Ten signs someone is a fundamentalist christian

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

The confusing bit is that by your own admission there are a large number of people who call themselves "Christian" who you seem to believe are going to hell, yet for some reason you still don't think you fit into 4. Do you not consider these people in a different sect or denomination simply because you don't consider them Christian in the first place?

I think you are missing the point that it doesn't really matter if you consider them Christians or not. They consider themselves Christian and probably consider themselves totally saved. You disagree.

PDN wrote:

Only those who believe in being born again "share my beliefs". I do not believe that those in 'rival sects' who share my beliefs are going to hell. therefore #4 doesn't apply to me.

Incidentally, it is perfectly possible to believe that other people are going to hell and still be tolerant and loving. But then again, the writer of the piece quoted in the OP was obviously more interested in rhetoric than in logic.

PDN is being very exact here. "No-one who shares his beliefs" means "no-one shares the beliefs that PDN considers vital for salvation" - whether those people are in different denominations of Christianity or not. Thus section #4 can be said not to apply to him exactly as written, as long as one is using beliefs in the exclusive rather than inclusive sense - people who call themselves Christian may share some of PDN's beliefs, but they don't share the important ones.

I agree with PDN that "the writer of the piece quoted in the OP was obviously more interested in rhetoric than in logic" - and certainly was more interested in being pithy rather than exact - and so PDN escapes the letter, while unquestionably being filled with the spirit.

I don't see any particular point in trying to get PDN to admit it, though. While it's clear that he considers as damned people who we would consider as Christians, and who consider themselves Christians, he doesn't consider them Christians, and therefore doesn't consider #4 applicable. We are surely well aware at this stage that this is how good Christian/bad Christian conflicts are almost invariably resolved?

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

Wicknight wrote:

Simply claiming to be a Christian is irrelevant.

Ummmm... but it seems that people only believe themselves to be fully christian if they believe, to a greater or lesser extent, the belief or beliefs that they believe (or have been told) that they have to believe.

Not sure if I've put that as clearly as I could but in short, you're a christian if you think you are. No other general definition that I can think of fits peoples' mutually-exclusive claims to christianhood.

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

Ummmm... but it seems that people only believe themselves to be fully christian if they believe, to a greater or lesser extent, the belief or beliefs that they believe (or have been told) that they have to believe.

Not sure if I've put that as clearly as I could but in short, you're a christian if you think you are. No other general definition that I can think of fits peoples' mutually-exclusive claims to christianhood.

That's rather an external view, though - we say "we can't see any way to distinguish a Christian other than the claim".

They, on the other hand, can tell minutely who is, and isn't, a Christian. They, and people who believe more or less exactly like them (tolerance varies with the individual) are Christians, other people who claim to be Christians are not.

We see no reason to exalt one of these sets of "Christians" above the other, and no basis for any such discrimination - they, on the other hand, see every reason in the world to do exactly that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

Wicknight wrote:

They, on the other hand, can tell minutely who is, and isn't, a Christian.

Yes, it's the in-group/out-group thing again -- Freud's "narcissism of minor difference".

The point I was inexpertly making is that there are two levels of belief working here. The first level of belief consists of simple statements of primary facts to be believed -- generally unsubstantiated facts like that there's one and only one god, that he comes in three parts, one of which he sent to earth, that "Jesus saves", that you can live after you die (etc, etc). The second level of belief governs the first, a meta-belief if you will, and could be phrased something like "if I believe the right set of primary facts, then I may call myself a christian (muslim, jew, whatever) and I will benefit in some way".

Religious believers will believe all manner of internally- or mutually-contradictory primary facts and expend huge energy disagreeing with each other about which are the right ones. However, they will fully accept the meta-belief, without which, the effort expended in believing the primary facts is pointless. Then, having believed the meta-belief, many will deny that it's a belief in the first place.

Hence I assert that the meta-belief is the governing criterion, and therefore, that you can call yourself a christian if you believe you are. Needless to say, this is my belief

Any clearer?

rockbeer

So basically, christians are inclined to argue amongst themselves at the slightest provocation, but they will unite in the face of a common enemy i.e. atheists?

Reminds me of when I was a naive young militant socialist - and why I had to abandon ship

Zillah

PDN wrote:

How refreshing it is, in this PC obsessed age, to find someone who still boasts about his ability to attack those with whom he disagrees.

I've been reading Sam Harris He really makes very good arguments about why people should always battle each other with words so they don't need to battle each other with weapons.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Only those who believe in being born again "share my beliefs". I do not believe that those in 'rival sects' who share my beliefs are going to hell. therefore #4 doesn't apply to me.

It's very simple really.

Incidentally, it is perfectly possible to believe that other people are going to hell and still be tolerant and loving. But then again, the writer of the piece quoted in the OP was obviously more interested in rhetoric than in logic.

Ok, it is clear now. As Scofflaw says you are being very exact as to the definition of "share my beliefs"

I would imagine though that "rival sects" would differ on beliefs as much as they agree, hence the rival sect. So to pick one belief and say that this is what we share, while ignoring the other demonstration that you also share beliefs with, is a bit confusing, hence my confusing.

For example if you look at the group of people who share your belief that Jesus was the son of God, his death saved humanity, and that belief in this is what is needed for salvation, yet ignoring the belief in a conversion or "born again" experience, your pool of rival sects or denominations becomes much wider as does the number of people who share your belief but who are also heading to hell.

I think you are being rather selective in your choice of interpretation PDN. But then again you are a Christian

PDN wrote:

Incidentally, it is perfectly possible to believe that other people are going to hell and still be tolerant and loving.

Well that is open to debate, but possible in another thread.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

For example if you look at the group of people who share your belief that Jesus was the son of God, his death saved humanity, and that belief in this is what is needed for salvation, yet ignoring the belief in a conversion or "born again" experience, your pool of rival sects or denominations becomes much wider as does the number of people who share your belief but who are also heading to hell.

You're just playing word games. Earlier in the thread you said this:

The majority of Christians do not claim to be "born again" in the sense that you mean it here, the evangelical sense

For example Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox associate being "born again" with baptisim, which most often happens when a person is a new born baby.

In these cases a personal choice to love Jesus, or any form of conversion experience, has nothing to do with it since the person is a child, but they are still born again in th eyes of God and still "saved". They might never communicated with God again, and in some cases any such claims to communicate with God would be considered strange and even heresy by the rest of the religion.

Now make your mind up, what are you referring to as Christians? People who were baptized as a baby, yet have no faith in God whatsoever? Or, as you know appear to be saying, "people who share your belief that Jesus was the son of God, his death saved humanity, and that belief in this is what is needed for salvation"? If someone really believes that faith in Christ's saving death is necessary for salvation, and profess to have such a faith, then most evangelicals (myself included) would see them as Christians, and saved, irrespective of whether they use the "born again" terminology or not.

If we're talking about "sharing beliefs" then just trying to lump together everyone who has a vague belief in a guy called Jesus, will not work. Neither will lumping together everyone who has a cultural attachment to Christianity, irrespective of whether they actually believe anything at all.

Point #4 in the original post was obviously referring to those who believe that only their particular sect is going to heaven. As such you may apply it to Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses or even traditional Catholicism - but I know of no "fundamentalist Christian" that actually believes such a thing.

PDN

Zillah wrote:

I've been reading Sam Harris He really makes very good arguments about why people should always battle each other with words so they don't need to battle each other with weapons.

So, Fred Phelps for the Nobel Peace Prize?

Incidentally, while we're mentioning Phelps, what is it with the whole "God hates fags" thing? I know cigarette smoking is a dirty habit, but isn't that taking the smoking ban a step too far?

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

PDN escapes the letter, while unquestionably being filled with the spirit.

And here I was thinking atheists might approach things in a logical way.

So, what this means is you can say anything untrue about a person, then, when they point out that the allegation is untrue, you say, "Ah, but the spirit of it applies to you."

What next? Attack someone for saying something that they never said, then say, "Ah, but you were probably thinking it."?

Zillah

PDN wrote:

And here I was thinking atheists might approach things in a logical way.

You're really starting to piss me off.

Dades

Zillah wrote:

You're really starting to piss me off.

Now put that passion into a rebuttal that won't get you chucked.

Zillah

The Atheist wrote:

Now put that passion into a rebuttal that won't get you chucked.

Sigh. Surely we're getting tired of this song: "Atheists are not a group that share beliefs, arguments or habits beyond the notion of having no belief in God".

Altogether now...

For example. I'm sure PDN would begin to get irritated if I kept insisting things like "Christians hate homosexuals" or "The religious don't want secular government".

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Now make your mind up, what are you referring to as Christians?

Well normally I take the view that a Christian is someone who considers themselves Christian.

I obviously understand that you have objections to that, that there are people who would consider themselves Christian yet you who do not think are Christian nor should they call themselves Christian, even if they share most of your beliefs.

But that I think is the point of section 4.

It is the process of saying "I know you think you are a Christian but you aren't really" that makes you a fundamentalist.

PDN wrote:

If someone really believes that faith in Christ's saving death is necessary for salvation, and profess to have such a faith, then most evangelicals (myself included) would see them as Christians, and saved, irrespective of whether they use the "born again" terminology or not.

Would you though? Members of the KKK most likely believed in that. So did the members of the Spanish Inquisition. Or pick any Christian group that did bad things.

The defense given by yourself and others against these attacks on Christianity is that these people are not Christians, and therefore the actual religion is not associated with them.

You say now that anyone who believes in Jesus, believes in the resurrection and believes in the power of this faith to save them from hell, is a Christian. This includes pretty much everyone that has been given as examples of how Christians can do bad things.

You see my confusion. You seem to want it both ways. Christians are everyone who has faith in Jesus as savior, except not when they do bad things. Then they aren't Christians, and they are going to hell.

PDN wrote:

And here I was thinking atheists might approach things in a logical way.

Well TBH I think it is the lack of logic in your replies that is causing the problem.

Perhaps it would be clearer if you explained who of the people who call themselves "Christian" do you think are going to hell? Using Zillah's example, do you think that the people who march up and down outside funerals with posters saying "God Hates Fags" are real Christians and saved? They no doubt share most of your religious beliefs, and probably proclaim a spiritual awakening, or being touched by God. Does this matter?

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

PDN escapes the letter, while unquestionably being filled with the spirit.

And here I was thinking atheists might approach things in a logical way.

So, what this means is you can say anything untrue about a person, then, when they point out that the allegation is untrue, you say, "Ah, but the spirit of it applies to you."

What next? Attack someone for saying something that they never said, then say, "Ah, but you were probably thinking it."?

Not at all. If we look at what the writer says (and in a sense, I can't believe we're arguing over something clearly written as throwaway humour):

Some Idiot on the Internet wrote:

You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."

You escape the "those in rival sects" clause by pointing out that you believe everyone who "shares your beliefs" is saved. However, this is an extremely narrow definition of "shares your beliefs" - and an inappropriate one.

The word "sects" indicates sub-religions, who are differentiated from each other by their unshared beliefs, but are grouped together by their shared beliefs. Thus Presbyterianism and Orthodox Christianity are both Christian sects, and hold the bulk of their beliefs in common.

What you have done is essentially to redefine as "not actually Christian" everyone who doesn't share the specific subset of Christian beliefs that you consider essential for salvation, even if they are nominally in the same sect - and define as Christian anyone who shares those particular beliefs, even if they are nominally in a different sect.

This is exactly the spirit of #4 - that everyone who doesn't share your specific subset of beliefs is damned, even if they share the bulk of beliefs to the point where any outside observer would immediately assign them the same religion. To claim that it doesn't apply because your definitions don't follow exactly the boundaries of 'official' sects is mere spin.

I admire your rhetorical skills, but you are applying them to sophistry, not truth.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Yeah, what he said ^^^

Well done Scofflaw, put it better than I could have

PDN

Maybe we could make some additions & alterations to number 4 to say:

You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share very general Christian beliefs, and also with the exception of all the billions who die in infancy, and also with the exception of billions of others who never had the opportunity to hear the Gospel -- though excluding all except a few hundred millions in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet you consider your religion the most "loving" (but you have never actually believed or claimed that it is the most tolerant.)

While not as polemical as the original, it would have the advantage of actually being truthful. This is not sophistry. I am appalled, when I read some of the quotes in "The Hazards of Belief" thread where Christians demonise atheists by misrepresenting them and making their views appear much more extreme than is really reflected in most atheists I have met. I believe it is equally wrong to demonise Christians by deliberately misrepresenting their views.

Scofflaw, while we disagree on many things, I have always found you to be a courteous and cultured sparring opponent in debate. I think that for you to apply a totally untrue statement to me on the grounds that "Well, even if it isn't actually true, the spirit applies to you" is unworthy of you.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Maybe we could make some additions & alterations to number 4 to say:

You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share very general Christian beliefs, and also with the exception of all the billions who die in infancy, and also with the exception of billions of others who never had the opportunity to hear the Gospel -- though excluding all except a few hundred millions in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet you consider your religion the most "loving" (but you have never actually believed or claimed that it is the most tolerant.)

While not as polemical as the original, it would have the advantage of actually being truthful. This is not sophistry. I am appalled, when I read some of the quotes in "The Hazards of Belief" thread where Christians demonise atheists by misrepresenting them and making their views appear much more extreme than is really reflected in most atheists I have met. I believe it is equally wrong to demonise Christians by deliberately misrepresenting their views.

Scofflaw, while we disagree on many things, I have always found you to be a courteous and cultured sparring opponent in debate. I think that for you to apply a totally untrue statement to me on the grounds that "Well, even if it isn't actually true, the spirit applies to you" is unworthy of you.

I am slightly at a loss, here. That those who are not saved are damned is, I thought, one of the standard tenets of Christianity. That there are certain beliefs you must hold in order to be saved is, I think, another. That it is possible to share some of those beliefs but not all should be obvious. Finally, that those who share some of the necessary beliefs with you, but not all, are therefore not going to be saved (even though they too consider themselves Christian) follows pretty logically on from the preceding.

I am not claiming by any stretch that you are at one with wolfsbane in following the doctrine of election or anything like that, but I cannot see where exactly what I have outlined above doesn't apply - and the above is what I take to be the spirit of point #4.

Certainly I'm neither trying to offend, nor tar you with something that doesn't apply, but the above is, I think, true of every Christian who follows though on the logic of their religion, surely? If you'd like to tell me where I'm wrong, please do. I am as willing as ever to stand corrected.

humbly,
Scofflaw

skeptic griggsy

We see the divine protection rackett! Yahweh is so narciissistic that He insists on people kissing His backside and if they don't, they should suffer thouroughly eternally.Some say that sins are such that they are against His awesome presence that they require this punishment.We find here on Earth that there are degrees of wrongdoing that require different punishments, not one eternal suffering one necessarily.We find wrongdoing, not sin, for that is against the imaginary God.The authors who made up the sin-notion were wrongheaded and vindictive.We don't need to do penance before Him but before humankind only.Judaism requires no animal sacrifice.Yet Christinsanity requires one in the form of a human and also ritual cannabalism and vampirism.Christians bray at that notion! [It is Moses's Folly and Mohammed's Lunacy.]

Asiaprod

skeptic griggsy wrote:

He insists on people kissing His backside....

I understand what you are trying to say griggsy, but this is a little over the top. We should try not to offend our christian poster. Better to say something like adore or praise him.

skeptic griggsy wrote:

Mohammed's Lunacy.

I really think it would be best for you to leave Mohammed out of this.

I do agree with you that it would be better to do penance before humankind. Be careful there, you are beginning to sound like a Buddhist:D

Zillah

Asiaprod wrote:

I really think it would be best for you to leave Mohammed out of this.

Uh, why? Should we not discuss important figures of any religions, or just the most violently reactionary of them?

PDN

Zillah wrote:

Uh, why? Should we not discuss important figures of any religions, or just the most violently reactionary of them?

It's probably safer to stick to attacking Christianity. We're not likely to issue a fatwa against boards.ie You can call us 'violent' and 'reactionary' all you like and you know that we won't actually be violent or reactionary.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

It's probably safer to stick to attacking Christianity. We're not likely to issue a fatwa against boards.ie You can call us 'violent' and 'reactionary' all you like and you know that we won't actually be violent or reactionary.

That's just anti-Islam rhetoric and doesn't belong in any discourse.
Statistically, you know only a very very small minority of Muslims do something like that.
Just like statistically only a small minority of Protestants and Catholics were prepared to killed each other for being the wrong type of Christian in this Island.

Dades

PDN wrote:

It's probably safer to stick to attacking Christianity. We're not likely to issue a fatwa against boards.ie You can call us 'violent' and 'reactionary' all you like and you know that we won't actually be violent or reactionary.

Touché.

Zillah

Tim Robbins wrote:

That's just anti-Islam rhetoric and doesn't belong in any discourse.
Statistically, you know only a very very small minority of Muslims do something like that.
Just like statistically only a small minority of Protestants and Catholics were prepared to killed each other for being the wrong type of Christian in this Island.

Its quite clear that the Muslim world is far more likely to respond to religious criticism with violent outbursts than any other religious denomination. Just look at the Danish cartoon fiasco.

Thats not to say that any given Muslim is more violent than any given member of any other denomination, but as a group, regrettably yes.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

That's just anti-Islam rhetoric and doesn't belong in any discourse.

Anti-Islam rhetoric? I never criticised Islam at all. I made a perfectly factual statement that openly attacking Islam can be bad for your health.

Statistically, you know only a very very small minority of Muslims do something like that.
Just like statistically only a small minority of Protestants and Catholics were prepared to killed each other for being the wrong type of Christian in this Island.

It only takes one. I'm sure it's of great comfort for Theo van Gogh's family to know that his murderer was part of a tiny statistical minority within Islam.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

Anti-Islam rhetoric? I never criticised Islam at all. I made a perfectly factual statement that openly attacking Islam can be bad for your health.

Of course it's rhetoric. Let's look again at your statement:

"We're not likely to issue a fatwa against boards.ie"

This is meaningless unless you are suggesting Islam is likely to issue a fatwa against boards.ie. Now I suggest you argue that Islam is likely issue such a fatwa against boards.ie or else admit you were mocking the Islam faith.
Furthermore, the only faith that can issue "fatwa" is the Islam faith. So logically, Christianity will never issue a fatwa no matter what is said.

It only takes one. I'm sure it's of great comfort for Theo van Gogh's family to know that his murderer was part of a tiny statistical minority within Islam.

It's a great comfort to those who lost loved ones in Srebrenica that their loved ones were killed by a statistical minority of Christians.

Tim Robbins

Zillah wrote:

Its quite clear that the Muslim world is far more likely to respond to religious criticism with violent outbursts than any other religious denomination. Just look at the Danish cartoon fiasco.

Thats not to say that any given Muslim is more violent than any given member of any other denomination, but as a group, regrettably yes.

I don't agree with that. But if you come up with an objective way of measuring the violent derivatives from any religion I'd be interested in knowing. Anecdotal evidence won't get us anywhere.

Zillah

Tim Robbins wrote:

I don't agree with that. But if you come up with an objective way of measuring the violent derivatives from any religion I'd be interested in knowing. Anecdotal evidence won't get us anywhere.

Of come off it. The Islamic world has clearly shown itself to be violently intolerant of criticism. Its the only religion I know of that regularily issues death sentences on people who have done nothing more than saying something that upsets them.

Really, are you just being anal and contrary or do you seriously believe that Islam is not violently reactionary to criticism when compared to other religions?

Here's a method for you: A count of death sentences issued for religious criticism over the last one hundred years.

Islam: Many.
Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism : None.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

Furthermore, the only faith that can issue "fatwa" is the Islam faith. So logically, Christianity will never issue a fatwa no matter what is said.

Which proves my point that it's safer to attack Christianity than to attack Islam.

It's a great comfort to those who lost loved ones in Srebrenica that their loved ones were killed by a statistical minority of Christians.

Very good point ... or at least it would be a good point if two things were true:
a) If people were killed in Srebrenica because they had insulted Christianity.
b) If I had displayed shockingly bad logic by arguing that anyone who similarly insulted Christianity had nothing to fear since the hate crime was carried out by a statistical minority.

Since neither of these are true, it is not a good point at all. It is sophistry and anti-Christian rhetoric.