Why Fundamentalist Christianities are Godless and reject the Bible

[9-10ths_Penguin]

One could do the analogy just as well with "eating jellybeans" --I suppose "maggots" is representative of a repulsive object (it includes an attitude in the story).

Aren't jellybeans repulsive? They are to me... especially the black ones.

 

[Willamena]

Aren't jellybeans repulsive? They are to me... especially the black ones.

Be that as it may, would they symbolize a repulsive object? Not likely.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Be that as it may, would they symbolize a repulsive object? Not likely.

They would to me, but I have enough sense to realize that just because I dislike them doesn't mean that anyone else has to. It's an aesthetic preference on my part; people are free to like jellybeans if they want. I don't think that something's wrong with a person just because they like jellybeans even though I don't.

... which I'm guessing may have been what you were driving at with your analogy.


Now bananas, OTOH? Disgusting, grotesque mistakes. Anyone who likes bananas definitely has something wrong with them. I can't even stand the smell of them, so I should have the right to rid my environment of them.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I read your entire OP and you make a lot of claims. Like, Fundamentalist don't follow the bible or listen to Gods commandments to love one another, but I only seen you give one reason for all of them.
This here.

I consider myself to be a conservative Christian and I do believe that homosexuality is a sin. Just for clarification, male and female.
But I also believe that homosexuals have as good a chance as anyone to get saved.
And I certainly don't hate homosexuals because they're sinners. Everyone sins and if I hated someone for sinning, I'd be hating everyone.

I've recently become a Christian and I still have quite a few atheist and agnostic friends.
A friend of mine described homosexuality from a heterosexual perspective fairly easy, and he's a liberal atheist.
He said it like this.

If I seen a guy eating a pile of maggots, I'd be concerned. My first response would be to ask him if he's starving and I'd ask him if he wanted some normal food. If he said no, he likes eating maggots, I'd be cool with it. I personally don't like maggots and I'm certainly not afraid of maggots. So you can't call me a maggaphobe. I just don't find maggots appealing.
If the guy invited me over to his house, I'd hang out, probably even be his friend so long as he didn't try to make me eat maggots. But if I went to his house and seen that his entire life was devoted to maggots, and he had like a maggot night stand with a maggot lamp and coffee table, itd probably be the last time I visit. Not because I fear the maggots, but because we obvisouly have nothing in common.

As a Conservative Christian, that pretty much summed it up for me to.
It probably sums it up for a lot of straight people, even fundamentalist.
It's generally not about hate or fear or holding a sin against you.
It's about an understanding heterosexuals more then likely, have in common that homosexuals are more then likely incapable of understanding.

Seriously. Comparing eating maggots to homosexuality in an attempt to assert that you're not homophobic?

Have you completely lost your mind?!

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Agreed. The fundamentalist isn't an atheist at all. He has a God. His God is his book, be he a Muslim, Christian, Jew or whatever. For the Christian fundamentalist, "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1 The word is his God. He exalts it above all else.

I mean godless in practice, and atheism therefore is the perfect expression, the natural conclusion of this kind of fundamentalism.

So they claim to have a God now, but don't really follow Him. So they are perfectly setup to abandon Him completely when the time comes to face the impossible paradox of their faith.

 

[Willamena]

They would to me, but I have enough sense to realize that just because I dislike them doesn't mean that anyone else has to. It's an aesthetic preference on my part; people are free to like jellybeans if they want. I don't think that something's wrong with a person just because they like jellybeans even though I don't.

... which I'm guessing may have been what you were driving at with your analogy.


Now bananas, OTOH? Disgusting, grotesque mistakes. Anyone who likes bananas definitely has something wrong with them. I can't even stand the smell of them, so I should have the right to rid my environment of them.

Hehe.

In treating a symbol objectively, its significance isn't about a particular or unique case --your tastes, my tastes, or even the tastes of a majority of the people. The objective symbol has its significance regardless of anything.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I mean godless in practice, and atheism therefore is the perfect expression, the natural conclusion of this kind of fundamentalism.

So they claim to have a God now, but don't really follow Him. So they are perfectly setup to abandon Him completely when the time comes to face the impossible paradox of their faith.

It's not a particularly well-developed or consistent atheism if they're still appealing to the authority of a god and acting as if they'll receive reward in an afterlife.

But I do agree that the literal, all-or-nothing approach of fundamentalism probably contributes to people abandoning religion altogether. To use a metallurgy analogy, with rigidity usually comes brittleness.

 

[Villager]

the impossible paradox of their faith

Absolutely! It's quite impossible to be a fundamentalist evangelical.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It's not a particularly well-developed or consistent atheism if they're still appealing to the authority of a god and acting as if they'll receive reward in an afterlife.

But I do agree that the literal, all-or-nothing approach of fundamentalism probably contributes to people abandoning religion altogether. To use a metallurgy analogy, with rigidity usually comes brittleness.

That's why I distinguish between "godless" and "atheist."

I'm not being metaphorical when I say that evangelical fundamentalism is perfected in atheism. I mean that when an evangelical fundamentalist faces the paradoxes of their faith, atheism is the only choice and honest and thoughtful fundamentalists in this situation must choose atheism and often do.

 

[That Dude]

How would you feel if someone had the same reaction to your religion?

It's pretty silly to assume people don't feel the same way about my religion.
Its actually quite silly to assume that any particular train of thought wouldn't have some form of opposition in one form or another.
People find the things other people do unappealing all the time and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. If you think the act of homosexuality shouldn't have some sort of opposition and that in order to accept homosexuals themselves everyone on the face of the planet has to accept the act itself, then you're going to be greatly disappointed.

I don't know enough about yours specifically to say whether the analogy is a perfect fit, but in general, I've seen quite a few forms of Christianity (but not just Christianity) that are all-encompassing, generally harmful and dangerous to the person, and - to me, at least - inherently abhorrent.

The main change I'd have to make to the analogy to fit it to this sort of religion would be that the person wouldn't be satisfied just eating maggots himself, but also insisted on trying to get as many people as he could to eat maggots, too.

And you're the one insisting that in order to be accepting of a person I have to enjoy the same things they do.

 

[That Dude]

Seriously. Comparing eating maggots to homosexuality in an attempt to assert that you're not homophobic?

Have you completely lost your mind?!

So in other words, I'm the only person that would agree with my analogy?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So in other words, I'm the only person that would agree with my analogy?

haha not anyone who cares about GLBTQ issues.

 

[That Dude]

haha not anyone who cares about GLBTQ issues.

That really doesn't make any sense.
Please explain how a heterosexual person iin support of GLBTQ would be heterosexual if they enjoyed the "act" of homosexuality itself.
Then explain how you're accepting of them if they don't.

 

[Songbird]

That really doesn't make any sense.
Please explain how a heterosexual person iin support of GLBTQ would be heterosexual if they enjoyed the "act" of homosexuality itself.
Then explain how you're accepting of them if they don't.

Huh? I think all he meant was comparing homosexuality to maggots is an obvious dig.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That really doesn't make any sense.
Please explain how a heterosexual person iin support of GLBTQ would be heterosexual if they enjoyed the "act" of homosexuality itself.
Then explain how you're accepting of them if they don't.

You compared homosexual acts to eating maggots. That's homophobia because you've characterized homosexuality in such a negative way.

Now, you should be able to understand that many people enjoy or at least willingly participate in homosexual sex without being homosexual. Women do it all the time, and it's quite well known in prisons - and much of the sex there is consensual. If you aren't aware that homosexuals aren't the only ones participating in homosexual activities, you just don't get out much. Or read much. Or watch much TV.

But you don't have to prefer homosexual acts yourself to support GLBTQ folks or their causes. You just shouldn't compare their activities to disgusting things -- especially if you want to pretend that you're not homophobic.

 

[Agnostic75]

The Bible contains some errors and interpolations. Therefore, assuming for the sake of argument that a God exists, there is not reasonable proof that he has ever made statements about homosexuality, in person, or through human proxies.

I am not aware how even a God could inspire a book full of rules and regulations that could be reasonably understood in all languages, by all people, for all generations. If a man did not have access to the book, how could he be aware of its rules and regulations?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The Bible contains some errors and interpolations. Therefore, assuming for the sake of argument that a God exists, there is not reasonable proof that he has ever made statements about homosexuality, in person, or through human proxies.

I am not aware how even a God could inspire a book full of rules and regulations that could be reasonably understood in all languages, by all people, for all generations. If a man did not have access to the book, how could he be aware of its rules and regulations?

But do you think that it's a reasonable hypothesis in the first place? In other words, the "errors and interpolations" aside, what possible proof would there be that God said anything?

The "errors and interpolations" are not an issue because God could speak through them just as much as through a perfect original, which we know can't exist.

 

[That Dude]

You compared homosexual acts to eating maggots. That's homophobia because you've characterized homosexuality in such a negative way.

So you're saying, you're afraid of maggots? You fear them do you?
That's kind of odd. Its unusual for someone to actually fear a maggot. I completely understand not wanting to eat them, but a fear of them is irrational.
Liberals generally tend to get desire and fear confused. Wonder why that is?
I don't have a desire to have gay sex, but I don't fear it, and I don't hold it against a person for choosing something that I don't have a desire for.
And when I discuss it with a gay person they generally say something totally non related.
Like, I don't like broccoli either, but I don't hold it against the broccoli eater.
Quite frankly, its nothing like preferring broccoli over green beans. In all honesty its more llike eating maggots. But just because one is more unpleasant then the other doesn't change the fact that its not impossible to accept the person.

Now, you should be able to understand that many people enjoy or at least willingly participate in homosexual sex without being homosexual. Women do it all the time, and it's quite well known in prisons - and much of the sex there is consensual. If you aren't aware that homosexuals aren't the only ones participating in homosexual activities, you just don't get out much. Or read much. Or watch much TV.

But you don't have to prefer homosexual acts yourself to support GLBTQ folks or their causes. You just shouldn't compare their activities to disgusting things -- especially if you want to pretend that you're not homophobic.

No, that's in polite conversation. But this is a thread devoted to undermining a particular group of people and that's exactly what you're saying you're against. So the thread, from the start, wasn't meant to be under polite conversation. It was meant to be damning. So when the truth is told you cry foul because its impolite. I find that to be the actions of a hypocrite.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Tell me, what kind of cloak do you wear to disguise your homophobia?

A pointy hat, maybe some nice colors? Not a good choice to persuade people that you're tolerant.

The arguments that you're trying to use are doing more harm than good. Better not to be pretentious and pretend to be something that you're not.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So you're saying, you're afraid of maggots? You fear them do you?
That's kind of odd. Its unusual for someone to actually fear a maggot. I completely understand not wanting to eat them, but a fear of them is irrational.
Liberals generally tend to get desire and fear confused. Wonder why that is?

The term "phobia" can also refer to an aversion. You certainly showed quite a bit of aversion in your analogy.

I don't have a desire to have gay sex, but I don't fear it, and I don't hold it against a person for choosing something that I don't have a desire for.
And when I discuss it with a gay person they generally say something totally non related.
Like, I don't like broccoli either, but I don't hold it against the broccoli eater.
Quite frankly, its nothing like preferring broccoli over green beans. In all honesty its more llike eating maggots.

IOW, you want to elevate your own aesthetic preferences about homsexuality to the point where if someone disagrees with you, the fact they disagree shows them to be disordered.