And that says… what exactly?
You admit right there that you are doing the same thing as the fundies, just that you chose a less fashionable target (fundamentalist Christianity). You are admitting your own hypocrisy in your attempt to justify it.
And another thing, you accuse Jack Chick of lying about the Catholic Church and the Isis thing. And you’re right anout him. But in order to avoid being a hypocrite you need to show me where it is that the fundamentalist Christians believe that Jesus ordered rape and murder. You might find a few who believe something that fucked up, but certainly not all fundamentallist christians believe that.
Your statement about the “demonic brainwashing cult” refered to fundamentalist Christians - not to some fundamentalists.
**
That depends on how you define “fundamentalist.” If they are inerrantists, they believe Jesus ordered rape and genocide, no?
You are familiar with the Bible, right?
Actually, the word “cult” refers to a religion, not its followers. While it depends on your definition of “fundamentalist Christian,” certainly inerrantists worship a demon. I would argue that fundamentalist Christianity is a brainwashing cult in general. People who aren’t ex-fundamentalists often don’t realize just how sinister the cult really is. I can assure you I was brainwashed by them, using much the same techniques as those used by cult leaders like Jim Jones.
I’m curious, MWAG. Is there any religion you would define as “demon worship”? Or as a brainwashing cult? (The People’s Temple, for example?)
No, I admit no such thing. I poined out the rather obvious difference between what I said and what the FC’s say.
Sighhh…I guess I am pretty thick according to you guys and all your wisdom. What opinion do you think I ought to have? gobear explained it to me, it’s just a skit on how things would be if controlled by atheists. My opinion is I wouldn’t like that. I don’t have much of an opinion about the tract except maybe it’s kind of stupid in my view. So what? It’s just a little something somebody made up to show their dislike of Christians and Christianity, I assume. I read it, move on, and forget it. So please stop asking me about the tract.
I believe that His can be this ‘thick’. It’s exactly like the pamphlet. She’s swimming in ‘it’ so deep she can’t see the outside. Remember when Poly mentioned that she has trouble seeing other viewpoints?
Okay, His. Are you ready? Step back. Deep breath. What the pamphlet is showing is that, in many ways, the US is deeply influenced by christianity, in both culturally appropriate and inappropriate ways. Furthermore, it takes a strong effort of will to look at the world as it would be if it were completely religiously neutral or hostile, as some people claim. (Remember that thread a while back about the ‘fundy porn’ kidnapping thing?)
Basically, okay, get to the bones of the subject… When you look at the pamphlet, those altered words rejecting god look kind of ugly, right?
Well, to a lot of people, the ‘existing’ words, affirming that god, look just as ugly if not worse.
**His4ever[\b]
Walk away from this. Ben obviously has some issues with Christianity. You are not responsible to convince/convert him. You have presented your views and you are only giving him more reasons to rail on against you.
Pray that he replaces some of his deep hatred and mistrust with love. I hope you are aware of what threu Christain love is and will extend this to Ben, but will discontinue engaging in this argument. It is going no where.
The entire Bible can be boiled down to:
Love God.
Love everyone else, too.
I am ok with that.
But you need to go an extra step. You agree that you wouldn’t like it if the country were run by atheists who had no regard for the freedom of Christians, but how do you think atheists feel when America is run by Christians who have no regard for our freedom?
Don’t you think that maybe Christians shouldn’t discriminate agaisnt atheists? Do you think secular affairs should be run according to the precepts of religion? Should religion (or the lack of it) be a test for one’s fitness to hold office? Should a belief in God be a condition of one’s loyalty to the nation?
Do you think it’s fair for senators to exclude atheists from the Supreme Court? Do you think Christians should be able to choose the books and movies non-Christians watch? Do you think that Christians should have more rights under the law than non-Christians? Would you vote against a Republican Jew, a Republican Muslim, or a Republican atheist only because of their religious beliefs?
Let me put it another way, H4E, do you believe that we should base our laws purely on the Bible and live as a purely Christian society? In an ideal world would you make non-Christian religions illegal?
Ah, great. Don’t actually address any of my arguments. Just dismiss them with the irrelevant strawman that I have “issues with Christianity.” (When have I said anything in this thread about Christianity in general?)
How would you like it if I did that to you? “Don’t listen to newcrasher and His4Ever, folks. They clearly just can’t handle having anyone scrutinize their religion, but let’s pray that one day they see the light.”
Why do you assume that?
If someone points out the ways in which non-Christians are mistreated, why does that imply that they dislike either Christians or Christianity?
I guess I find it a little problematic that when you’re confronted with how nonchristians are mistreated, your response is basically to shrug it off and “move on” on the grounds that anyone who complains is just a Jesus-hater.
But you state that you were once in a fundie cult, as you call it.
I think you may have issues here, could you maybe see that?
also you smell funny.
kidding;)
I agree with that.
Perhaps. But part of loving God includes not sinning, and part of loving everyone else involves telling them they’re sinning.
According to some folks, at least.
I share Monkey with a Gun’s confusion - I don’t see where Ben has addressed the undoubted fact that he is doing exactly what he condemns fundamentalists for doing - accusing those with different religious beliefs of being demon-worshippers. I would say that this is wrong whether Jack Chick does it, or anyone else does it.
I have almost given up expecting consistency from the SDMB on some subjects. rjung posts an OP condemning some evangelical Christians for pushing their beliefs on others, and mocking other peoples’ religion. The moral thing for them to do would be to treat others with kindness and respect, not to call them names or insult their religion.
And what do we do with a fundamentalist on the SDMB? Call her names and insult her religion.
Sigh.
Regards,
Shodan
PS - CNN reported that Timothy McVeigh was a self-described agnostic.
One distinction I could point out in Ben’s favor is that he doesn’t actually believe that H4E’s demon exists. Ben is making that statement facetiously, fundies make it literally.
Um, no, it’s because of her behavior, Shodan. vanilla is also a “fundie”, and I don’t see anyone getting upset with her like they do with His4ever.
His-in that tract, go back, read it, and everytime the word “atheist” appears, substitute “Christian.” Then thinkabout it.
I thought cult meant, broadly, the organized veneration of an individual. For instance, I have heard academics refer to the Catholic veneration of Mary and the saints as the “cult of Mary and the Saints”, but they don’t mean “cult” in the negative connotation that has been popularized. They don’t use it to mean “evil, destructive religious faction.” In fact, they don’t use the word “cult” there to denote either a religion or its followers, but rather a practice. The word may have come to be associated with the veneration of certain sick weirdos in the last half-century, but it’s not inherently a bad word the way you’ve been using it, AFAIK.
Academically speaking, a “cult” is defined as a non-schismatic, deviant religious tradition (as opposed to a “sect” which is a schismatic, deviant religious tradition). Cults often also include some level of tension with mainstream culture.
There are several subsets of cults which are basically defined by the level of commitment and model of formation.
The “psychopathology” model is the classic Jim Jones/ David Koresh type of cult which forms around a specific individual who is perceived as having some unique religious vision or as being divine him/herself. Sometimes these individuals are charlatans but quite often they are driven or influenced by psychotic episodes (in social psychology all religious or visionary experiences. theophanies, etc. are defined as “psychotic” in that there is a break with normal reality, but it’s not necessarily always a bad thing and it doesn’t mean that individuals who have them are diagnosed as psychotic (although some of them are, of course).
Obviously, some of the world’s great religions started with this model (Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, even LDS, while technically Christian, has elements of this model with Joseph Smith).
Other types of cults include “Audience” cults, which typically have a very low or no-existent level of commitment, no particular organization or structure and its beliefs are casual, uncodified and may even include several contradictory schools of thought. Audience cults include stuff like UFO enthusiasts, Trekkies and JFK conspiracists and Bigfoot hunters.
It could be argued that these aren’t really “religious” groups in any real sense, just more like social phenomena. I didn’t come up with these definitions, though. It is defined as being very mild and more sort of proto-“cultic” than anything else.
When audience cults become more structured and organized you get something called "Client"cults which have a little more commitment and offer more specific compensators in return. It’s usually not an all encompassing belief system, though, and is often just a specific quid-pro-quo driven paradigm where a client wants a specific result for a specific price. Client cults include psychics, astrologers, faith healers and Deepak Chopra. Sometimes individuals can attract a personal following (Chopra, John Edwards, Benny Hinn) but they usually don’t rise to the level of a psychopatholgy model.
Hyperorganized client cults can lead to “entrepreneurial” cults which are essentially big business versions of client cults. The classic entrepreneurial cult is Scientology but some medical client cults can rise to this level too.
The last model of cult formation is called the “sub-cultural evolution” model and it basically involves subcultures evoloving into distinct religious groups, although they may do this within the context of larger religious paradigms. Usually this happens when there is a group with some level of dissatisfaction with the mainstream culture. They may isolate themselves and live in great tension with the larger culture (White Supremacists, “Christian Identity,” etc.) or they may live in a more subdued level of tension. Certain fundamentalist groups may live in some isolation (home schooling their children, interacting only with people from their own church, etc). There are also groups which live as a distinct religiously based subculture, but have little or no outward tension with the mainstream (Amish, Mennonites).
So “Cult” encompasses a lot of relgious groups. It’s a word which has been misused or overused by sensationalist TV media to the point where it has a lot of negative associations but from a purely sociological standpont it’s a fairly benign and generic term.
Change the word “tradition” to “group” in that sentence. :smack: