Liberal Religionists: Enablers of Fundies?

[lpetrich]

Sam Harris is well-known for saying that, that religious liberals enable their fundie co-religionists by protecting anything that's labeled "religion" from criticism. But in Do Christians Lead Healthier Lives? (http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/healthier.html), Paul Tobin states in that page's footnotes that:


Indirectly however liberals do cause harm- by providing the main raw material, lukewarm Christians, as potential converts for fundamentalist churches. In his book The Mind of the Bible Believer, psychologist and ex-fundamentalist, Edmond Cohen, mentioned the "bait and switch" method of these conversions. By firstly presenting a benign persona of the Bible, using the word "love" a lot, fundamentalist Churches are able to attract lukwarm believers who are already predisposed to beleive in this. Once they are "in" of course, the "sugar coating" disappears. This is what Dr. Cohen remarked about the role of the liberal churches here:

Ironically, the liberal preachers of the mainline denominations, by talking themselves and their followers into the notion that they had found something contemporary and gratifying for the Bible to mean, set their people up to become recruits for the new, conservative Christian hucksters. Between the attempted liberal redefinition of the Bible message and the host of distracting features to be observed in conspicuous manifestations of incomplete biblical indoctrination, the present-day Evangelical American simply does not know what he is looking at, when he encounters a conservative Christian group...The misleading biblical surface impressions are not inadvertant. Initial recruitment contacts could not succeed without them. A short description of Device I [The Benign Persona of the Bible-PT], is that a colossal bait-and-switch sales pitch is worked on the new believer.


Many of us have repeatedly noted that many Xians are not very familiar with the Bible, and thus tend to accept what their pastors claim that the Bible means. So they are thus likely to believe that the Bible is an absolutely perfect book, and thus may fall for whoever claims to be big on following the Bible.

In fact, many of us have been spurred to deconvert because of reading the Bible -- and discovering that it is far from perfect. Even the always-freethinkers among us have often concluded from reading it that it is rather grotesquely overrated, to put it mildly.

He also notes:

How does one account for the cheerfulness one normally sees in fundamentalists churches? Dr. Cohen explains it thus:

In successful and growing mini-Reformationist-churches [Dr. Cohen's term for a grouping of churches which trancends denominations-recognizable by an intensely Bible centered approach to worship and life], one encounters a well-planned and well-acted show of cheerfulness, which I now understand to be partly a compensation for the cheerlessness that would really be appropriate for the teaching, and partly, still more Device I [Presenting a "benign persona of the bible"]...it agress with our expectations that, under a discipline that so distorts normal investment of psychic energy, purposely misrouting that energy, people would feel drained and, to convince themselves, would prattle incessantly about how filled they supposedly feel.


Which is much like "love-bombing," a cult recruitment tactic featuring seeming very loving and caring for some would-be convert.

Paul Tobin also discusses liberal theology in more detail in Liberal-Modernist Theology (http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/liberal.html); he says
It should be mentioned that the liberals did not reach their position by abstruse theological reasoning: they were forced by external circumstances-the findings of science, comparative religions, enlightenment philosophies and historical criticism-to resort to such a method of reasoning for the only other available alternatives are the collapse into complete irrationaility of fundamentalism and the theological resignation of atheism.
Part of it is likely also social -- the emergence of alternatives to the churches for providing various services, like secularized education -- but just the same, it is significant that liberal/modernist theology is a modern invention.

Paul Tobin notes that liberal theology involves two main, though non-exclusive, ways of interpreting the Bible: that it contains truths expressed in symbolic or allegorical form, and that it is a human and fallible document, though partially inspired. He finds problems with both, like like what's literal and what's allegorical, what the allegorical meaning is, and why depend on the Bible if one is taking what one likes from it and leaving what one dislikes.

And he also criticizes liberal views on God and Jesus Christ as being woozy and unjustified.

Paul Tobin was mostly criticizing Xianity, but much of this applies not only to Xianity, but also to other religions with hardboiled fundie contingents, like Islam.

[Jobar]

the theological resignation of atheism

Never heard atheism described that way before; I don't care much for it. Atheism is a rejection of theology, I'd say.

[angela2]

Well, now. There's a lot to munch on there.

That liberals are a product of modernity just as much as fundies is undeniable.

Of course, just as atheists protest that there is no one size fits all atheism, so do liberals. That being said, liberalism is characterized by a forced retreat.

What else?

Oh, yes. The contention that liberals are cannon fodder for fundies. Possible although what I've seen is fundies so alienating liberals that liberals won't go within a mile of them, nevermind be won over by them.

It's probably a mischaracterization to think of liberals as lukewarm Christians. While their theology may be fuzzy, their belief is as strong as fundies and a lot friendlier.

Um, if there is no such thing as a contemporary bible reading, as the author implies, Christianity would never have gotten out of the near east.

Granted many Christians don't know much about the bible. Knowing more about it doesn't always lead to deconversion. Depends on the setting in which one reads it.

What else?

[seebs]

The moment you mistake liberals for "lukewarm" Christians, you've gotten off on the wrong foot. It's a common error to assume that the "moderates" are in fact less committed to their beliefs, or less extreme, or less devoted, or less inclined to actually read their texts.

This is just plain in error. There's several different things involved. If you look only at "how much will this person tolerate coexistence with atheists", it might be very hard to tell an uncommitted fundamentalist whose faith calls for constant struggle against atheists from a deeply committed believer in liberation theology whose faith calls for making peace with all people.

However, the mere fact that they react similarly to a given stimulus doesn't mean they're interchangeable!

I have never seen a serious and active non-fundamentalist become a fundamentalist. I have seen people who were non-believers, or whose beliefs were undeveloped or unimportant to them, suddenly convert.

I think the problem here is that you're conflating two very different groups on the basis of an apparently-similar outward behavior. It's easy to assume that liberals who are, for instance, "nice to gays", are doing so because they lack conviction of their beliefs; in fact, with liberals, it is often precisely because they are deeply committed to their beliefs.

I think there's a tendency to assume that extreme and committed beliefs always imply ruthlessness or hostility. However, a deeply committed believer in the worth of all human life may not be willing to kill for his belief...

I have seen both sorts of people, and I can see how, if you're not talking to them about their beliefs, it's easy to confuse them. To add to the confusion, many fundamentalist groups actively seek to portray liberals as "wishy-washy" and "lukewarm". That doesn't make it so, however. I know plenty of firebrand liberals who are quite clearly just as extreme and committed as the fundamentalists. They're just committed to stuff that upsets a different group of people.

For an example, consider the Quaker community. Quakers have a long history of politely accepting jail time rather than mumbling a few words no one takes seriously anyway. Can you seriously call them "lukewarm" or "wishy-washy"? I don't think so. Mistaking tolerance for apathy is a serious error.

[Malachi151]

Sam Harris is well-known for saying that, that religious liberals enable their fundie co-religionists by protecting anything that's labeled "religion" from criticism. But in Do Christians Lead Healthier Lives? (http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/healthier.html), Paul Tobin states in that page's footnotes that:


Many of us have repeatedly noted that many Xians are not very familiar with the Bible, and thus tend to accept what their pastors claim that the Bible means. So they are thus likely to believe that the Bible is an absolutely perfect book, and thus may fall for whoever claims to be big on following the Bible.

In fact, many of us have been spurred to deconvert because of reading the Bible -- and discovering that it is far from perfect. Even the always-freethinkers among us have often concluded from reading it that it is rather grotesquely overrated, to put it mildly.

He also notes:

Which is much like "love-bombing," a cult recruitment tactic featuring seeming very loving and caring for some would-be convert.

Paul Tobin also discusses liberal theology in more detail in Liberal-Modernist Theology (http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/liberal.html); he says

Part of it is likely also social -- the emergence of alternatives to the churches for providing various services, like secularized education -- but just the same, it is significant that liberal/modernist theology is a modern invention.

Paul Tobin notes that liberal theology involves two main, though non-exclusive, ways of interpreting the Bible: that it contains truths expressed in symbolic or allegorical form, and that it is a human and fallible document, though partially inspired. He finds problems with both, like like what's literal and what's allegorical, what the allegorical meaning is, and why depend on the Bible if one is taking what one likes from it and leaving what one dislikes.

And he also criticizes liberal views on God and Jesus Christ as being woozy and unjustified.

Paul Tobin was mostly criticizing Xianity, but much of this applies not only to Xianity, but also to other religions with hardboiled fundie contingents, like Islam.

I have been saying these thigns as well, and I completely agree with everything said in this post (the quotes).

The moderates are enablers, plain and simple, and not only that, the moderates are WRONG about the Christian religion. Christianity IS the way that fundies describe it and invision it.

We should definately STOP ALL COOPERATION with so-called "liberal" religous groups, especially Christian and Muslim ones.

The stupidity of the fundies is self apparent. We should stop attacking them, and start criticizing the liberal Christians, and pointing out to them that there is no support in Christianity for their beliefs.

If you attack the middle, the head will fall off.

[benjdm]

So you are hoping to convince a huge majority of people to abandon irrational thought by using rational argument ? Somehow, I don't think that is going to work. Group dynamics, social perceptions, and sheer numbers all play into outcomes. Cooperation with strong moderate religious groups is effective and shifts the inevitable 'us vs them' effect in our favor. What would be an alternative to cooperation ? Isolation and/or attempted coercion ?

[Oikoman]

The moment you mistake liberals for "lukewarm" Christians, you've gotten off on the wrong foot. It's a common error to assume that the "moderates" are in fact less committed to their beliefs, or less extreme, or less devoted, or less inclined to actually read their texts.


Most of the 'moderate' Christians I have met in Kansas are committed to God, but are pretty fuzzy on the actual texts. Most of the 'moderate' Christians I have met in the UK view religion more as a tradition and would hardly be called Christians in the midwest US.




I have never seen a serious and active non-fundamentalist become a fundamentalist. I have seen people who were non-believers, or whose beliefs were undeveloped or unimportant to them, suddenly convert.


Serious and active non-fundamentalists of a certain age may not become fundamentalists that commonly, but in Kansas I saw many self-identified moderate Christians drift into fundamentalism through University organizations like Intvarsity Christian Fellowship and Campus Crusade, both of which present a very friendly open face but are quite fundamentalist in their teachings.




I think the problem here is that you're conflating two very different groups on the basis of an apparently-similar outward behavior. It's easy to assume that liberals who are, for instance, "nice to gays", are doing so because they lack conviction of their beliefs; in fact, with liberals, it is often precisely because they are deeply committed to their beliefs.

I think there's a tendency to assume that extreme and committed beliefs always imply ruthlessness or hostility. However, a deeply committed believer in the worth of all human life may not be willing to kill for his belief...


Its not clear where you are getting this from the in the OP. I also think you are looking at this in terms of a dedicated 'moderate' Christian, not from the more common casual 'moderate' Christian. From my experience, a strong commitment to Christianity goes hand-in-hand with a degree of fundamentalism... its difficult to get that worked up about a religion if you think everything in it is allegory and philosophy.



For an example, consider the Quaker community. Quakers have a long history of politely accepting jail time rather than mumbling a few words no one takes seriously anyway. Can you seriously call them "lukewarm" or "wishy-washy"? I don't think so. Mistaking tolerance for apathy is a serious error.

Again, this seems to have little to do with the main thesis. Quakers are not one of the liberal Christian communities that the author is talking about... I mean, how many do you actually know? They are also, despite their fundamentalism, not part of the Christian mainstream and are not recruiting material for fundamentalists. The 'liberal' Anglican church on the corner, that decided to host the alpha course in their spare wing on the urging of the energetic new pastor, is what the author is talking about.

[WishboneDawn]

Um...Once again, aren't moderate and liberal getting mixed up here?

[benjdm]

Um...Once again, aren't moderate and liberal getting mixed up here?
Nah. The .true. liberal religionists are enablers, and the critical thinking theists are mythical. See ? Easy.

[Gooch's dad]

Yes, WishboneDawn, definitely. And angela seems to be conflating "liberal Christian" with "politically liberal".

seebs claims he has never met anyone who has gone from "lukewarm Christian" to fundamentalist. I've met dozens. When I was briefly in a fundamentalist church as a teen (Evangelical Church of Davis, a nutfarm if ever there was one) they openly encouraged evangelizing lapsed or liberal Catholics, since such Catholics were especially susceptible to becoming fundamentalists.

And 4 out of 5 of my siblings, all of us raised as Catholics, became fundamentalists at that time.

[benjdm]

seebs claims he has never met anyone who has gone from "lukewarm Christian" to fundamentalist.
That is the opposite of what he claimed. His observations were consistent with yours.
The moment you mistake liberals for "lukewarm" Christians, you've gotten off on the wrong foot.....I have never seen a serious and active non-fundamentalist become a fundamentalist. I have seen people who were non-believers, or whose beliefs were undeveloped or unimportant to them, suddenly convert.

[angela2]

And angela seems to be conflating "liberal Christian" with "politically liberal".
How did you come to that conclusion?

[Malachi151]

So you are hoping to convince a huge majority of people to abandon irrational thought by using rational argument ? Somehow, I don't think that is going to work. Group dynamics, social perceptions, and sheer numbers all play into outcomes. Cooperation with strong moderate religious groups is effective and shifts the inevitable 'us vs them' effect in our favor. What would be an alternative to cooperation ? Isolation and/or attempted coercion ?

No, but for example. A few weekends ago I went to a "peace rally" planning meeting with a couple of guys from our atheist group. It was an "interfaith" group that was full of so-called liberal Christians and Muslims.

One of their main lines was that "religions is not a tool of violence and we should support a positive view of religion".

I completely disagree with that approach and after the meeting I told the guys I came with that I had no interest in working with that groups and indeed I would work against them if anything.

I will never cooperate with or aid any grou that trying to portray religion in a positive light in any way shape or form. I don't agree that religion can be refrmed and see no reason for it. I would never work with a group like that because all it does in the end is further support the cause of religion, something I have no interest in.

[EthnAlln]

I liked Cohen's book very much, despite two significant drawbacks: (1) the first 150 pages of Jungian psychology that he lays down as a base for argument, which leaves me cold and utterly unconvinced; (2) his turgid, overly elaborate style of writing, which I found nearly incomprehensible in many places. At first I attributed that to my lack of understanding and sympathy relative to Jungian psychology, but later came to realize that the same defect existed even in the straightforward passages of argument. Also, Cohen made several linguistic mistakes in English, French, and Greek, consistently writing "mein" instead of "mien", coining "ne déjê vu pas" (very bad French) instead of the correct "jamais vu", and claiming that "agape" is a word invented especially for the Christian scriptures. (It is not; it occurs frequently in classical Greek, on the first few pages of Plato's "Republic" for example.)

Such pedantic criticisms aside, the seven elements of the evangelical mind-control system that Cohen describes are excellent. He, of course, knew it from the inside, having been an evangelical.

Now, to address the OP: It's quite true that the liberal Christians enable the fundies, in just the way Cohen describes. Right now, however, we are stuck with evangelical and fundamentalist influence on our government. For those who think this is entirely bad, I recommend the article "God's Country" by Walter Russell Mead in the current (September-October) issue of Foreign Affairs for some positive aspects of it. For example, he notes that Wilberforce, who led the anti-slavery movement in Britain was an evangelical. (Although, I think Mead conceals some of the bad aspects. He also cites the increased funding for fighting HIV/AIDS in Africa under the Bush II administration, but does not note that it comes with heavy restrictions against the use of condoms, thus greatly reducing and perhaps even annulling its effectiveness. Just another example, in my view, of the way an irrational belief gets in the way of good intentions. There is no better philosophy than the one enunciated by Bertrand Russell: The good life is one motivated by love and guided by knowledge. Evangelicals have the first, but not the second of these desiderata.)

See http://www.foreignaffairs.org/mead_reading for further reading on this subject.

[EthnAlln]

So you are hoping to convince a huge majority of people to abandon irrational thought by using rational argument ? Somehow, I don't think that is going to work. Group dynamics, social perceptions, and sheer numbers all play into outcomes. Cooperation with strong moderate religious groups is effective and shifts the inevitable 'us vs them' effect in our favor. What would be an alternative to cooperation ? Isolation and/or attempted coercion ?

Well put. And there is also the human element to consider. Atheists can too easily forget what an important part religion plays in the life of its adherents. Attempting to deprive a believer of that belief is ethically questionable, to say the least, if the result of the apostasy is going to be a profoundly unhappy person lacking a purpose in life. Those of us who have been through a deconversion and discovered to our surprise that it was liberating and refreshing (I speak of myself) may well be a minority. I actually encourage my (liberal Christian) wife in her beliefs, because they focus her life and give her a purpose that I think results in a lot of good work being done in society. I say, let's just try to get along with the Christians and the Muslims. Their beliefs, to be sure, are irrational, but we don't need to be in open conflict with them on most social issues. I think, as Bertrand Russell did, that if social tensions and conflict can be eased, religious belief (which feeds largely on uncertainty and anxiety) will die away gradually, as it has in Europe and—if the Hebrew Scriptures report correctly—as it did in ancient Israel during times of prosperity.

[EarlOfLade]

Call them "liberal" call the "XUSYDUEDU' for all I care.

The main point is that they are religious and share the same beliefs as fundies. Hence they are neither better nor worse than fundies.

[WishboneDawn]

Call them "liberal" call the "XUSYDUEDU' for all I care.

The main point is that they are religious and share the same beliefs as fundies. Hence they are neither better nor worse than fundies.

Share the same beliefs in the way that creationists and people who believe in evolution share the same beliefs. That there IS and earth and IS a sun and it took time for us to get from the beginning of the earth to where we are now.

[lpetrich]

... the seven elements of the evangelical mind-control system that Cohen describes are excellent. He, of course, knew it from the inside, having been an evangelical.
EthnAlln, would you be willing to repeat them here? Or at least give a link to a page that describes them. It would be interesting to see them.

[seebs]

Most of the 'moderate' Christians I have met in Kansas are committed to God, but are pretty fuzzy on the actual texts. Most of the 'moderate' Christians I have met in the UK view religion more as a tradition and would hardly be called Christians in the midwest US.

That may be. There's a lot of social norms mixed in with religious practice that people tend to overlook.

Serious and active non-fundamentalists of a certain age may not become fundamentalists that commonly, but in Kansas I saw many self-identified moderate Christians drift into fundamentalism through University organizations like Intvarsity Christian Fellowship and Campus Crusade, both of which present a very friendly open face but are quite fundamentalist in their teachings.

That may be.

The problem is, I think two very different groups are being conflated as "moderates"; people who just aren't that involved, and/or who don't read the texts that much or talk about it much, and people who are very active but don't hold to the views currently aligned with "conservative" Christians.

Lemme give you an example. Set your wayback machine to the 1800s, or late 1700s, when the slavery debate was in full swing. You had people like John Woolman and Elias Hicks who were "liberals" by the standards of their time, but who were in active opposition to the "conservative" position of their time.

People who have no strong allegiance may well acquire one. People who have one are less likely to switch, although it can happen. But, in all the examples I've seen, I've never seen one of a serious liberation theology type suddenly turning into a conservative.

Its not clear where you are getting this from the in the OP. I also think you are looking at this in terms of a dedicated 'moderate' Christian, not from the more common casual 'moderate' Christian. From my experience, a strong commitment to Christianity goes hand-in-hand with a degree of fundamentalism... its difficult to get that worked up about a religion if you think everything in it is allegory and philosophy.

This is what has led me to a theory that, in practice, no one at IIDB except for a few of our liberal Christians knows what liberal Christians are.

I don't think everything in it is "allegory and philosophy". I just don't think that anything I'm aware of gives me call to tell other people where to put their weewees.

To add confusion, modern "conservative" Christianity is often very modernist, and quite far from historical orthodox belief. So, on a test of historical orthodoxy, I'm more orthodox than the majority of fundamentalists I've known. I'm a very active supporter of marriage rights for "nontraditional" couples, and I think abortion should be legal... But this isn't because I'm not serious about my faith, but because I am serious about it, and I've done some hard thinking about the relationship between coercion and moral choices.

The assumption that moderates think everything is allegory comes, I think, from a tendency to take poor examples as representative. Many of the non-Christians I know seem to have swallowed whole the fundamentalist line that either you believe the Genesis story to be a literal and factual account of a 6-day event, or you don't believe in God at all.

Again, this seems to have little to do with the main thesis. Quakers are not one of the liberal Christian communities that the author is talking about... I mean, how many do you actually know?

Well, I'd guess about the ten or fifteen that attend Wednesday-night meetings regularly, plus a dozen or so online.

They are also, despite their fundamentalism, not part of the Christian mainstream and are not recruiting material for fundamentalists. The 'liberal' Anglican church on the corner, that decided to host the alpha course in their spare wing on the urging of the energetic new pastor, is what the author is talking about.

I go to a Quaker church. I don't know that I'd call it a fundamentalist church. I think we are within a month or so of twenty years since the official meeting decision to recognize and support gay marriages.

[seebs]

Call them "liberal" call the "XUSYDUEDU' for all I care.

The main point is that they are religious and share the same beliefs as fundies. Hence they are neither better nor worse than fundies.

What same beliefs are you talking about? I don't share, for instance, the belief that my moral views should be enforced by the government.

[seebs]

I will never cooperate with or aid any grou that trying to portray religion in a positive light in any way shape or form. I don't agree that religion can be refrmed and see no reason for it. I would never work with a group like that because all it does in the end is further support the cause of religion, something I have no interest in.

So you've got a different-colored team jersey, but how is this in any way different from the thing we all find so annoying in other peoples' extremists?

A quick search and replace to change "religion" to "irreligion", and so on, and your post could have fit quite nicely in one of CF's threads about the importance of not letting non-Christians in, because their very existence is bad and opposed to all the good things that only Christians can do.

IMHO, as long as people are picking sides, we're all fucked.

[Malachi151]

So you've got a different-colored team jersey, but how is this in any way different from the thing we all find so annoying in other peoples' extremists?

A quick search and replace to change "religion" to "irreligion", and so on, and your post could have fit quite nicely in one of CF's threads about the importance of not letting non-Christians in, because their very existence is bad and opposed to all the good things that only Christians can do.

IMHO, as long as people are picking sides, we're all fucked.

Well, first of all, I don't buy that entire attitude. Just because one group is confidently wrong does not mean that I then cannot be confident.

If I claim that 2+2=4, and someone else adamently claims that 2+2=67, and they defend their claim up and down and say "I am absolutely positive that I am right and that 2+2=67", does that mean that, in order not to be "just like him", I then have to say "well, maybe 2+2 does not = 4"?

No, of course not. And this is where science and empericism comes in. Its not a matter of certianty. Two people can be equally certian and both can be wrong, or both can be right, or one can be wrong and one can be right.

Being certian does not BY DEFINITION make one wrong.

Just because they are certian does NOT mean that "we"' as atheists can not be certian as well.

That would actually be an absurd situation, where the wrong people would always monopolize claims of truth, while people who are correct could never claim any truth.

The difference is not in whether you are certian or not, it is in THE PROOF.

That is what science is all about, establishing truths, or better, facts.

The scientific views of facts is still perhaps somewhat less certian than the faith based view of "spiritual facts", but they are thigns that we establish as truth, though ultimately they are still able to be challenged, but ONLY BY other empirical evidence, not by unfounded claims.

So, a scientific fact, or claim to truth, can ONLY BE challenged by other "scientific evidence".

This is the fatal flaw of Post Modernism. With the rise of clashing certianties in the 20th century Post Modernism stepped in and essentially devalued all claims of "truth", theerby neutering both sides in the issue, both the traditional religious view and the scientific view. The Post Modernism view is that "no one can claim any truth, all so-called truth is really a subjective value judgement".

So, what is the end result of this?

In the end, Post Modernism helps the religionists the most, and I believe is reponsible for the resurgance of religious fundentalism, because the religious groups still have the gaul to CLAIM truths, yet our society no longer has a basis for demanding that they defend their claims, and while they will "claim a truth", the Post Modernist will still step in to their defence if you demand evidence for their claim, the Post Modernist will still step in to say "you cannot judge his claim to truth", which is bullshit, I certianly can.

So, no, I reject the entire notion that there is no basis for certianty and that as atheists we cannot defend our positions, our worldview, and our interests with the same vigor that religous fundamentalists do.

I intend, and will continue, to defend my worldview and my interests with the same vigor that religious fundamentalists do. Exerting equal effort is not the same thing as having the same flaws.

Defending UNSUPPORTED or UNSUPPORTABLE claims with equal vigor is equally wrong, but defending emperically supportable claims with equal vigor is not.

Indeed this is the trap that religionists WANT atheists to fall into, because if you don't react with equal but opposite force, you lose. Not matching the vigor of the religious fundamentalists is a recipe for failure.

[EthnAlln]

EthnAlln, would you be willing to repeat them here? Or at least give a link to a page that describes them. It would be interesting to see them.

Yes, a couple of them have already been mentioned:

1. The benign, attractive persona of the Bible. The parts of the Bible people love to quote, the Jefferson Bible, if you will, draws people in by the good feelings it provides.

2. Discrediting "The World". The neophyte to evangelical Christianity is given every encouragement to saturate himself/herself in the new world and regard former secular friends and pleasures as somehow stale and inferior.

3. "Logocide." (Cohen missed the chance to coin "verbicide," which would have been better.) The entire vocabulary of sublime concepts that brought the convert in as part of Device 1, is turned on its head. "Love" and "life" and "death" are given entirely new, Biblical meanings.

4. Assaulting integrity. The convert is urged to claim strong faith when in fact he is doubtful, and to "witness" to experiences he has not in fact had.

5. Dissociation induction. The convert has to learn to hold contradictory and conflicting ideas in his head simultaneously.

6. Bridge burning. The whole community effectively seals itself off from the common world of discourse, providing (my example) its own version of history and science to its home-schooled children.

7. Holy terror. If the well-hooked convert should waiver, the horrible threat of hell keeps him in line. (Cohen cites some horrendous examples taken from Christian call-in radio shows.)

[dettus]

"By failing to live by the letter of the texts, while tolerating the irrationality of those who do, religious moderates betray faith and reason equally."

" While moderation in religion may seem a reasonable position to stake out, in light of all that we have (and have not) learned about the universe, it offers no bulwark against religious extremism and religious violence. The problem that religious moderation poses for all of us is that it does not permit anything very critical to be said about religious literalism. We cannot say that fundamentalists are crazy, because they are merely practicing their freedom of belief; we cannot even say that they are mistaken in religious terms, because their knowledge of scripture is generally unrivaled. All we can say, as religious moderates, is that we don't like the personal and social costs that a full embrace of scripture imposes on us. "

-Sam Harris (from the End of Faith)

I was watching an interview with Daniel Denette the other day (from that UK channel 4 BBC Atheism documentary which is on google video, search for Arthur Miller)...anyway Dennet said that he is now leaning towards Richard Dawkins types and how they are speaking out against religion and the idea of faith. Dennet is usually pretty soft regarding other people's beliefs but it seems as though even he is "seeing the light" and seeing how religion and faith are bad for the modern world and the time to speak out is now.

[EthnAlln]

Well, first of all, I don't buy that entire attitude. Just because one group is confidently wrong does not mean that I then cannot be confident.

If I claim that 2+2=4, and someone else adamently claims that 2+2=67, and they defend their claim up and down and say "I am absolutely positive that I am right and that 2+2=67", does that mean that, in order not to be "just like him", I then have to say "well, maybe 2+2 does not = 4"?

No, of course not. And this is where science and empericism comes in. Its not a matter of certianty. Two people can be equally certian and both can be wrong, or both can be right, or one can be wrong and one can be right.

(snip)

I intend, and will continue, to defend my worldview and my interests with the same vigor that religious fundamentalists do. Exerting equal effort is not the same thing as having the same flaws.

Defending UNSUPPORTED or UNSUPPORTABLE claims with equal vigor is equally wrong, but defending emperically supportable claims with equal vigor is not.

Indeed this is the trap that religionists WANT atheists to fall into, because if you don't react with equal but opposite force, you lose. Not matching the vigor of the religious fundamentalists is a recipe for failure.

Bravo!! Excellent post.

[Ubercat]

The moderates are enablers, plain and simple, and not only that, the moderates are WRONG about the Christian religion. Christianity IS the way that fundies describe it and invision it.
....................
The stupidity of the fundies is self apparent. We should stop attacking them, and start criticizing the liberal Christians, and pointing out to them that there is no support in Christianity for their beliefs.


I agree. Though I wouldn't give up attacking fundies. I like Seebs, and Dawn, and maybe some other liberals on this board, but you guys are wacko. (no offense) You abandon everything in the bible except love and forgiveness, while ignoring the fact that without biblegod being unjust in the first place, "forgiveness" is meaningless. Why is the "christian" label so damn important to you? You're not christians! Unless you define christian as "whatever I say it is, and I'll change it again tommorrow." which is ridiculous. christianity comes from the bible. It's all you have, other than emotional endorphin rushes, wishful thinking, and happy coincidences. (Which everyone gets. They're by no means exclusive to religious people) Give up the fantasy already! I'm done now. I think.

-Ubercat

[seebs]

I agree. Though I wouldn't give up attacking fundies. I like Seebs, and Dawn, and maybe some other liberals on this board, but you guys are wacko. (no offense)

None taken.

You abandon everything in the bible except love and forgiveness, while ignoring the fact that without biblegod being unjust in the first place, "forgiveness" is meaningless.

False on both counts.

You're still doing the thing where you start with every premise of the fundamentalist view, and every time I say "but I don't accept that premise", you test a SINGLE altered premise against the whole remaining set of fundamentalist premises.

Forgiveness makes perfectly good sense without anyone having to be unjust. Can you imagine forgiving someone who has harmed your family, but is honestly repentant? Do you need to be horribly unjust for this act to be meaningful?

But that said, I do not abandon everything in the Bible, or even anything. I sometimes don't interpret it the same way a fundamentalist does, but I'm not abandoning it. You're acting with the presupposition that there is a single absolutely unambiguous meaning to everything, which is exactly what the fundamentalists on TV talk about, and that one either accepts this meaning or abandons the text entirely on that point.

Why is the "christian" label so damn important to you? You're not christians! Unless you define christian as "whatever I say it is, and I'll change it again tommorrow." which is ridiculous.

Well, uhm. Because I think Yeshua ben Yosef is the Messiah? I know it seems odd to attach the concept of an annointed messiah to Christianity, rather than dogmatic literalism about a book which didn't exist until hundreds of years later, but...

christianity comes from the bible.

A nice feat, that, given that Christianity predates the Bible.

[seebs]

2. Discrediting "The World". The neophyte to evangelical Christianity is given every encouragement to saturate himself/herself in the new world and regard former secular friends and pleasures as somehow stale and inferior.

I think it's very dangerous to assume that, because two people are saying similar things about "worldly" concepts in the abstract, they mean the same thing. One person may mean you should listen only to certified Christian bands while you live a life just like everyone else's. Another may not care what you listen to, but would expect you to value people above wealth.

3. "Logocide." (Cohen missed the chance to coin "verbicide," which would have been better.) The entire vocabulary of sublime concepts that brought the convert in as part of Device 1, is turned on its head. "Love" and "life" and "death" are given entirely new, Biblical meanings.

Hmm. I don't know that my definitions of these words are all that unlike other peoples'. I tend to use them in broader, rather than narrower, senses.

4. Assaulting integrity. The convert is urged to claim strong faith when in fact he is doubtful, and to "witness" to experiences he has not in fact had.

I don't think this fits at all with any of the liberals I know. We've always been pretty clear on the importance of admitting to doubts, and indeed, learning to recognize doubts when you feel really confident.

5. Dissociation induction. The convert has to learn to hold contradictory and conflicting ideas in his head simultaneously.

I'd need a concrete example, but I would say that, once again, most of the liberals I know are militantly opposed to this.

6. Bridge burning. The whole community effectively seals itself off from the common world of discourse, providing (my example) its own version of history and science to its home-schooled children.

I can't even begin to make this sound in any way connected to anything I've seen from liberals.

7. Holy terror. If the well-hooked convert should waiver, the horrible threat of hell keeps him in line. (Cohen cites some horrendous examples taken from Christian call-in radio shows.)

And here we see that, in fact, the liberals don't hold more than a fraction of one or two of these beliefs you say they all hold just the same as the fundies.

Furthermore, what you describe here is largely not belief, but practice; you have mistaken practices that are found all over (and not exclusively religious ones) for "religious beliefs", and then ascribed them to one of the groups of people who are most consistently and stridently opposed to them.

[seebs]

Well, first of all, I don't buy that entire attitude. Just because one group is confidently wrong does not mean that I then cannot be confident.

No, but if you go past "confident" to "won't even consider cooperating with these people", when their primary pragmatic flaw is their hostility to outsiders...

Being certian does not BY DEFINITION make one wrong.

No, but being hostile and exclusivist about certainty on matters that we don't have any proof on does, by definition, make one hard to live with.

So, no, I reject the entire notion that there is no basis for certianty and that as atheists we cannot defend our positions, our worldview, and our interests with the same vigor that religous fundamentalists do.

You certainly can.

But, when you adopt their methods, including shunning, you are no longer any easier for other people to deal with than they are. The real problem isn't that people believe silly stuff; it's that they harm other people. They kick people out, they storm off in a snit, they refuse to feed the hungry unless everyone at the soup kitchen holds the same cosmological views that they do.

This is just as wrong as a course of action, whether it's you or them doing it.

I intend, and will continue, to defend my worldview and my interests with the same vigor that religious fundamentalists do. Exerting equal effort is not the same thing as having the same flaws.

Unless the kind of "defense" you engage in is itself harmful or disruptive, in which case it is the flaw.

Defending UNSUPPORTED or UNSUPPORTABLE claims with equal vigor is equally wrong, but defending emperically supportable claims with equal vigor is not.

Indeed this is the trap that religionists WANT atheists to fall into, because if you don't react with equal but opposite force, you lose. Not matching the vigor of the religious fundamentalists is a recipe for failure.

That's what they all say. That's what Bush says about torturing people so we can stop terror, that's what McCarthy said about dealing with the communists. It's what the Battlecry kids say about standing up against millions of convenience abortions. It's what everyone says about everything.

And really, it turns out, it's that attitude, not the specific beliefs people are defending with such aggressive vigor, that seems to be the problem most of the time. I don't really care if people believe crazy shit as long as they aren't trying to impose it on me. But, the moment you start trying to impose your views using the same hostile and destructive tactics that the other guys do, you are playing into their hands. Feed the demagogues more, why don't you? Come on, give them a nice solid rant they can point to as proof that atheists are trying to destroy Christianity, and in a few years we'll be hiding out in catacombs again. It's what they want. It's what they need.

You are their power, as they are yours. I wish the two of you would go have your war somewhere else, though; I can't tell the sides apart anymore, and I just wanna go about my business.

[EthnAlln]

I think it's very dangerous to assume that, because two people are saying similar things about "worldly" concepts in the abstract, they mean the same thing. One person may mean you should listen only to certified Christian bands while you live a life just like everyone else's. Another may not care what you listen to, but would expect you to value people above wealth.



Hmm. I don't know that my definitions of these words are all that unlike other peoples'. I tend to use them in broader, rather than narrower, senses.



I don't think this fits at all with any of the liberals I know. We've always been pretty clear on the importance of admitting to doubts, and indeed, learning to recognize doubts when you feel really confident.



I'd need a concrete example, but I would say that, once again, most of the liberals I know are militantly opposed to this.



I can't even begin to make this sound in any way connected to anything I've seen from liberals.



And here we see that, in fact, the liberals don't hold more than a fraction of one or two of these beliefs you say they all hold just the same as the fundies.

Furthermore, what you describe here is largely not belief, but practice; you have mistaken practices that are found all over (and not exclusively religious ones) for "religious beliefs", and then ascribed them to one of the groups of people who are most consistently and stridently opposed to them.

No no no!!! Neither Cohen nor I am saying that you or any liberals hold these beliefs. He is talking about evangelicals.

[EthnAlln]

And really, it turns out, it's that attitude, not the specific beliefs people are defending with such aggressive vigor, that seems to be the problem most of the time. I don't really care if people believe crazy shit as long as they aren't trying to impose it on me. But, the moment you start trying to impose your views using the same hostile and destructive tactics that the other guys do, you are playing into their hands. Feed the demagogues more, why don't you? Come on, give them a nice solid rant they can point to as proof that atheists are trying to destroy Christianity, and in a few years we'll be hiding out in catacombs again. It's what they want. It's what they need.

You are their power, as they are yours. I wish the two of you would go have your war somewhere else, though; I can't tell the sides apart anymore, and I just wanna go about my business.

I disagree strongly. This kind of equivocation is one of the worst intellectual "sins". The idea that whenever two people disagree, either the truth is "somewhere in between" or "each is partly right" or "it's not worth arguing about" combines with the now-common view that as long as one side refuses to shut up, the other has not proved its case to turn our whole society into a bunch of know-nothings. Some things really are known, and faith is not a way of knowing things.

[seebs]

No no no!!! Neither Cohen nor I am saying that you or any liberals hold these beliefs. He is talking about evangelicals.

Ahh! I was confused; earlier, you'd said that liberals and fundamentalists held the same beliefs, so I assumed these were the beliefs in question.

[Ubercat]

Forgiveness makes perfectly good sense without anyone having to be unjust. Can you imagine forgiving someone who has harmed your family, but is honestly repentant? Do you need to be horribly unjust for this act to be meaningful?

What if I MADE them harm my family in the first place? Seems pretty unjust to me.

But that said, I do not abandon everything in the Bible, or even anything. I sometimes don't interpret it the same way a fundamentalist does, but I'm not abandoning it. You're acting with the presupposition that there is a single absolutely unambiguous meaning to everything, which is exactly what the fundamentalists on TV talk about, and that one either accepts this meaning or abandons the text entirely on that point.

You make a farce of the bible, when you cherrypick the good stuff, and interpret the vile majority of it.

Well, uhm. Because I think Yeshua ben Yosef is the Messiah? I know it seems odd to attach the concept of an annointed messiah to Christianity, rather than dogmatic literalism about a book which didn't exist until hundreds of years later, but...
A nice feat, that, given that Christianity predates the Bible.

And where does your knowlege of "Yeshua ben Yosef" come from? Do you have some non biblical source that you're keeping secret? Please share!

-Ubercat

[seebs]

I disagree strongly. This kind of equivocation is one of the worst intellectual "sins". The idea that whenever two people disagree, either the truth is "somewhere in between" or "each is partly right" or "it's not worth arguing about" combines with the now-common view that as long as one side refuses to shut up, the other has not proved its case to turn our whole society into a bunch of know-nothings. Some things really are known, and faith is not a way of knowing things.

That's not what I'm saying.

I'm not saying that both sides are equally right or valid in their factual claims.

I'm saying that systematic demonization of people is generally worse than their errors even if they really are wrong. I don't think for a moment that flat earthers are correct; I think their beliefs are ludicrous. But if someone says he won't speak to them or hire them for any jobs, then he's more dangerous to me than they are.

Once you're willing to make any group of people into less-than-human, the precedent is set, and no one else can be sure they'll always get treated like "real" people either.

What I'm responding to was:

I will never cooperate with or aid any grou that trying to portray religion in a positive light in any way shape or form.

The problem is that this is so very broad as to amount to a demand that religious people be demonized. Even if that's not the intent, it can't be followed without that effect.

I personally think communism is not economically viable; I do not think communist countries can function for very long. However, McCarthy-era attempts to protect America from "Communists" were, IMHO, worse than that factual error.

I don't see any significant difference between the hostility to religion expressed in that quote, and crap like Bush Sr.'s "I don't even know that atheists should be considered citizens." It's a response that precludes a productive discussion of the actual question under consideration.

[seebs]

What if I MADE them harm my family in the first place? Seems pretty unjust to me.

But that's not what's under discussion.

You said forgiveness can't mean anything if the entity offering it isn't unjust. You didn't include any qualifiers about how everyone was forced to do whatever it is they are allegedly forgiven for.

Not all Christians are Calvinists, remember.

You make a farce of the bible, when you cherrypick the good stuff, and interpret the vile majority of it.

I treat it like a collection of writings. It's what we do normally when we read text. You might as well gripe that I'm "cherrypicking" because I don't think the comics section and op-ed pages of the newspaper should be read the same way as the front page headlines.

I'm not at all convinced that the majority is "vile". I think there's a lot of descriptions in there of things which are not particularly either noble or vile, just, well, people being people. I sorta like people, overall, so I guess it doesn't bug me.

But you're still begging the question; you're implying that only the particular view you hold is "real" and everyone else is dishonestly shying away from it. At least when the Catholics do that, they have a long history they can point to to say why they believe their source.

And where does your knowlege of "Yeshua ben Yosef" come from? Do you have some non biblical source that you're keeping secret? Please share!

Scripture, tradition, reason. :)

Christianity predates the Bible. That's all there is to it. You're attacking bible-only fundamentalism. Well, okay. Go ahead. But it's got nothing to do with the vast majority of Christians, who have other sources for information. For instance, the traditions and teaching of any of the older churches; those are a source. They aren't entirely based on or restricted to the Bible, either; they're the things based on which books were selected for inclusion.

I mean, come on. "the" Bible? Which one?

[AthenaAwakened]

I have had this "discussion" with people at my fellowship many times so I'm gonna cut through the dramatics and get straight to the point.

Liberal Christians take back your faith!

Your faith has been hijacked by a minority of people who are intent on gaining legitimacy and power over the religious, political, and cultural lives of this nation. Take Back Your Faith!

Fundies are organized, confident, and absolute in their beliefs. They don't fight fair and they play for keeps. You have to be willing to be the same way. Take Back Your Faith!

Fundamentalism is by it's very nature, incompatible with democratic society and if left to its own devices will send civilization back to a time less civilized where the lessons of the enlightenment will be lost to the mists of time. Take Back Your Faith!

I will man the barricades with you, but it is not up to a humanist like me to fight your battles for you. Organize! Stand sure and steady in your beliefs! Take Back Your Faith!

[Nice Squirrel]

The assumption that moderates think everything is allegory comes, I think, from a tendency to take poor examples as representative. Many of the non-Christians I know seem to have swallowed whole the fundamentalist line that either you believe the Genesis story to be a literal and factual account of a 6-day event, or you don't believe in God at all.

This is what I encounter the most. The most vocal group of Christians as well as the ones you see on Television reinforce this meme. I have been told by people on this board that I am not a Christian because I do not take the literal translation on a specific story but "use tricks" to pull personal/alternative meanings out of it.

Last time I checked the Nicean Creed did not have: "We believe in one literal creation story handed down from a sky daddy."

[EarlOfLade]

Share the same beliefs in the way that creationists and people who believe in evolution share the same beliefs. That there IS and earth and IS a sun and it took time for us to get from the beginning of the earth to where we are now.
I'm sorry, but i don't understand what you are trying to say.

[EarlOfLade]

What same beliefs are you talking about? I don't share, for instance, the belief that my moral views should be enforced by the government.
You believe in a fairy in the sky that nobody has ever seen or heard from. What more do you need? The rest is just gravy given by humans who THINK they know what is going on and add their own quirks to it.

Yes, as long as you believe in the big kahuna in the sky, you have the same belief. Or are you trying to say that you believe in a different god than what the fundamentalists does?

[angela2]

This is the fatal flaw of Post Modernism. With the rise of clashing certianties in the 20th century Post Modernism stepped in and essentially devalued all claims of "truth", theerby neutering both sides in the issue, both the traditional religious view and the scientific view. The Post Modernism view is that "no one can claim any truth, all so-called truth is really a subjective value judgement".

So, what is the end result of this?

In the end, Post Modernism helps the religionists the most, and I believe is reponsible for the resurgance of religious fundentalism, because the religious groups still have the gaul to CLAIM truths, yet our society no longer has a basis for demanding that they defend their claims, and while they will "claim a truth", the Post Modernist will still step in to their defence if you demand evidence for their claim, the Post Modernist will still step in to say "you cannot judge his claim to truth", which is bullshit, I certianly can.

Christians who are liberal theologically [those who trace their theology back to Scheiermacher) are not identical in their beliefs with postmodern Christians. And postmodern Christians' beliefs are not identical with secular postmodernists.

To which group are you referring?

[Nice Squirrel]

You believe in a fairy in the sky that nobody has ever seen or heard from. What more do you need? The rest is just gravy given by humans who THINK they know what is going on and add their own quirks to it.

Yes, as long as you believe in the big kahuna in the sky, you have the same belief. Or are you trying to say that you believe in a different god than what the fundamentalists does?

God is in the sky?

[seebs]

Liberal Christians take back your faith!

Your faith has been hijacked by a minority of people who are intent on gaining legitimacy and power over the religious, political, and cultural lives of this nation. Take Back Your Faith!

Fundies are organized, confident, and absolute in their beliefs. They don't fight fair and they play for keeps. You have to be willing to be the same way. Take Back Your Faith!

The last sentence, and the second to last, simply aren't compatible.

Our faith is the belief that you don't have to be willing to be the same way to achieve your ends, or at least, that it's not worth the cost.

We cannot simultaneously adopt such methods and defend the faith.

[seebs]

You believe in a fairy in the sky that nobody has ever seen or heard from.

Er, uhm. No.

Yes, as long as you believe in the big kahuna in the sky, you have the same belief. Or are you trying to say that you believe in a different god than what the fundamentalists does?

The question of when two things are descriptions of different entities, and when they are descriptions (at least some in error) of the same entity, is a very large and complicated question.

But what's this about "sky"? I don't recall ever stating that God was "in the sky". It sounds pretty weird to me.

But even if we drop the inaccurate portrayal of belief in God as "in the sky", and just talk about "belief in God", and say this is the "same" belief... We have a serious problem. You're telling me that there's no difference at all between Deists and Fundamentalists, at this point. I have a hard time accepting that. It doesn't seem very reasonable, to me.

I think it's important to think seriously about what it is that makes these beliefs matter, and what I mostly care about in dealing with people is how they choose to act. I had a friend who was a solipsist. Genuinely believed that the whole set of experiences was somewhere along the lines of a dream or hallucination. Because of this, he believed that all people he experienced encounters with were parts of his own being, and he was one of the nicest people I've ever met. On the other hand, there's a literary example of someone who decides to rape someone because he's convinced he's hallucinating, so it doesn't matter.

Which is more important to me; that these two people (one, admittedly, fictional) hold the "same belief" -- that their sensory experiences are not real in the way that I think sensory experience is real -- or that the ways in which they treat other people are radically different?

[AthenaAwakened]

The last sentence, and the second to last, simply aren't compatible.

Our faith is the belief that you don't have to be willing to be the same way to achieve your ends, or at least, that it's not worth the cost.

We cannot simultaneously adopt such methods and defend the faith.

And that's how you are enabling the fundementalists. The Meek may very well inherit the earth, but they will not keep it long. What I'm saying is for every time they put a D. James Kennedy on the air, make sure John Selby Spong is sitting right next to him. Organization and exposing a lie for what it is is no sin. It's a virtue.

[Malachi151]

seebs: I don't have a problem with your social agenda and your participation in society. I do have aproblem with the social agenda and participation of religious fundamentalists, however.

My problem with "liberal Christians" is not "them" per se, it is the fact that #1) "liberal Christainity" is like a gateway drug for fundamentalist Christianity #2) Liberal Christianity *misrepresents* Christianity! Why support people are are either lying about, or unintentionally misportraying, a belief system? I mean why do it, it just makes no sense. Yes, they may be good people, but its like supporting a gruop of "good Nazis". Why? If there was a group of "Nazi skinheads for peace and justice", who denounced racism, would that prevent me from opposing them or point out to them the fact that Nazism is rooted in racism, or would I agree that these people and their beleifs were okay? Hell no. These are misinformed people, who are doing damage by misprepresenting something that is harmful. #3) Liberal Christianity confuses the public by offering bait and switch messages and and engendering a respect for a label #4) When people see "Christian", they see it how they want to see it, if there is an image of "Christian" in the social conciousness that is warm and fuzzy and "all loving", then people who like that will latch onto that and defend "Christianity" in general from proper criticism and scrituny, and they will continue to denounce atheists as people who, then, in their minds, are opposed to "love and warm fuzzy", which is not true. #5) It still perpetuates a lack of scientific understadning of the world, which is essential to have amongst the population for a modern democratic society. I believe that secular humanism and a materialist understanding of how the world operates is essential for future peaceful existance of humans on the planet, and I have reasons for that belief which I won't go into here because it would take too long and this is not the place.

So this is why I oppose all Christian, and especially liberal Christians, even though I really have more in common in term of values with liberal Christians.

[seebs]

And that's how you are enabling the fundementalists. The Meek may very well inherit the earth, but they will not keep it long. What I'm saying is for every time they put a D. James Kennedy on the air, make sure John Selby Spong is sitting right next to him. Organization and exposing a lie for what it is is no sin. It's a virtue.

Perhaps, but many of the techniques you complain about are things that I would tend to think of as sins.

FWIW, it's not that we haven't successfully opposed sin in the past. Who won the slavery debate, Elias Hicks and John Woolman, or the hundreds of well-organized fundamentalists who opposed them?

That said, I do in general think that people need to be clearer about what their faith advocates. I should point out that some of the best examples I've seen of fighting fair, not dirty, and opposing those excesses have come from people who are unquestionably fundamentalists and evangelicals. Although it's common to assume they're all power-hungry nuts, I know some excellent people who are fundamentalists in the formal sense, they just aren't jerks.

The problem is that enabling these people depends on encouraging kinds of clarity and discernment that are not popular. I've been here pointing out that I'm not big on literalist Genesis for something like four years now, and I still run into people who assume this means I'm less interested in the Bible than a literalist, even though I've done a lot more reading on the topic of what Genesis says than most of the literalists I've talked to.

The thing that you non-theist types can most help with is recognizing that the question is more complicated than "Christian vs. non-Christian" or even "fundamentalists vs. everybody". Not all fundamentalists are hostile to your freedoms; some would willingly die for your right to do things they are personally convinced are sinful.

The more you can talk about the actual specific problem (which, it seems to me, is people trying to dictate their conscience's terms to everybody), the less time gets soaked up on pointless debates on unrelated issues.

[seebs]

seebs: I don't have a problem with your social agenda and your participation in society. I do have aproblem with the social agenda and participation of religious fundamentalists, however.

All of them? And you are quite sure it's not just, say, some of them? You are quite sure none of them are ever actually on your side?

My problem with "liberal Christians" is not "them" per se, it is the fact that #1) "liberal Christainity" is like a gateway drug for fundamentalist Christianity

False.

#2) Liberal Christianity *misrepresents* Christianity!

Also false.

W#3) Liberal Christianity confuses the public by offering bait and switch messages and and engendering a respect for a label

Ahh, I see. Sort of like the way that the Million Man March were confusing the public by not being gangsters.

#4) When people see "Christian", they see it how they want to see it, if there is an image of "Christian" in the social conciousness that is warm and fuzzy and "all loving", then people who like that will latch onto that and defend "Christianity" in general from proper criticism and scrituny, and they will continue to denounce atheists as people who, then, in their minds, are opposed to "love and warm fuzzy", which is not true.

This might be the beginnings of a coherent argument, but the solution would be for you to stop lumping us all in together.

#5) It still perpetuates a lack of scientific understadning of the world, which is essential to have amongst the population for a modern democratic society.

I think this one's just false.

So this is why I oppose all Christian, and especially liberal Christians, even though I really have more in common in term of values with liberal Christians.

Well, then you should change your mind, because your premises are busted.

Liberals aren't "misrepresenting" Christianity; they're one of many variants. The fact is, the modernist fundamentalists are far further from the historical roots of the faith than liberals. Spong and Tillich are closer to the early church fathers than Falwell and Robertson. Fundamentalism, as we know it today, is a 100% modern invention, entirely industrial era and later. The earliest you can find any roots for most of it is the Reformation, and most modernist fundamentalists believe in a variety of Calvinism that, so far as I can tell, would have made Calvin himself puke his guts out.

The problem here is that you're looking at these people that you firmly believe to be wrong about nearly everything -- wrong about God, wrong about creation, wrong about morals, wrong about social structure -- and then, for no reason I can see, you are assuming that they are 100% accurate in their description of what Christianity is and what its history is like.

This makes no sense to me.

[Malachi151]

I have had this "discussion" with people at my fellowship many times so I'm gonna cut through the dramatics and get straight to the point.

Liberal Christians take back your faith!

Your faith has been hijacked by a minority of people who are intent on gaining legitimacy and power over the religious, political, and cultural lives of this nation. Take Back Your Faith!

Fundies are organized, confident, and absolute in their beliefs. They don't fight fair and they play for keeps. You have to be willing to be the same way. Take Back Your Faith!

Fundamentalism is by it's very nature, incompatible with democratic society and if left to its own devices will send civilization back to a time less civilized where the lessons of the enlightenment will be lost to the mists of time. Take Back Your Faith!

I will man the barricades with you, but it is not up to a humanist like me to fight your battles for you. Organize! Stand sure and steady in your beliefs! Take Back Your Faith!

This is incorrect though. Fundies HAVEN'T "hijacked" Christianity, the liberals have. Christianity was never "liberal". It was a movement of the poor, which preached "the weak taking over the planet", but it was never liberal.

Being pro-poor and liberal are two different things. Christianity was always fire and brimstone, live by faith alone, reject worldly knowledge, reject philosophy, oppose all those who disagree with you, compeletely dismantle any society that has different beliefs, etc.

Christianity was NEVER liberal! It only grew some liberal elements AFTER the Enlightenment when it became infused with Greek humanism.

But why on earth would we seek to defend a pseudo-Christian brand that is half okay because it has rejected some of its worst parts while incorporating some of humanism, when instead we should be just throwing it out altogether?

Liberal Christians can't "take back their faith". What are they going to take it back to? Only an imagined state that never existed....

[Malachi151]

Christians who are liberal theologically [those who trace their theology back to Scheiermacher) are not identical in their beliefs with postmodern Christians. And postmodern Christians' beliefs are not identical with secular postmodernists.

To which group are you referring?

You don't have to be a post modernist to be defended by post modernism. Native Americans weren't post modernists, yet their worldviews were indeed defended by post modernists, etc.

I'm saying that the fundamentalists benefit from post modernism, because we have rejected calling people to account for their beliefs in our society as a whole due to post modernism.

[seebs]

Malachi, can you offer some sources for these claims about the nature of Christianity? They contradict everything I've previously seen from anyone who knows the Bible wasn't written in English.

[AthenaAwakened]

As a former Liberal christian, I understand how irratating it is to be lumped together with the Jerry Falwells of the worlds, but just what are liberal christians doing to differentiate themselves? In the public mind, liberal christianity is all but invisible. Even when a liberal minister is interviewed in the media, they seldom identify themselves as such. Where are the Liberal televanglists? Where is the Dr. James A. Forbes Jr Crusade? Who is spreading YOUR good news? It's all well and good to take the High road, but sometimes that just make you first in line to be killed by the mudslide.

[Nice Squirrel]

seebs: I don't have a problem with your social agenda and your participation in society. I do have aproblem with the social agenda and participation of religious fundamentalists, however.

My problem with "liberal Christians" is not "them" per se, it is the fact that #1) "liberal Christainity" is like a gateway drug for fundamentalist Christianity
Really? How so since I have never met a liberal Christian who has gone fundy? When liberal Christians I know go deep, it is ususally into pray, meditation and a monastic life.

#2) Liberal Christianity *misrepresents* Christianity! Why support people are are either lying about, or unintentionally misportraying, a belief system?
Really? How so? How does it misrepresent Christianity since it is a form of Christianity? Or does it misrepresent what you would like Christianity to be (intolerant)?

#3) Liberal Christianity confuses the public by offering bait and switch messages and and engendering a respect for a label

Really? How so? What message are they putting forth that is then "switched"?

#4) When people see "Christian", they see it how they want to see it, if there is an image of "Christian" in the social conciousness that is warm and fuzzy and "all loving", then people who like that will latch onto that and defend "Christianity" in general from proper criticism and scrituny, and they will continue to denounce atheists as people who, then, in their minds, are opposed to "love and warm fuzzy", which is not true.
Really How so? I've only heard people complain about fundy atheists who attempt to shove their atheism down the throats of others including other athiests.


#5) It still perpetuates a lack of scientific understadning of the world, which is essential to have amongst the population for a modern democratic society.
Really? How so?

So this is why I oppose all Christian, and especially liberal Christians, even though I really have more in common in term of values with liberal Christians. It doesn't sound like you do. Your statements have been pretty intolerant.

[EarlOfLade]

Er, uhm. No.

You don't believe in god? I thought you did, if not, i apologise.


The question of when two things are descriptions of different entities, and when they are descriptions (at least some in error) of the same entity, is a very large and complicated question.

But what's this about "sky"? I don't recall ever stating that God was "in the sky". It sounds pretty weird to me.

heaven == sky


But even if we drop the inaccurate portrayal of belief in God as "in the sky", and just talk about "belief in God", and say this is the "same" belief... We have a serious problem. You're telling me that there's no difference at all between Deists and Fundamentalists, at this point. I have a hard time accepting that. It doesn't seem very reasonable, to me.

You : Believe in god
Fundies: believe in god

What is the difference?
Your basic beliefs are the same, you both believe in a fairytale that has no resemblence with reality. Hence both you and the fundies are avoiding reality for the same reason. the means you use are different but your basic belief is the same.

[windsofchange]

Two things I'd like to theorize about after reading this thread so far:

1. My impression is that some of the hostility towards liberal Christians comes from people who've deconverted from fundamentalist Christianity, and subconsciously still believe that's the only legitimate version of Christianity. Interesting that that's exactly what the fundies believe.

2. I have never known anyone who converted to a "liberal" form of Christianity and then became a fundamentalist. There are probably some but I bet they're in the minority. I think it's WAY more common for someone to become a fundie and then become more liberal.

3. (I know, I said two, so sue me! I haven't had my coffee yet!) I personally have known some really, truly, stinkingly obnoxious, intolerant and rude atheists. I've also met way, WAY many more nice, kind, friendly, tolerant atheists. Should I reject the the nice ones as "enablers" of the nasty ones and assume that the nasty ones are the only True Atheists?

[Nice Squirrel]

As a former Liberal christian, I understand how irratating it is to be lumped together with the Jerry Falwells of the worlds, but just what are liberal christians doing to differentiate themselves? In the public mind, liberal christianity is all but invisible. Even when a liberal minister is interviewed in the media, they seldom identify themselves as such. Where are the Liberal televanglists? Where is the Dr. James A. Forbes Jr Crusade? Who is spreading YOUR good news? It's all well and good to take the High road, but sometimes that just make you first in line to be killed by the mudslide.

I think because most liberal christian leaders see the spotlight for what it is: a meaningless lonely place with passing relationships and void of meaning.

[AthenaAwakened]

Religion and Politics in this country, I think we will all agree, has moved right over the last 30 years. THEREFORE movement to the left could be interpreted as moving back. (hence take back your faith). PLUS conservatives have so totally co-opted the the word christian that even atheists refuse to define it in any other way but the Fundie way (hardly fair to the millions of believers who don't subcribe to a belief in a 6,000 year old earth) Simply because many people have confused "nice-person" with christian ("that's not a chritian thing to do" was a favorite scold of my grandmother's) does not mean that a nice person can't be allowed to call himself a christian.

[seebs]

As a former Liberal christian, I understand how irratating it is to be lumped together with the Jerry Falwells of the worlds, but just what are liberal christians doing to differentiate themselves? In the public mind, liberal christianity is all but invisible. Even when a liberal minister is interviewed in the media, they seldom identify themselves as such. Where are the Liberal televanglists? Where is the Dr. James A. Forbes Jr Crusade? Who is spreading YOUR good news? It's all well and good to take the High road, but sometimes that just make you first in line to be killed by the mudslide.

Well, here we are, and what the spotlight says is "you're not real Christians". But I don't see that I care much.

I tend to focus more on actually talking with specific people about things that matter to them, and less on sound bites.

BTW, you might find it very interesting to read some of the writings of Tony Campolo. He's an evangelist who may or may not be liberal, but he doesn't suck as a person.

[Malachi151]

Malachi, can you offer some sources for these claims about the nature of Christianity? They contradict everything I've previously seen from anyone who knows the Bible wasn't written in English.

Have you read the Bible? Have you read the Early Christian fathers?

The difference between Christian fundies and liberal Christians is that Fundies take a false premis (the Bible) and take it to its logical conclusions, while liberal Christians diverge from the Bible where they can see that it does not meet modern moral and ethical standards.

You cannot BOTH follow the Bible and be open to modern morals and ethics.

So, yes, we generally get along with liberal Christians more because they are more in line with modern values, but they then go and try to misportray Christianity as a SOURCE of modern values, which it isn't. On the other hand the fundies reject modern values because they stay close to the Bible,so therefore we differ from them in values more, BUT the fundies are MORE LOGICAL, they are staying true to the premis that they start from, its just that their premis is wrong.

For some sources on aspects of Xinaity that I am talking about you can see some stuff on my website:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/blog/

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/understanding_evolution.htm#The_Christian_Worldview_vs._Naturalistic_Worldview

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/understanding_evolution.htm#Early_Christian_Fight_Against_Naturalism

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/darwin_nazism.htm

[windsofchange]

You : Believe in god
Fundies: believe in god

What is the difference?

Some people (not just Christians) believe in a "god" (or "gods") who they freely acknowledge is a personification of an abstract -- love, or goodness, or perhaps just their ideal self. They follow that "god" in an effort to perfect themselves, but would never dream of asking anyone else to follow or even believe in the existence of that "god" - it's a personal and private thing.

Other people (not just Christians) believe in a god who exists independently of themselves, a real entity "out there" somewhere, who wants his followers to make everyone else in the world believe in him too - or else!

Can you see the difference?

[seebs]

You don't believe in god? I thought you did, if not, i apologise.

I don't believe that God is "up in the sky".

heaven == sky

Equivocation does not become a valid form of argument just because you used "==" instead of "is".

You : Believe in god
Fundies: believe in god

What is the difference?

You: Believe that there is some stuff.
Fundies: Believe that there is some stuff.

What is the difference?

Your basic beliefs are the same, you both believe in a fairytale that has no resemblence with reality. Hence both you and the fundies are avoiding reality for the same reason. the means you use are different but your basic belief is the same.

Except you've made it quite clear you haven't the faintest notion of what I believe, so how can you make all these assertions? For that matter, what's your basis for your own positions? Could you explain to me how you have demonstrated conclusively that this universe is uncreated? I would be very interested in seeing a genuine proof of such a claim.

What exactly is it that you claim is real, but that I am avoiding? I've seen people say that to atheists, and then come up all shy when it comes time to present something. So. Where's this reality that I'm avoiding? Show me a real thing that I have somehow avoided.

I really don't get the impression that you know much about what liberal Christians believe, or do. It sounds like you have never bothered to learn anything more about Christianity than what little kids pick up in Sunday school. I am reminded of someone on a BBS I was posting on, who said that she could disprove evolution, and she knew all about it because she studied evolution for four weeks in school. Your comments about sky fairies suggest that you are addressing your attacks exclusively at the oversimplified things that small children believe, which is I guess one way to win an argument.

[seebs]

Have you read the Bible? Have you read the Early Christian fathers?

Bible, yes. ECF, some but certainly not all.

The difference between Christian fundies and liberal Christians is that Fundies take a false premis (the Bible) and take it to its logical conclusions, while liberal Christians diverge from the Bible where they can see that it does not meet modern moral and ethical standards.

Er, no.

This may come as a total revelation, but there are actual liberal Christians around. Instead of parroting what fundies say about them, you could always try... asking them what they believe. Instead of telling them what you heard someone hostile say they believe.

You cannot BOTH follow the Bible and be open to modern morals and ethics.

Try and stop me.

So, yes, we generally get along with liberal Christians more because they are more in line with modern values, but they then go and try to misportray Christianity as a SOURCE of modern values, which it isn't.

I don't give a fuck whether a value is "modern" or not.

I'm married. I plan to stay with my spouse, even if things aren't always wine and roses, and work things out, because I believe that commitment is a good thing, and there's more to love than infatuation.

Is that a "modern" value or a "Biblical" value? Am I wrong?

If, as you say, my choices are "modern" or "Biblical", then I guess on that one I've adopted a "Biblical" value instead of a "modern" one, and the divorce rate agrees with me. (It is of note that the divorce rate is generally higher among fundamentalist groups. Huh.)

On the other hand the fundies reject modern values because they stay close to the Bible,so therefore we differ from them in values more, BUT the fundies are MORE LOGICAL, they are staying true to the premis that they start from, its just that their premis is wrong.

Really?

So, after two thousand years of people having serious debates about the interpretation of a given parable, all we needed to do was wait for you to come along and hand us the revealed truth, that the way the fundies interpret it is right. But we can trust you, because you're Some Guy On The Internet. So all those arguments, all those books and books and essays and studies and meditations, totally unneeded; we just needed Some Guy On The Internet.

Wow!

For some sources on aspects of Xinaity that I am talking about you can see some stuff on my website:

I appreciate the offer, but let's just start with a simple thing:

How can it be that a modernist variety of Christianity which didn't even exist until the 1800s is the most original and historically accurate variety of Christianity?

I've been asking fundamentalists this one for years.

[AthenaAwakened]

BTW, you might find it very interesting to read some of the writings of Tony Campolo. He's an evangelist who may or may not be liberal, but he doesn't suck as a person.

I am familiar with Tony (actually seen home on TV (:eek: how shocking of a non fundies to lower himself to the base medium of television:eek: )) And no, he doesn't suck as a person.

[EthnAlln]

Ahh! I was confused; earlier, you'd said that liberals and fundamentalists held the same beliefs, so I assumed these were the beliefs in question.

Ohmigod! Did I really say that? I must be getting senile. (Not saying I DIDN'T say it; only that IF I did, I said what I didn't believe.)

[seebs]

Ohmigod! Did I really say that? I must be getting senile. (Not saying I DIDN'T say it; only that IF I did, I said what I didn't believe.)

Sorry, error was purely mine. I mistook one of your posts for a post a couple posts after it. Just my confusion!

In which case, I guess I just have to retract my complaint; I have seen all of those techniques used by some churches, and I entirely agree that they are more aimed at mind-control than anything else.

I would say that I know churches that are formally fundamentalist, which don't engage in all of those practices, or even many or very much. (I know of very few organizations that can honestly claim not to use some of them a little, churches or otherwise.) However, I think there's certainly a tendency for some church groups to favor authoritarian structures and techniques likely to produce strong adhesion. I don't much like this.

[BioBeing]

Two things I'd like to theorize about after reading this thread so far:

1. My impression is that some of the hostility towards liberal Christians comes from people who've deconverted from fundamentalist Christianity, and subconsciously still believe that's the only legitimate version of Christianity. Interesting that that's exactly what the fundies believe.
This is what I think AthenaAwakened means by having the liberal Xians "take back" their faith. The Religious Right are dominating religious (and political) discussion in the USA. Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Pat Robertson...

2. I have never known anyone who converted to a "liberal" form of Christianity and then became a fundamentalist. There are probably some but I bet they're in the minority. I think it's WAY more common for someone to become a fundie and then become more liberal.
So where do all the Fundies come from? Given that there is an apparent rise in fundamentalism in the US in recent years (is this true? it *seems* correct), where are these people coming from? Not straight from atheists - the pool isn't big enough!

[Malachi151]

Bible, yes. ECF, some but certainly not all.

Well, here is a challenge for you. Take a Bible a go through it with two highlighters of different colors. With one color highlight everything that you think contradicts your personal values, with the other highlight everything that you think affirms your personal values.

In the end, most of the Bible should be highlighted, no skipping stuff.

Er, no.

This may come as a total revelation, but there are actual liberal Christians around. Instead of parroting what fundies say about them, you could always try... asking them what they believe. Instead of telling them what you heard someone hostile say they believe.

#1) I have asked them, and #2) I have read their books and articles. Can I accurately represent every nuance of every individual and how they "personally interpret their faith"? No, of course not.

The fact is that liberal Christians do not stick as strictly to the Bible as their source of values and knowledge of the world, whether you admit this or not it is the case, and hence this is why they are alled "liberal"....

Try and stop me.

No, you can THINK you are following the Bible, you can CONVINCE YOURSELF, but you aren't doing it. We can objectively judge your behavior and beliefs and see if they correspond to the beliefs espoused in the Bible and other early Christian works.

I don't give a fuck whether a value is "modern" or not.

I'm married. I plan to stay with my spouse, even if things aren't always wine and roses, and work things out, because I believe that commitment is a good thing, and there's more to love than infatuation.

Is that a "modern" value or a "Biblical" value? Am I wrong?

If, as you say, my choices are "modern" or "Biblical", then I guess on that one I've adopted a "Biblical" value instead of a "modern" one, and the divorce rate agrees with me. (It is of note that the divorce rate is generally higher among fundamentalist groups. Huh.)

Changes in divorce rates over the past 200 years have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with economic and cultural factors. With the rise of capitalism the entire nature of the family changed as people no longer worked from home and husbands and wives were no longer essentially business partners, whose childern were essentially empoyees. In addition to that, women are now more empowered and thus less dependant on men, thus fewer women opt to stay married to abusive husbands or unfullfilling marraiges, etc. So changing conditions, in many ways for the better, have deminished the institution of marriage.

That, of course does not mean that people can't or dont' still have log, commited marriages, in fact atheists have among the lowest divorce rates, and of course people from other religions marry asn stay married as well, so I'm not sure what special influence Christianity has here, especially since divorce was allowed under the OT laws, and under the NT "Jesus" and Paul said that it was best not to get married in the first place.

And, I disagree that people should stay together simply for the sake of staying together as some kind of "value". I agree that it is good to make an effort to ride out the bumps, but there are cases where its simply not healthy to stay together.

Really?

So, after two thousand years of people having serious debates about the interpretation of a given parable, all we needed to do was wait for you to come along and hand us the revealed truth, that the way the fundies interpret it is right. But we can trust you, because you're Some Guy On The Internet. So all those arguments, all those books and books and essays and studies and meditations, totally unneeded; we just needed Some Guy On The Internet.

Wow!

This was a nice tangent, however, you didn't address the issue, which is that fundies tick more closely to the letter of the Bible. Now, if you are going to try to claim that "liberal Chrisitans" have the "true" interpretation of the Bible, and that you are the ones that "really" stick to teh letter of the Bible, then you aren't really "liberal" are you, yoru just a different type of fundie....

I appreciate the offer, but let's just start with a simple thing:

How can it be that a modernist variety of Christianity which didn't even exist until the 1800s is the most original and historically accurate variety of Christianity?

I've been asking fundamentalists this one for years.

How about we stick with addressing the portions of the Bible that contrdict your beliefs an values.

Do you acknowledge that there are parts of the Bible that contradict your beliefs and values?

[EarlOfLade]

Some people (not just Christians) believe in a "god" (or "gods") who they freely acknowledge is a personification of an abstract -- love, or goodness, or perhaps just their ideal self. They follow that "god" in an effort to perfect themselves, but would never dream of asking anyone else to follow or even believe in the existence of that "god" - it's a personal and private thing.

Other people (not just Christians) believe in a god who exists independently of themselves, a real entity "out there" somewhere, who wants his followers to make everyone else in the world believe in him too - or else!

Can you see the difference?
No, there is no difference.
One enables the other. It's as easy as that.

[WishboneDawn]

So where do all the Fundies come from? Given that there is an apparent rise in fundamentalism in the US in recent years (is this true? it *seems* correct), where are these people coming from? Not straight from atheists - the pool isn't big enough!

Most likely from moderate christianity which AGAIN, is NOT Liberal christianity.

Where do you think Republicans get their members? From the Democrats? No, from the pool of people in that great middle.

[Malachi151]

Most likely from moderate christianity which AGAIN, is NOT Liberal christianity.

Where do you think Republicans get their members? From the Democrats? No, from the pool of people in that great middle.

This is true, and I have been mixing "moderate" with "liberal", I admit that.

[windsofchange]

No, there is no difference.
One enables the other. It's as easy as that.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but I think that's really illogical.

[windsofchange]

No, there is no difference.
One enables the other. It's as easy as that.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but I can't help getting the impression that you just don't WANT to see any difference.

Do Wiccans enable Christians?

[windsofchange]

No, there is no difference.
One enables the other. It's as easy as that.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but I can't help thinking that you just don't want to see any difference.

[WishboneDawn]

Two things I'd like to theorize about after reading this thread so far:

1. My impression is that some of the hostility towards liberal Christians comes from people who've deconverted from fundamentalist Christianity, and subconsciously still believe that's the only legitimate version of Christianity. Interesting that that's exactly what the fundies believe.

I suspect the exact same thing. They chucked the belief but kept the belief framework. But I think it's hopeless to point it out though because they're now 'freethinkers' who have cast their religious shackles aside and as such they're clearly incapable of falling victim to religious thinking.

It's like they took up a different trade but kept the old tools. They're now carpenters instead of stonemasons but still insist on hammering away on everything with the sam big mallet that doesn't work well in either job.

2. I have never known anyone who converted to a "liberal" form of Christianity and then became a fundamentalist. There are probably some but I bet they're in the minority. I think it's WAY more common for someone to become a fundie and then become more liberal.

Some of the folks here mix up terms. I think they mean moderate when they say liberal and don't bother to ever straighten the terms out.

[windsofchange]

No, there is no difference.
One enables the other. It's as easy as that.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but I can't help thinking that you just don't want to see any difference.

[WishboneDawn]

double post.

[windsofchange]

No, there is no difference.
One enables the other. It's as easy as that.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but I can't help thinking that you just don't want to see any difference.

[windsofchange]

dupe

[WishboneDawn]

I'm guessing the posting was messing up on you to Windsofchange. :)

[windsofchange]

I'm guessing the posting was messing up on you to Windsofchange. :)

Yeah, like I haven't got enough stress in my life today!! :devil1:

[EarlOfLade]

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but I can't help thinking that you just don't want to see any difference.
Don't worry. i don't consider it rude, but rather an appropriate question.

Let me try to explain.

You say the moon is made of green cheese, but I say it's made of blue cheese and the green you see is mold because the moon is very old blue cheese.
Both you and I claim it's made of cheese, it's just a difference in color. Both claims are equally ignorant.

[BioBeing]

Most likely from moderate christianity which AGAIN, is NOT Liberal christianity.
I have never actually seen a formal definition of "liberal" and "moderate" christianity. I appologize if I get them confused. Would you be so kind as to link me to a definition of the two, so I can be sure to use them properly in the future?

[WishboneDawn]

I have never actually seen a formal definition of "liberal" and "moderate" christianity. I appologize if I get them confused. Would you be so kind as to link me to a definition of the two, so I can be sure to use them properly in the future?

It might be more useful to have that discussion here? A bit of googling reveals that lots of people use moderate and liberal interchangeably. When I think of an over-generalized view of christianity I think of the conservatives on the right, the great middle and the liberals on the left. But this would probably merit a new thread?

Would be interesting though.

[angela2]

Don't worry. i don't consider it rude, but rather an appropriate question.

Let me try to explain.

You say the moon is made of green cheese, but I say it's made of blue cheese and the green you see is mold because the moon is very old blue cheese.
Both you and I claim it's made of cheese, it's just a difference in color. Both claims are equally ignorant.
Actually one could make the case that atheist would be more in tune with fundamentalist than traditional Christians whether moderate or liberal. Fundamentalism and modern atheism are both reactions to modernity. As a result of the conclusions of modernist scientific thought, atheism rejected Christianity and fundamentalist dug foxholes. Look at it this way, what are the two most obvious reactions to literary and historical critique of the bible that point to contradictions in the bible, for example? The first is to say the bible is worthless and the second is to rationalize such things.

[BioBeing]

While I see what you are saying, the lack of formal definition up front means that we can hardly be taken to task for not knowing what you are talking about. Liberal and moderate can mean pretty much the same thing - although the term liberal has been in flux in the past few years, to be sure. To some it means someone who is flexible, while to others it means someone who is left-wing.

Its just one more reason why different versions of christianity should be given different names!

[EarlOfLade]

Actually one could make the case that atheist would be more in tune with fundamentalist than traditional Christians whether moderate or liberal.

That is pure BS.

Fundamentalism and modern atheism are both reactions to modernity.

Huh?
I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Atheism simple says there is zero proof of any supernatural beeing or god or whatever you like to call it.

As a result of the conclusions of modernist scientific thought, atheism rejected Christianity and fundamentalist dug foxholes. Look at it this way, what are the two most obvious reactions to literary and historical critique of the bible that point to contradictions in the bible, for example? The first is to say the bible is worthless and the second is to rationalize such things.

So, you have proofs for what the bible claim? Proofs that are found outside the bible?
If so, will you please present them for scrutiny?

The only thing you have, is the bible and the word of socalled priests or preachers. And I have so far not seen any good arguments as to why i should believe them, in fact, most of the time when I hear them, I start laughing uncontrollably because of all the crazy thing they claim.

[angela2]

That is pure BS.

Huh?
I have no idea what you are trying to say.
If anyone does understand, I'd like to hear from them.

[Nice Squirrel]

Atheism simple says there is zero proof of any supernatural beeing or god or whatever you like to call it.
I thought athiesm was the denial of the existence of any supernatural being? Fundy atheists are defined by me to be atheist who need to shove their beliefs down everybodies throat they come in contact with.

[trendkill]

If anyone does understand, I'd like to hear from them.I think I do. You're trying to fallaciously shoehorn atheism in with fundamentalism as being reactionary against modernity. Yet you have to switch in "Christianity" instead of "modernity" when calling atheism reactionary. Doesn't really work. For something to be reactionary, it has to be a rejection of the new and a return to the old. A rejection of the old in favor of the new is not "reaction" in that sense; you're trying to equivocate.

[angela2]

You don't seem to understand that the accusation against fundamentalism isn't just that it takes note of modern developments, but that it is reactionary, i.e. it rejects modernity, specifically modern science and social developments. Atheism does not constitute such a rejection.
Point well-taken. Fundamentalism rejects modern science and social developments. But it also reacts to modern assumptions by drawing a line in the sand. To add even more complications, it also uses the methods of scientific thought to formulate its argument for infallibility.

Atheism doesn't need 'to constitute such a rejection' to be a reaction to modernity. All it needs to do is reject Christianity on the basis of scientific thought.

Until quite recently, modernity was the only game in town. Rejection and acceptance are both reactionary. The only difference is that the reactions are different, but they flow from the same source.

[EarlOfLade]

Point well-taken. Fundamentalism rejects modern science and social developments. But it also reacts to modern assumptions by drawing a line in the sand. To add even more complications, it also uses the methods of scientific thought to formulate its argument for infallibility.

Atheism doesn't need 'to constitute such a rejection' to be a reaction to modernity. All it needs to do is reject Christianity on the basis of scientific thought.

Until quite recently, modernity was the only game in town. Rejection and acceptance are both reactionary. The only difference is that the reactions are different, but they flow from the same source.

The reason I don't believe in any for of supernatural beeings, is that the only support for their existence is a close to 2000 year collection of mythical stories told by goat herders and fishermen.

[windsofchange]

Don't worry. i don't consider it rude, but rather an appropriate question.

Let me try to explain.

You say the moon is made of green cheese, but I say it's made of blue cheese and the green you see is mold because the moon is very old blue cheese.
Both you and I claim it's made of cheese, it's just a difference in color. Both claims are equally ignorant.

Well, I like cheese, and I haven't had lunch yet, so you're making things very, very difficult for me right now. ;)

But let me just pick up on the same tasty analogy.

One person says the moon is made of green cheese, refuses to listen to any facts to the contrary, and threatens to behead anyone who doesn't immediately go out and worship Kraft.

Another person knows that the moon is really made of dust and rock, and would never in a million years vote for or support the person in the example above, but hey, you know, in the right light, doesn't the moon kind of LOOK like green cheese? and mmm, isn't cheese good? mmm ... cheese ...

Um, I think I should go have my lunch before I continue this discussion! :p

[windsofchange]

Okay (munch munch gulp), just finished off a big juicy slice of pepperoni pizza and I'm ready to continue!

How about this analogy:

Person A believes the moon is made of green cheese, and has contempt for anyone who thinks otherwise.

Person B KNOWS that the moon is made of dust and rock, and has contempt for anyone who thinks otherwise.

IMHO, Persons A and B enable *each other* a LOT more than liberal Christians enable fundies.

[Nice Squirrel]

The reason I don't believe in any for of supernatural beeings, is that the only support for their existence is a close to 2000 year collection of mythical stories told by goat herders and fishermen.
:eek:
Wow, you have limited sources.

[Malachi151]

Okay (munch munch gulp), just finished off a big juicy slice of pepperoni pizza and I'm ready to continue!

How about this analogy:

Person A believes the moon is made of green cheese, and has contempt for anyone who thinks otherwise.

Person B KNOWS that the moon is made of dust and rock, and has contempt for anyone who thinks otherwise.

IMHO, Persons A and B enable *each other* a LOT more than liberal Christians enable fundies.

Now you are just talking nonsense. I'd bet $10 you can't come up with a justification for your "IMHO" claim ;)

IMHO, people with big noses promote bigotry against midgets, but hey, that's just "my opinion" :rolleyes: