If I were asked to point at something and say “that, there, is the cornerstone of my religion”, it would be the reverence for the state of “wanting to know”, which cannot coexist with a state of being certain that one already knows. (Not that I’m not every bit as inclined to be in the latter state quite often. I think it’s an unavoidable part of being human, our intense desire to feel secure in our knowledge of things we deem important).
Like many others on this board, I have reached different understandings and conclusions than you have. On the other hand, I have reached different understandings and conclusions from nearly everyone else on this board, too. We’re a pretty diverse bunch, as you’ve no doubt noticed!
I see in you the strength and willingness to be open, to suspend certainty and create room for that “wanting to know”, to listen. I think you’ll like it here, and that you’ll bring much to the table for us to listen to and learn from.
Cool, two new books to add to my “to read” list. And yes, some fundies do read, we don’t burn all books.
Seriously, I don’t get very good glances from anyone when I admit to being a Sci-Fi fan. Honestly, I think one of my Pastor’s grown daughters believes that I’m a sinner for watching StarWars (who know how evil I am since I let my kids watch it). Anyway, our Pastor (fortunately) has a live and let live attitude about many things.
(OK, no comments about how even an athiest can see the evil of Star Wars. )
Even though I usually avoid participating in religious issues here like the plague, I’m very glad SCCajun posted this. He (she?) sounds very much like some fundamentalists in my own family, and ones who doesn’t remotely fit 99% of the stereotypes tossed around. And by that I mean the stereotypes that have become so prevalent in the media, not just here on the SDMB.
‘Popular’ religion is a double-edged sword, y’know? And for many quiet, sincere believers, applied faith carries its internal obligations toward charlatans as well as everyone else. For those who live the faith, it’s a damned hard row to hoe.
My cousin and her family are fundamentalist Christian. They’re also the absolute kindest, generous and geuniely humble people you’d ever meet. There isn’t a single Doper they wouldn’t welcome, and take into their home to live. And they wouldn’t preach at them either. I don’t believe as they do, but they’ve never once–NEVER–made used their faith as a barrier. (They’re also side-splittingly funny. I’ve never yet had a meal with them, at their home or a restaurant, without all of us howling with laughter.)
But here’s the catch: they live the lessons of their faith, starting and continuing with the hard ones, right down the line. They take count and responsiblity of their own souls first, which doesn’t leave any time or slack for getting pissy with others. They really do place way more weight and worry on how their lives are incongruent with their beliefs than with other people’s progress. But here’s the related catch: applying the ‘judge not’ "mote in eye’ things, when taken seriously for its own sake and worth, extend even to the politically expedient wannabes and manipulators.
They loathe, seriously loathe, the currently touted ‘faith’ bandwagon, not just because it degrades the seriousness of real, life-long commitment, but because of the active damage done. I suspect the only reason Quakers et. al. survived the excesses of the 60s/70s peace brouhaha was that they knew that wannabes might don the cloak while onlookers cheered but not last the real journey.
TVeblen , thank you for sharing your thoughtful (not messy at all) post. That’s how I try to live my life.
Too often, I have seen (here and elsewhere) the term “Fundamentalist” used pejoratively to describe any Christian who is serious about his or her faith. That person is then lumped together with the worst stereotypes and summarily dismissed. That does not help in mutual understanding.
Historically, “Fundamentalism” describes an early 20C American movement that reacted against modernism and liberal theology. The Fundamentalists affirmed the historic Christian “fundamentals” of the virgin birth, miracles, atoning death, and resurrection of Jesus, as well as the inerrancy of the Bible. Those particular beliefs would be affirmed by the vast majority of Christians, Protestant, Roman Catholic and Orthodox, who ever lived. Historical developments brought about a narrowing of the meaning as the more militant Fundamentalists pushed for separation from other conservative groups. It is thus–unfortunately, I feel–a media phenomenon that the word has been expanded to cover any strict follower of any religion. Words begin to lose their meaning when they try to cover too many different things.
A question for you two, and for the board as a whole: if the term “fundamentalist”, used in the common sense of sanctimonious and hypocritical small-mindedness and intolerance, is not useful since it unfairly puts you two in the same category as the Jerry Falwells and Phred Phelpses of this world, what word should we use to replace it? That is, what word fits Falwell and Phelps, but not the more broad-minded people who share fairly similar conservative Christian beliefs?
“It seemed to him that he stood in the midst of a great hall, dark and silent save for the ticking of a giant clock. The ticking went on unceasingly; and it seemed to this saint that the sound of the ticking was the ceaseless repetition of the words
: ever, never; ever, never. Ever to be in hell, never to be in heaven;ever to be shut off from the presence of God, never to enjoy the beatific vision; ever to be eaten with flames, gnawed by vermin, goaded by burning spikes; never to be free from those pains; ever to have the conscience upbraid one, the memory enrage, the mind filled with darkness and despair; never to escape; ever to curse and revile the foul demons who gloat fiendishly over the misery of their dupes, never to behold the shining raiment of the blessed spirits; ever to cry out of the abyss of fire to God for an instant, a single instant, of respite from such awful agony; never to receive, even for an instant, God’s pardon; ever to suffer, never to enjoy; ever to be damned, never to be saved; ever, never; ever, never. O what a dreadful punishment! An eternity of endless agony, of endless bodily and spiritual torment, without one ray of hope, without one moment of cessation, of agony limitless in extent, limitless in intensity, of torment infinitely lasting, infinitely varied, of torture that sustains eternally that which it eternally devours, of anguish that everlastingly preys on the spirit while it racks the flesh, an eternity, every instant of which is an eternity, and that eternity an eternity of woe. Such is the terrible punishment decreed for those who die in mortal sin by an almighty and a just God.”
{James Joyce, A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man}
My apologies for Joyce’s lack of paragraphs. I seem to be swimming against the tide of love in this thread, but if that’s genuinely what you believe, then your faith {apart from begging at least two questions - that I have sins that need to be “paid for” and that Jesus Christ, whoever he was, has in some undefined sense footed that bill} seems pretty judgemental to me, and a fairly nasty judgement at that. However, as you’re at least polite in pronouncing eternal damnation upon me and almost everyone I know, that makes everything hunky-dory, doesn’t it?
Oh, and your logic is rotten, too. If you are basing your beliefs upon faith, or, as you put it, “I base my beliefs on the fact that I believe in a perfect…God”, then I congratulate you on managing to centre your entire spiritual well-being on a perfectly circular argument which is cheerfully impervious to evidence, reason or debate. I bid you goodnight.
Well, to be logical, it isn’t at all clear why logic should apply to matters of faith. Unfortunately, the faithful get fisted both ways. Lots of people say that they will respect our beliefs so long as we admit that they are born of pure faith and do not invoke science or reason to support them. And then there are those who insist, as you do, that believers offer empirical tests and syllogisms. Maybe it is possible for people both to disagree and be reasonable. Incidentally, circular arguments are logically valid, and logic itself is built upon the premise that its own rules validate it.
There’s such a thing as a judgmental atheist, as well. The evidence for theism is extremely weak, and so I don’t believe that any gods or supernatural beings exist. Other people, however do, and their credence in such things is not my concern as long as they don’t inflict it on me.
My problem begins when people use their religious beliefs to harrass me or to forbid me equal rights. Because some people do not want gay marriage for themselves, they seek to forbid it for everyone. Because some people view some TV shows or movies as offensive, they want to restrict everyone’s access to them.
If a Muslim thinks drinking beer is a sin, then good for him. But he doesn’t have the right to deny me a glass of Shiner Bock because it offends his conscience. An Orthodox Jew may consider the consumption of pork to be an abomination in the eyes of his deity, but he had best keep his grubby mitts off my BBQ sandwich. The same goes for any fundamentalist Christians who want to forbid me the same rights to share my life and my property with my spouse that any drunken hetero can get in a 15-minute ceremony in a Vegas wedding chapel.
In the same way that the state should not infringe on religion, religion should not attempt to control the secular government.
I have to get a copy of a bumper sticker I’ve seen a couple of times:
MILITANT AGNOSTIC - I DON’T KNOW AND YOU DON’T EITHER. SCCajun, more thanks for opening yourself to discussion here. Just to help us out, though - you say you’re at a crossroads between your faith and your view of how government should work. What are some of the specific dilemmas you see? For instance, what problems do your belief in the certainty of hell for some cause in the daily functions of government if they were universally held?
I am an atheist and I have no problem with the Christian belief that I will go to hell. How can it hurt me if I don’t believe in hell in the first place? As long as the OP treats me with respect, and doesn’t try to shove his religion down my throat, his belief that I am going to hell is a very small price to pay in the name of tolerance.
This is pretty much my attitude as well. I am no more bothered by someone else’s belief that I will burn in Hell than if they told me they believed I was an alien. It’s an odd belief but one that doesn’t hurt me as long as they don’t try to take any of my rights away.
Ah, for this I apologize. “Christian” should be good enough for us all, but unfortunately nowadays we come in so many varieties and flavors that more distinction is needed, though we shouldn’t expect others to keep up with them.
Actually, “militant,” as suggested by Liberal, is a fairly good term. That is a term used by modern-day Fundamentalists themselves. “Extremist” is also good. “Fanatical” might work, except I consider myself fairly fanatical, albeit in different ways.
For myself, I like the term “orthodox,” though make sure that’s a small “o,” else it will be confused with (Eastern) Orthodox. Of course, we are just talking about Protestants here.
Eh, I started the highjack, I might as well continue it:
Broadly today, Protestant Christians are classified into two large blocs: Ecumenical and Evangelical. Ecumenical Protestants are what we usually consider “mainline”: Methodist, Presybterian, Anglican, Lutheran, etc., members of the World Council of Churches, more liberal in theology.
“Evangelicals” are the more conservative, born-again Christians, usually affirming the inerrancy of the Scriptures. They are, in many ways, the true heirs of the original Fundamentalists. In the 1940’s, the Fundamentalists and Evangelicals split, the former believing the latter were compromising by associating and cooperating with other groups. By far, the Evangelicals are the larger group today. Fundamentalists are either becoming absorbed into the larger Evangelical movement or becoming increasingly marginalized.
One more groups should be mentioned: the Renewal movement, or Charismatic/Pentecostal movement. Most of these share similar beliefs with the Evangelical and Fundamentalists, though their origins are different. We also believe in the continuing ministry of the Holy Spirit in modern times, something which is questioned by Evangelicals and totally shunned by Fundamentalists. (These little tiffs are what happens when everyone gets to interpret the Bible according to conscience.)
To put the labels on a right-left political/theological spectrum, the Ecumenicals are on the left, the Evangelicals on the center-right, the Fundamentalists on the far right. The Renewal movement starts to the left of the Fundamentalists but actually goes all over the spectrum. (BTW, today we are the second largest grouping of Christians in the world with over 500 million adherents. Of course, we also get to include the Catholic Charismatics in that figure.)
Some examples:
-Jerry Falwell is a Fundamentalist.
-Billy Graham is an Evangelical. Many Fundamentalists do not like him because he associates with liberals, although his theology is very close to theirs.
-John MacArthur is a Fundamentalist.
-John Stott is an Evangelical, one of the most respected in the world.
-Pat Robertson is not a Fundamentalist but a Charismatic/Pentecostal. Most Fundamentalists won’t like him either.
-Most of the preachers you see on TV are Charismatic/Pentecostal.
-Phelps I’ve never heard of.
Sorry for the highjack and the mess; I know it goes way beyond your question. Hey, I’m a theologian; it’s my job to make the simple complicated. :smack:
I myself simply prefer to be called a Christian or, with time, “friend.”
Theologue, I don’t know how long you’ve been lurking, but there is a long tradition on the SDMB of “Ask the _____” threads, wherein a OP with an interesting belief, practice or sitz en leben takes questions from the audience. For ex: I could have done “ask the Bible College graduate” or “ask the taxi driver.”
I don’t know that we’ve had a working theologian here before. I think an “ask the Conservative Christian theologian” thread would be a very productive thing.
)