A social experiment with fundamentalist Christians

[Muffled]

I haven't been to Religious Forums since last September, mostly because I got a little bored because I agreed with so many people here. When a forum becomes essentially a "mutual back-slapping club", I tend to lose interest and go looking for something else.

I suspect this is a problem with bored people. They feel they need to stir the pot more rigorously.

I don't suppose you said anything outlandish or crazy while on that forum?

Intentional deception. Somehow that smacks of evil from the beginning.

You could always get a group like the one that David Karesh led but despite the fact that I have been to a large number of churches, I have never encountered one like that. I also attended a fundamentalist church for several years and found no such non-sense there. In fact we didn't agree on theology but they didn't toss me out as another church did.

 

[Muffled]

They, along with all members of their church, support some rather nasty things.

Maybe they aren't aware of the nastiness, maybe they think that the nastiness is outweighed by good in some other regard, maybe they think they've been commanded by God to support that church, but when a tithing Catholic or Mormon says that they support gay rights, for instance, this is tempered by the fact that they've given material support to an entity that works directly against gay rights.

I don't know if that makes them "guilty as charged", but it does mean that they share partial responsibility for the actions that they enabled.


Don't you think that people are responsible for their actions? Is tithing or church membership somehow exempt from this? These are real actions with real consequences.

And I don't see any hipocrisy - you're welcome to call me to task for my actions, too.

I don't support this and think anyone who does is being anti-thetical to Christianity.
If you are eqating that with hate you are a bigot.

I attended an African Amercan Baptist church that belonged to the SBC. I did not encounter any hate there.

 

[Kathryn]

By the way, many religions teach that sex outside of marriage is wrong - including homosexual sex. This does not mean that people HATE those who have sex outside of marriage.

There is a big difference between believing some things are immoral (even many of our own actions) and hating the person who practices those things (which is often ourselves).

Religion in and of itself offers believers goals to strive toward when it comes to morality. If you don't care for the standards of morality in a certain religion, then that's fine - don't join that religion. But to blatantly accuse all those believers of bigotry and hatred is, well, hypocritical.

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't support this and think anyone who does is being anti-thetical to Christianity.
If you are eqating that with hate you are a bigot.

Choosing to inflict direct, real harm on real people is not an act of love.

I attended an African Amercan Baptist church that belonged to the SBC. I did not encounter any hate there.

That doesn't surprise me. The SBC outsources their hate.

By the way, many religions teach that sex outside of marriage is wrong - including homosexual sex. This does not mean that people HATE those who have sex outside of marriage.

There is a big difference between believing some things are immoral (even many of our own actions) and hating the person who practices those things (which is often ourselves).

And there's a big difference between merely abiding by a standard one sets for onesself and imposing that standard on others, especially when imposing that standard means hurting people in the process - therein lies the hate.

Also, I'm not just talking about same-sex marriage. I'm also talking about things like the "pray the gay away" movement and the campaign in some countries to make homosexuality a criminal offense.

Edit: and it's not even just about homosexuality. It's about any issue where an individual believer feels personally, morally compelled to act one way yet funds a church that works to further the opposing cause. Maybe the issue is homosexuality, but it could just as easily be education, foreign aid, or anything, really.

Religion in and of itself offers believers goals to strive toward when it comes to morality. If you don't care for the standards of morality in a certain religion, then that's fine - don't join that religion. But to blatantly accuse all those believers of bigotry and hatred is, well, hypocritical.

Pot, meet kettle.

I'm not accusing all believers of bigotry. What I'm saying is that when we start with a dollar spent in furthering real harm to actual human beings and can trace it back through a chain that begins with an individual person freely deciding to give it despite knowing how that dollar would be used, then that individual person shares the blame for that real harm.

If I buy from Wal-Mart, I support their business practices... for good or for bad. If I decide to buy a larger, less fuel-efficient car than I really need, I support oil consumption... for good or for bad. If I put money in the collection plate of a church, then I support the activities of that church... for good or for bad. All of these are voluntary decisions on my part, and - along with all the people who choose as I do - I share responsibility for their consequences.

Again: don't you think that people are responsible for their actions?

 

[Jose Fly]

I am very well-versed in the history of fundamentalism. Which is why I know that some people adhere to the fundamentals, and so are fundamentalists, without being as crazy (I'll start saying whacko instead of bat-****) as the people in your OP. It does not mean that they are xenophobic and homophobic.

But is Rick Warren a young-earth creationist? Is he an end-times prophecies adherent? A strict literal reading of the Bible also is pretty clear about the roles of women and the standing of gays. If not, is he really a Biblical literalist?

I did not think my grandfather was insane, and he was very kind and generous, and I never heard him suggest anyone ate babies or should kill people not like himself. He had some ideas I call nuts, but he was not whacko, not mean, not even in private. I think it is nuts to deny evolution, but creationists, while wrong and potentially harmful to education, are not all whacko-mean xenophobic homophobes. Some are - some are not.

So they advocate positions that are "nuts" but they aren't nuts themselves.

You can take it that way if you wish, or you could answer the questions.

I find it surprising that someone claiming to be a Christian doesn't know what the common meanings of "salvation", "heaven" and "hell" are and needs to ask an atheist for help. Either way, I'm pretty sure I have my answer.

 

[Jose Fly]

First, why do you even care about these fundamentalist? Are you a Christian apologist and what to set the record in correct perspective or are you any type of Christian at all.

Curiosity. Nothing more.

Are you a socilogogist, psychologist, a theologian or do you have any special knowledge that qualifies you to have a constructive opinion on anything at all?

????? My opinions are my own. If you don't agree with them, that's fine.

If you go to a forum where you think the folk are crazy, you will probably find a bunch of crazy people. You try that persona here on fundamentalist, you will find a different respondent. Don't you understand that simple fact?

No, actually it's been my experience that fundamentalist Christians in online forums all seem to be kinda nuts/crazy. When you read through this thread, you'll so others expressing the same view.

I don't see that you have a single definition of Christian fundamentalist that differentiates from emotional illness.

That's odd as in what you responded to I didn't define fundamentalist Christians.

I can point you to a number of liberal politicians on this very forum who are like you describe and atheist too.

Who?

If it is a real experiment, you do have to give a clear definition or else admit you do have no idea of what to make of your experience.

No, I know what to make of my own experience. If you don't, you could either discuss it with me or just let it go.

You are reporting what you were looking to report and it is clear that you were going to find that for which you were looking.

Well, if you think I'm just making it all up, that's your opinion. And if you think my experience was atypical, could you please point me to a fundamentalist Christian forum that is more typical?

It must be concluded that this thread was not a report of an experiment but rather a thread for Christian bashing with the usual suspects leading the attack.

So you stand behind the sorts of views and opinions expressed by fundamentalist Christians as described in the OP?

 

[Jose Fly]

You are talking about activism when you ask "What are you doing about it?"

Yeah, pretty much.

I believe that Christianity offers the fullness of religious belief, but I do not believe that everyone who is not a Christian is going to hell. If I DID believe that, my take on things, and my actions, would differ.

And that's a very important point that I've been trying to get at. Lunamoth kinda dodged the issue, but admirably you make yourself very clear. It makes sense that someone who does not believe Christianity is the only path to salvation (and away from damnation) would take a "so be it" attitude towards young people leaving the faith in large part because of the increasing influence of fundamentalism. Those kids can find salvation some other way, right?

Of course to the fundies, you are an apostate and not a true Christian. I'm sure you know that and it doesn't bother you (as it shouldn't), but from their perspective, you're probably an even bigger threat than me.

I am not "Meh...whatever" about any of it. In spite of your incessant attempts to portray me as such...

...If that's what you insist on reading into and taking away from what I've posted here, I am CLEARLY wasting my time with you.

But Kathryn, you used those exact words! Here's a sample of what you've told me...

"As it is, it's not in my state, and I'm not going to attend, so really it's not a burning issue to me."

"It's not that I don't care - it's that it's NOT MY BUSINESS."

"To be honest, I don't much care for the "general impression of the general public.""

"Let them build their hokey museum. Who cares?"

 

[Jose Fly]

I suspect this is a problem with bored people. They feel they need to stir the pot more rigorously.

Oh I agree. This was largely an exercise from boredom.

I don't suppose you said anything outlandish or crazy while on that forum?

Not unless you consider things like "Actually, that video is a fake" or "Can you show me where the UN document says that" to be outlandish and crazy.

Intentional deception. Somehow that smacks of evil from the beginning.

I understand how it can be seen that way.

You could always get a group like the one that David Karesh led but despite the fact that I have been to a large number of churches, I have never encountered one like that. I also attended a fundamentalist church for several years and found no such non-sense there. In fact we didn't agree on theology but they didn't toss me out as another church did.

Sure, your experiences differ. But as I said, I scoured the internet and "lurked" at several fundamentalist Christian forums and what I experienced in the one I joined was fairly typical of the genre.

Ok, enough internet! It's time to go out and shovel snow.

 

[Rainy]

As one who's been to many different types of forums, from religious to conspiracy theory, I can testify that every group of people has their extremists.

I was cyber-stalked by atheists on a discussion forum. They learned my identity and breached my privacy, including my medical records. They were unable to intimidate me, so they targeted my son.

All of that happened because I gave my opinion, and they didn’t like it. If my opinion strikes such hatred and anger in any person that they would seek to do me or mine harm, it is obvious that they are the insecure. Experiences like that strengthen my beliefs.

A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing for some people. No one’s opinion changes the truth of any matter. How humiliating it must be to those ’know-it-alls’ faced with that reality, regardless of any affiliation they may have with other people. They become like wild animals backed into a corner.

I can always afford to move on because it is a big world.

 

[Civil Shephard]

Just for the record... I think your approach to your investigation was a bit unethical allowing for an unfair editorial according to an erroneous point of view. You are after all neither a female or someone who subscribes to the teachings of Christ. I suppose I'm still a bit impressed though as you do at least attempt to present an unbiased point of view by making plain your real opinions on the subject. Perhaps FOX news will stick you in between Hannity and O'Rielly... wouldn't that be a hoot!?! (OK OK I was born in Milwaukee... don't cha know?)

 

[lunamoth]

But is Rick Warren a young-earth creationist? Is he an end-times prophecies adherent?

You are moving the goal posts again. He considers himself a fundamentalist.

A strict literal reading of the Bible also is pretty clear about the roles of women and the standing of gays. If not, is he really a Biblical literalist?

I actually don't know his position with respect to the role of women in the church, and according to 9/10ths he thinks that homosexuality is undesirable, or at least that there is a spiritual cure for it if one wishes to not be gay. However, this smacks of the no true Scotsman fallacy.

Here are the five fundamentals again: 1. The Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:1; John 20:28; Hebrews 1:8-9).
2. The Virgin Birth (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23; Luke 1:27).
3. The Blood Atonement (Acts 20:28; Romans 3:25, 5:9; Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 9:12-14).
4. The Bodily Resurrection (Luke 24:36-46; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, 15:14-15).
5. The inerrancy of the scriptures themselves (Psalms 12:6-7; Romans 15:4; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20). [FONT=&quot][1][/FONT]

So they advocate positions that are "nuts" but they aren't nuts themselves.

At least in some cases. Lots of people of normal rationality and good mental health believe some things others consider nuts. The point is that having these nuts positions does not necessitate that they are all mean/whacko crazy such as the people at the forum where you did your 'study.' Some will be - some will not be.

Again, if you are only saying that the mean/crazy fundies are mean/crazy fundies - well OK. I would agree. But, your OP appeared to be making the point that all people who are conservative Christians or fundamentalist/literalist/evangelizing Christians who seem normal in mixed company are all actually crazy-mean fundies behind closed doors. Which did you mean?

I find it surprising that someone claiming to be a Christian doesn't know what the common meanings of "salvation", "heaven" and "hell" are and needs to ask an atheist for help.

First, this thread is not about my theology. Second, there is a diversity of thought about what these words mean, so it's most expedient if you tell me what you are referring to when you use these words so I can answer your questions.

Either way, I'm pretty sure I have my answer.

Maybe, maybe not.

 

[Jose Fly]

Just for the record... I think your approach to your investigation was a bit unethical allowing for an unfair editorial according to an erroneous point of view.

I certainly understand how some might view posting under an assumed identity as unethical. However, that does not change what happened in the forum. For all they knew, I was who I said I was and they still treated me the way they did.

I suppose I'm still a bit impressed though as you do at least attempt to present an unbiased point of view by making plain your real opinions on the subject. Perhaps FOX news will stick you in between Hannity and O'Rielly... wouldn't that be a hoot!?! (OK OK I was born in Milwaukee... don't cha know?)

Um....yeah...somehow I doubt I'm Faux News' "type". :no:

 

[Jose Fly]

You are moving the goal posts again. He considers himself a fundamentalist.

If he considers himself a "Biblical literalist", then he reads the Genesis creation account literally as well as the Bible's overall very clear message about homosexuality and the end times. If he does not, then he is not a Biblical literalist and thus is not a fundamentalist.

I actually don't know his position with respect to the role of women in the church, and according to 9/10ths he thinks that homosexuality is undesirable, or at least that there is a spiritual cure for it if one wishes to not be gay. However, this smacks of the no true Scotsman fallacy.

No, it's pretty simple really. Either you are a Biblical literalist or you aren't.

At least in some cases. Lots of people of normal rationality and good mental health believe some things others consider nuts. The point is that having these nuts positions does not necessitate that they are all mean/whacko crazy such as the people at the forum where you did your 'study.' Some will be - some will not be.

Again, if you are only saying that the mean/crazy fundies are mean/crazy fundies - well OK. I would agree. But, your OP appeared to be making the point that all people who are conservative Christians or fundamentalist/literalist/evangelizing Christians who seem normal in mixed company are all actually crazy-mean fundies behind closed doors. Which did you mean?

Let me put it this way....in America, fundamentalist Christianity is typified by paranoia, bigotry, xenophobia, anti-modernism, authoritarianism, and extreme black/white thinking. The public faces and personalities of fundamentalist Christianity frequently and regularly exhibit at least one, and usually more than one of these traits.

Does every single fundamentalist Christian exhibit every single one of those traits? No. But a cross section of that community would reveal all of them, and likely more.

As I said, there is a wealth of literature available on the psychological traits of fundamentalists. I strongly suggest that if you truly find this subject as interesting as it seems, you read a bit and then immerse yourself in a fundamentalist Christian setting where they "have their guard down". If you come away with a dramatically different experience than I had, I would absolutely love to hear about it.

First, this thread is not about my theology. Second, there is a diversity of thought about what these words mean, so it's most expedient if you tell me what you are referring to when you use these words so I can answer your questions.

*sigh* I mean them in their most common usage. If you honestly don't know what salvation, heaven, and hell mean in a common Christian context, then there's no further point in going down that rabbit trail.

 

[Jose Fly]

You know, Lunamoth has given me an idea.

For all the Christians in this thread who doubt various aspects of what I've reported here:

Please go and replicate my "experiment". However, as a true Christian, you won't have to misrepresent yourself to join a fundamentalist Christian online group. Find one, apply for membership as yourself, and start interacting with the group on various social, political, and religious topics.

After a few months, report your observations back to this thread. Again, if my experience truly was atypical, I'd love to know.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If he considers himself a "Biblical literalist", then he reads the Genesis creation account literally as well as the Bible's overall very clear message about homosexuality and the end times. If he does not, then he is not a Biblical literalist and thus is not a fundamentalist.

As far as Biblical literalism goes, I don't think it necessarily implies young earth creationism. I think the Day-Age Creationists make a good enough case for the literalism of their position that a person could believe in an old Earth and still honestly consider himself a fundamentalist.

There are problems with reconciling Day-Age creationism with evolution, but I think that when Day-Age creationists say that they accept evolution, this is more based on a misunderstanding of evolution than a compromise on Biblical literalism.

 

[Kathryn]

But Kathryn, you used those exact words! Here's a sample of what you've told me...

"As it is, it's not in my state, and I'm not going to attend, so really it's not a burning issue to me."

"It's not that I don't care - it's that it's NOT MY BUSINESS."

"Let them build their hokey museum. Who cares?"

Jose, you are really stretching. It's obvious that you went back through my posts, looking for quotes to "prove" that I "don't care" and am apathetic about fundamentalists "taking over Christianity" and being the "face and voice of Christianity" and that I'm "too apathetic to do anything about it."

Three of the four quotes you managed to find throughout my copious posts on this thread are addressing specifically (and only) the creation museum and/or the ark amusement park. In context, these quotes clearly state that I don't meddle with the building of those places because they aren't in my state and so I can't vote supporting politicians out or protest the support of state tax dollars (though I can and do voice my opposition of state funded religious events and organizations in general).

How you can possibly claim with any integrity that these quotes mean that I am apathetic about openly decrying crazy fundamentalism in the name of Christianity is beyond me.

The other quote,

"To be honest, I don't much care for the "general impression of the general public."

clearly means, in and out of context, that I don't base my lifestyle or actions on "what the general public will think about me."

I think I see a basic lack of integrity and honesty in your approach to this topic in general, and your debate tactics.

You're losing traction here, buddy.

 

[lunamoth]

If he considers himself a "Biblical literalist", then he reads the Genesis creation account literally as well as the Bible's overall very clear message about homosexuality and the end times. If he does not, then he is not a Biblical literalist and thus is not a fundamentalist.

So, are you going to stick with the definition that fundamentalist = Biblical literalist? If so, are you going to stick with the assertion that all Biblical literalists are "extremely paranoid, intentionally ignorant, and genuinely unhappy and angry in a very deep and serious way," crazy-haters who are likely to threaten physical violence against people who do not agree with them, "some very, very disturbed, messed up people?"

Let me put it this way....in America, fundamentalist Christianity is typified by paranoia, bigotry, xenophobia, anti-modernism, authoritarianism, and extreme black/white thinking. The public faces and personalities of fundamentalist Christianity frequently and regularly exhibit at least one, and usually more than one of these traits.

So, now fundamentalist Christianity = paranoia, bigotry, xenophobia, anti-modernism, authoritarianism, and extreme black/white thinking. Is this the definition you wish to go with? Hey, I would say fundamentalist Christianity has more than its share of people with these traits, but this is not surprising. Right? Nothing about your 'study' is surprising - you sought a group of fundamentalists with these traits, you found them, and you confirmed your opinion based upon what you found. Happens all the time. Also a logical fallacy if you think you've done anything other use circular reasoning to confirm your own opinion. Crazy-fundies are crazy because crazy-fundies are crazy ... meh.

Does every single fundamentalist Christian exhibit every single one of those traits? No. But a cross section of that community would reveal all of them, and likely more.

Hey! We are in agreement! And have been all along.

As I said, there is a wealth of literature available on the psychological traits of fundamentalists. I strongly suggest that if you truly find this subject as interesting as it seems, you read a bit and then immerse yourself in a fundamentalist Christian setting where they "have their guard down". If you come away with a dramatically different experience than I had, I would absolutely love to hear about it.

Well, the psychological literature would be the place I would go to be informed about this should my interest continue. I would not, however, be so misguided as to think that I could do any kind of meaningful test of this by going to a crazy-fundie site and finding *gasp* crazy fundies.

*sigh* I mean them in their most common usage. If you honestly don't know what salvation, heaven, and hell mean in a common Christian context, then there's no further point in going down that rabbit trail.

I agree it is a rabbit trail, initiated by yourself and I've just refused to follow you down it. You offered a red herring, I did not take the bait, and since then you have been trying to massage this tangent into an ad hominem.

Well, I guess I'm done here. Thank you for the conversation. It was entertaining!

 

[Danmac]

I haven't been to Religious Forums since last September, mostly because I got a little bored because I agreed with so many people here. When a forum becomes essentially a "mutual back-slapping club", I tend to lose interest and go looking for something else.

This time around, I decided to do something a little different. I searched around the internet for a fundamentalist Christian discussion group that tightly controlled their membership. After a bit, I found one and applied for membership posing as a college age female who was also a born-again Christian. After I was accepted, I started off posting in a pretty innocuous manner, portraying myself as a bubbly, positive Christian. There were lot's of "Praise God" and "Amen" type things in my posts. 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".

And boy, did the poo hit the fan! I've never seen such a quick and unified turnaround in a group of people.

Let's be clear here...the sorts of things they posted were some of the most vile, mean-spirited, disgusting views I'd ever seen. Everything...and I mean everything...was a conspiracy. There were threads about rounding up all Muslims in the US and deporting them, jailing them, or even killing them; there were threads arguing that gays would go out at night and kidnap babies and eat them; there were threads about how the civil rights act was fascist; and there were so many threads about Obama and how he was a terrorist, Muslim, atheist, Nazi, communist, gay, CIA/Al Queda operative...it's hard to describe. There was even a lengthy discussion of geocentrism (with people actually advocating it).

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.

EDIT: As I mentioned above, I was posting as a young female. It wasn't too long before I was struck by how differently I was treated. Being a male and always having posted as myself, I wasn't really prepared for what I experienced. In general, the men were very condescending and didn't take me seriously and the women really wanted to....what I call "bicker". The men regularly referred to me with terms like, "little girl", "sweetie", and even a few sexually offensive terms, and the women were even worse! Being the father of two young girls, I was really bothered by this treatment. At the very least, I came away from this experience determined to make sure my daughters don't ever allow anyone to treat them like that simply because of their sex.

First of all, you are taking the actions of a group of so called Christians and using their actions to criticize Christianity. When in fact Christian teachings themselves criticize such behavior.

Secondly, many churchgoers are guilty of adopting the views of the pastorate, without doing any research of their own.

Thirdly, if you want to have a one on one discussion with me, I am quite confident that I can defend Christianity, and use the Bible to do so. So now I am challenging you.

 

[Jose Fly]

As far as Biblical literalism goes, I don't think it necessarily implies young earth creationism. I think the Day-Age Creationists make a good enough case for the literalism of their position that a person could believe in an old Earth and still honestly consider himself a fundamentalist.

There are problems with reconciling Day-Age creationism with evolution, but I think that when Day-Age creationists say that they accept evolution, this is more based on a misunderstanding of evolution than a compromise on Biblical literalism.

Sure, and there is gap-theory creationism as well. But those are pretty minority views within fundamentalism, and they aren't received very well when expressed within fundamentalist groups.

 

[Jose Fly]

Kathryn,

So you're honestly telling me that a multi-million dollar young earth creationism museum and theme park that gets millions of visitors per year, gets national and international media coverage isn't Exhibit A in fundamentalist Christians seizing the stage and making American Christianity look ridiculous?

If so, then....well, I guess I'll just allow that to speak for itself.