A social experiment with fundamentalist Christians

[Jose Fly]

my whole point was that you may not know they're christian because they may not advertise that specifically.

And that kind of removes it from the "mainstream Christians speaking out against fundamentalists" category, doesn't it? If they're not making it clear that "We're Christians and we're here to say the fundies don't speak for us", then they're no different than an atheist group opposing them.

Besides lack of protestation doesn't automatically mean you support or don't care too much about what you're not protesting against. If Moderate Christians were in support of fundies then the fundies would be mainstream and not just a loud fringe group.

I was specifically referring to Kathryn's posts to me where she said she was too busy and didn't really care.

 

[Jose Fly]

The best way to fight fundamentalist Christianity is to show that that Christianity is not fundamentalism. Speaking out against fundamentalism is not the most effective way to do this.

Yeah, how's that working? As I pointed out, young people are flooding your exit doors and they specifically cite some of the more conservative/fundamentalist attitudes as their reasons why.

Karthryn, myself, and other Christians on this board have voiced our rejection of fundamentalism, and it has not made a dent in your perception of Christianity. Right? If we use bold caps in red and add stronger adjectives than bat-sh** crazy, will you then be convinced that we are the voice of Christianity, and not the fundies?

My perception of Christianity as a faith is defined by what Christianity teaches. I find its basic tenets to be silly and illogical. My perception of Christians is based on the Christians I encounter. I recognize and appreciate the diversity within the Christian community and if you're thinking that I treat all Christians the same based on the fundies I've encountered, then you're greatly mistaken.

 

[Jose Fly]

Sigh...Just another fundamentalistic sense of ideology... maybe next time you should learn to actually be able to back up your claims?

??????? I simply reported a set of experiences I had and the opinions I formed as a result. What exactly do you want backed up?

 

[lunamoth]

Not any church, but many mainstream ones, yes.

If a church allows extremists to draw from the common pot of funds to support their activities, then anyone who pays into that pot, including the moderate or liberal church member, is literally supporting the extremist.

I suppose in some cases, this support may be inadvertent if the moderate member isn't aware of what the extremists of their church are up to, but the support is still there.

Do you disagree?

in the system I am familiar with people support their local churches, and those local churches in turn choose whether to give money to the larger denominational body. If a church disagrees with the larger body, it may choose to withhold support. If members of the church disagree with how the money is used, they leave the church. In other cases people continue to support their local church by giving 'restricted' funds, than can only be used for things they specify. They might do this if they wish to work to change the church from within without abandoning all that they agree is good about the church.

Because all is interconnected, I do not agree with your analysis. By your way of slippery slope thinking, anything at all done to maintain the a church would ultimately be considered support of fundamentalism.

Buy one bottle of aspirin and you support the greed and abuse that can be found in the pharmaceutical industry.

Buy one bottle of Coke and you support the all the abuse and injustices that can be found in capitalism.

Fill your car with gas to take an unnecessary road trip and you support the oil wars.

There is good and bad in every human endeavor. We can try to build the good and eliminate the bad. It is a category mistake to throw away all of the good because of the bad, just as it is to hold onto the bad for some tiny good.

 

[lunamoth]

Specific examples?

I gave some, which apparently you did not read, and also people I have known in person.

So do you have examples of fundamentalist Christians who don't reject the findings of modern science?

No, I usually find that fundamentalists reject selected aspects of science, and I think that is wrong and nuts. But that is not the same as mean and bat-sh** crazy.

Perhaps by some people.

As seen in this thread.

The comments I made were specifically in regards to the people in the forum and the fundies I've known over the years. And I'm not going to attempt to speak for 9-10ths.

But your OP very much makes it sound like you conclude this about all fundies. I don't hold you accountable for anything other people say, and as I have said, I have found most of your posts in the past to be pretty clear-thinking and free of bias. I found this thread out of character for you.

 

[no-body]

Not entirely sure what you're trying to prove. You go to a forum full of nuts and are surprised when they act like nuts?

The secretly visiting forums meme and reporting back has been done to death over the years particularly in fringe groups i.e. furries, new agers, fundamentalist of all stripes, etc.

It's entertaining sure but not very informative.

 

[science_is_my_god]

??????? I simply reported a set of experiences I had and the opinions I formed as a result. What exactly do you want backed up?

Me? I want nothing backed up. I am merely seeing this:

Once the group got used to me and accepted me as one of their own, I started questioning some of the things they were posting. Not, "questioning" as in disagreeing, but as in simply asking things like "Is that really true" or "Can you show me where it actually says that".

What I discovered is that as loony and strange as fundamentalist Christians seem on open boards like this one, when they discuss things amongst themselves where they feel safe and like no one is listening, that's when the true crazy hate comes out. Also, they do not tolerate even the slightest bit of doubt or questioning from within. All one has to do is ask something like, "Really? Can you show me where that language is in the proposed bill" and you are immediately set upon by the group. I even had multiple threats of physical violence posted to me.

I also came away with a confirmation of some opinions I'd had of fundamentalists before the experiment, mostly that they are extremely paranoid, intentionally ignorant, and genuinely unhappy and angry in a very deep and serious way. And the fact that they've become more politically influential in recent years is something we as a country need to take very seriously. These are some very, very disturbed, messed up people.

and then assert that you are the very definition of hypocrisy.

 

[Jose Fly]

I gave some, which apparently you did not read, and also people I have known in person.

You mean Rick Warren and Ken Miller? You consider them to be fundamentalist Christians?

No, I usually find that fundamentalists reject selected aspects of science, and I think that is wrong and nuts. But that is not the same as mean and bat-sh** crazy.

So we agree that fundamentalists are "nuts". And I never used the term "bat-**** crazy". As far as "mean" that does not apply to their rejection of science, but rather their attitudes towards non-Christians and/or people who disagree with them.

But your OP very much makes it sound like you conclude this about all fundies.

With some things, yes I do (in a general sense...there are always rare exceptions). In order to be a fundamentalist Christian, you have to reject much of the modern world, adhere to strict authority, ignore much of reality, and engage in extreme black/white thinking. That sort of psychological profile lends itself quite easily to other semi-related craziness, e.g. end times prophecies and their relationship with conspiracy theories, distrust or even hatred of "outsiders", etc.

I don't hold you accountable for anything other people say, and as I have said, I have found most of your posts in the past to be pretty clear-thinking and free of bias. I found this thread out of character for you.

And that may be my fault. If so, I apologize.

 

[Jose Fly]

Not entirely sure what you're trying to prove. You go to a forum full of nuts and are surprised when they act like nuts?

The question is, were these nuts atypical or typical among fundamentalist Christians? I contend they are more the latter than the former.

It's entertaining sure but not very informative.

Then feel free to ignore the thread.

 

[lunamoth]

Yeah, how's that working? As I pointed out, young people are flooding your exit doors and they specifically cite some of the more conservative/fundamentalist attitudes as their reasons why.

I have a lot of respect for people who leave a religion because it is too conservative/fundamentalist/irrelevant. I have no need to be part of a majority, although I think (obviously) that religion does have something good to offer. If it does, it will persist. I believe in the 'build a better mousetrap' version of evangelism.

My perception of Christianity as a faith is defined by what Christianity teaches. I find its basic tenets to be silly and illogical.

Fair enough.

My perception of Christians is based on the Christians I encounter. I recognize and appreciate the diversity within the Christian community and if you're thinking that I treat all Christians the same based on the fundies I've encountered, then you're greatly mistaken.

Good to hear, and more in line with my earlier impression of your stance. Peace.

 

[Jose Fly]

Me? I want nothing backed up.

????? That's been your sole contribution to the thread, i.e. asking "can you back that up". If you don't want it, why do you keep asking for it?

and then assert that you are the very definition of hypocrisy.

????????? How am I being hypocritical?

 

[Jose Fly]

I have a lot of respect for people who leave a religion because it is too conservative/fundamentalist/irrelevant. I have no need to be part of a majority, although I think (obviously) that religion does have something good to offer. If it does, it will persist. I believe in the 'build a better mousetrap' version of evangelism.

But there's two problems I see with that response. First, you and Kathryn are telling me the fundamentalist attitudes are a fringe minority within Christianity. So one would think if you were losing followers because the faith is being mischaracterized by that fringe, you would do something about it. And that brings me to my second point...if you believe that Christianity is the path to salvation, I would think the mass exodus of young people would be a concern of monumental proportions to you, especially if it's because the fundies are making your faith look bad. But you both seem to be kind of like, "Meh...whatever" about it all.

Good to hear, and more in line with my earlier impression of your stance. Peace.

Good. I'm glad we cleared that up. Again, I apologize for misspeaking.

 

[lunamoth]

Just lost my reply to this...now I need to try to retype!

You mean Rick Warren and Ken Miller? You consider them to be fundamentalist Christians?

Not Ken Miller, lol! He is an example of someone who fights against creationism, which most fundamentalists have in common. Rick Warren is conservative/evangelical without being bat-**** crazy (hosted by the UN and White House), and Jim Wallis is moderate/evangelical who speaks against fundamentalism/Christian extremism.

So we agree that fundamentalists are "nuts". And I never used the term "bat-**** crazy". As far as "mean" that does not apply to their rejection of science, but rather their attitudes towards non-Christians and/or people who disagree with them.

I agree that most fundamentalist positions, such as rejection of evolution, are nuts. I make a distinction between being wrong and nuts, even tragically wrong, and bat-sh** crazy and mean. I did not see that distinction in your OP. I saw a tendency toward lumping.

With some things, yes I do (in a general sense...there are always rare exceptions). In order to be a fundamentalist Christian, you have to reject much of the modern world, adhere to strict authority, ignore much of reality, and engage in extreme black/white thinking. That sort of psychological profile lends itself quite easily to other semi-related craziness, e.g. end times prophecies and their relationship with conspiracy theories, distrust or even hatred of "outsiders", etc.

I agree, but I don't like generalizations. They dehumanize us and keep us from listening to each other.

I was surprised and put off by your OP, which I also thought was trying to promote an opinion as some kind of scientifically tested idea. I guess you were just joking about that.

And that may be my fault. If so, I apologize.

I appreciate that. I would not have engaged if I did not think some good conversation, and hopefully light, would come from it. :rainbow1:

 

[science_is_my_god]

????????? How am I being hypocritical?

As far as "mean" that does not apply to their rejection of science,

????????? You honestly think what I did was an attempt at "science"? Really?

So there you have it, folks. I guess the OP should be changed from

A social experiment with fundamentalist Christians

to "A social thing-a-ma-jig I call an experiment because I say it is."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

in the system I am familiar with people support their local churches, and those local churches in turn choose whether to give money to the larger denominational body. If a church disagrees with the larger body, it may choose to withhold support.

Okay - in some other denominations, the church doesn't have that option.

If members of the church disagree with how the money is used, they leave the church.

Yes, I agree that's an option.

In other cases people continue to support their local church by giving 'restricted' funds, than can only be used for things they specify. They might do this if they wish to work to change the church from within without abandoning all that they agree is good about the church.

This sounds to be a bit of an accounting shell game. It may send a symbolic message, but it usually won't affect how money is spent.

If the denomination budgets X dollars for good endeavour 'A' and Y dollars for bad endeavour 'B', an individual member's decision to donate to the "restricted" fund for 'A' may take money away from the pool of general fund that 'B' draws from, but it also partially removes the cost of 'A' from that general fund as well. IOW, it just changes how money is shuffled between pots, not how much actually gets spent on what.

Because all is interconnected, I do not agree with your analysis. By your way of slippery slope thinking, anything at all done to maintain the a church would ultimately be considered support of fundamentalism.

Buy one bottle of aspirin and you support the greed and abuse that can be found in the pharmaceutical industry.

Buy one bottle of Coke and you support the all the abuse and injustices that can be found in capitalism.

Fill your car with gas to take an unnecessary road trip and you support the oil wars.

YES! I entirely agree, and that's my point: we're responsible for the consequences of our choices. The individual who chooses to buy a Coca-cola, to take an unnecessary road trip, or to tithe to a church that funds anti-gay programs isn't responsible for all of the ills of capitalism, wars for oil or homophobia, but he does share some small measure of the blame for enabling it.

There is good and bad in every human endeavor. We can try to build the good and eliminate the bad. It is a category mistake to throw away all of the good because of the bad, just as it is to hold onto the bad for some tiny good.

But by the same token, if the good can be acheived without the bad, then choosing the mixed option is choosing the bad... even if the mixed option is more good than bad.

For instance, there are denominations and churches that don't support anti-gay lobbying. IMO, a Christian can't use their desire for community or perceived need for a place of worship as the reason to stay in an anti-gay church, because all those things can be had without the anti-gay aspect.

 

[lunamoth]

But there's two problems I see with that response. First, you and Kathryn are telling me the fundamentalist attitudes are a fringe minority within Christianity. So one would think if you were losing followers because the faith is being mischaracterized by that fringe, you would do something about it.

And we are doing something about it. We are going about loving our neighbors and quietly taking Christ's love out into the world. We are living out our ideals of kindness and compassion, and trying to show what we think Christ is all about, and why it is important. We are feeding the poor and sending aid to those in distress. We are doctors and lawyers and scientists and teachers living and loving as God loves us. Think of it as the equivalent of non-violent resistance.

And that brings me to my second point...if you believe that Christianity is the path to salvation, I would think the mass exodus of young people would be a concern of monumental proportions to you, especially if it's because the fundies are making your faith look bad. But you both seem to be kind of like, "Meh...whatever" about it all.

It is a concern that people leave Christianity, but not because of some metaphysical salvation in an afterlife. Salvation is for now as much as it is for some afterlife. Afterlife with God gives hope, especially when times are dark, but salvation is for now. If the church is not delivering it, then we need to change or die. The fundies can do what they want, but they can't make good not good, so I'm not worried about what they are doing to Christianity. I worry about what they do to our schools and civil rights.

Good. I'm glad we cleared that up. Again, I apologize for misspeaking.

My apologies as well for any negative interaction on my part.

 

[Jose Fly]

Not Ken Miller, lol! He is an example of someone who fights against creationism, which most fundamentalists have in common. Rick Warren is conservative/evangelical without being bat-**** crazy (hosted by the UN and White House), and Jim Wallis is moderate/evangelical who speaks against fundamentalism/Christian extremism.

But you specifically referred to "those who adhere to the five fundamentals...but are otherwise nice people not into conspiracies". Did you not mean fundamentalists?

I agree that most fundamentalist positions, such as rejection of evolution, are nuts. I make a distinction between being wrong and nuts, even tragically wrong, and bat-sh** crazy and mean. I did not see that distinction in your OP. I saw a tendency toward lumping.

Well let's be clear here. I do think some "lumping" is warranted. As I explained, in order to be a fundamentalist Christian, you have to meet certain criteria such as rejection of much of science, strict Biblical literalism, rejection of much of modernism (e.g. multiculturalism), strict adherence to authority, and black/white thinking. Now, if you or anyone else can show me a group of people that meet those criteria and aren't nuts, backwards, and at least somewhat hateful, I'd be extremely surprised.

Keep in mind we're "lumping" based on a narrow set of beliefs and characteristics. This isn't like saying "All black people..." or even "All Christians...". It's more like saying "Islamic fundamentalists who behead their wives for family honor are disgusting monsters". We're observing a suite of behaviors and beliefs that define a group of people and making a judgement about that group based on them.

I agree, but I don't like generalizations. They dehumanize us and keep us from listening to each other.

I understand.

I was surprised and put off by your OP, which I also thought was trying to promote an opinion as some kind of scientifically tested idea. I guess you were just joking about that.

I thought the OP was pretty clear that I was sharing my opinions.

 

[Jose Fly]

So there you have it, folks. I guess the OP should be changed from...to "A social thing-a-ma-jig I call an experiment because I say it is."

Ah, I see. Your thinking on this thread started when you read the word "experiment" and stopped there. You honestly thought I was posting a description of an empirical experiment of a scientific hypothesis, rather than simply describing something I had done on the internet.

May I suggest next time you realize that when people use the word "experiment", they don't always mean it in its empirical sense and intend it to be read in a colloquial sense? And I will realize that some people are unable to grasp such nuances.

Thanks for your input.

 

[Jose Fly]

And we are doing something about it. We are going about loving our neighbors and quietly taking Christ's love out into the world. We are living out our ideals of kindness and compassion, and trying to show what we think Christ is all about, and why it is important. We are feeding the poor and sending aid to those in distress. We are doctors and lawyers and scientists and teachers living and loving as God loves us. Think of it as the equivalent of non-violent resistance.

But again, it's simply not working. And as I said before, if the next generation is less religious than the one before because of it, I see that as a good thing.

It is a concern that people leave Christianity, but not because of some metaphysical salvation in an afterlife. Salvation is for now as much as it is for some afterlife. Afterlife with God gives hope, especially when times are dark, but salvation is for now. If the church is not delivering it, then we need to change or die. The fundies can do what they want, but they can't make good not good, so I'm not worried about what they are doing to Christianity. I worry about what they do to our schools and civil rights.

So you don't believe the unsaved don't go to heaven and/or go to hell?

My apologies as well for any negative interaction on my part.

No problems.

 

[science_is_my_god]

Ah, I see. Your thinking on this thread started when you read the word "experiment" and stopped there. You honestly thought I was posting a description of an empirical experiment of a scientific hypothesis, rather than simply describing something I had done on the internet.

May I suggest next time you realize that when people use the word "experiment", they don't always mean it in its empirical sense and intend it to be read in a colloquial sense? And I will realize that some people are unable to grasp such nuances.

Thanks for your input.

Okay, I'm glad that you have established that everything you have said up until this point is unfounded in the scientific method and is therefor nothing more than a personal opinion of yours. I'm sorry, you were getting so wrapped up into what you believed to be true that I mistook you for trying to stake the claim that it actually is true.