Archive for the 'fundamentalism' Category

Just because you’re hated doesn’t mean you’re right

Published
by
Ken
on April 7, 2008
in christianity and fundamentalism
. 0 Comments

Bobby Maddex at Sign of the Times is as mad as hell and he’s not going to take it anymore. And he does make some valid points. He and “those … who champion moral absolutes, human dignity, the traditional family, and a transcendent reality” are held to a different standard and are not allowed to take cheap shots, distribute deceitful propaganda, and are very often criticized for their stance. So, it’s natural and reasonable they they should want to fight back and do unto others as gets done unto them.

And, for the record, I don’t agree with Dawkins and the neuvo atheists. Hell, I don’t even agree with the old atheists like Bertrand Russell. I think there is something — a LOT of somethings — beyond science. But I also don’t agree with Maddex. And I’ve written a bit about Russell so now it’s Maddex’s turn.

First of all, the use of righteous anger is VERY dangerous and hubristic. James 1:20 says: “For the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God.” To be truly righteous anger, you have to be truly right — don’t you? And it’s very easy to say and think that you are right but are you? Truly right? Calling your anger righteous just because you think God is on your side is tricky. A lot of people think God is on their side and so they all have the right to call their anger righteous.

Second is the old corollary to “they will know we are Christians by our love” which is “we will know we are Christians by their hate.” Listen. Just because you’re hated doesn’t mean God is on your side! Yes, Jesus said that those who follow him will be hated. But taking hate from the world as an “affirmation” that you are right is not the same thing. It’s kind of like: every human will die and, therefore, everything that dies is human. Wrong!

So, go ahead and parody, satirize, and poke fun at those who hold different viewpoints because they are doing it to you. I think this world would be a much, much, much better place if we could all laugh at each other and ourselves more often. And I do think that we all have the right to believe what we believe and everyone else just better “deal with it.” But, at the end of the day, we still have to live on the same tiny speck of dust as the other person. We still have to live next door to an atheist or an evangelical. We still have to elect a single president over both atheists and evangelicals. We still have to send our kids to school with atheists and evangelicals and figure out what they are going to be taught. We have to live our mundane lives between two diametrically opposed, antagonistic viewpoints and still get eight hours of sleep every night. Looking at it from this perspective, is the best answer the answer that both sides seem all too keen on? Is continued hostility and escalating aggression going to get us anywhere? Neither side is going to convince the other side it’s wrong no matter how many jib-jab-like parodies are produced. It’s not going to work, folks. So, let’s come up with an alternate solution, shall we?

Fundamentalism is …

Published
by
Ken
on April 6, 2008
in fundamentalism
. 0 Comments

The last gasp of a religion that has forsaken its contemplative heritage is fundamentalism, which throws logic to the wind and defends its beliefs with a raw appeal to authority. All forms of fundamentalism, religious and scientific, regard themselves as self-sufficient, displaying no interest or concern for external challenges to their dogmas. The contamination of science with scientism and of religion with fundamentalism constitutes a lethal infection, which, if left unchecked, is bound to result in the death of its host; and the aftermath of that fatality bears little resemblance to any genuine science or religion.

B. Alan Wallace, The Taboo Of Subjectivity (via Exploring Our Matrix)

Ah, to be a pre-tribulationalist/pre-millenialist

Published
by
Ken
on December 23, 2007
in alan watts, buddhism, environment, fundamentalism, god and quotes
. 1 Comment

That’s the hakuna mattata way of thinking. No worries because God’s gonna save our asses before things get real bad. So all these environmental, racial, terrorism, educational, political, &c. issues are God’s problem, not ours. He’ll clean them all up before his 1000 year reign and he’ll have 7 long years to do it — piece of cake for the great omnipotent one.

Ah, t’would be easier, t’wouldn’t it!

But back on the sane planet Earth, I’m watching a show about the biggest science discoveries of 2007 and one of them was that we lost an amount of ice in the Arctic equal in surface area to half of the U.S.A.! They didn’t expect that amount of loss for another 30 years but it happened this year! Talk about ahead of schedule.

So, I’m watching this show and imagining cities under domes to protect them from the poisonous atmosphere and scorching temperatures; and cave dwelling, marauding hordes of starving, bear-skin-wearing pirates; and underground cities where the temperature is cool enough to sustain life but it’s completely dark so the people mutate into walking, talking mole-people. And I’m imagining all this happening in the next 20 years or so because it’s getting serious out there, folks. It’s all rather depressing.

Then I ran across “On Hopelessness” at Sacred Awe. Fitting title, I thought, for my mood. One of the excellent points made in this meditation is that of “committed action, non-attachment to outcome.” This comes from Buddhism but I think it can be equally stated as “love your neighbor as yourself, do not worry about tomorrow.” You know, maybe it’s because I grew up with the “Christian version” and I heard the words so often that I became almost numb to them, but a simple rephrasing in different words makes the difficulty in carrying it out much more clear. Non-attachment to outcome: it doesn’t matter whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game. Non-attachment to outcome: don’t lie awake at night worrying about all the changes that are raining into your life like fire and brimstone, just do what you have to do right now. Non-attachment to outcome: don’t worry about being annihilated but don’t expect God to save your ass, either.

Something else from the mediation was part of a poem by Patricia Lay-Dorsay:

But it’s OK if sometimes we’re out of balance because the Universe goes on whether we’re along for the ride or not. Nothing humanity can do will disrupt the perfect balance of the Universe. We are not that powerful. Even though our choices can throw certain elements like climate species survival land and water ecology out of whack nothing we can do will throw off the beauty of the Universe itself.

I appreciate the motivation behind this poem but, honestly, my first reaction was: knowing the Universe will outlast our globally-warmed, nuclear-weapon-destroyed, raped-to-the-point-of-sterility little planet is not a whole lot of comfort. Maybe I just need to get out and look at the stars more often but I live in a city and it was snowing all day so there weren’t any to see. But maybe there is more here . . .

I’m not really sure it is relevant, but the first thing I thought of was the following from Alan Watts’ Myth and Religion where he is talking about the Hindu and Buddhist concept that “everybody is a manifestation of the divine, playing this game and that game. Your not knowing it, if you do not know it, is part of the game. It makes it all the more fun.” Watts says:

I would say to those among you who are the most ignorant, unspiritual, and stuffy, Congratulations! You are so lost in the game you do not even know where you stand, and are taking a gorgeous risk. Because of you we might even blow up the planet, and how close are we going to get with that one? In the same way as that car racer watches the speedometer needle going up, up, and up, there are people feeling more and more self-righteously determined that good shall prevail in the world, all the while watching that needle of world tension go up. It is getting hotter and hotter and hotter, and finally we may all go out in a blaze of glory. When the dust settles they will say, “That was quite a dream we have just woken up from. What shall we do next?”

Talk about non-attachment to outcome! But how do you get there??? That seems to be the question I’m asking a lot these days. I can see — off in the distance, across the chasm — an alternative viewpoint, one that seems like it will actually work for me (unlike Fundamental Christianity) but the bridge is out, my GPS is broken and it’s the longest, moonless night of the year. So, for now, I’m walking around in circles waiting for sunrise.

Merton pegs Fundamentalism

Published
by
Ken
on July 19, 2007
in christian fundamentalism, faith, fear, fundamentalism, judging others, theology and thomas merton
. 0 Comments

Thomas Merton from Zen and the Birds of Appetite:

At the same time, Christian experience itself will be profoundly affected by the idea of revelation that the Christian himself will entertain. For example, if revelation is regarded simply as a system of truths about God and an explanation of how the universe came into existence, what will eventually happen to it, what is the purpose of Christian life, what are its moral norms, what will be the rewards of the virtuous, and so on, then Christianity is in effect reduced to a world view, at times a religious philosophy and little more, sustained by a more or less elaborate cult, by a moral discipline and a strict code of Law. Experience of the inner meaning of Christian revelation will necessarily be distorted and diminished in such a theological setting. What will such experience be? Not so much a living theological experience of the presence of God in the world and in mankind through the mystery of Christ, but rather a sense of security in one’s own correctness: a feeling of confidence that one has been saved, a confidence which is based on the reflex awareness that one holds the correct view of the creation and purpose of the world and that one’s behavior is of a kind to be rewarded in the next life. Or, perhaps, since few can attain this level of self-assurance, then the Christian experience becomes one of anxious hope—a struggle with occasional doubt of the “right answers,” a painful and constant effort to meet the severe demands of morality and law, and a somewhat desperate recourse to the sacraments which are there to help the weak who must constantly fall and rise again.

Is this Christian Fundamentalism or what! The Bible is “absolute truth” and we should be most concerned with who’s getting it right and who’s getting it wrong. Jesus is coming back any day now so screw the environment. Morality is dictated by God in the Bible and everyone, regardless of religious beliefs, should follow this moral “law.” Christians should focus on what they’ll get in heaven. The more they are persecuted on earth the greater their reward. This gives them a “license” to do whatever they want because they perceive all persecution (even that inflicted on them for being just plain jerks) as building up rewards in the hereafter. The Fundamentalist’s Christianity is a world view and nothing more. It is legalism at it’s finest.

As Merton says, “experience of the inner meaning of Christian revelation will necessarily be distorted and diminished.” Despite their bully tactics and overall hubris, you really must feel sorry for these poor souls. They totally miss the point yet insist they are the point. But this insistence comes at a price: as a Christian, they are told that they should have “a feeling of confidence that one has been saved, a confidence which is based on the reflex awareness that one holds the correct view of the creation and purpose of the world and that one’s behavior is of a kind to be rewarded in the next life.” Yet, many cannot “attain this level of self-assurance” and it is precisely because it is out of their reach that they put on the show of confidence.

The code of conduct for the Fundamentalist is a bar set too high for it dictates not only overt actions but covert thoughts and motives which are damn near impossible to control yet extremely easy to fake. They truly are like the child who lashes out at others to compensate, in some futile way, for the abuse they receive at home. The Fundamentalist cannot live up to expectations and so points out others’ flaws to draw attention away from themselves.

And because they are focused on all this finger pointing and name calling, they miss the “living theological experience of the presence of God in the world and in mankind through the mystery of Christ.” God is too busy inflicting punishment on the sinners to be present in the world. Christ is not a mystery to them because they have him totally figured out and are able to weed out sinner from saint with their “x-ray” vision (which really doesn’t penetrate much past a person’s hair, tie, and Bible translation).

More on The Blasphemy Challenge

Published
by
Ken
on February 13, 2007
in atheism, belief, christian fundamentalism, christianity, fundamentalism and religion
. 0 Comments

After an anonymous commenter (apparently he or she is not afraid of the Holy Spirit but is afraid if me) called me a moron in response to my post about the The Blasphemy Challenge I decided to do a little more investigating. Yes, I admit that I did not read very much on TBC’s website (tsk tsk). But I went back and viewed their very brief FAQ. Here are some more comments …

Why do you care?

It isn’t just adult Christians who are indoctrinated with the frightening ideology of Christian belief. In fact, most Christians are indoctrinated as children. These children are told that they must believe the following: That 2000 years ago a man died, stayed dead three days, rose from the dead and then flew into the air above the clouds– and right now this man is with them as their invisible companion and savior from Hell, if only they will submit to him. If this bizarre theory were not religious in nature, teaching it to children would probably be considered child abuse.

Personally, I don’t see anything frightening at all about what TBC’s FAQ says Christian children must believe. And this is not all that bizarre when you look at any religious belief. It’s also not at all bizarre when you compare it to the fairy tales and myths that are routinely believed by children. Things like “Santa Claus is watching you to see if you are naughty or nice” and “he knows when you are sleeping”. That is closer to child abuse than the Christian tenets listed above. TBC is missing the whole point — in my opinion. It’s not the Christianity that is the enemy — it’s the Fundamentalism.

How will The Blasphemy Challenge help?

Religious dogma has one chief means of support: Our unwillingness to criticize it in public. If we talked about religion the same way we talk about science, history or other fields involving truth claims, dogma would wither in the light. The Blasphemy Challenge, by addressing a truth claim of Christianity, is intended to provoke this sort of conversation.

A couple points here. First, how is asking people to blaspheme “addressing a truth claim?” The only way to determine that the “truth claim” is false is to demonstrate that the expected outcome does not happen. The only way to demonstrate that the expected outcome does not happen is to wait until all the people who blasphemed are dead and see if they ended up in Hell or not. But, anyone who blasphemed who was not a Christian would be in Hell anyway so there would still be no proof that it was the blasphemy that put them there. So, the only real test would be to have a Christian blaspheme and then see if that peson ended up in Hell. But I doubt that a true believer would want to blaspheme unless, of course, they would be willing to lose their eternal soul in the hopes of saving others. So, clearly this experiment is far from scientifically valid. If only the Bible said that anyone who blasphemes would be immediatley struck by lightning. Now that would be a verifiable result. But, alas, that is not the case.

Second, I think people have been criticizing religious dogma a lot longer than TBC gives them credit. But criticism is very different in the scientific community and in the religious community. If anyone has ever criticized a Christian Fundamentalist you know what I’m talking about. They do not take criticism well and usually it just makes them cling to their beliefs with more tenacity and close their ears and minds more tightly. Pissing off the Fundamentalists is not the way to get them to talk to you. I will guarantee that no “conversation” will be provoked by this.

Is it true that you are targeting young people with this campaign?

Yes. As young people are the most vulnerable to religious indoctrination, we feel it is important to reach them with the concept of challenging the doctrine they are told to unquestioningly believe.

In my opinion, Brian Flemming is as fanatical about being not Fundamentalist as the Fundamentalists are about being Fundamentalist. (Again, I saw the movie and these are my opinions. And these are opinions from someone who was in a situation very very similiar to Flemming’s.) Just because you don’t like Fundamentalism is no reason to trash all religious beliefs. If you don’t like Fundamentalism, then attack Fundamentalism! Don’t attack religion in general.

The FAQ talks about “religious indoctrination” and battling this by “challenging the doctrine” that Fundamentalists preach. But TBC is not about challenging any doctrine. TBC takes one idea out of an entire religion — an idea that it’s impossible to prove is wrong — and tries to base a new “anti-religion” on it. This is “religious indoctrination” of a different kind but it’s still indoctrination. “Don’t believe anything!” is as bad as “Only believe this!”.

Isn’t this just “fundamentalist atheism”?

That is a remarkably stupid question. The Rational Response Squad encourages people to inquire, argue, reason and doubt — not to believe something because they are told to. Free inquiry is the opposite of fundamentalism. The Blasphemy Challenge may be activist in nature, but it is hardly fundamentalist.

Again, I saw the movie and in my opinion the movie was very fundamentalist atheist. I got the impression that the movie was all about throwing out Christianity in its entirety and not about questioning your beliefs. TBC talks about free inquiry but also seems to say that you can’t believe the Christian dogma even if you want to. I’ll give my opinion one more time: It’s not Christianity that’s the enemy — it’s the Fundamentalism. Yet I see TBC attacking Christianity.

The Blasphemy Challenge

Published
by
Ken
on February 12, 2007
in atheism, christian fundamentalism, christianity, fundamentalism and religion
. 3 Comments

I stumbled upon The Blasphemy Challenge tonight. I saw the movie The God Who Wasn’t There and felt it was very … juvenile. Now I don’t mean this in a condescending way. What I mean is that Brian Flemming is in the same place that I was 20 years ago. I, too, was raised Fundamentalist Christian and made a break from it. And after my break I thought everything that even smelled Christian was hogwash, naive, and just plain stupid. But in that 20 years “away from it all,” I’ve grown to see that I was not rebelling against God or Jesus or the Holy Spirit. I was rebelling against Fundamentalism. And there is a huge difference. I will never rejoin the ranks of the Fundamentalists but I am no longer anti-everything-religious. I hope that Flemming and everyone who participates in the Blasphemy Challenge grow up to see the difference.

And as far as the Blasphemy Challenge goes … what’s the point? If these people are so sure God doesn’t exist then it’s pointless to do this. They might as well be denying The Great Pumpkin.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Published
by
Ken
on February 11, 2007
in bertrand russell, christian fundamentalism, fear, fundamentalism and why i am not a christian
. 3 Comments

Motivated by Evangelical Anxieties 1: Is Christianity a Religion of Fear? on the Internet Monk I got back to and finished a post I’ve been working on. Bertrand Russel, in Why I am not a Christian, has this to say about fear and religion:

Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear is the basis of the whole thing — fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of these two things.

Looking back on my experiences growing up, I can now see that there was a lot of fear. At the time, it was “just the way things were.” Fear was a necessary part of Christianity. Fear kept us in line. Fear was a great motivator. Here are some things that had a large fear-factor for me:

Communion: The Protestant communion we took once a month (you know, the trays of cracker niblets and Welch’s siplets passed around while we sat in the pews) was preceeded by a dire warning (at least it seemd dire to me then) to not be “unworthy” or some unnamed but horrible punishment would be executed on you. So, I spent the entire “quiet reflection” time before each course confessing all the sins I could think of so I would be worthy. For me there was no “In Remembrance of Me” — Jesus was the farthest thing from my mind. I was worried about my eternal soul.

Blame and Punishment: Every sinful act had to be assigned to a specific sinner and said sinner had to feel the consequences of said act. Most of the time, as a child, these consequences consisted of various objects being applied with a non-zero force to my sometimes bare ass. And by every sinful act I mean every. For example, while I was in Junior High School I twice lied about what I had for lunch. The first time I was severely warned. The second time I was spanked on my bare ass with a piece of wood. This was to punish my horrendous lie of saying I had a PBJ sandwich for lunch when I really just had a milkshake. Talk about being scared straight!

Fate of my Eternal Soul: I accepted Jesus Christ as my personal saviour when I was three. Then again when I was in elementary school. Then again when I was in Junior High. Then again when I was in High School. I was sure that I hadn’t done it right or that it didn’t take or that I had screwed up so badly that my salvation was taken away. For whatever reason the strength, power, and help that a Christian was supposed to receive from God just wasn’t there for me so I assumed that I must not have been a true Christian. And there’s no motivator quite like the fear of spending eternity with your hair on fire and TMJ from gnashing your teeth 24/7.

Failure: But despite my doubts about my salvation, I didn’t talk to anyone because that would be exposing my failures to everyone. And if I learned anything from my parents it was to hide all the uncomfortable feelings from everyone. I was expected to be a certain way and I played the part pretty well. It was just too scary to admit to anyone that I was faking it. And there would be consequences to pay and I just didn’t want to face them.

Things I was taught that were based on the fearful idea of “better safe than sorry”:

One Shot Deal: This life is the only chance you get. At the end of this life you are either going to Heaven (which is über good) or to Hell (which pretty much sucks). If you die tonight or tomorrow, that’s it. So, you should believe in Jesus Christ right now because you never know what will happen.

The Rapture: Jesus is coming back to earth again but this time as a “thief in the night.” Suddenly, everyone who is on the right side of the dogmatic fence will be gone — leaving behind the clothes they were wearing, the cars they were driving, the planes they were flying. Then Heaven help the rest of us. No one knows when it will happen. There are signs in the Bible but they are vague and probably every age could come up with a contemporary interpretation. It’s all meant to scare you into believing “just to be safe.”

The Tribulation: Ok, you say. Let the rapture happen and then I’ll believe. Sounds reasonable. But I was taught that there’s no free lunch here. There’s a catch to the wait and see strategy. You see, if anyone has heard about Jesus before the rapture it will not be possible for them to be saved after the rapture. Once again it’s “better safe than sorry.” I have no idea where the Biblical backup is for this position but that’s what I was told.

Faking it

Published
by
Ken
on December 29, 2006
in christian fundamentalism, fundamentalism, god and religion
. 0 Comments

I was taught that I needed a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. To this day I am not sure what that means. Growing up, I thought it meant reading the Bible, praying (of course, first confessing all my sins so that God would hear me), memorizing scripture, and generally “growing in the Word.” That’s another one I didn’t, and don’t, understand.

The thing is, all that personal relationship stuff is pretty easy to fake. It’s easy to memorize scripture. It’s easy to say you read the Bible and pray. It’s easy to appear like you and God are close. All you have to do is say the right words and do the right things in church. After all, who could possible know the truth about your personal relationship with God?

No one got very personal about my personl relationship with God. No one held me accountable in any way; not even my parents. We rarely read the Bible as a family. We prayed before eating but rarely any other time. There were no family devotions. It was a personal relationship which meant that is was, well, personal and not open for discussion.

The rub is works versus faith. Everyone knows that faith — believing in Jesus Christ — is what is important. (More ambiguous terminology to befuddle the mind.) Works don’t save you. But James says that there’s no better proof of your faith than works; without works your faith is dead (James 2:14-26). So, works don’t save you but without works you can’t be saved. So, it didn’t take me long to figure out that works could cover up a lot of unbelief and doubt and make my lack of faith look big.

And if a 12 year old can figure that out then I’m sure just about anyone can including the church deacon, the church pastor, the high-profile spiritual “leader”. So it should be pretty obvious that this opens up a huge can o’ worms. A personal relationship with God is intangible. Works are very tangible. Works “prove” the relationship. So, anyone — and I mean anyone — who wants to appear godly can appear godly.