|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
QuickSearch
|
|
| Alfred Maddenstein, Capt Stormfield, kjsimons, NoNukes, Panda, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat) (7 members, 85 visitors)
| ||||||
| Chatting now: | Chat room empty | ||||||
| Zift Ylrhavic Resfear | |||||||
| Percy | |||||||
|
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Pick and Choose Fundamentalism | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Taz Member  Posts: 5012 From: Zerus Joined: |
Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
doctrbill Member (Idle past 387 days)  Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
Rationale?! From Fundie's?! Are you Serious?! I'm not so sure that they "worship each word in Genesis." Anyhoo. Having read the thread to date I must disagree with dwise1’s “former fundamentalist.” The Jesus Freaks, however disgusting, were a logical outgrowth of fundamentalist indoctrination. Some years before those freaks appeared, I too had taken steps in that direction, (driven by my fundamentalist approach to Bible study) coming home from college long haired, unshaven, wearing sandals and a trench coat (my notion of a 'modern' robe). :D I was a ministerial student and volunteer Bible instructor well versed in our church's program (crash course) of indoctrination and induction. Our method had already been in play for about a hundred years, and continues today, virtually unchanged (except that I am no longer a part of it). Granted, there was a broader foundation of biblical study but the overwhelming emphasis was on those “24-verses” (thank you SGT Snorkel). :) Those verses reminded us that we were inherently evil, essentially worthless, and totally helpless without the assistance of Jesus (among other things). Also: when to come to meeting, and where to put our money. Prior to college graduation our ministerial candidates were expected to have memorized more than a hundred Bible verses which supposedly supported our peculiar set of doctrines (SDA). Within five years, however, I was able to demonstrate from the Bible that our doctrines were so much hooey. I came to read it myself, and in context you see; including the chapters which had been ignored or abridged and the verses which had been skipped over, or cut in half. Can you imagine how furious I became, having devoted my life to the service of God and Church, only to realize that our edifice of truth was a house of cards? About that "former fundamentalist" comment that "the congregations largely failed to carry through with their Bible study -- " My experience suggests that Christian audiences are systematically deterred from exploring the Bible (despite casual appearances to the contrary). Even when believers read outside the bounds prescribed by their instructors, they are likely to distrust their own understanding and rather defer to the clergyman's opinion. That response is only natural but this fact in itself does not explain the phenomenal resistance, among fundamentalists, to form a truly personal opinion. Conformity to official interpretations is further encouraged by instructing Bible students to ignore their own opinion. This anti-intellectual instruction is reinforced by quoting scripture: "Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not rely on your own insight." Proverbs 3:5 RSV I cannot say, at this time, whether that scripture is relevant to Bible study. What I can say is that it is one of the few study guidelines offerd to students by their fundie Bible instructors. In a fundamentalist congregation, you risk expulsion if your insight strays from the norm. The prejudice against personal opinion is not limited to the corporate realm but is a powerful factor in fundamentalist family life as well. For example: I came home from college one Christmas, while studying New Testament Greek, and offered my father the unique translation I had made of John 2:4 (one of the more difficult to translate, according to my instructor). I was rather proud of my effort. I figured I had nailed it. Certainly an improvement over the King James Version of the text. I don't know how I expected my father to respond. But it wasn't the loving father routine. He wasn't going to post my latest art on the refrigerator. No. He surprised me big time; seemingly all out of proportion to the sin which he seemed to think I had committed. He raged. He clenched his massive fists and stepped forward half raising them, as if to attack and glared at me wide-eyed for a second; then lowered his guns to a standby position; and, red-faced and surly, he challenged: " What !Now you think you're smarter than God ? " The old man is gone now, but not before he saw me become an atheist Sunday School teacher. He had mellowed a bit by then but I don't think he expected me to join him in heaven. Arrogance may not be a fundamentalist requirement but it appears to be well accepted in the congregations. Theology is the science of Dominion. - - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
SGT Snorkel Junior Member (Idle past 1646 days)  Posts: 23 From: Boone, IA USA Joined: |
I was once teaching a 6th grade Sunday School class, a wonderful age because they are old enough to really start asking challenging questions. Naturally there were questions on a literal Garden of Eden, a literal flood, etc. The next week, I took the first 100 words of Genesis (I used a Revised Standard Version) and just wrote down how many definitions were in the dictionary for each word. For the exercise I just used the American Heritage Dictionary. Consider just the first three words "In the beginning..." For the word "In" I find 19 total definitions, the word "the" I find 6 definitions, and the word "beginning" has 5 definitions. As I told the class, "You and I could read any verse in the Bible, any chapter in the Bible, or any book in the Bible. We could then write down in our own words what it meant. None of our answers would be the same." The point, I told them, and I hope they kept it, is that you can try and be a "fundamentalist" but in the end you still have to decide what it means to you and what you are going to take away from it. It's the same as if we read J.R.R. Tolkein, Louis Lamour, or Stephen King, everyone will take something different from it. I guess what I am trying to say in my own confused way, everyone is going to have to pick and choose what, if anything, in the Bible is important to them, and there is no rhyme nor reason as to why they choose what they do or why they discard what they do.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Taz Member Posts: 5012 From: Zerus Joined: |
For example, I'm pretty sure Joshua 6:20-21 quote: can't be interpreted as... quote: As a challenge, could you tell us if there is any other possible way we can interpret this little passage in Joshua other than the bleedingly obvious interpretation of it, that every man, woman, and child in the city of Jericho was slaughtered upon the command of the all loving christian god? Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member  Posts: 3133 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 8.5 |
This is the thing about fundamentalism. (At least by the definition that most would understand it here.) It isn't mainstream Christianity and never has been. If one is raised in a fundamentalist environment, and then decides to look more deeply into it, they are likely to discard all Christianity because they can no longer accept what I believe to be a distortion of it. Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member  Posts: 7598 From: Stubblejump, Canuckistan Joined: Member Rating: 9.5 |
I don't think that's an example of pick-and-choose fundamentalism. They believe the people deserved to be slaughtered - because God said so. We've seen fundamentalists argue that right here. Their position is perverted but not inconsistent. “Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
dwise1 Member  Posts: 1931 Joined: Member Rating: 9.1 |
My understanding of what he was saying is that the Catholic view is that there is only one true faith and everything else is heresy. So if they give up that one true faith then there is no other faith to turn to. OTOH, Protestist history has been filled with groups splintering off from a parent church over some doctrinal difference and forming their own church. The impression I get from fundamentalists (I spent many years as a "fellow traveller", since several of my friends have been fundamentalists) is that theirs is the only true interpretation of the one true faith, so they'd be in the same boat as Russell's Catholic. {When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy. ("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984) Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world. Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one. Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
doctrbill Member (Idle past 387 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
That may be true for a great many individual Christians but I'm not sure it's true of those who embrace the dominionist movement. These folks seem to know why they choose what they choose; or at least: why they are choosing. The experience which I related re: my fundamentalist father, reflects a rather stern attitude toward freedom of Christian thought but no matter how mellow a dominionist appears to be, he/she is inclined to act, and vote, in ways which threaten freedom of religion. This has some otherwise very mellow Christian people getting up in arms, including Bill Moyers: quote: See the parent site: Theocracy Watch Having devoted my life to studying the Bible and the people who think they understand it: I am extremely concerned for the future of American Liberty: religious and secular. Your liberal easy going approach to Bible study is refreshing. Fact is, however, the subject has been deadly serious in the past and is far from inoccuous today. Have you any idea of the horror which would be unleashed by a joining of church and state? The seriousness of the question was pointed up earlier in this thread by Equinox who wrote: quote: Need I say more? Theology is the science of Dominion. - - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
doctrbill Member (Idle past 387 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
That which you may call "a distortion" of Christianity, the fundamentalist knows as "the true" Christianity. In my experience, fundamentalists are more likely to read the Bible and are generally better informed regarding its content. (Not that it takes a lot to be better informed than the majority of Christians). Fundamentalists are the shock-troops of Christianity. They know that God commands his people to kill the infidel. To their way of thinking: If you don't know what the Bible has to say about such things, then you don't know a lot about the Bible. If one doesn't know the basics (the fundamentals) then how does one determine what is genuine and what is distortion? No offense intended but if we are going to accuse the other guy of having it wrong then we should be able to explain to him how he's wrong. (whether he accepts it or not is another matter) Yes? Theology is the science of Dominion. - - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
dwise1 Member Posts: 1931 Joined: Member Rating: 9.1 |
Thank you for the current links. {When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy. ("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984) Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world. Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one. Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
dwise1 Member Posts: 1931 Joined: Member Rating: 9.1 |
So basically, we are seeing US religion becoming increasingly polarized. {When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy. ("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984) Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world. Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one. Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
doctrbill Member (Idle past 387 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
Yes. Sad but true. And it behooves peace-loving UU's everywhere to bone up on Bible knowledge; if for no other reason than to defeat the great army of ignorants. Have mercy on their souls, however, for they have entrusted their minds to the corrupting influence of a clergy which, through zealotry or greed, are leading them to war against the very Liberties which have allowed them to prosper. The statistics you are trying to recall are located here, in this post by Equinox. BTW. Good to see a UU presence here. :cool: Edited by doctrbill, : To repair link Theology is the science of Dominion. - - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 3133 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 8.5 |
It isn't always just a matter of how well you know your Bible. For example how do you explain to someone that the Genesis story is allegorical. How do you explain to someone that the people who destroyed Jericho and its inhabitants did so because either they needed to justify it, or they heard God wrong. I've tried telling people to read that in the light of the teachings of Jesus and explained how Jesus viewed conflict with the Romans but that thought is just rejected because it isn't consistent with a literal reading of the text. If one insists that the Bible is to be taken absolutely literally then there is no way to explain it to them in any other way. Incidentally I didn't accuse anyone of being wrong, I just said that it is my opinion that they are. (Splitting hairs maybe but it does give a different tone to the discussion.) Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Taz Member Posts: 5012 From: Zerus Joined: |
I've asked this question many times and have so far gotten absolutely no answer from any fundy. Among the people that got killed in Jericho were infants, toddlers, and pregnant women. Were those 2 year olds sinful and therefore deserved to be slaughtered as well? How is this not pick and choose fundamentalism when they absolutely refuse to discuss this at a more individual level? Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member Posts: 7598 From: Stubblejump, Canuckistan Joined: Member Rating: 9.5 |
The OP asks specifically why fundamentalists believe Genesis literally but don't obey the levitical law literally. That's picking and choosing which parts of the Bible they take literally. They do take the slaughter stories literally, even if they can't explain why the slaughter was justified. The excuse for eating pork or shellfish is "Jesus put an end to all that" - which they can't explain either. Your example is in the same category: things that were changed by Jesus. Jesus made slaughter bad and crabs good. Insane but consistent. The Genesis literalism, as per the OP, is different. No good or bad, just happened or didn't happen. “Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Copyright 2001-2013 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2013
