What is a Christian fundamentalist?

[Knight]

How do you define a Christian fundamentalist?

What do Christian fundamentalists believe? What are the earmarks of a Christian fundamentalist in your opinion?

In other words...
If you had to explain what a Christian fundamentalist is to someone who didn't know, what would you tell them?

[Clete]

It is my understanding (correct me if I’m wrong), that fundamentalism has been crystallized down to five points of common belief. They are as follows...

1. Biblical inerrancy
2. The divinity of Jesus
3. The Virgin Birth
4. Jesus died to redeem humankind
5. An expectation of the Second Coming, or physical return, of Jesus Christ to initiate his thousand-year rule of the Earth.

I've heard also that there is some attachment with "Fundamentalism" and the King James only crowd, although I do not know whether or not it could be said that if you use a different version then you are no longer a fundamentalist, in fact I rather doubt it.

As for me, I hold to all five of the main points of fundamentalism although some qualifications might need articulating...

1. Biblical inerrancy - I do not believe the King James version to be inerrant, in fact I know it is not, however, I do believe that the Bible was directly inspired by God and is inerrant in its original autographs.

2. The divinity of Jesus - No qualification here. Jesus is God. He is THE God who spoke and the universe leapt into existence. He has eternally existed co-equal with The Father and The Holy Spirit, the three of whom make up the Holy Trinity.

3. The Virgin Birth - I believe that JESUS was born of a virgin. I do not believe in the immaculate conception of Mary or anyone else for that matter. Sin is passed from one's father not one's mother; Jesus had no earthly father and thus was born of the virgin Mary sinless and holy.

4. Jesus died to redeem humankind - I would add that a fundamentalist Christian MUST also believe that God raised Him from the dead (Rom. 10:9-10). I also would add the world ALL. Jesus died for the sins of the WHOLE world and thus redemption is available to all who believe.

5. An expectation of the Second Coming, or physical return, of Jesus Christ to initiate his thousand-year rule of the Earth. - This is a clear teaching of the Bible. One might say that if number 5 isn't true that number 1 isn't either.

Resting in Him
Clete

[cur_deus_homo]

The phrase "Christian fundamentalist" has taken on so many connotations of various meanings it's difficult to answer the question as posed.

What do I think of when I hear that phrase?

Mostly I think of the extremist version of Christianity that emerged in America around the turn of the 20th century in reaction to the "liberal" theology of the 19th century and the "Social Gospel" movement. Fundies emphasive God's wrath and thus the brutal punishment of Jesus to satisfy God's righteous demand to punish sinful disobedience.

[On Fire]

Originally posted by cur_deus_homo

The phrase "Christian fundamentalist" has taken on so many connotations of various meanings it's difficult to answer the question as posed.

What do I think of when I hear that phrase?

Mostly I think of the extremist version of Christianity that emerged in America around the turn of the 20th century in reaction to the "liberal" theology of the 19th century and the "Social Gospel" movement. Fundies emphasive God's wrath and thus the brutal punishment of Jesus to satisfy God's righteous demand to punish sinful disobedience.

Are they right? Do you agree with the facts but disagree with their methods?

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by AtheistsSuck

Are they right? Do you agree with the facts but disagree with their methods?
Right about what?

What "facts?"

What "methods?"

[On Fire]

Originally posted by cur_deus_homo

Right about what?

What "facts?"

What "methods?"

YOU called them extremists, not me. :kookoo:

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by AtheistsSuck

YOU called them extremists, not me. :kookoo:
Correct.

What's your point?

[On Fire]

Originally posted by cur_deus_homo

Correct.

What's your point?

I guess that you don't have one. You would rather argue semantics. You're in the right place!

Dry up and blow away.

[Gerald]

'

[Knight]

Originally posted by Gerald

' ?

[Duder]

Fundamentalism is a movement that arose in the early 20th century as a reaction against a metaphorical or mythological understanding of the scriptures. Fundamentalism stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals, but also as a literal, historical record.

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by AtheistsSuck

You would rather argue semantics.
Congratulations! You made somewhat of a point. What's wrong about arguing semantics? If we can't come together and discuss and reason and argue together about the meaning of this thing or that then what the heck are we all doing here on TOL?
Dry up and blow away.
I know that's just your trolling style. Someday you'll grow out of it . . . hopefully.

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by Duder

Fundamentalism is a movement that arose in the early 20th century as a reaction against a metaphorical or mythological understanding of the scriptures. Fundamentalism stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals, but also as a literal, historical record.
And it emphasizes God's wrath. Don't forget about God's wrath or else!

[Clete]

Originally posted by Duder

Fundamentalism is a movement that arose in the early 20th century as a reaction against a metaphorical or mythological understanding of the scriptures. Fundamentalism stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals, but also as a literal, historical record.

For example, fundamentalist beleive that the universe and everything in it was created by God in 6, literal 24 hour days and that He rested on the 7th day.

It would be safe to say that if one does not believe this, they are not a Fundamentalist.

Resting in Him,
Clete

[billwald]

Unless my memory has faild me again, this time Clete (the list of 5 statements) got it right.

[Cyrus of Persia]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

It is my understanding (correct me if I’m wrong), that fundamentalism has been crystallized down to five points of common belief. They are as follows...

1. Biblical inerrancy
2. The divinity of Jesus
3. The Virgin Birth
4. Jesus died to redeem humankind
5. An expectation of the Second Coming, or physical return, of Jesus Christ to initiate his thousand-year rule of the Earth.



I tend to disagree with you. It's more how conservative christians believe. What fundys do (as pointed out here already) is to take the Bible and use their own interpretation of it as a pillar of truth on EVERYTHING.

Otherwise i'm fundy too, because i agree with every point listed out, except #1

[PureX]

I think fundamentalism is more an ego-centric reaction to complexity and intellectualism that it is any particular set of ideological beliefs. It's main characteristic is extreme over-simplification with the intent of gaining, through the illusion of self-righteousness, what one secretly feels they lack in intellectual sophistication. Fundamentalism is the attitude that the "slow kids" adopt so that they can tell themselves (and everyone else) that being slow isn't important. In fact, fundamentalists actually convince themselves that being ignorant is an asset, while being intelligent is an impediment.

Fundamentalisn is basically an obsession with righteousness in order to avoid recognizing and dealing with one's own ignorance.

[Bernie22]

Yes, Fundamentalism is generally looked down upon today.

I think Clete's list correct, but believe the last (premillenialism) should not be on the list as a fundamental of the faith.

Duder said, "Fundamentalism is a movement that arose in the early 20th century as a reaction against a metaphorical or mythological understanding of the scriptures."

There's truth in this, but I think the stance against metaphorical interepretation was not necessarily as important as what was viewed as the liberal tendency to lose sight of the virgin birth, the resurrection and other core beliefs...interpretive methodology contributed to this overall, but was only a part of the picture I think.

For what it's worth, I am the sole adherent of Rational Esotericism (or Esoteric Fundamentalism), and have elected myself chief spokesman as well. I think fundamental belief and esoteric belief are compatible, which has brought a lot of crap down on me from both the liberal/mystic and conservative/fundamentalist camps.

http://www.liscoplus.com/~esotericfund/two

Fundamentalism, like guns, isn't bad...people are bad. People corrupt truth found in liberal or conservative religion alike. It's what we do.

[Duder]

Bernie 22.......

added to my short list of good fundamentalists!

[Clete]

Originally posted by Cyrus of Persia

I tend to disagree with you. It's more how conservative christians believe. What fundys do (as pointed out here already) is to take the Bible and use their own interpretation of it as a pillar of truth on EVERYTHING.

Everything like what? I know of no Christian, fundamental or not, that says the Bible is the pillar of Mathematics for example or even science in general for that matter. However, a belief in the infallibility of the Scripture would presuppose the idea that the Bible does not contradict reality.
I would agree that many times Christians will ignore clear extra-biblical evidence on some issue in favor of their own interpretation of the Bible. But while our interpretations of the Bible may be in error, I do not believe that the Bible itself could ever be shown to contradict what is actually true.

Otherwise i'm fundy too, because i agree with every point listed out, except #1
Well this is sort of a dumb thing to say isn't it. That's why somebody took the time to draw up a list of basic beliefs that make one a fundamentalist, isn't it?
If you disagree with #1 then you are definitely NOT a fundamentalist. :doh:

Resting in Him,
Clete

[Clete]

Originally posted by billwald

Unless my memory has faild me again, this time Clete (the list of 5 statements) got it right.

Which are you refering to?
This one...
1. Biblical inerrancy
2. The divinity of Jesus
3. The Virgin Birth
4. Jesus died to redeem humankind
5. An expectation of the Second Coming, or physical return, of Jesus Christ to initiate his thousand-year rule of the Earth.

Or this one...
1. Biblical inerrancy - I do not believe the King James version to be inerrant, in fact I know it is not, however, I do believe that the Bible was directly inspired by God and is inerrant in its original autographs.

2. The divinity of Jesus - No qualification here. Jesus is God. He is THE God who spoke and the universe leapt into existence. He has eternally existed co-equal with The Father and The Holy Spirit, the three of whom make up the Holy Trinity.

3. The Virgin Birth - I believe that JESUS was born of a virgin. I do not believe in the immaculate conception of Mary or anyone else for that matter. Sin is passed from one's father not one's mother; Jesus had no earthly father and thus was born of the virgin Mary sinless and holy.

4. Jesus died to redeem humankind - I would add that a fundamentalist Christian MUST also believe that God raised Him from the dead (Rom. 10:9-10). I also would add the world ALL. Jesus died for the sins of the WHOLE world and thus redemption is available to all who believe.

5. An expectation of the Second Coming, or physical return, of Jesus Christ to initiate his thousand-year rule of the Earth. - This is a clear teaching of the Bible. One might say that if number 5 isn't true that number 1 isn't either.

Just curious. :)


Resting in Him,
Clete

[geralduk]

"FUNDAMENTAL Christianity"

He that heareth My Word and doeth them NOT is likened unto a foolish man who built his house upon the sand and when the wind and storms come the house will fall and geat will be the fall there of.
But he that heareth My Word and DOETH them is likened unto a man who built his house upon a ROCK and when the SAME storms come the house will stand.


"EVERYTHING will be shaken so that that which cannot be shaken will remain."

TheRefore TRUE CHRISTIANIY and TRUE CHRISTIANS are those that not only HEAR the Word BUT doeth IT."Not deceiveing themselves"


The FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE of LIFE is to make sure you have a SOLID and TRUE foundation for it.

" MAN shall not live by bread alone but by every Word that proccedeth from the MOUTH OF GOD"

Therefore we make a mistake in seperating 'christianity ' from life and man as it were.
For there is NO LIFE save in CHRIST.
and NO OTHER foundation FOR IT save that which GOD has given AND "laid" and that is the ROCK "the CHRIST the SON OF THE LIVING GOD"(DEUTRONOMY)

[PureX]

I think fundamentalism is more an ego-centric reaction to complexity and intellectualism than it's any particular set of ideological beliefs. It's main characteristic is extreme over-simplification with the intent of gaining, through the illusion of self-righteousness, what one secretly feels they lack in intellectual sophistication. Fundamentalism is an attitude that some of the "slow kids" adopt so that they can tell themselves (and everyone else) that being slow isn't important. In fact, fundamentalists actually convince themselves that being ignorant is an virtue, while being curious and intelligent is a moral failure.

Fundamentalism is basically an obsession with self-righteousness in order to avoid having to recognize and deal with one's own ignorance. Christian fundamentalists are no different in this respect than any other religious or political fundamentalists.

What most of you are describing as "fundamentalism" is simply neo-conservative orthodox Christianity.

[Cyrus of Persia]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Everything like what? I know of no Christian, fundamental or not, that says the Bible is the pillar of Mathematics for example or even science in general for that matter.


I used the word "everything" as general rule. Every general rules have exceptions. For example when the Bible says that everyone came to see Jesus, it means that many people came to see Jesus, and i'm very sure there were some people who did not to see Jesus.

[Clete]

Originally posted by Cyrus of Persia

I used the word "everything" as general rule. Every general rules have exceptions. For example when the Bible says that everyone came to see Jesus, it means that many people came to see Jesus, and i'm very sure there were some people who did not to see Jesus.

Oh I see, so what you meant was that fundamentalist are people who say that they believe the Bible is literaly true and then apply that belief consistantly throughout their entire lives.

Very good then, I agree.

Resting in Him,
Clete

[Cyrus of Persia]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Oh I see, so what you meant was that fundamentalist are people who say that they believe the Bible is literaly true and then apply that belief consistantly throughout their entire lives.

Very good then, I agree.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Actually it's mild expression what you use about believing the Bible. PureX and some other people in those threads have explained it more correct.

Otherwise we should equal conservative christian with fundamentalist christian, what is not correct.

Ok, a short list (and of course not everything is pointed out in it) what i meant using THEIR INTERPRETATION of the Bible in everything:

1) self-righteousness - as we know the absolute truth, then those who disagree with us are in wrong path and are most probably going to hell;

2) if it is not in the Bible, then it doest excist. For example i have heard: because the word "culture" is not mentioned in the Bible, then it's dangerous word;

3) justifying their actions with the Bible. As God ordained His people to kill others in OT in certain cases, then killing abortion doctors for example is not wrong, but fully legitimate;

4) using the Bible as guideline by whom we infiltrate what we believe in modern science, etc

5) everybody should follow the morals written in the Bible. Even unbelievers!

The list can go on. Of course not every fundamentalist acts out all of those points. Like for example you might disagree with justification of violence (even if it is justified in OT), but you gladly bash scientists who teach that the Earth is older than some thousand years. Or you gladly support the party that would want to restore theocracy in the society.

[On Fire]

Originally posted by cur_deus_homo
What's wrong about arguing semantics?

It prevents you from defending the turds you lay.

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by AtheistsSuck

It prevents you from defending the turds you lay.
From AtheistsSuck's profile: "self-centered liars drowning in a sin they cannot let go"

Spoken from true familiarity with sin.

[On Fire]

Exposed you, didn't I?

[beanieboy]

Originally posted by AtheistsSuck

It prevents you from defending the turds you lay.

Dude, no one will ever accuse you of arguing semantics.

[philosophizer]

Originally posted by PureX

I think fundamentalism is more an ego-centric reaction to complexity and intellectualism that it is any particular set of ideological beliefs. Hmm... And I think complexity and intellectualism is an ego-centric reaction to a fear of truth. Complexity is an illusion. It's a wire-frame replica of reality. Where complexity continually ads corners to a shape to create something progressively like a circle, truth in all its oneness is perfectly round.


It's main characteristic is extreme over-simplification with the intent of gaining, through the illusion of self-righteousness, what one secretly feels they lack in intellectual sophistication. I'm not going to "over-simplify", as you have, and say that is wholly not true. I'm sure some people are as you describe. But which concept is more proper? That truth is simple or that truth is complex?


Fundamentalism is the attitude that the "slow kids" adopt so that they can tell themselves (and everyone else) that being slow isn't important. Ooooh! Burn! :rolleyes:


In fact, fundamentalists actually convince themselves that being ignorant is an asset, while being intelligent is an impediment. Sure, some do. But in doing so, they are not being true to their fundamentalism. The bible tells Christians to test everything. It's okay to examine other beliefs. It's a good thing to explore and not remain ignorant. Fundamentalists who oppose that are not really fundamentalists.

And intelligence certainly can be in impediment. It is a gift, but it can be misused. Deep thinking should actually cancel itself out.


Fundamentalisn is basically an obsession with righteousness in order to avoid recognizing and dealing with one's own ignorance. In a skewed, prejudiced kind of way, sure.

[beanieboy]

I usually refer to Fundies as people who still like to believe the Bible is literal, even when confronted with fact. They tend to focus on the sins of others, and the wrath of God.

In some ways, I have respect for believing firmly in something. But at the same time, it seems that they have a complicated faith system that is set up like a roomful of dominoes, that is based on fear.
One time, I watched something presented by the Athiests Society of a man explaining that the world had to be 4000 years old, because if we said that it was billions of years old, there was death before Adam and Eve, which makes the Garden of Eden null, which makes Christ death pointless. Zowie.

And then you have to do some mental gymnastics to continue to believe it, like, that Dinosaurs were Jesus-Horses.

Pat Robertson once claimed that Disney was having a Gay Day, and that was why there was a hurricane heading that way. But we have learned that weather is weather. If it rains on your wedding day, it isn't a message from God.

Pat has also used the antiquated idea that illness = God's wrath.
But again, it takes some mental gymnastics.
There was a cartoon that said:
Sicle Cell Anemia is God's punishment for Black people.
-That's ridiculous!
Alzheimer's is God's punishment for old people.
-That's Nuts!
Chicken pox is God's punishment for children.
-You're insane
Breast Cancer is God's punishment for women.
-You've lost it dude.
And AIDS is God's punishment for gay people.
-Right on.

They are often insistent on pushing their religion, while claiming the wonderfulness of Freedom. My mom, for example, thought it would be great to have kids saying prayers. I asked her to whom kids would pray, and she said they would pray to God. When I asked how she would feel if I came home and said that we prayed to Allah, or Shiva, she said that she would not stand for it, but everyone praying to her God was ok. That's illogical.
She celebrates the Freedom of Religion, then wants only Christians to have that religion, and for Public Schools to endorse that religion, which goes against the Freedom that she is celebrating.

So, I asked her if her office mates prayed at work. She said no.
I asked why not. She said that not all of them were Christian.
I asked if praying was only for children.
She said no. I asked her how that was different.
She said that it was.
I asked her why she wasn't pushing for all offices to start the day in prayer. She had no reason.
Again, I asked her if prayer was only for children.
She said no again.
I then asked why teachers should be leading students in prayer at all. It's the parents job. If parents want their kids to begin the day in prayer, pray with them over their Frosted Flakes. Teachers are parents.
She agreed that teachers aren't parents, but should lead kids in prayer.
No matter how much I showed her the missing logic of her argument, she insisted that she was right.

So, because they are often so illogical, they often lose all credibility.
And because their complex faith makes them appear frightened of everything between Harry Potter, and Trick or Treating, and extremely rigid in their beliefs that maybe, just maybe, they aren't correct, that they get dismissed easily.

[On Fire]

Originally posted by beanieboy

Dude, no one will ever accuse you of arguing semantics.

Thank God Almighty!

(Wait a minute.....what did I mean by God Almighty? Should I have just said "God"? Will others misquote me? Oh I hope not!)

[On Fire]

Originally posted by beanieboy

I usually refer to Fundies as people who still like to believe the Bible is literal, even when confronted with fact....

....just maybe, they aren't correct, that they get dismissed easily.

(Yeah, I wanted to use the 'vomit" smilie.)

OK beanieboy, give me one FACT.

[Clete]

Originally posted by Cyrus of Persia

Actually it's mild expression what you use about believing the Bible. PureX and some other people in those threads have explained it more correct.

Otherwise we should equal conservative christian with fundamentalist christian, what is not correct.
Fundamentalist are almost always conservative but I could see how the reverse may not be so.

Ok, a short list (and of course not everything is pointed out in it) what i meant using THEIR INTERPRETATION of the Bible in everything:

1) self-righteousness - as we know the absolute truth, then those who disagree with us are in wrong path and are most probably going to hell;
This is not what self-righteousness is. If you want to call it that go ahead, but don't be deceived, true Christianity pulls no punches. If you do not come to God through Jesus Christ you do not come to God at all. And since the alternative to God is Hell, then the choice is clear.

2) if it is not in the Bible, then it doest excist. For example i have heard: because the word "culture" is not mentioned in the Bible, then it's dangerous word;
Well there are of course some Fundamentalist that are idiots but being an idiot is optional, not a requirement.

3) justifying their actions with the Bible. As God ordained His people to kill others in OT in certain cases, then killing abortion doctors for example is not wrong, but fully legitimate;
God ordained the government to execute criminals (including Homo's) by due process of law. Criminal justice was God idea and Fundamentalist believe that God is smarter than they are and that He is better able to figure out what should be done with those who commit crimes.

4) using the Bible as guideline by whom we infiltrate what we believe in modern science, etc
There is a danger of favoring a particular interpretation of the Bible over clear extra-biblical evidence on certain issues, however, if the Bible makes an unambiguous claim about the nature of the universe which God created then science will not be able to disprove it, as hard as it might try.

5) everybody should follow the morals written in the Bible. Even unbelievers!
Yes, everyone should do rightly. How could you have a problem with that?

The list can go on. Of course not every fundamentalist acts out all of those points. Like for example you might disagree with justification of violence (even if it is justified in OT), but you gladly bash scientists who teach that the Earth is older than some thousand years. Or you gladly support the party that would want to restore theocracy in the society.
I don't recall bashing any scientists although I wouldn't have a problem with it if they were particularly evil like Hawkings for example. But I wouldn't bash them because of their science (or what passes for science), but for their obvious hatred toward God and all things Christian.
And I would never support a theocracy. God's idea for producing the most righteous government possible is a constitutional monarchy, until someone can show me that God is wrong on that issue, then I will defer to His judgment on that issue.

Resting in Him,
Clete

[beanieboy]

Viruses cause illness.
If you get a cold, it's not because God is mad at you.

Galileo said that the earth was not flat, and that the earth revolved around the sun, not the sun around the earth.
The church threatened to kill him.

And obviously, the sun moves, because God stopped the Sun in the OT.

[On Fire]

Originally posted by beanieboy

Viruses cause illness.
If you get a cold, it's not because God is mad at you.

Is that my one fact? If so, I agree.

I thought we were going to argue about something.

[beanieboy]

There are those who believe that AIDS is God's punishment.

[On Fire]

Originally posted by beanieboy

There are those who believe that AIDS is God's punishment.

I'm sure there are. They won't know for sure until He returns.

[beanieboy]

And God is only a little miffed when you have a cold, then?
Chicken Pox truly is God's punishment for children?

[Aimiel]

I always think of what The Lord said, which was that if we believe in His Name we will be saved. He didn't say that we 'were' saved, by that faith, alone; but that by having faith in His Name we would be saved. It is His Grace that we need to enter a completely perfect Heaven, where a Perfect, Holy and Just God rules and reigns. That grace is availble to us, and all that we have to do is to respond to that grace, by faith in His Name. It takes faith to grasp the promises of The Lord, and it takes faith to see what to do next, and even more to do it.

The path that leads to life is narrow and it is straight. There are as many interpretations of what defines that path as there are false religions and false gods, but, IMHO, the two sides of that path are bordered by love on the one side and faith on the other. If we take a step which is not in love, we get off the road on one side, and if we take a step in doubt, we get off on the other. I want to stay in the middle of the road.

[On Fire]

Originally posted by beanieboy

And God is only a little miffed when you have a cold, then?
Chicken Pox truly is God's punishment for children?

Are you asking me what I think or to agree or disagree with what other people think?

[beanieboy]

I'm using your logic.
Please pay attention.
You think there may be a possibility of punishment with AIDS, but not a cold, and not chicken pox.

It's illogical.

They project a cure in 2015, which, following the punishment logic, God will no longer be punishing people after the cure is found.

[On Fire]

Originally posted by beanieboy

I'm using your logic.
Please pay attention.
You think there may be a possibility of punishment with AIDS, but not a cold, and not chicken pox.

It's illogical.

They project a cure in 2015, which, following the punishment logic, God will no longer be punishing people after the cure is found.

YOU pay attention. I just got here. You have no idea what I think. Ask me.

[beanieboy]

Read the posts in order before you type then.

I'm sorry that isn't in the bible, but it's common sense.

[On Fire]

Originally posted by beanieboy

Read the posts in order before you type then.

I'm sorry that isn't in the bible, but it's common sense.

Is that what you did before you chimed in? Notice the thread title, beanieboy.

[beanieboy]

Yes. It's a good thread.
And I was talking about the mental gymnastics one must do to claim the bible is inerrant, and literal.
There are good posts.
Give it a look.

[beanieboy]

btw, Knight, you still haven't weighed in.
How would you describe it?

[PureX]

Originally posted by philosophizer Hmm... And I think complexity and intellectualism is an ego-centric reaction to a fear of truth. Complexity is an illusion. It's a wire-frame replica of reality. Where complexity continually ads corners to a shape to create something progressively like a circle, truth in all its oneness is perfectly round.And what would this "truth" be, I wonder....

Most people would agree that truth is "what is" (reality) and interestingly enough "what is" (reality) is infinitely complex (as we experience it, anyway) while it is not infinitely simple (on the scale of simplicity, reality can only be reduced to one single whole). I would like you to explain how recognizing the (apparently) infinite complexity of reality is avoiding the "truth" of reality, and how ignoring the complexity of reality would make it more "real" (true).
Originally posted by philosophizer I'm not going to "over-simplify", as you have,... But I thought you just said that the more simplified our view of reality is, the more "true" it is. So why is it suddenly wrong for you to "over-simplify" as you claim I have done???
Originally posted by philosophizer ....and say that is wholly not true. I'm sure some people are as you describe.Yes, and it is those people I am calling "fundamentalists", see? There are lots of Christians that don't behave as I described, but then I wasn't describing them as fundamentalists, so they aren't relevant to the discussion at hand.
Originally posted by philosophizer But which concept is more proper? That truth is simple or that truth is complex?The truth is BOTH simple and complex. But this has nothing to do with the point I was making about fundamentalism.
Originally posted by philosophizer Sure, some do. But in doing so, they are not being true to their fundamentalism. The bible tells Christians to test everything. It's okay to examine other beliefs. It's a good thing to explore and not remain ignorant. Fundamentalists who oppose that are not really fundamentalists.Well, it has been my observation, and I am sure the observation of many others here, that one of the overwhelmingly obvious characteristics of fundamentalists is their absolute refusal to question their own beliefs, or to accept even the possibility that their beliefs could be wrong. They don't explore or examine any other views of anything except with the dogged intent of discrediting them, and thus "proving" how right their own beliefs are.

In fact, these characteristices are so prominent that they are how I define "fundamentalism". The way some others are defining it here, ideologically, I wouldn't call it fundamentalism, I'd call that neo-conservative orthodoxy.

[Knight]

Originally posted by beanieboy

btw, Knight, you still haven't weighed in.
How would you describe it? Well.....

I am working on something in my head, so I am really more interested in reading what others say rather than weighing in myself (yet).

I am alreading getting affirmation as to what I had already thought, and that is....

I consider myself a fundamentalist, but I do not fit the description of a fundamentalist according to my opposition.

Therefore I want to acurately define (or re-define) fundamentalism according to how I (personally) think it should be defined.

[On Fire]

Originally posted by beanieboy
And I was talking about the mental gymnastics one must do to claim the bible is inerrant, and literal.


Prove it.

[beanieboy]

Fair enough, Knight.

Can anyone who thinks of themselves as Fundemental give me a definition?

I want to hear the positive version of what it is, to be fair.

[On Fire]

Take your time, beanie.

[philosophizer]

Originally posted by beanieboy

Fair enough, Knight.

Can anyone who thinks of themselves as Fundemental give me a definition?

I want to hear the positive version of what it is, to be fair.

I think Clete already did.

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

4. Jesus died to redeem humankind - I would add that a fundamentalist Christian MUST also believe that God raised Him from the dead (Rom. 10:9-10).

Agreed.

I also would add the world ALL. Jesus died for the sins of the WHOLE world and thus redemption is available to all who believe.


Awww, now why did you have to go and put that in there? I don't really see this as fundamental belief at all. Its more of an extra ideology the Arminians have taken on really. Not fundamental.

We agree on what salvation does for us. We just disagree on how we got salvation. You like to add some works along with it.

[Clete]

Originally posted by beanieboy

Fair enough, Knight.

Can anyone who thinks of themselves as Fundemental give me a definition?

I want to hear the positive version of what it is, to be fair.

Philosophizer is right, read post #2

[Clete]

In response to this...
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
I also would add the world ALL. Jesus died for the sins of the WHOLE world and thus redemption is available to all who believe.

Swordsman said this...
Originally posted by Swordsman
Awww, now why did you have to go and put that in there? I don't really see this as fundamental belief at all. Its more of an extra ideology the Armenians have taken on really. Not fundamental.

We agree on what salvation does for us. We just disagree on how we got salvation. You like to add some works along with it.

I would say that my statement is truer to the fundamentalist position in that I simply believe that the Bible means what is seems to say when it says...

Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

However, I would not go so far as to say that Calvinists are not Fundamentalist. They do believe that God (Jesus) died in payment for sin. They just dispute whether or not His blood paid for it in part or in full.

And by the way, I am not an Armenian. Armenians are way to Calvinistic for my taste, thank you very much.

Resting in Him,
Clete

[Cyrus of Persia]

Clete,

I probably found the webpage you took those 5 points. Or at least it's pretty good site for describing the phenomena:

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/

I will use it to back up some of my claims.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

This is not what self-righteousness is. If you want to call it that go ahead, but don't be deceived, true Christianity pulls no punches. If you do not come to God through Jesus Christ you do not come to God at all. And since the alternative to God is Hell, then the choice is clear.


It's similar for conservatives and fundies i think. Lemme quote what is specific for fundies in this matter:

"3) an assurance that those who do not share their religious viewpoint are not really "true Christians""

So for fundies it's not only the matter do we believe that Jesus is Saviour. For them it's important that we should believe it in "correct" way. I.e. as they understand the truth.

For example here, in Estonia, some Christians believe that most Lutherians are not Christians because they havent experienced "new birth" in certain moment of their life. What they miss is that being born again might be different experience for different people, i.e. some experience it after they pray "sinner prayer", some experience it in different way. But they both are Christians if they have dedicated their lives to Jesus.



God ordained the government to execute criminals (including Homo's) by due process of law. Criminal justice was God idea and Fundamentalist believe that God is smarter than they are and that He is better able to figure out what should be done with those who commit crimes.


Excellent example of fundamentalist thinking. They take whatever they can to justify their "sense of justice". In this example they ignore the fact that NT does't confirm the idea of excecuting homos, and rely on Mosaic Law what was relevant in certain time, certain place and for certain nation.

Generally: they are unable to differ culture and God's eternal truths.



There is a danger of favoring a particular interpretation of the Bible over clear extra-biblical evidence on certain issues, however, if the Bible makes an unambiguous claim about the nature of the universe which God created then science will not be able to disprove it, as hard as it might try.


The science cannot prove, nor disprove that God created the universe. So any christian can believe that God is the Creator and is not labelled as fundy by doing that. The fundy is the one who tries to read from the Bible more than is meant in it. The point of Creation story is to tell us that God created the Universe, and it describes it in form that was understandable for people to whom it was initially written. Today - i believe - the Creation story would be described bit differently, but the eternal truth (that God was behind of it all) would still remain. The Fundy takes over the exact description from the Story and ignores all facts that contradict to it, even if those facts are the realities.



Yes, everyone should do rightly. How could you have a problem with that?


The problem is that you cannot force to non- Christian the same values what Christians follow. At first they need to become Christians and then those values imply to them also.

[beanieboy]

There is an interesting book called Stealing Jesus:How fundamentalists weakens Christianity.

The reviews range, naturally, depending on whether it agrees or disagrees with one's own views.

Worth a look.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0609802224/qid=1083183295/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/104-8506071-2640732?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

[Bernie22]

Beanieboy said, "I was talking about the mental gymnastics one must do to claim the bible is inerrant, and literal."

There's some leeway in the word "literal". I believe the Bible is both literally inerrant and spiritually infallible, and don't feel that mental gymnastics are necessary to defend this assertion.

Swedenborg pointed out something a few centuries ago that seems to be lost on most today, that because the Bible is a "book of correspondences", its literal meaning may be abused without affecting its interior (spiritual) meaning.

There are a number of senses that can be applied to the term "literal"--which is why the word may signify a number of meanings among different people. For instance, I recall an atheist some years ago mocking the gospel account of the resurrection because in two of the gospel accounts there was a slight difference in personnel of those who found the tomb empty. This fellow's assertion was that the resurrection was not true because the facts were contradictory...."false in one, false in all". In a positivistic mind bent on finding literally anything to argue about, this may seem a valid argument.

Reasonable, rational human beings, however, should be able to agree that literal historical accounts may contain human error and inconsistencies without doing damage to the literal truth that the reusurrection took place.

I don't see that "mental gymnastics" is necessary to defend Bible inerrancy. Probably just need to first establish definitions.

[Clete]

A good thought Bernie. And welcome to TOL by the way.

I would take only one issue with what you said...


Originally posted by Bernie22
Reasonable, rational human beings, however, should be able to agree that literal historical accounts may contain human error and inconsistencies without doing damage to the literal truth that the resurrection took place.

Any other account of history might have "errors" but the Bible isn't simply some history book, it is the Word of God. It claims itself to be inspired by God Himself.

We are not in possession of the original autographs so I would give accent to the existence of a stray scribal error or two that has no effect on whatever point is being made, but an outright error is not acceptable in a writing that claims to "God breathed".

Resting in Him,
Clete

[BChristianK]

PureX said:

And what would this "truth" be, I wonder....

Most people would agree that truth is "what is" (reality) and interestingly enough "what is" (reality) is infinitely complex (as we experience it, anyway)

Since when did you, a finite being, start experiencing reality as infinitely complex…?


while it is not infinitely simple (on the scale of simplicity, reality can only be reduced to one single whole). I would like you to explain how recognizing the (apparently) infinite complexity of reality is avoiding the "truth" of reality, and how ignoring the complexity of reality would make it more "real" (true).

I’d like you to first explain how you can be so sure that reality is infinitely complex, then maybe you can make philosophizer answer the question that is predicated upon that assumption….




I think fundamentalism is more an ego-centric reaction to complexity and intellectualism that it is any particular set of ideological beliefs. It's main characteristic is extreme over-simplification with the intent of gaining, through the illusion of self-righteousness, what one secretly feels they lack in intellectual sophistication.

Thanks for that extremely over-simplified definition of fundamentalism...

:D


Grace and Peace

[BChristianK]

Knight has a great question. Especially since you get two kind of folk butting heads frequently on TOL, those who think that Fundy’s are back country hicks with little to no education poundin’ the pulpit, and those who still like some of the trappings of Christianity but who the fundy’s think have basically sold Jesus out to follow the hollow philosophies of the world..

Now that we have those stereotypes out of the way, there are a few questions that I think go along with knights question. First, what is the difference between evangelical Christians and fundamentalist Christians?

Second, Clete gave us a working formula:


1. Biblical inerrancy
2. The divinity of Jesus
3. The Virgin Birth
4. Jesus died to redeem humankind
5. An expectation of the Second Coming, or physical return, of Jesus Christ to initiate his thousand-year rule of the Earth.


So what would Clete or anyone else call a 4 pointer.
I’ll take 1-4, and leave 5 as an amillennialist?

Third, given that Duder is correct, fundamentalism being a reactive movement to the liberal interpretation of scripture in the early 20th century, where does fundamentalism become pro-active as apposed to reactive?

Finally, Clete said:

For example, fundamentalist believe that the universe and everything in it was created by God in 6, literal 24 hour days and that He rested on the 7th day.


Which just “shows to go ya” that not all self-proclaimed fundamentalists line up neatly in a row when it comes to some doctrines. Many of the folks I know who consider themselves very fundamental on some issues, such as the inerrancy of scripture, are less dogmatic about a literal 6 day creation.
So is fundamentalism really that monolithic?

Finally, for those of the more liberal persuasion, why is it that that your most common usage for the term ‘fundamentalist’ is derogatory instead of descriptive?

Furthermore, why is it that when the fundy's use the scriptures to declare truth they are accused of being ignorantly dogmatic, but when liberal Christians appeal to principles that contradict scripture their apparent inconsistency is above criticism?

Grace and Peace

[Lighthouse]

Am I fundamentalist or not?! You people can't explain anything to me, without disagreeing! :chuckle:

[Duder]

BCK -

First, allow me to apologize both to you and to all TOL members for my harsh words directed at you several days ago. I cannot even recall what the problem was - and so I bet I was way out of line. You are one of the most intelligent, evenhanded and eloquent posters here. I am sorry, dude.

Which just “shows to go ya” that not all self-proclaimed fundamentalists line up neatly in a row when it comes to some doctrines. Many of the folks I know who consider themselves very fundamental on some issues, such as the inerrancy of scripture, are less dogmatic about a literal 6 day creation.
So is fundamentalism really that monolithic?

That is a very interesting problem. How far away from the most naievly literal interpretation of the Bible text can one move and still be considered a fundamentalist? I don't think your friends who doubt the six-day creation have necessarily crossed the line. Neither, I think, have people who accept an evolutionary model of biology.

We can't deny the fact that moving from 6 days to 5 billion years - or that going from a literal, divinely-sculpted mud figurine to a descendant of lower primates is a move away from literalism and toward a metaphorical understanding. But I don't think such a person has leapt off the platform.

Someone who is dedicated to interpreting the Bible literally to the greatest extent he can without offending logic or experience, is still a fundamentalist - even if he quits belief in the young earth and the global deluge.

Moreover, I would not be inclined to make a list of points that must be believed in order to be a fundamentalist. Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses will not pass Clete's test, and yet I am sure they are still predominantly fundamentalistic. The defining characteristic of a fundamentalist is his predisposition or his preference for interpreting his canon literally.

[Flipper]

I think that an insistence on biblical inerrancy is a sure sign of Christian fundamentalism. Having said that, not all Christian fundamentalists are biblical inerrantists.

Of course, every viewpoint or doctrine has its fundamentalists. Atheism is a case in point. I'm generally not wild about those I consider to be atheistic fundamentalists either.

[Cyrus of Persia]

Originally posted by Bernie22

I believe the Bible is both literally inerrant and spiritually infallible, and don't feel that mental gymnastics are necessary to defend this assertion.


AND


Reasonable, rational human beings, however, should be able to agree that literal historical accounts may contain human error and inconsistencies without doing damage to the literal truth that the reusurrection took place.

I don't see that "mental gymnastics" is necessary to defend Bible inerrancy. Probably just need to first establish definitions.

True. You are giving slightly different definition to biblical inerrancy than i have used to hear. There are contradictory claims and facts written in the Bible. Do you agree then that "literal historical accounts may contain human error and inconsistencies without doing damage to the literal truth"? I would not call it belief in literal inerrancy anymore, but if you find it OK, then maybe even i can fit into belief of biblical inerrancy in this case :D

[Cyrus of Persia]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Any other account of history might have "errors" but the Bible isn't simply some history book, it is the Word of God. It claims itself to be inspired by God Himself.



And still if we are honest we see clearly some contradictions in the historical accounts of the Bible. Of course you can be "clever" and interpret them away, but in this case i can take whatever ancient historian and interpret his errors also away and show you how correct his account is!

BTW, 2 Tim 3:16 can be translated also: "Every inspired scripture is God breathed..." So as you see it makes the Bible lot more trustable, and explains why in Early Christianity they used lot more scriptures than our canon today consists of.

[Berean Todd]

Originally posted by Cyrus of Persia
BTW, 2 Tim 3:16 can be translated also: "Every inspired scripture is God breathed..."

Only by people with no knowledge of ancient Greek, or the ability to understand and translate it. That is in no way at all an acceptable translation of that passage however.

[Cyrus of Persia]

Originally posted by BChristianK

Furthermore, why is it that when the fundy's use the scriptures to declare truth they are accused of being ignorantly dogmatic, but when liberal Christians appeal to principles that contradict scripture their apparent inconsistency is above criticism?


Because fundy claims his interpretation of truth to be the final truth and everything that contradicts to it is false. If he would not be so exclusive, he wouldnt be fundy anymore.

No liberal interpretation of the Bible is above criticism. It is handled the same way as every scientific hypotesis, or theory is handled (and theology is humanitarian science). If you read the books of liberal Bible scholars you will see how much they criticise even each other, and how their old theories are sometimes forsaken after new finds come up, etc.

Surely there are liberal scholars who have fundy mentality: my interpretation vs. false interpretation. But we cannot call him true, and honest scholar then anymore. True scholar in whatever field of science he is working is always open to modify his theories if new findings demand it.

[Cyrus of Persia]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Am I fundamentalist or not?! You people can't explain anything to me, without disagreeing! :chuckle:

Yes, you are. You sound almost like me 8-12 years ago :D

[Cyrus of Persia]

Originally posted by Berean Todd

Only by people with no knowledge of ancient Greek, or the ability to understand and translate it. That is in no way at all an acceptable translation of that passage however.

Hmm, interesting that you are calling a scholar who has way more knowledge of ancient Greek than most people who have studied theology as somebody without no knowledge of it.

[PureX]

Originally posted by BChristianK Since when did you, a finite being, start experiencing reality as infinitely complex…?Being finite, all I have to do is encounter complexity that surpasses my ability to comprehend, for it to appear infinite to me, even though it may or may not be. You can clearly see this in the post you are referring to, by my use of the word "appearance", but of course you ignored this so that you could throw another red herring into the discussion.
Originally posted by BChristianK I’d like you to first explain how you can be so sure that reality is infinitely complex, then maybe you can make philosophizer answer the question that is predicated upon that assumption….As you are well aware, nothing in my previous post indicated any surety involving infinite complexity, and this is just another ploy on your part to avoid having to explain your own assertions, which by now I am quite sure that you're not going to do.

[PureX]

Originally posted by Duder BCK -

First, allow me to apologize both to you and to all TOL members for my harsh words directed at you several days ago. I cannot even recall what the problem was - and so I bet I was way out of line. You are one of the most intelligent, evenhanded and eloquent posters here. I am sorry, dude.Funny, all I seem to get out of him are annoying cheap intellectual tricks and an endless supply of red herrings.
Originally posted by Duder That is a very interesting problem. How far away from the most naievly literal interpretation of the Bible text can one move and still be considered a fundamentalist?This is exactly why I don't think the main characteristic of fundamentalism is doctrinal. Put any two fundamentalists in a room alone, and they will fight with each other about who is the more righteous. Put a hundred of them in a room with each other and they will divide up into factions and fight about who is the most righteous. The overwhelmingly common trait among fundamentalists is not a particular doctrinal position, it's their obsession with righteousness. The one thing they all agree on is that they are right and anyone who disagrees in even the slightest way is automatically wrong by default, which is why they can't ever really agree with anyone, even each other.

If the definition of fundamentalism were doctrinal, then there couldn't be fundamentalists in different religions.

[Clete]

Look, the question is "What is Fundamentalism?" not, "how many different ways can we twist ourselves around and still allow ourselves to be fundamentalist?".

I submit that you guys don't get to define the term for yourselves, if you did then the word would no longer have any meaning.

You absolutely cannot under any circumstance believe in a evolutionary model of biology and still consider yourself a fundamentalist. You might still be a Christian, but not a Fundamentalist. The same goes for those with a belief that the creation took anything but 6 days. And the same goes for Amillennialists; they all are not fundamentalists.
Isn't this somewhat obviously true? You guys remove the first and primary plank of Fundamentalism and then try to say that you are still standing on the platform! Well, I'm sorry but your not. Otherwise, the term Fundamentalism is meaningless. You want to liberalize the term and make it more comfortable because nobody wants to think that they don't hold to the fundamentals of the Christian faith, but that is the whole reason why Fundamentalism came about in the first place. It wasn't brought up to make everybody feel good, on the contrary, Fundamentalism was started specifically to militate against people being allowed to follow the dictates of their own hearts and to bring Christianity back to its Biblical foundations.
Say I say no, if you do not hold to all five points at least in principle then you are not a fundamentalist, period. That's not an insult, its just an acknowledgment of the meaning of the word "Fundamentalism"

Resting in Him,
Clete

[beanieboy]

Originally posted by Bernie22
I don't see that "mental gymnastics" is necessary to defend Bible inerrancy. Probably just need to first establish definitions.

By "literal", I mean it means what it says, word for word.
If the world was created in 6 days, we are talking about 6 24-hour days.
Nevermind that the bible says that to God a day is a 1000 years, and a 1000 years a day.
It says, "on the first day" and that's what it mean.

The sun is created on the 4th day - not only odd that with a solar system of 7 planets rotating around nothing, the sun is then put into place, and on the 4th day, you have literal night and day.

But nevermind that. The bible said a day, and we mean 24 hours,

Mental Gymnastics.

The bible is really poetic, and you have to think about that if you want to understand it.
Jesus did not say he was LIKE a door. He said he was a door.
He did not say he was LIKE a vine. He said he was a vine.

I remember watching a great movie called Lady Jane Grey, about the churches struggle for power in England. Lady Jane Grey was reading the bible, and eating the host like potato chips. The priest was shocked, and said, "You blasphemer!" And she said, "What? It's a host. It's not truly the body. Christ said, "I am a door, I am a vine. Was he truly a door? A vine?"

She is later beheaded, under the pretext of not believing the wine and host are the body and blood literally, so the Catholic church could regain power.

[beanieboy]

Originally posted by BChristianK
Furthermore, why is it that when the fundy's use the scriptures to declare truth they are accused of being ignorantly dogmatic, but when liberal Christians appeal to principles that contradict scripture their apparent inconsistency is above criticism?

Grace and Peace

I don't agree with all liberals. That's part of liberal thinking.
You approach a subject, listen, then decided whether or not your thinking should change, or the other person isn't correct.

Fundamentalists, on the other hand, seem to never go into it with an open mind. My mother, sadly, was taught that if she ever questioned anything from the bible, that it was a sign that she didn't love God, and would go to hell.

Even Othodox Jews question the true meaning of the scriptures.

When quoting verses, as Enyart as done repeatedly, things are taken out of context of to whom it was said, why, the context of the story, and misused in order to support their cause.

And more often than not, it is the easiest road.
The person is threatened, rather than given FreeWill.
The person has guilt offered, instead of forgiveness.
There is a suggestion that one should be offensive, and brag about it.
There is a suggestion that you should name call freely, because you want to be like Jesus.

But Jesus preached a lot about being kind to one another.
He talked about feeding the poor, forgiving one another, giving more than what is asked.

But never mind that. It's more fun to be mean.

And no matter what you say, their hearts are hardened with self-righteousness.

It's really depressing.

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
I would say that my statement is truer to the fundamentalist position in that I simply believe that the Bible means what is seems to say when it says...

Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

However, I would not go so far as to say that Calvinists are not Fundamentalist. They do believe that God (Jesus) died in payment for sin. They just dispute whether or not His blood paid for it in part or in full.

And by the way, I am not an Armenian. Armenians are way to Calvinistic for my taste, thank you very much.

Resting in Him,
Clete

But I think you would have to agree that open theism broke off from Arminism. They saw the flaws with the conditional election piece among other things and came up with this ideology known as the "open view."

How can you say "Arminians are way to Calvinistic"??? Maybe you do not understand TULIP compared to the 5 points of Arminism....

[On Fire]

Originally posted by beanieboy

I don't agree with all liberals. That's part of liberal thinking.
You approach a subject, listen, then decided whether or not your thinking should change, or the other person isn't correct.

Fundamentalists, on the other hand, seem to never go into it with an open mind. My mother, sadly, was taught that if she ever questioned anything from the bible, that it was a sign that she didn't love God, and would go to hell.

Even Othodox Jews question the true meaning of the scriptures.

When quoting verses, as Enyart as done repeatedly, things are taken out of context of to whom it was said, why, the context of the story, and misused in order to support their cause.

And more often than not, it is the easiest road.
The person is threatened, rather than given FreeWill.
The person has guilt offered, instead of forgiveness.
There is a suggestion that one should be offensive, and brag about it.
There is a suggestion that you should name call freely, because you want to be like Jesus.

But Jesus preached a lot about being kind to one another.
He talked about feeding the poor, forgiving one another, giving more than what is asked.

But never mind that. It's more fun to be mean.

And no matter what you say, their hearts are hardened with self-righteousness.

It's really depressing.

You may appreciate this: http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html

[beanieboy]

One of the "mental gymnastics" I have found is in translation.

For example, there are 13 Greek words for love.
In english, we have 1.

Jesus asks Peter, Do you love me?
Peter says, "Yes, I love you.
Jesus says, "Feed my sheep.

He continues asking him two more times.
I would read the story, and say, "Mom, why is Jesus being annoying, and doubting Peter?"

But in Greek, Jesus is saying, Do you love me with all your heart, soul and mind?
And Peter says, "Yes, I love you like a brother."
It's a lesser love.

The eye of a needle?
They weren't talking about a sewing needle, as most people assume.
They were talking about the doorway to the city, where you have to get a camel to crawl on it's knees. Camels hate to crawl, and spit, and resist you.

Using the sewing needle definition means that it is impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven without being squished to death.
Using the real definition means that getting a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven is difficult, and you have to actually drag him through the pearly gates.

Completely different meanings.

Inerrant?
Possibly.

Do translations and our definitions change the meanings?
Obviously.

But you can't argue that with a Fundamentalist.

[Cyrus of Persia]

Clete,

to point out your last message, you are still speaking about CHRISTIAN fundamentalism. If you talk about pure fundamentalism, then PureX is right - almost any religion contains fundys, liberals, etc. So we are not speaking about "fundamentalism", but "Christian fundamentalism".

Just a note. Probably unnessessary, but i thought that i will point it out.

[On Fire]

Originally posted by beanieboy
But you can't argue that with a Fundamentalist.

Nor can you argue that with a non-believer.

[beanieboy]

Uh, I believe you are constantly accusing me for arguing that exact thing - discussing meaning, definition, context, translation...

[On Fire]

Originally posted by beanieboy

Uh, I believe you are constantly accusing me for arguing that exact thing - discussing meaning, definition, context, translation...

But not "that". It's beyond your experience.

[beanieboy]

What is beyond my experience?

[On Fire]

Originally posted by beanieboy

What is beyond my experience?

Knowing Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Saviour.

[beanieboy]

1 John 4: 7Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

I have seen no fruit come from you.
Some nastiness.
Some vomitting icons.
But generally, you are angry, snide and self-righteous.

I question whether you know God.
Whoever does not love does not know God.

[Clete]

Originally posted by Swordsman

But I think you would have to agree that open theism broke off from Arminianism. They saw the flaws with the conditional election piece among other things and came up with this ideology known as the "open view."
No that's how Arminianism came into being but not Open Theism.
Open Theism is a logical extension of Dispensationalism (or perhaps it’s the other way around :think: ).
Both Arminians and Calvinists both think that God exist outside of time and the He cannot change. The one simply figures out a way of stressing man's responsibility and the other God's sovereignty. Open Theism stresses both equally because of a different and more logically (and Biblically) consistent understanding of the nature of reality.

How can you say "Arminians are way to Calvinistic"??? Maybe you do not understand TULIP compared to the 5 points of Arminism....

I understand the TULIP better than you do most likely. I'm not saying that Arminians ARE Calvinists, I'm just saying that they are Calvinistic in that they believe in the absolute immutability of God and that time is something that God exists outside of. Since these are two foundational issues of Open Theism, I would say that neither Calvinism or Arminianism are related to it at all.

Resting in Him,
Clete

[Clete]

Originally posted by beanieboy

1 John 4: 7Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

I have seen no fruit come from you.
Some nastiness.
Some vomitting icons.
But generally, you are angry, snide and self-righteous.

I question whether you know God.
Whoever does not love does not know God.

Rom. 12:9 Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil.

[On Fire]

Originally posted by beanieboy

1 John 4: 7Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

I have seen no fruit come from you.
Some nastiness.
Some vomitting icons.
But generally, you are angry, snide and self-righteous.

I question whether you know God.
Whoever does not love does not know God.

Stop worrying about me (and others). Worry about you and God.

[beanieboy]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Rom. 12:9 Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil.

Can you explain this in contrast to what I posted?

It seems that you are suggesting that "For God so loved the world" should say, "For God so love the world, except for the evil people..."

God loved everyone, and came for the lost, not the saved.

In the context that I used, I pointed out that AS show no love, and therefore, may not know God at all.

Imagine watching a dad with his kid. The kid punches some other kid, and the dad say, "You make puke! You disgusting pile of crap! I told you to stop hitting kids! Lev. says that I should kill you, and I would jump up and down on your grave and Praise God!"

Is that love? Because it is abhorring what is evil.
Or is the "love" evil itself?

This is why I am constantly backing away from Christianity.
The call love hate, and hate love.

[PureX]

Originally posted by Cyrus of Persia

Clete,

to point out your last message, you are still speaking about CHRISTIAN fundamentalism. If you talk about pure fundamentalism, then PureX is right - almost any religion contains fundys, liberals, etc. So we are not speaking about "fundamentalism", but "Christian fundamentalism".

Just a note. Probably unnessessary, but i thought that i will point it out. Even if we are just looking at Christian fundamentalism, it's still an obsession with righteousness. Why do you think the "inerrant" bible concept is so essential to Christian fundamentalists? I think it's because they believe that through the bible they can have access to "absolute righteousness". They know that as a human being, they can't claim to be absolutely right about God, or life, or death, or justice, or any of the other important issues that we humans worry over because we are not omniscient. But if the fundamentalist can claim that the bible was "written by God" and therefor must be absolutely right in all ways, then by "owning" that bible they can "own" the absolute righteousness within it. They can have the "answers" to these troubling questions AND the certainty that their "answers" are absolutely right. And this is why the bible is the center of everything to the fundamentalist: because it's their source of "righteousness" and it's this idea of righteousness (of certainty) that they crave - that is their "god".

Why is fear of hell and the desire for heavenly reward such a primary motive for fundamentalist doctrines? I think it's because it's the reason they become fundamentalists to begin with - they are desperately afraid of not knowing the answers to those important human questions. They are desperately afraid of "God", and of not measuring up in life, and of what will happen to them when they die. Fundamentalism is how they deal with this fear. This is why being "right" is so important to a fundamentalist. Being "right" is the antidote to his ignorance and fear.

Fundamentalism is not about God, and it's not about religious doctrines, per se. It's about being "right" at almost any cost. It's completely driven by fear and ignorance and a desperate desire to deny it's own fear and ignorance rather than facing it. I think this is basically the definition of an addiction, and that fundamentalism is essentially the manifestation of addiction.

[On Fire]

Originally posted by PureX

Even if we are just looking at Christian fundamentalism, it's still an obsession with righteousness. Why do you think the "inerrant" bible concept is so essential to Christian fundamentalists? I think it's because they believe that through the bible that they can have access to "absolute righteousness". They know that as a human being, they can't claim to be absolutely right about God, or life, or death, or justice, or any of the other important issues that men worry over because they are not omniscient. But if they claim that the bible was "written by God" and therefor must be absolutely right in all ways, then by "owning" that bible they can "own" the absolute righteousness within it. They can have "answers" AND the certainty that their "answers" are absolutely right. And this is why the bible is the center of everything to the fundamentalist: because it's their source of "righteousness" and it's this idea of righteousness (certainty) that they crave - that is their "god".


You were on a roll until that last sentence. Nice try. Come again.

[smaller]

What is a "christian fundamentalist?"

Someone who serves a god who is similar to the Wizard of Oz.

[beanieboy]

I agree with you, PureX.

AS, go back and play with your PS2. The grownups are trying to talk.

[On Fire]

Originally posted by beanieboy

I agree with you, PureX.

AS, go back and play with your PS2. The grownups are trying to talk.

Oh, look...the two Hell-bound atheists agree with eachother. Isn't that CUTE!

[beanieboy]

Originally posted by smaller

What is a "christian fundamentalist?"

Someone who serves a god who is similar to the Wizard of Oz.

SILENCE you whippersnapper!

[On Fire]

Beanieboy, consider this a quiz:

You may be a fundy atheist if....

You became an atheist when you were 10 years old, based on ideas of God that you learned in Sunday School. Your ideas about God haven't changed since.
You think that the primary aim of an omnibenevolent God is for people to have FUN.
You believe that extra drippy ice-cream is a logical proof against the existence of God, because an omniscient God would know how to stop the ice-cream from being extra drippy, an omnipotent God would have the ability to stop the ice-cream from being extra drippy, and by golly, an omnibenevolent God wouldn't want your ice-cream to be extra drippy.
Although you've memorized a half a dozen proofs that He doesn't exist, you still think you're God's gift to the ignorant masses.
You believe the astronomical size of the universe somehow disproves God, as if God needed a tiny universe in order to exist.
You think questions like, "Can God create a rock so big that He cannot lift it?" and, "Can God will Himself out of existence?" are perfect examples of how to disprove God's omnipotence and ultimately how to disprove God. When someone proves to you the false logic behind the questions (i.e. pitting God's omnipotence against itself), you desperately try to defend the questions, but then give up and go to a different Christian site to ask them.
Related to the above, you spend a great deal of your spare time writing to Christian websites asking them these very questions.
You declare on a public forum that you are "furious at God for not existing."
You spend hours arguing that a-theism actually means "without a belief in God " and not just " belief that there is no god" as if this is a meaningful distinction in real life.
You consistently deny the existence of God because you personally have never seen him but you reject out of hand personal testimony from theists who claim to have experienced God as a reality in their lives.
You can make the existence of pink unicorns the centre-piece of a philosophical critique.
You insist that "the burden of proof is on he that alleges/accuses", and "it's impossible to prove a negative",then state "That's what Christians do. They lie. Their most common lie is that they were once atheists." When reminded about the burden of proof bit,you reply with, "Well,prove Christians don't lie!"
You adamantly believe that the "God of the gaps" idea is an essential tenet of orthodox Christian faith espoused by all the great Christian thinkers throughout history.
When you were a child, someone came down with a deadly disease and prayed and prayed for God to take it away. God did not remove the disease and your friend died. You ask other Christians why they had to die when they were such a nice person and never harmed anyone. Dissatisfied with their answers, you suddenly decide that there is no God and that all Christians are nothing but lying, conniving con artists and hypocrites....all that is except for your friend who died.
You call a view held by less than ten percent of the American public "common sense".
You're a spoiled fifteen year old boy who lives in the suburbs and you go into a chat room to declare that, "I know there is no God because no loving God would allow anyone to suffer as much as I...hold on. My cell phone's ringing."
You attack your fellow atheists, who hold the "belief that there is no god", calling them "liars," and state that, "I do not deny the existence of any god. I just don't believe in any." Then you tell someone that their God is "made up." When someone calls you on this,you state, "I never made such a claim."
Going with the definition of "without a belief in God",you insist that all people are born atheists, and that dogs, cats, rocks, and trees are as well. You make statements like, "My dog is an atheist. Ask him about his lack of belief."
You believe that if something cannot be touched, seen, heard, or measured in some way, then it must not exist, yet you fail to see the irony of your calling Christians "narrow-minded".


Origins
You may be a fundy atheist if....

You believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were "all obviously designed," yet the human body, being intricately more complex was "obviously a product of biological evolution." It seems the more complex the apparatus, the more obvious the "fact" that it was not designed.
You claim that evolution and the big bang are two entirely seperate theories that explain different aspects of the universe, yet, in what school of learning can you find any real separation or distinction between the two?
As a member of the Skeptic's Society you pride yourself on being skeptical of extraordinary claims. You also pride yourself on silencing everyone who is skeptical of the extraordinary claims of evolution.
Isaac Newton does not count as an example of a great scientist who believed in the Bible since he died before the Origin of Species was published.
When you watch a punt returner run a 93 yard touchdown, you marvel at what evolution has done for the human race. But when someone gets cancer, you blame God for it.
When you're discussing the origin of the world, the phrase "uncaused cause(God)" is a stupid, meaningless thing to say. You will, however, settle for "uncaused effect(the world without God)".
You descended from apes.(Think about it.)
You think that humans are products of chance but when it comes to human reason we can believe in logic! (Think about it !)
You think you arrived at your position because you are a free-thinker who rationally weighed the evidence, and then freely chose atheism over theism. YET, you also believe that your thinking and actions are nothing more than the FIXED reactions of the atoms in your brain that are governed by the Laws of Chemistry and Physics.
You love to castigate Christians for being "anti-science" if they deny evolution from goo to you via the zoo, and to preach that they should adapt their thinking to the "science" of our day. But you also castigate the Church of 400 years ago for being anti-science, when it DID adapt its thinking to the science of ITS day, i.e. Ptolemaic cosmology, then joined with the Aristotelian scientists of the universities in rejecting Galileo!
You think that some guy named "Dr Dino" with no scientific credentials represents mainstream Evangelical thinking and scholarship about evolution and creation, and thus by spending inordinate amounts of time attacking him you are somehow dismantling the arguments of scholarly dissenters from evolution, creationists with earned Ph. D.s in science, and of advocates of intelligent design.
You claim poker-faced that "social Darwinism" and its spawn of eugenics have absolutely no connection to the biological theories propounded by Charles Darwin in "On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"
You have recently stuck a Darwin fish on your car in the hopes the people with the Jesus fish on theirs will be offended.
You also claim that not only is there no connection between Darwin's theories and the doctrines of social Darwinism and eugenics (despite the fact that the term eugenics was coined and advocated by Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton, who acknowledged his debt to Origin), but that none of these philosophical positions have any connection to the modern fields of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology.
You can claim with as straight face on sites like Talk Origins that "Evolution does not have moral consequences" despite the fact that prominent evolutionary advocates like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett vehemently assert that evolution does transcend biology in a way that has a profound effects upon ethics.
When the Pope says that God may have used evolution, he is an enlightened religious leader whom Christians should listen to. When the Pope preaches on the sanctity of human life from conception, and thus denounces abortion, he's just a senile religious bigot who should keep his opinions to himself.
Concerning the origins of life, you feel that though the chances of life forming without an intelligent creator are small it DID indeed happen that way. And yet you don't believe me when a rock, coming from my direction, hits you in the back of the head and I tell you, "I didn't throw it. There was a sudden shift in the earth's gravitational pull and the rock levitated into your head...Sure the chances are small but it DID happen that way."
When you're shown that your view of origins is silly, you can only respond, "Well...at least it's better than believing in some invisible SKY DADDY!"
When a Christian points out the impossibility of a biological system (or feature) forming by pure chance you accuse them of invoking a "God of the gaps". YET, when you are asked how a particular feature could come about solely by chance you invoke "Evolution of the gaps" (i.e., we don't know HOW but we do know that Evolution MUST have done it!)
You claim antibiotic-resistant bacteria is proof protozoa evolved into a person.
You insist that science is completely partial to all ideas, is not dogmatic and researches all possibilities -- except creationism and/or intelligent design.
You claim Creationists don't research on evolution websites before debating against it. Luckily you caught this useful weapon against Christians at the evolution site you learned all about creation doctrine from.
You think that every scientist who believes in Creationism and doesn't mindlessly accept evolution as a fact is a "kook," but you believe that Francis Crick (Nobel Prize winning co-discoverer of DNA), who reached into his nether regions and pulled out the "theory" of Directed Panspermia (which states with absolutely no support that aliens seeded the earth with life - see the movie "Mission to Mars"), is a great evolutionist scientist.
When a creationist points out problems with the evolutionist model you claim that the whole point of science is to answer problems like these. But if you can point out even one problem in the creationist model it should instantly be abandoned as absurd.
You are a person who absolutely believes that life came from nonlife, yet absolutely deny the possibility of anyone rising from the dead.
You won't bet $10 on the football game because a 50/50 chance isn't good enough, but you have no problem gambling with your life on the nearly impossible odds of a cell randomly generating from nothing.
Engaging the "slippery slope" fallacy, you think you can invalidate the whole bible by discrediting Genesis, since 'the whole bible either stands together or falls apart'. However, when a Creationist tries to invalidate the whole doctrine of naturalistic evolution by exposing the sheer improbability and lack of evidence of abiogenesis, you note this point as 'irrelevant'.
You think the movie “Inherit the Wind” best describes the eternal struggle of how an evolutionist is being treated by creationists in this religious society. And you can personally relate your life to the Scopes Monkey Trial.
You ignore “Time Magazine’s” poll, which states that only 28% of Americans believe in evolution. But of course, “Time Magazine” must been run by creationists.
You teach a belief only held by 28% of a nation, as truth beyond any shadow of a doubt because only educated people believe in evolution. Yet of course, you ignore that fully educated scientists in most other nations have proven against Darwinian theory. Like the Chinese paleontologist who reportedly says: "In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin."


History
You may be a fundy atheist if....

Any scholar who believes in a historical Jesus must be a theist. If they are an atheist, then they must secretly want to be a theist.
You insist that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", then claim that Jesus never existed.
You contend that no war in history has ever been created by non-belief. Yet, when you are told that 176 million people lost their lives in wars during the last century, created by non-believers like Stalin, Lenin, Mao and Hitler, to name only a few, you reply that those wars fought were fought in the name of ideology and not ‘atheism’ as atheists “…don’t fly planes into buildings or start wars.”
You accept (and quote back to Christians) any number of works that say Jesus wasn't the Son of God and call them "honest", "thought-provoking" and 'scholarly" proof, even when they completely contradict each other and come to completely different conclusions.
You believe that when our forefathers are framing the Constitution, they're staunch deists, but when they're beating their slaves, they're Bible-believing Christians.
You think that the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional because it mentions "the creator".
On, that basis, You think that the Declaration is therefore void and the United States should return to British rule.
When it is returned to British rule, you plan to go straight to London and tell those Brits that having the Anglican church as a state church violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
When you use a historical point to prove Christianity is false (i.e., pagan parallel to Christianity), history is objective truth. When a Christian uses real historical scholarship to prove you false, history was written by subjective men and therefore cannot be trusted.
You reject what Cornelius Tacitus wrote about Jesus, dismissing it as "too late",but you readily accept what he wrote about Tiberius and Augustus.
100+ year old scholarship is good enough for you.
You always refer to C.S. Lewis as "that traitor."
You desperately wish that Stalin and Mao hadn't been atheists.
You absolutely insist a Christian recognize your nonscholar as an expert (G. A. Wells) but refuse to recognize his legimate scholar as expert (Colin Hemer).
You not only spell "God" with a lower case "g," but you also add an "E" to "B.C.," and replace the word "Christ" with an "x." Yet, when asked to name the planets you have no problem with spouting out the appropriate list of Roman Gods. Heck, you'll even spell them with capital letters! Not only that, you can even spell and pronounce the name of the 800-mile-diameter Trans-Neptunian Object ‘Quaoar’, and are delighted that it comes from the creation mythology of the Tongva people (aka the San Gabrielino Native Americans).
You think that religious wars have killed more people than any other kind of war, even though the largest wars of the last 200 years (World War I and II, Civil War, etc.) had no discernable religious causes.
You think that the Spanish Inquisition killed millions (or at least hundreds of thousands), even though the population of all of Spain at the time of the Inquisition was only about five million, and the actual total killed numbers about 2000. When informed of this, you accuse the informer of belittling or being insensitive to the deaths of 2000 individuals.
You bring up the alleged 'horrors' of the Spanish Inquisition to show how evil the church is. When shown that the SI was not the horror that it was painted to be, you switch gears and ask if the believer notes this because they think people are justified to feel moral revulsion with the Spanish Inquisition as it is commonly understood.
In a coffee table conversation you hear religion represented in a positive light. You immediately start preaching about the Inquisition and the Crusades to put things back on track. After all, "we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door".
You believe that Christians burned down the Great Library of Alexandria. When you learn that this was impossible, you assert that it is obvious that Christians did burn a lot of ancient books. When you are shown that this too is false, you wait a while, then make the same claim again, hoping that the person who corrected you with the facts won't notice.
You desperately confer with other skeptics to try and refute the evidence that Hitler's Holocaust was evolution-inspired, because, darn it, you just GOTTA prove that Hitler was a Christian.
You're convinced, despite evidence to the contrary, that Christianity was responsible for the Jewish holocaust because, dang it, that just SEEMS like something Christians would do.
You believe that Hitler claiming to be a Christian is undeniable proof that he was a Christian, while George Washington only claimed to be a Christian in order to win the people's favor.
You adamantly refuse to recognise the historical fact that "scientific atheism" was both a foundational philosophical position and an actual policy of the Soviet Union from the time of Lenin on, responsible for untold persecution, torture, suffering, humiliation and death far in excess of the numbers of the "victims" of Christianity.
On the other hand you further show your ignorance of history by constantly repeating "whoppers" about the numbers of victims of Christian Inquisitions, crusades and witchhunts dredged up from various unscholarly hate sites and passed off as historical fact.
For example...you can claim with a poker face that 9 MILLION women were put to death as witches by Christian fanatics in pre-Enlightenment Europe.
You assert that the 300 Protestants put to death under the reign of "Bloody Mary" in 16th century England stand as absolute proof of the inherent evil of Christianity but the tens upon tens of millions killed by Marxist regimes under Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot in the 20th century have absolutely NOTHING to do with the profound atheism inherent in these regimes.
You really believe that the Enlightenment made people more enlightened.
You think that Robert Green Ingersoll and Joseph McCabe are two of the greatest philosophers of religion ever to have lived - certainly far superior to nobodies like Thomas Aquinas or Blaise Pascal.
Indeed you believe that McCabe is "One of the giants of not only English Atheism, but world Atheism". [which could be construed as a slight on the intellectual quality of atheism].
You adhere to a false and fictionalised version of history gained from watching Hollywood movies such as Inherit the Wind so that you can (for example) conclude: "the controversy over creation and evolution was settled way back in 1925, when Clarence Darrow eviscerated William Jennings Bryan in a country courtroom in Dayton, Tennessee."
You continually argue that Hitler was a "real Christian" even when he and his fellow Nazis were slaughtering millions of people (and you "conveniently" ignore the very obvious distinction between someone claiming to be a Christian and someone actually living as a Christian, and the fact that the Nuremberg prosecutors denounced Nazism as fanatically ANTI-Christian!), but you deny that the scientists who rejected Galileo's work were real scientists.


Christians
You may be a fundy atheist if....

You think if a Christian won't address your arguments, they are too frightened to do so, or know they can't answer them; but if they do address your arguments, you think it is because they are "threatened" by them.
Missionaries who give up their personal comfort to aid starving, impoverished and persecuted third-world people are actually "corrupting ancient tribal cultures with western religious dogma", while you sit at home and complain about the price of KFC.
You believe that any Christian who claims to have once been an atheist is either lying or was never a "true atheist."
You think that John Shelby Spong is a reputable theologian but that Ben Witherington is merely an ignorant biblicist.
You assert that the crimes and failings of some Christians (acting inconsistently with the teachings of Christ at that!) disproves the whole edifice of Christianity but that the crimes and failings of some atheists (acting consistently with the fact that atheism can provide no basis for objective morality!) should on no account be held against the philosophy of atheism.
You assert that there is no absolute categories of good and evil, that all morals are merely personal, social and evolutionary constructs but then you can still describe Christians and Christianity as absolutely immoral, repugnant and evil and a danger to humanity and not feel even a twinge of hypocrisy at the monumental illogic of your position.
You think that Josh McDowell represents the apex of Christian scholarly apologetical thinking.
You lump all Christians in with whatever religious fruitcake is the flavour of the month, while living with the delusion that there are no atheistic weirdos out there.
You KNOW that religion causes violence and repeatedly tell this to everyone, hoping to save the world, but you don't believe that TV violence causes any real life violence. In fact, you are offended by this objection, and you have already started to figure out how to refute it. To increase your fundy factor, you have decided not to study social sciences. (Once you heard about Rodney Stark's For the Glory of God - you certainly would not bother reading it - you thought that sociologists were Christian fundamentalists in stealth mode, trying to push religious worldviews.
You think that taking the Bible seriously is the obsession of a fanatical fringe group of right-wing, extremist Christians who do not represent the views of the historic Church or of contemporary enlightened, liberal, skeptical "Christians" who according to you supposedly "fill" the mainstream churches and who on close inspection pretty much reflect your own politically correct views and values - and skepticism - about God. [Sort of like former Bishop Spong].
You claim that the theories and opinions of certain liberal scholars are absolute facts although you shy away from debating such issues with someone equally or better informed than you are.
You get angry when Christians tell you you're going to a place that you don't think exists.
You're convinced that people only believe in God because they're afraid of going to hell...despite the fact that if there is no God, then there's probably no hell either.
You consistently decry Christians for soliciting financial support yet find no problem in atheistic 'missionaries' doing the same thing."
You think that 'mission statements' on Christian websites proves the authors are biased which automatically renders the material on those sites weak and unscholarly yet you see no problem with 'mission statements' glorifying naturalism found on atheistic websites.
When a group of Sydney University (Australia) academics, including a historian, sign a public statement saying the Jesus Christ is "one of the great figures of history" and that his claims to be Son of God "bear up under closest scrutiny", this is a gross abuse of their position. But when Richard Dawkins uses his position as an Oxford professor to pontificate on his atheistic religion and related philosophical matters outside HIS field (animal behavior), that is a responsible use of academic freedom.
Further to the above, you're paranoid that these Christian academics will disciminate against you, even though their statement hasn't the remotest hint of that. But you applaud Michael Dini, a professor at Texas Tech, who refuses to recommend students for Medical School, even if they got "A"s in their courses, unless they not only understand but BELIEVE in goo-to-you evolution. And you're disgusted that creationist medical doctors have the gall to think they know more about medicine than Dini (who never practised medicine or even went to medical school), because by definition an evolutionist is more knowledgeable than a creationist on ANY subject!
You think Christians are narrow-minded for believing in only one religion, but atheists are open-minded for believing in absolutely none.
You believe that Christianity discriminates, because you have to join their religion in order to be a member of their religion.
You feel that Christians who go into atheist chat rooms are "shoving their beliefs down people's throats", and that atheists who go into Christian chat rooms are only trying to educate.
You think it is a "slam dunk" proof against God when you ask why He doesn't stop horrible things like, i.e., child rape, but evade the reply that you obviously don't want God stopping your own sins by pointing out that it isn't your problem because you don't believe in God in the first place.
You are disgusted with Doctor Paul Vitz’s book “Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism” because an educated person with a degree has linked atheism as a psychological condition. Yet, you have no remorse when you tell believers that they are a product of brainwashing, psycho conditioning and wishful thinking.
You believe Freud’s theory that all religious experiences are delusions, as the most revolutionary and truthful thought of all times. Yet, you overlook his heavy use of cocaine because “it can’t be proven.”
You recommend Michael Shermer’s book “How We Believe” to all of your friends who are believers and believe that somehow his opinion will give insight into how we actually think. Yet of course, you ignore that Shermer doesn’t have any education in Anthropology. Must be a coincidence.
You’re stupid enough to think atheists are treated like second-class citizens. Yet of course, you spend most of your day belittling Christians and other religious people.
You're convinced that all Christians are idiots. But when you meet the "rare" Christian who's clearly intelligent, you can only conclude that he was fooled into believing...by the idiots.


Contemporary events
You may be a fundy atheist if....

You demand that theists explain news items where bad things have happened to theists, even though no theists on the board have claimed that belief in God is some kind of a lucky charm that wards off bad luck.
You demand that theists explain news items where theists do bad things, even though no theists on the board have claimed that it is impossible for theists to do bad things.
The only Commandments you know are the ones that are unconstitutional.
You can't remember if she was Mother or Sister Teresa, but you can name every pedophile priest listed in the media over the last seven years.
You feel that Marilyn Manson is really, really profound.
You think the song "Dear God" by XTC is really, really, really................really meaningful.
You are funding or filming a movie called “Heart of the Beholder” a Secular Humanist movie telling a true story of a video store renting out the movie “The Last Temptation of Christ.” The fundamentalist Christian community is in protest of this store renting this movie out. Of course, you also create the image that all Christians were not only opposed to this movie but the fact that with less then 10% of your nation who actually believes in secular philosophy, this movie is actually going to make money. The filmmakers might be suffering from the same kind of false hope they think believers are.
You believe that emotional response interferes with rational thinking. Yet, you think George Carlin is the greatest comedian of all times, because he makes you laugh.
You're saving up to move to some more enlightened place, like Sweden.
You feel that the separation of church and state is a much more important issue than abortion, euthanasia, or infanticide.
You label any change whatsoever in Christian theology or behavior as 'secularization.'
You were too sophisticated to be afraid of (very real) "Reds under the bed" but you nevertheless see Christians behind every act of "evil" in the western world.
You deface money by scribbling God off of dollar bills.
You think God was cruel for killing all of those innocent babies in the flood, and that Christians are cruel for opposing a woman's right to abort her baby.
You think that Reverend Fred Phelps does what he does because of his Christianity, but Reverend Fred Rogers did what he did in spite of his Christianity.


Bible criticism
You may be a fundy atheist if....

You become upset when a Christian says that not everything in the Bible should be taken literally.
You dislike how liberal theists try to interpret the Bible for themselves, while you create your own interpretations of the Bible for yourself: (a) Exodus 34 contains a new set of 10 Commandments; (b) Jesus asked His disciples to slay all His enemies.
You have actually calculated, for purposes of "argument by outrage," an estimate of the number of people drowned in The Flood.
You can quote from the bible better than most missionaries...at least the parts where someone dies.
You label all scholars that actually believe the Bible as "biased fundies" while those who don't believe it are known as "honest" and "accepted scholarship."
You insist that the Bible cannot possibly say anything about homosexuality being a sin, because they did not even have a concept of homosexuality at the the Bible was written...then insist that the Bible says that David and Jonathan were married.
......AND you produce a long list of verses containing the words "children","touching",and "bowels".
You think you have refuted the whole Trilemma because you've added another alternative to it.
You dismiss any attempt to harmonize the resurrection accounts by saying "one says A, the other says B, but none say A+B", then go on to offer your own elaborate conspiracy theory of what happened to the Jesus' body, describing A+B+C+D, none of which are said ANYWHERE let alone together.
You think that Isaac Asimov was a world-class authority in Biblical Studies.
You make a point of referring to Jesus as "Yeshua" and to God as "Yahveh" in order to hint that they are no different from Molech or Baal.
You use one,or more,of the following alternate spellings: GOD-"gawd" JESUS-"jeeezus" "jayzus" "jebus" "jeebers" BIBLE-"bibble" "babble" "wholly babble" "buy-bull"
You refer to the crucifixion of Jesus as the "cruci-fiction".
When a Christian's interpretation of a passage (based on the social/literary context) solves one of your favorite contradictions, it is only their personal interpretation, and can be dismissed as such. But your interpretation (based on a "plain" reading of the text) to arrive at the contradiction in the first place is entirely objective, and is obviously THE correct interpretation.
Your only knowledge of The Bible comes from searching 'bible contradictions' in Google.
Everytime you don't understand a passage in The Bible, instead of trying to figure it out you blame God for not writting it better.
You think that God would have made things a lot clearer for everyone, ranging from the medieval knight to the Chinese peasant, had He inspired His Word in modern English in words and concepts you could understand. You also ask, when told of the scarceness of paper in the ancient world, why God didn't provide enough paper to write a longer story.
You adamantly believe that "the Bible says pi equals 3" in 1 Kings 7:23 even though: (1) the verse does not make the slightest reference to the calculation of pi, (2) there are more measurements of the bowl from that verse in subsequent verses, (3) the bowl in question could very likely not have been a "perfect" circle with "perfect" measurements, (4) it's not unusual for ancient peoples using ancient tools (or even modern peoples using modern tools) to use round, easy to remember numbers, (5) asking an online math forum results in a refutation of your belief but you ignore what professional mathematicians plainly say (including that the Bible is not in error in this place) and twist their words to make it appear as if they are backing your assertion in order to continue to justify your belief (not that you ever had any intention of doing otherwise in the first place).
You consistently appear on discussion lists demanding that Christians accept your literal interpretation of various scriptural passages just so you can then launch into the usual "argument by outrage" - despite being told over and over that no Bible scholar or school of Christianity shares your particular bizarre literal interpretation.
You pontificate about the Bible as if you are an expert in theology, textual criticism, ancient languages & cultures and much more besides, when your knowledge of the Bible is just cut and paste from atheist discussion lists which cut and paste it from atheist websites which cut and paste it from embarrassingly unscholarly rantings by the likes of Messer's Freke & Gandy and Acharya S., etc.
You can quote Acharya S, Kersey Graves, John Remsburg,and Earl Doherty more fluently than Laurence Olivier could quote Shakespeare.
You create a web site: http://www.EvilBible.c