to see through this religion. I am starting to see Fundamentalist Christianity as anything BUT true Christianity. Here are the huge issues I have with it.

1. They continually bash homosexuals and condemn them to hell yet they don't touch on other, more destructive sins such as coveting or marriage and divorce.

2. They try to make the case that George Bush was put in his position by God himself and if you don't support his policies, then you are not a Christian therefore will not go to heaven.

3. The preach that voting for the Democratic candidate will send one to hell because of the gay marriage issue, while Republicans support the big greedy corporations which is just as evil according to the Bible.

4. They make the case that the earth is only 6000 years old despite all the scientific evidence supporting otherwise. For some reason the six "days" of Creation MUST mean six literal days, while its okay for the word "day" to mean larger amounts of time in other places in the Bible.

5. Every story in the Bible is literal historical fact. The truth is, many stories in the Bible are in fact ancient Jewish literature. Believing Jonah and the Whale is literal fact is not much different than believing Homer's Odyssey is literal fact.

6. They say that ALL drinking of alcohol is sinful. How can this be when Jesus drank wine? The first think they will say is that the wine Jesus drank was really non-alcoholic grape juice. However, not until the Temperance movement and Reverend Charles Welch (Welch's Grape Juice) was making a non-fermented substitute possible. Fermentation was a natural process.

7. Continuing on alcohol, they preach that all positive mentions of wine is only grape juice, while any negative mention of it is the real, fermented stuff. If they are supposed to be taking the Bible as literal word for word fact, how can "wine" mean one thing in one place but something else in another? The idea that all drinking is a sin comes from the Temperance movement of the civil war era, NOT the Bible.

8. They say all gambling and games of chance are sinful, yet it says nothing about them in the Bible.

9. They require all men wear short hair and women cannot cut their hair. They say its sinful for a man to have long hair, but how can that be when Jesus himself had long hair?

10. They try to enforce their beliefs on others by acting self-righteous in public. My parents, who are fundamentalists, when offered wine at olive garden, they said "We don't drink that sinful drink, We are Christians" in a real stern voice.

I could go on and on with more stuff but I'm not going to. What experiences do others here have with Fundamentalist Christianity? I'm questioning my beliefs right now, but part of me feels like I'm going to go to hell for questioning it. I was taught growing up to accept it on faith and to question it was a path to hell.

How do I find out true religion? The faith of fundamentalism, while strong, does not have a strong foundation. Its not easy to accept another belief after giving that one up, but I am not ready to become an atheist or agnostic. Anybody have any comments?

[Toaster126]

I think Fundamental Christians are the biggest force in creating people who are against Christianity.

Being religious doesn't have to mean turning off your brain.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by beedubaya

9. They require all men wear short hair and women cannot cut their hair. They say its sinful for a man to have long hair, but how can that be when Jesus himself had long hair?

Jesus had long hair?

Yes, this is what happens to about 1/4-1/2 Christians when they leave home. Suddenly the dogma isn't reinforced by an authority figure and you're allowed to think fore yourself. You have to decide what's more important to you: dedicating your life to something that can't be proven reasonably at all and letting it control you, or turning your back on a fundamental part of your upbringing. It's not going to be an easy decisison, so choose wisely.

I chose the latter.

[beedubaya]

Originally Posted by willravel

Jesus had long hair?

Originally Posted by Toaster126

I think Fundamental Christians are the biggest force in creating people who are against Christianity.

Being religious doesn't have to mean turning off your brain.

I strongly agree.

[AVoiceOfReason]

I am what an outsider would call a "fundamentalist" because I look to the Bible as the source of fundamental truth. I am not a member of a denomination, but rather have associated myself with a local congregation of like-minded Christians. Therefore, I can't address your concerns in any way except what THIS Christian has seen, heard and taught. I think you may be setting up some strawmen in this list, but I'll take it at face value:

Originally Posted by beedubaya

I was raised Fundamentalist Christian but as I have become more educated through high school and college, I am starting to see through this religion. I am starting to see Fundamentalist Christianity as anything BUT true Christianity. Here are the huge issues I have with it.

1. They continually bash homosexuals and condemn them to hell yet they don't touch on other, more destructive sins such as coveting or marriage and divorce.

Not where I attend. We discuss all sorts of sins. We "bash" (your word, not mine) the sin, but a thief or an adulterer is in the same situation as the homosexual--in need of salvation which can only be attained through grace and obedience.

2. They try to make the case that George Bush was put in his position by God himself and if you don't support his policies, then you are not a Christian therefore will not go to heaven.

I've NEVER heard such a sermon, nor delivered one.

3. The preach that voting for the Democratic candidate will send one to hell because of the gay marriage issue, while Republicans support the big greedy corporations which is just as evil according to the Bible.

Again, never heard such, and probably never will, because the group I'm associated with doesn't involve itself with political parties. We do decry the positions some of our leaders take on sinful activity, but that teaching is reserved for the issue, not the party. And where do you find in the Bible that supporting "big greedy corporations is just as evil" as homosexual acts? It may be there, but I can't call it to mind and would like to know more on this point.

4. They make the case that the earth is only 6000 years old despite all the scientific evidence supporting otherwise. For some reason the six "days" of Creation MUST mean six literal days, while its okay for the word "day" to mean larger amounts of time in other places in the Bible.

I am a young Earth creationist, because I believe the physical evidence we have points toward such. And why couldn't the God that spoke us into existence do so in six days? While I'm at it, do you have a passage in mind where the Bible uses "day" as it is used in Genesis ("the morning and the evening" constituting a "day") and it does not refer to 24 hours?

5. Every story in the Bible is literal historical fact. The truth is, many stories in the Bible are in fact ancient Jewish literature. Believing Jonah and the Whale is literal fact is not much different than believing Homer's Odyssey is literal fact.

The problem with your example is that Jesus Himself spoke of the Jonah episode as fact. Matt. 12:39-40.

6. They say that ALL drinking of alcohol is sinful. How can this be when Jesus drank wine? The first think they will say is that the wine Jesus drank was really non-alcoholic grape juice. However, not until the Temperance movement and Reverend Charles Welch (Welch's Grape Juice) was making a non-fermented substitute possible. Fermentation was a natural process.

I don't think you're right on this. I believe the folks back in Jesus' time knew how to squeeze grapes (or other fruits) and drink the juice thereof without it going through the fermenation process. I'm not a Greek scholar (or Aramaic, for that matter) but I've read enough of it to know that at least one of the words can mean either fermented or non-fermented. My Vines book is at the house, and I'll try to remember to look when I get a chance.

7. Continuing on alcohol, they preach that all positive mentions of wine is only grape juice, while any negative mention of it is the real, fermented stuff. If they are supposed to be taking the Bible as literal word for word fact, how can "wine" mean one thing in one place but something else in another? The idea that all drinking is a sin comes from the Temperance movement of the civil war era, NOT the Bible.

I HAVE heard sermons that have equated the passing of alcohol through the lips as sin, but I do not agree with that position. However, from Proverbs (20:1 and 23:29) to Ephesians 5:18, we are instructed not to become intoxicated with wine (or strong drink). One can never sin in that area if one does not imbibe in the first place. I personally have never taught that one may not ever take a drink of alcohol; I've taught many times that drinking to excess is a sin, and it is better flee from temptations rather than walk up to them as closely as possible.

8. They say all gambling and games of chance are sinful, yet it says nothing about them in the Bible.

Agreed in the specific, but in principle, gambling is a form of coveting. It's unlike the worker that is worthy of his wages--an exchange of labor for money; gambling involves something for nothing.

9. They require all men wear short hair and women cannot cut their hair. They say its sinful for a man to have long hair, but how can that be when Jesus himself had long hair?

I'd really appreciate it if you'd show me the verses that tell us how long Jesus' hair was. The teaching in 1 Cor. 11:14 isn't hard to understand--men shouldn't look like women.

10. They try to enforce their beliefs on others by acting self-righteous in public. My parents, who are fundamentalists, when offered wine at olive garden, they said "We don't drink that sinful drink, We are Christians" in a real stern voice.

We'd agree that it is unnecessary to say that under those circumstances. But to judge the teachings of the Bible and fundamentalist Christianity from the failings of the adherents is unfair. What you're saying is that an individual, or group of people, didn't live up to the standards. Good--you recognize both the standard and where the follower has gone astray. It does not logically follow that one would therefore reject the standard.

I'm questioning my beliefs right now, but part of me feels like I'm going to go to hell for questioning it. I was taught growing up to accept it on faith and to question it was a path to hell.

I heard a wise preacher once tell this story. He met with a man that was married to a Christian. The man was very pleasant, but started the meeting by saying "I should tell you that I don't belief in God." My friend could have gone several way with this, but he took what I think was brilliant path. He said "I've thought about not believing in Him, too, but here's why I do. . . " Recognizing you have a question is not unhealthy--turning to sources other than the authority for answers would be.

How do I find out true religion?

By studying. By praying. By talking to others that have been on the same road you now find yourself on. But most of all, by deciding not to be blown about by every wind of doctrine concocted by man. If someone is teaching you something that is not in accordance with the whole teaching of the Bible, then you might want to ask why. For example, if someone looked at Mark 16:16 and said "well, I see what it says, but I don't believe baptism is necessary for salvation," that'd be a good time to try to figure out the agenda behind looking at plain language and saying it doesn't mean just what it says.

I'll stop now, and be glad to respond to you here or privately as you wish.

[Dilbert1234567]

Originally Posted by beedubaya

I was raised Fundamentalist Christian but as I have become more educated through high school and college, I am starting to see through this religion. I am starting to see Fundamentalist Christianity as anything BUT true Christianity.

welcome to the real world.

[Willravel]

Just fyi, Jesus (if he was real) wasn't european, and the pictures you see of him everywhere are painted and drawn by idiots. Jesus was likely what we would call Palestinian today, or possibly black. It's just as likely Jesus was asian or Native American as he was white.

[AVoiceOfReason]

Originally Posted by Toaster126

I think Fundamental Christians are the biggest force in creating people who are against Christianity.

Could be; the early church was very fundamental and there were many in the world who wanted to kill them. And Jesus said it would be so.

Being religious doesn't have to mean turning off your brain.

No. It does mean, though, that you have to turn off your "vain." Pride and vanity has no place in service to your Creator, and when one tries to out-think Him or put one's own ideas ahead of His directions, then the "vain" needs to be shut down.

[The_Jazz]

Originally Posted by willravel

Just fyi, Jesus (if he was real) wasn't european, and the pictures you see of him everywhere are painted and drawn by idiots. Jesus was likely what we would call Palestinian today, or possibly black. It's just as likely Jesus was asian or Native American as he was white.

Will, that's a little out of character for you. I added the emphasis to part of what you wrote, and I think that it's really difficult to catagorize some of the world's greatest artists as "idiots". They were simply trying to make Christ more appealing to their audience by making him look similar. Some of them were working out of ignorance, having never personally seen an Arab or anyone from the area. Neither reason is "idiotic" or anything of the sort. Those that chose to depict him in that fashion now generally do so because it's the accepted manner.

Also, Jesus was Asian. Check your globe.

Having never been a fundamentalist or even a regular church attended past about the age of 10, I really have nothing else to add to this thread.

[ratbastid]

REALLY interesting post, AVOR. I have a couple questions (or maybe "quibbles" is a better word).

Originally Posted by AVoiceOfReason

And where do you find in the Bible that supporting "big greedy corporations is just as evil" as homosexual acts? It may be there, but I can't call it to mind and would like to know more on this point.

I don't know about "just as evil"--is there a scale of sins?--but it definitely seems to me that some big business behavior is a form of coveting. Wouldn't you agree? Seems to me that if gambling is coveting, then the stock market is coveting, and most business is coveting.

Originally Posted by AVOR

I am a young Earth creationist, because I believe the physical evidence we have points toward such. And why couldn't the God that spoke us into existence do so in six days? While I'm at it, do you have a passage in mind where the Bible uses "day" as it is used in Genesis ("the morning and the evening" constituting a "day") and it does not refer to 24 hours?

I assume by "young Earth creationist" you mean that you believe that the earth was created in its present form and is circa 6000 years old? What physical evidence is there of that? That belief seems patently at odds with all the physical evidence I'm aware of.

Originally Posted by AVOR

The problem with your example is that Jesus Himself spoke of the Jonah episode as fact. Matt. 12:39-40.

Originally Posted by Matthew:12, KJV

38 Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.

39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:

40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

41 The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

I don't see Jesus saying, "You remember the story of Jonah? Dude, that totally happened." It's a metaphor. Guy taught in parables. He told stories to illustrate what he wanted to teach. I don't see any reason to think they're not made up, or that he might not draw on the mythological history of his people in his teachings.

Originally Posted by AVOR

We'd agree that it is unnecessary to say that under those circumstances. But to judge the teachings of the Bible and fundamentalist Christianity from the failings of the adherents is unfair. What you're saying is that an individual, or group of people, didn't live up to the standards. Good--you recognize both the standard and where the follower has gone astray. It does not logically follow that one would therefore reject the standard.

I think this may be the first time I've heard a Fundamentalist Christian talk that way. Thank you for acknowledging that people sometimes fail at applying their faith in the real world. I'm basically an atheist, and I've had a lot of bad feelings toward more strident (and non-Christ-like) Christians. What you've said here allows me to forgive them, and actually appreciate that they mean well, though they may not be doing well. So thank you for that.

[Daoust]

I agree with everything AVOR said in his orginal reply to the somewhat ignorant thread starter. There's nothing wrong with challenging fundamentalist Christians if you have actual facts to challenge us with.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Will, that's a little out of character for you. I added the emphasis to part of what you wrote, and I think that it's really difficult to catagorize some of the world's greatest artists as "idiots". They were simply trying to make Christ more appealing to their audience by making him look similar. Some of them were working out of ignorance, having never personally seen an Arab or anyone from the area. Neither reason is "idiotic" or anything of the sort. Those that chose to depict him in that fashion now generally do so because it's the accepted manner.

They were painting someone they believed to be a real person who actually lived, and they either assume that he's white, or they make him white? What is that, artistic licence? Are there pictures of Confusious as a black guy painted in Africa or pictures or King Aurthor painted as an asian (asian meaning from the race of people from East and Southeast Aisa, including but not limited to Chinese, Taiwanese, Filipino, Korean, Japanese, Malaysian, Indonesian, Vietnamese, Pakistani, Laotian, Thai, and Asian-Indian).

It is either a mistake (Jesus wasn't white?), fiction (what's an arab?), or an element of control by the church (muuhahaha!!). All of those things can be cleanly organized into the catagory or idiots in my book.

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Also, Jesus was Asian. Check your globe.

Ah, but the term 'asian' has different meanings, and in this case refers to those from south and southeast asia. From Dictionary.com definition of asian:

Asia is the largest of the continents with more than half the world's population. Though strictly speaking all of its inhabitants are Asians, in practice this term is applied almost exclusively to the peoples of East, Southeast, and South Asia as opposed to those of Southwest Asia—such as Arabs, Turks, Iranians, and Kurds—who are more usually designated Middle or Near Easterners. Indonesians and Filipinos are properly termed Asian, since their island groups are considered part of the Asian continent, but not the Melanesians, Micronesians, and Polynesians of the central and southern Pacific, who are now often referred to collectively as Pacific Islanders.

I hope that cleared it up for you.

[The_Jazz]

Will, to the best of my knowledge there was at best a bare minimum of attempts to convert Midieval Christians (which is what we're talking about after all) to Confusionism. Again, to the best of my knowledge, there is no religion associated with King Arthur and no attempts to gain support for the Round Table among Africans or Asians (whatever the definition may be). You may have contrary evidence, but I'm not aware of it.

If you're a Midieval artist (or a Rennaissance artist for that matter), how are you going to depict an Arab when you've never seen one?

I think you're being incredibly short-sited here since you're calling some of the greatest artists in history "idiots". That list includes Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Raphael and Giotto, just to mention the Italian ones. That's the arguement that I see you making, and it's absolute crap. Hence my initial confusion as to why someone of your intellect would even being to try to make it. Stop and think about what you're saying.

[host]

My opinion is that those who profess to be closest to Jesus.....to be on the one true path to salvation, have a history of violence in the name of their religious beliefs, and a consistent lack of evidence of results to justify claims of discernment through their faith.

The southern baptist pastors in the US approved of enslavement of negroes, because "the bible said.....", and they knew that the armed rebellion in the US in 1861 was blessed by God.

More recently the lack of discernment of US christian fundamentalists is evident by their overwhelming political choice of their "man of God", George W Bush.

Their pastors chose Ted Haggard to lead their national association of churches:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...9&postcount=16


I'm stuck on the questions of whether Adam and Eve had navels....
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/sermons/navel.html

....and where all of the water of the "great flood" that brought about the need for Noah's ark, came from....and then went.

More questions and debate here:
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/Thre...?action=tf&f=7

....and I posted this, earlier this year:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...an#post2097348
Remember the spectacle, last year, of the president and almost exclusively, the republican members of the house and senate, converging on Washington in the middle of the night....on a weekend...to pass and sign legislation that targeted the fate of one brain dead woman, Terri Schiavo?

Remember when U.S. presidents worked tirelessly to broker peace between Israel and it's neighbors in the middle east?

Consider the first veto of Mr. Bush's presidency....ending the longest period in history where a sitting president did not veto a single bill.....Bush's first veto was to prevent the passage of a bill that would have overturned a ban on government funding of stem cell research.

Consider the present U.S. government environmental protection and global warming policy, vs. the sharp contrast of former V.P. Al Gore's efforts that promote totally opposite policies on these issues.

I believe that it does not matter what Bush, Cheney, Rove, Frist, or Hastert, actually believe in their hearts. It seems to me that they have channeled and mined the political support of folks possessed with what passes for "sound" biblical interpretation, today in America's heartland. This politcal "base" includes a signifigant minority (as high as 40 percent of total voters) of adult Americans who tend to vote in disproportionally high numbers.....always for republican candidates who "share" their "values".

If your politics are not driven by your religious belief in an impending "rapture", are you comfortable with the coincidence of how closely your opinions match those of Christian fundamentalists?

If I wasn't living in these times where this is actually happening, I could never imagine that the votes of folks who believe that Israel must occupy all of the land that the Israelites held in the middle east in biblical history, so that a series of events can transpire that will incinerate nearly all Israelis and their opposing neighbors, so that the faithful can suddenly and imminently be "raptured", right out of their clothing...up into heaven, to sit for eternity, at the right hand of God.....could have such a profound and damaging influence on the makeup of all three of our federal branches of government, now.

When I sit in our sunday church service, or at the holiday dinner table with my wife and her family, I am the sole person in those gatherings who is not comforted by an unquestioning belief in the certainty of the soon to come rapture.

You may reflexively dismiss all of this, but it already effects the quality of the air you breathe, the water you drink, and you and your childrens' future. Is this agenda even "American"? Is it any different from the beliefs that cause the effects of fundamentalist Islamic government?

If you observe the near total support in U.S. government, media, and society, for Israel's current military response in the middle east this month, even in it's disproportionate harshness, and the present environmental and energy policy (or non-policy) of the U.S. government, if you don't agree that it is driven by Christian fundamentalist political influence, what do you think drives both of these policies....considering that both have changed so much since 2000?

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

If you're a Midieval artist (or a Rennaissance artist for that matter), how are you going to depict an Arab when you've never seen one?

Read a book maybe? Travel? There were Arabs in Europe even before 0 B.C., one could easily seek them out. The idea is that when you depict a historical character, you make SOME effort to make them look at least something like the original. Not doing so is massively lazy, and also ignorant as they assume the people who view their art are discerning enough to figure out that they are just painting some dude and calling him Jesus.

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

I think you're being incredibly short-sited here since you're calling some of the greatest artists in history "idiots". That list includes Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Raphael and Giotto, just to mention the Italian ones. That's the arguement that I see you making, and it's absolute crap. Hence my initial confusion as to why someone of your intellect would even being to try to make it. Stop and think about what you're saying.

I'm saying they were idiots. I've stopped, thought, and agreed with myself. Had they been trying to make a political statement painting or depicting Jesus as a white man, I'd call them each and all brilliant and way ahead of their time. The simple fact of the matter is that was not the case.

Also, just because someone can paint does not make them smart. It makes them talented or skillful, but not smart. Da Vinci would be the obvious exception, BUT eve though he was a brilliant inventor and free thinker, he can't figure out that Jesus wasn't white? It's ignorance and lazyness.

[fresnelly]

I imagine that the historically white representation of Jesus is more a result of the Patronage system, rather than the 'idiocy' of the artists themselves.

In other words, blame the Aristocracies and Theocracies who commissioned the works, rather than the Artists.

Hmm. Is an Artist who pursues a Platonic ideal through his medium while burdened with cultural solipsism, being an idiot or merely ignorant? Discuss.

[Ourcrazymodern?]

Ratbastid always speaks the truth.
I don't understand fundamentalism because I think fundaments are something we made up, once upon a time. Changing your beliefs is harder than changing your clothes, but if it needs to be done to make yourself more content I'd say go for it!

[The_Jazz]

Originally Posted by willravel

Read a book maybe? Travel? There were Arabs in Europe even before 0 B.C., one could easily seek them out. The idea is that when you depict a historical character, you make SOME effort to make them look at least something like the original. Not doing so is massively lazy, and also ignorant as they assume the people who view their art are discerning enough to figure out that they are just painting some dude and calling him Jesus.

That may be the idea NOW, but it wasn't then. You're looking at history (and art history in particular) with revisionist glasses. What started out as a tool for recruitment turned into the standard of the day and then tradition. By the time the Renassiance rolled around, I'm sure most artists didn't even give it thought. After all, most of them were working without access to most of the information we have today about the actual conditions in Palestine at the birth of Christ. If you've ever taken an historigraphy course, you know what I mean. Accurate histories are a very recent invention.

Originally Posted by willravel

I'm saying they were idiots. I've stopped, thought, and agreed with myself. Had they been trying to make a political statement painting or depicting Jesus as a white man, I'd call them each and all brilliant and way ahead of their time. The simple fact of the matter is that was not the case.

Also, just because someone can paint does not make them smart. It makes them talented or skillful, but not smart. Da Vinci would be the obvious exception, BUT eve though he was a brilliant inventor and free thinker, he can't figure out that Jesus wasn't white? It's ignorance and lazyness.

Here's what I don't get - you're admitting that any artist that depicted Jesus as an Arab (or anything other than white) would be "way ahead of their time", yet you've cast the entirety of artists from Medieval times up to about 30-40 years ago as "idiots". Any artist that did anything "lazy" or "ignorant" according to your definition is resigned to idiocy, and I just can't accept that in any way, shape or form. You may not like the fact that it was the practice of the day, but that in no way makes the artists in question idiots. Are you going to find it acceptable if I say that anyone who didn't accept gay marriage as an exact equal to heterosexual marriage AND go against the grain to make a reality an idiot? That would include lots of very smart people who are dead, including Kennedy, Edison and Einstein. So, are some of the brightest minds ever idiots because they don't agree with you (who has the benefit of hindsight and a worldview that encompasses the globe instead of a city)? What may be the accepted practice of the future in no way condemns those in the past.

Basically it seems to me that you're practicing the same bigotry that you find so distasteful in Fundamentalists.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

That may be the idea NOW, but it wasn't then. You're looking at history (and art history in particular) with revisionist glasses. What started out as a tool for recruitment turned into the standard of the day and then tradition. By the time the Renassiance rolled around, I'm sure most artists didn't even give it thought. After all, most of them were working without access to most of the information we have today about the actual conditions in Palestine at the birth of Christ. If you've ever taken an historigraphy course, you know what I mean. Accurate histories are a very recent invention.

Didn't give it thought = idiot. The thing is, it was never a secret that Jesus was born in what is now Israel, and what was then the Ottoman Empire, which was not white. That wasn't history then, it was current events.

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Here's what I don't get - you're admitting that any artist that depicted Jesus as an Arab (or anything other than white) would be "way ahead of their time", yet you've cast the entirety of artists from Medieval times up to about 30-40 years ago as "idiots".

You somehow misread my post. If an artist sarcastically painted Jesus as white back then as a way to represent the lies of the church or the whitewashing of the teaching of Jesus, THEN they'd be ahead of their time. Like I said, "a political statement".

[FoolThemAll]

One idiotic act does not an idiot make. Idiocy is a pattern, a habit. I think they did enough intelligent things to offset the race of Jesus thing.

[ratbastid]

One thing I don't get about fundamentalism is how you can hope to have one book, which is an accumulation of cultural writings going back thousands of years and which is RIFE with contradiction, and which knows NOTHING about our times, and call it the absolute truth.

A few selected contradictions from the Bible:

2 Kings 2:11 As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind.
John 3:13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.

Matthew 5:16 Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your father in heaven.
Matthew 6:1 Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them.

Genesis 32:30 So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and my life was preserved.”
Exodus 33:11 The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend.
John 1:18 No one has ever seen God.

John 5:31 If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid.
John 8:14 Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid.

(Go ahead, tell me those things are taken out of context. I'll tell you those are just as out-of-context as the proscriptions against homosexuality, among other things.)

This is taken from <a href="http://home.earthlink.net/~owl233/biblequotes.htm">here</a>, which also lists scientific errors, ridiculous punishments, and other things that it would be awfully hard to take literally in the Bible. Worth a read.

[Ourcrazymodern?]

Yeah, one doesn't need to read very far past "In the beginning", and pretty soon the world is overpopulated, capitalism is in full swing (including interest) and god is instructing his worshippers to massacre others: Sometimes everybody and sometimes only the men! What's up with that?
I used to read aloud to the older kids: We made it all the way through Lord of the Rings, but in the bible they got disgusted before Deuteronomy.

[Seer666]

Originally Posted by willravel

Also, just because someone can paint does not make them smart. It makes them talented or skillful, but not smart. Da Vinci would be the obvious exception, BUT eve though he was a brilliant inventor and free thinker, he can't figure out that Jesus wasn't white? It's ignorance and lazyness.

Or just scared of being locked up and killed by the Church. That wasn't uncommon back then. I don't think of it as stupid of lazy. I think of it as survival instinct.

[asaris]

Originally Posted by ratbastid

A few selected contradictions from the Bible:

Let's see about that, shall we?

2 Kings 2:11 As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind.
John 3:13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.

Heaven is often used ambiguously in scripture; sometimes, it refers to the spiritual realm where God resides. Sometimes, it refers to the paradise to which the saved go after the resurrection of the body (or after death). So, the first way around this contradiction is simply that the word 'heaven' is used in two different ways. The second is simply to point out that Jesus or John is making a rhetorical point about who has authority to talk about heaven, not making the historical claim that Jesus is the only person who has gone into heaven.

Matthew 5:16 Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your father in heaven
Matthew 6:1 Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them.

Ask not what the words say, but what they mean. The first statement is making the point that we ought to be good examples to our fellow men and women. The second is making the point that we ought not be ostentatious in our good deed doing -- "Don't do your acts of righteousness in order to be seen doing them by men." I fail to see any contradiction between the two.

Genesis 32:30 So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and my life was preserved.”
Exodus 33:11 The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend.
John 1:18 No one has ever seen God.

You missed the part in Exodus (or perhaps Deuteronomy) where God tells Moses that Moses can't see his face, because no one can see God and live. But again, 'face to face' is not being used literally here. How could it be? God is a spirit, and doesn't have a face. Jacob is talking about his wrestling with God, and the Exodus passage is meant merely to underscore the intimacy involved in the conversations between God and Moses. The passage in John is meant to emphasize Christ as the only route to God.

John 5:31 If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid.
John 8:14 Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid.

What John says is perfectly true, isn't it? If I tell you I'm a trustworthy person, you have no reason to believe me (and so my testimony is not valid). However, if I also happen to be a trustworthy person, my statement is true (and so my testimony is valid).

(Go ahead, tell me those things are taken out of context. I'll tell you those are just as out-of-context as the proscriptions against homosexuality, among other things.)

Well, I'm not sure that that's exactly what I've done. But I certainly think the proscriptions against homosexuality are also often taken out of context. I might also note, in case anyone wants to make this objection, that fundamentalists do not take the Bible literally, in the sense that everything in the Bible is a literal statement of fact. No one thinks that Jesus is literally a rock.

As far as the claims of the self-identified fundamentalists here, I think the story of Jonah is up for grabs. It's true that Jesus refers to it as if it were true, but that doesn't necessarily mean that that's what he meant. IIRC, he didn't refer to it in any way differently than if I were to say "Just like Gandalf showed courage before the balrog, so you too must stand up before evil." That statement doesn't entail that I think there was a historical Gandalf, only that I think it's a good example of the point I'm trying to make.

As far as the young earth claims and the 'dry' claims, I don't have a problem with those positions as such, even though I think they're both wrong. I have a problem with the extension of those positions, though. Someone might reasonably think I'm wrong in drinking alcohol; but that's different from condemning me for it. Similarly, and to a greater extent, someone might think I'm mistaken for believing in an old earth, but to claim that makes me less of a Christian is simple arrogance.

[Ourcrazymodern?]

Jesus implied there was power in meekness and calm - of course he was God?

[asaris]

Huh? I assume you're referring to my signature; I find it interesting because it's Nietzsche saying it.

[Ourcrazymodern?]

I find it interesting also.
"There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya 'bout the raising of the wrist:
Socrates himself was permanently pissed..." - Monty Python.
Fundamentalism omits so much it's a wonder there's anything left.

[Seer666]

Originally Posted by Daoust

I agree with everything AVOR said in his orginal reply to the somewhat ignorant thread starter. There's nothing wrong with challenging fundamentalist Christians if you have actual facts to challenge us with.

Seems to me kind of harsh to call a man going through a crisis of faith "ignorant". Quite the opposite, if you ask me. He's finally found other points of views, and is having a hard time assimilating them with fundamental part of his upbringing. Learning new things is not ignorance, questioning points of views is not ignorance. It's the first step to over coming ignorance. And, not to sound like I am on the attack, it's not my intent at all, but comments like this are what makes people turn away from the flock, as it were. As a Christian, you might want to sound a little more compassionate towards a fellow believer that is having doubts, otherwise, you just no long have a fellow believer.

beedubaya:
You don't have to be a fundamentalist to have faith. I myself have washed my hands of the church, and a good 99% of it's followers. I find it's much easier to get a long with God when you don't have some asshole with a funny hat telling you how you should do it. I myself get along with the man rather well. He hasn't fucked up yet, so I'm still signed on. Just ask yourself, do you really believe there is a God? If you say yes, then every thing after that is simple. I mean, there are really only ten simple rules you have to follow. All you really have to worry about, is doing the best you can. Your human, no one expects you to get it right all the time, and if they do, they really have no clue what life is about. Learn from your mistakes, do the best you can not to repeat them, and keep moving forward. I really think that is the point God was trying to make in the first place.

[Ourcrazymodern?]

What the hell is a "crisis of faith"? With faith enough you'd have no crises, with God enough there'd be no questions, & the "ten simple rules" could all be boiled down into one: (Thou shalt not steal). LYA>

[Seer666]

Originally Posted by Ourcrazymodern?

What the hell is a "crisis of faith"? With faith enough you'd have no crises, with God enough there'd be no questions, & the "ten simple rules" could all be boiled down into one: (Thou shalt not steal). LYA>

It normally seems to happen the first time someone tries apply thought and logic instead of just swallowing all the bullshit we get spoon feed all our lives. Or some people who are so incapable of standing on their own 2 feet that they rely on God for every bit of strength they have go through it the first time they really find out that life fucking sucks and bad shit happens. You know, "God how could you let this happen!?" And if you are going to boil them down to one rule, it would actually be "Thou shall not Covet". But there isn't one rule. there are ten. Don't blame me man, I didn't write them. Quit frankly, everyone goes through it at some point in their life. Some more then others. Some go atheist, some convert to something else, some go fanatic, and some just suck it up and move on. The point is, when someone is going through one, the worst, and quite frankly cruelest, thing to do is mock them and do things like call them ignorant, or imply that their faith is weak, etc. I spent a lot of time trying to find out just what my beliefs were, and where I stood on the God issue. It was a very confusing time in my life. I think I really did go just a little crazy for a bit. But in the end, I came out stronger for it, with a surer grasp on my faith then I ever had before. So don't give me that "with enough faith and enough god" line. It's crap, and anyone that has ever dealt with the issue knows it is. And it's just the kind of condescending attitude that makes people want to bash the believers. If you want to be a Christian, then try practicing a little compassion and understanding instead. You know, WWJD.

[Ourcrazymodern?]

You seem a little violent for a Christian.

[loganmule]

beedubaya, lots of folks, including me, have been down the road you are on, and I wish you luck with it, however it turns out.

Fundamentalist Christianity's appeal is to offer definitive answers to the biggest questions we face...how did we come to be?...what is our purpose?...what is the meaning of it all?...what happens to us when we die? As soon as you accept that scripture isn't the inerrant word of God, you head down the slippery slope of trying to sort out what is correct and what isn't, and somehow justifying the distinctions you are making. Personally, I can't accept that the authors got everything right, albeit that they were divinely inspired (so was Mohammed), which leaves me sliding down that slope and gaining speed as I go.

I can't make the "leap of faith" required to get from divine inspiration to scriptural innerancy, because of this nutty idea that there should be evidence from which the conclusion could be reasonably drawn. Each to their own, and many make the leap. Having done that, arguments can be developed to support scripture's inerrancy. asaris' post #24 is a good example of how interpretations can be viewed as being consistent. The problem is that there are so many apparent inconstencies that the more logical conclusion is that this is so because scripture is not inerrant. To me, a more reasoned approach is taken by the Unitarians...see Article III at this link:

http://www.americanunitarian.org/explanation.htm


* * *

ARTICLE III.
THE BIBLE


§ 9. Unitarian Christians regard the Bible as a sacred book because it brings us near to God by placing us in communion with the deepest and loftiest experiences of other humans who searched for God. Many of its authors were successful in their search and, on occasions of divine inspiration, discovered and revealed divine truths. Inspired writings are not merely the result of pure thinking, but come from a region higher than the human experience. Thus the Bible, in many ways, may be seen as a form of Divine self-disclosure. It is not the only such work, but Unitarians hold it in high esteem because it is the foundation of the Abrahamic tradition from which come Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, the three great monotheistic religions.

§ 10. The Bible was inspired, not to be perfectly accurate in matters of science and history, but to teach, to reprove, to correct, and to train in righteousness. In other words, the purpose of its instruction and training is to equip us for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17). The Bible accomplishes this purpose perfectly. With this in mind, Unitarian Christians are keen to pay attention in the Scriptures to whatever admonitions are directed toward a universal audience and to learn from principles governing admonitions directed toward a limited or circumscribed audience.

§ 11. The respect that Unitarian Christians give to the Scriptures is a reason, they believe, for studying them with particular care and for understanding the principles of interpretation by which God’s messages, embedded within, may be uncovered. We ought to expect occasional obscurity in such a book as the Bible, which was written for past and future ages, as well as for the present. But God's wisdom is a pledge that whatever is necessary for us, and necessary for salvation, is revealed too plainly to be mistaken, and too consistently to be questioned, by a sound and upright mind.

§ 12. Although considering it, on the whole, an inspired book, Unitarians also regard the Bible as coming not only from God, but also from humans. It is full of human experience, sorrow, joy, temptation, sin, repentance, trust, hope, and love. Coming from the deepest places in the human heart, it goes to the deepest places. Written by many people and at different times, it is of various application and value. We find that many portions of the Bible, instead of being concerned with universal truths, refer specifically to the times when they were written, to the cultures, people, concerns, states of society, and patterns of thought that have passed away, and without the knowledge of which we are constantly in danger of assigning to all times and places what was of local (and temporary) application. These documents often strongly bear the mark of the persons who wrote them. That an individual’s genius and character show themselves clearly in such writings tells us that they did not compose by Divine dictation. Therefore, acquaintance with their feelings and influences is a vital preparation for understanding their works. Human language is subject to various interpretations, and every word and every sentence must be understood and explained according to the subject under discussion, according to the intentions, beliefs, circumstances, principles, and idiosyncrasies of the writer, and according to the idioms and capabilities of the language that he uses. With these views of the Bible, we feel it is our duty to exercise our reason upon it constantly, to compare, to infer, and to look beyond the words themselves to the spirit of the message itself.

§ 13. Unitarians see some variation and discrepancy in the Bible’s theology and morality, which are affected by the times and circumstances of the various writers. Beginning with the Hebrew Scriptures and progressing to and through the New Testament, the truth has unfolded itself gradually to human eyes and continues to do so. Unitarians give due regard to this phenomenon. The apostle Paul refers to the growth and development of knowledge about divine things and compares it to his own personal experience: “When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as a child; now that I have become a man, I have put away childish things” (1 Cor. 13:11). Unitarians likewise put away the childish things of former days.

§ 14. Unitarians therefore do not believe in the infallibility of the Bible, as some other Christians do. Objections to the doctrine of plenary or infallible inspiration of the Scripture are such as these:

(a) The Scriptures nowhere claim or assume infallibility. The texts usually relied on (2 Tim. 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:21) teach that the prophets and apostles were inspired, but do not assert that their inspiration made them infallible.


(b) The Bible contains errors and contradictions that are fatal to the theory of its infallibility. But if its authority consists in its being more full of truth and goodness than any other book, then its errors of detail cannot shake its divine power over the mind and heart.


(c) The apostle Paul distinctly declares the partial, provisional, and temporary nature of that which he teaches. Having said that he is inspired and led by the Spirit to know and to speak Christian truth (1 Cor. 2:10-16), he adds, in the same epistle, that all knowledge, so far as we are able to state it, is partial, relative, and incomplete, and will be done away with (1 Cor. 13:8-12). Accurate knowledge is something of the future—both for Paul and for us.

Inspiration leads to the sight of truth and reality, but not necessarily to a perfectly accurate description of what is seen. But these errors of expression do not detract from the authority of the Bible as a teacher of the best moral and spiritual truth.

* * *

Again, my best wishes to you on your spiritual journey.

[Seer666]

Originally Posted by Ourcrazymodern?

You seem a little violent for a Christian.

Not really. I haven't even gotten the chance to burn someone at the stake yet.
I'm not what you would call a typical Christian. I would more likely be classified as a Gnostic. I am more then happy to use violence as a mean to defend me and mine, and I feel that there is nothing wrong with that. I am a huge believer in eye for an eye. Well, more like a head for an eye. No use in half assing it. Someone is a threat, remove that threat. That being said however, there is no reason for just plain bad manners and being insulting to someone who is asking for advise on something as important to some people as faith. It also annoys me on a personal level when I see Christians taking a very non-Christian approach like that. Probably do to dealing with family members who's conversation would go from "Love they neighbor" to "Them damn wetbacks down the road" in just that order. Dealing with them has massively shortened my patience.

[asaris]

Loganmule -- Your Section 10 is actually exactly what it means when people claim the Bible is inerrant. "Infallible" is the position that the Bible doesn't get history or science wrong.

That being said, there's another claim which always makes me nervous. That is the idea of the Bible being entirely culturally situated. Even if it's merely inerrant, or even slightly less than that, it still has a certain amount of authority, and we shouldn't be too quick to dismiss something merely on the grounds of 'well, that only applies to their cultural situation'. My general rule of thumb is that I feel free to disregard specific instructions if I can discern a general principle behind the specific instruction. A good example is the directions regarding how a woman ought to dress. This is pretty clearly culturally bound; but there's a general principle that people ought not to dress ostentatiously which is not so culturally bound.

However, this also means that if there's no such general principle behind it, I'm not going to reject it as merely a cultural artifact. A good example is the issue of woman pastors. There are statements in the Bible that seem to say that churches cannot have female pastors. Now, there are good arguments that these statements don't actually mean that. But a bad argument, actually for a number of reasons, is that this merely reflects a patriarchal cultural bias on the part of the authors. Because we take the Bible seriously, we ought to give its human authors the benefit of the doubt.

[loganmule]

Originally Posted by asaris

Loganmule -- Your Section 10 is actually exactly what it means when people claim the Bible is inerrant. "Infallible" is the position that the Bible doesn't get history or science wrong.

That being said, there's another claim which always makes me nervous. That is the idea of the Bible being entirely culturally situated. Even if it's merely inerrant, or even slightly less than that, it still has a certain amount of authority, and we shouldn't be too quick to dismiss something merely on the grounds of 'well, that only applies to their cultural situation'. My general rule of thumb is that I feel free to disregard specific instructions if I can discern a general principle behind the specific instruction. A good example is the directions regarding how a woman ought to dress. This is pretty clearly culturally bound; but there's a general principle that people ought not to dress ostentatiously which is not so culturally bound.

However, this also means that if there's no such general principle behind it, I'm not going to reject it as merely a cultural artifact. A good example is the issue of woman pastors. There are statements in the Bible that seem to say that churches cannot have female pastors. Now, there are good arguments that these statements don't actually mean that. But a bad argument, actually for a number of reasons, is that this merely reflects a patriarchal cultural bias on the part of the authors. Because we take the Bible seriously, we ought to give its human authors the benefit of the doubt.

I think others, asaris, and particularly fundamentalist Christians, would take issue with your distinction between "inerrant" and "infallible". My brother, for example, who attends an independent Baptist church that, in his words, takes a "biblical" approach, believes that all statements of occurrences are to be accepted as literally true, and he attributes this to its inerrancy. You and I are on the same page, if you consider section 10 of the cited text to define inerrancy. That said, I think most would disagree with us, including Merriam-Webster, which defines the term to mean "exemption from error" and mentions infallibility as a synonym:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/inerrancy


Your concluding statement left me scratching my head, and maybe you could follow up on that. It doesn't seem to follow logically that because we take scripture seriously, we therefore should give its authors the benefit of the doubt. What is it about our serious view of scripture which gives its authors a pass on all of those factors which normally would be taken into account, in evaluating the weight and credibility what they have written?

[Ourcrazymodern?]

Originally Posted by Seer666

Not really. I haven't even gotten the chance to burn someone at the stake yet.
I'm not what you would call a typical Christian. I would more likely be classified as a Gnostic. I am more then happy to use violence as a mean to defend me and mine, and I feel that there is nothing wrong with that. I am a huge believer in eye for an eye. Well, more like a head for an eye. No use in half assing it. Someone is a threat, remove that threat. That being said however, there is no reason for just plain bad manners and being insulting to someone who is asking for advise on something as important to some people as faith. It also annoys me on a personal level when I see Christians taking a very non-Christian approach like that. Probably do to dealing with family members who's conversation would go from "Love they neighbor" to "Them damn wetbacks down the road" in just that order. Dealing with them has massively shortened my patience.

So sorry - not a christian, probably resulting in my bad manners.
I must stand by my words, though, to do less would be insincere.

[Seer666]

Originally Posted by Ourcrazymodern?

So sorry - not a christian, probably resulting in my bad manners.
I must stand by my words, though, to do less would be insincere.

By all means. I don't care what people believe. Believe the world is held up by for elephants riding on the back of a giant turtle for all I care. My problems lie not in the believe, but in the fanaticism behind it, and the intolerance it cause people to show. Probably hypocritical on my part, as I have very little tolerance for ANY religion being pushed on people. My hatred of the "Church" is almost fanatical in itself. But, I've learned to live with it. And I have much more respect for people that are willing to stand for their beliefs, good bad or otherwise, then those who flip flop at the drop of a hat. Sometimes, life brings about a change in how we view things, this is life. But some people change stance more then they change socks. I do have to admit though, for the sake of a good argument, I'll take just about any side that can get a rise out of people. Some times, I just feel like being a pain. Kudos to you for sticking to your guns though.

[Ourcrazymodern?]

...my brother in law likes to play the devil's advocate as well.
I'm startled to find you and I in close agreement regarding having religion forced upon anybody, whether by the church or the state or even the parents. Something about that whole aspect of it...sucks!

[Seer666]

Originally Posted by Ourcrazymodern?

...my brother in law likes to play the devil's advocate as well.
I'm startled to find you and I in close agreement regarding having religion forced upon anybody, whether by the church or the state or even the parents. Something about that whole aspect of it...sucks!

Well, it is a fun game to play. Keeps the wits sharp as well. It's one of the things I love about religion. For every point, there a just as valid (I.E., unprovable) counter point. And well, the street preachers and such are a source of endless entertainment. I love a good debate on the subject, it's the best way to learn new ideas, but when someone comes up and tells me I'm going to Hell before they even know what I believe, oh, it's on brother. I actually got one of the street preachers to break down and cry once. It was one of the most satisfying moments of my life.

[asaris]

I learned those definitions of inerrancy and infallibility as particular to views of scriptural authority, so I'm not at all surprised that they apply differently in different contexts. However, I tend to assume a greater commonality of definition than is generally the case, so I'm a bit surprised at the latter . The point I was trying to make was simply that the view of scripture you cite is in fact a fairly typical view for most evangelical Christians (a group distinct from fundamentalists, but generally fairly conservative and sometimes lumped in with them).

As far as the last paragraph, what I mean is that it is typical of Christian writers, even those who believe that the Bible is neither infallible nor inerrant, to give the work more respect than it would give any other book. For example, I have a lot of respect for Michel Foucault, and take his work fairly seriously. But I'm perfectly willing to substitute my judgment for his where it seems he's wrong. When it comes to scripture, I'm much less willing to do this, unless it seems very clear that something's just plain wrong (see, for example, Paul's view of the relative value of marriage vs. celibacy.)