I know I think I did say that it was a personal opinion, and just in my exseriance heavily religious people are very ignorant towards other people. So I was just generaliseing this with missionaries, and it does not help that I have a genuine dislike for almost all religions! Why cant you help people without bringing religion into it, pluse I am awear that some people only do good things to ensure that they get into 'Heaven'. Why cant people do this without being 'bribed', another thing that anoys me about some religious people.
But I am generalising, there are ofcourse people whome are nice and do not use their religion as a tool or contract! Sorry for the spelling, tired!
"Why cant you help people without bringing religion into it...?"
--> There a lot of good people out there, who help others without bringing religion into it. It is the type of people you mention who seem to ruin it for everyone.
"...some people only do good things to ensure that they get into 'Heaven'."
--> It has been said that people who do this are doing it for a selfish reason. As a reult, the time that it earns them in Heaven is a lot shorter than they imagine.
"Why cant people do this without being 'bribed'"
--> I thnk there are a lot of people who do good things without a reward as a motivation. Although there are not a lot of this kind of people, if we are diligent, I think we can see such people around us.
I am reminded of people who do good things just so they can get praise and increased social standing in this world. It has been said that these good deeds do not earn them any extra time in Heaven at all. The joke is on them!
"But I am generalising, there are of course people whome are nice and do not use their religion as a tool or contract!"
--> I believe the day will come when most people will be as you have described. I am very much waiting for that day.
After that is moving to the stage of examining and inquiring. This is characterized by having religious beliefs, but only beliefs that can hold up under the test of constant questioning and asking "What if....?" For the small number of people who a lucky enough to get to this stage, religion can be a powerful thing indeed.
I doubt very many people who get to this stage come through it with their religion intact. I was brought up Methodist, went to church twice on Sundays and took Bible study classes once a week. I got to the questioning stage at about 14, thanks to an excellent Religious Studies teacher. When my beliefs became subject to intelligent scrutiny, they dissolved one-by-one. I would now consider myself agnostic with a pagan leaning because what used to be my belief in God has become awe and respect for nature - who can claim that the universe we live in is anything other than awe-inspiring? When you reach that stage, you have no use for narrow concepts like those espoused by most religions.
"I doubt very many people who get to this stage come through it with their religion intact."
--> And, it is a very good thing! People who really "have it all together" will take the step and ask question after question of a fossilized religion. "Pursue the truth no matter where it takes you." It sounds like that is what you did. Good for you!
"When my beliefs became subject to intelligent scutiny they dissolved one-by-one."
--> For some people, it is a very painful process. For me, it was difficult in the beginning, but became more exiting as time went on.
--> Me neither, but perhaps because of a different reason than you. If I had a lot of open-minded people around me, I would talk about religion all the time!
~~~
I think what Thor, Tsuyoi Ko and I are saying is this: Having an open attitude toward religion, and having religious ideas that * make * sense * can be a lot of fun. (It sure has been for me.)
I know that the fundamentalists have a warm feeling when they think of their religion. The funny thing is, I have just a warm feeling when I think of mine, but it is tempered with an openess, a willingness (nay, a searching for) questions that cannot be answered by someone else's religion. To me, the pursuit of these questions is the very essence of religion. (Not so for the fundamentalists!)
I have always been amazed by how fundamentalists hate certain questions. Fundamentalists always get uncomfortable when I discuss religion with them. (Get uncomfortable? Shouldn't they be enjoying it...?) For me, the more probing and key-point questions, the better. When it gets to that high intellectual point, it's fun!
I am not suggesting that we have debates with the fundmentalists. Many times that is a waste of time. Instead, I am suggesting we ask these questions to ourselves, and to other open-minded people. Debating (and pushing religious concepts to the limits) with open-minded people is how the fun I am talking about gets created.
I have always been amazed by how fundamentalists hate certain questions. Fundamentalists always get uncomfortable when I discuss religion with them. (Get uncomfortable? Shouldn't they be enjoying it...?) For me, the more probing and key-point questions, the better. When it gets to that high intellectual point, it's fun!
Excellent point Buntaro. Fundamentalists are afraid to question because they subconsciously fear that their beliefs will not stand up to scrutiny, but are unwilling to abandon something that is a comfort source. It is largely fear of the unknown - whereas the likes of us relish the opportunity to explore the unknown and find out it beats 'comfort' hands down!
Just wanted to point out that someone that believes in, and tries to follow Jesus is in fact a christian. Jehovah's Witnesses believe in Christ and they also use the Bible as their guide.
This is the more correct understanding, I would say, about the JW people, but the Book of Mormon is somewhat different from the basic Bible. The New World Translation that the JWs use is actually a very direct translation from the HBS (which came from the Lenigrad B-14, if I recall correctly) and the Wescott & Hort Greek recension, just like all other translations (versions could be said to be less based on the original languages--The KJ, for example)
The problem with all those sad and strange things that those kind-hearted folks have been brainwashed into thinking--no B-days because of the bad reports the Bible gives (beheadings), and disfellowshipping (even your own children--and all because of a quote from 1st Corinthinans)--is that it is all grounded in the not-allowed-to-be-questioned teaching that the Christian Bible (as opposed to say just the Tanakh (Jewish)) is THE infalliable WORD OF GOD. It is here where the whole problem with these database belief-systems invariably break down under careful scrutiny.
Trust me, I spent some three and a half years trying to see if the WT Society in Brooklyn would admit to the facts of false quotes (the Synoptic Problem), and they failed to deal with me openly and honestly--as several other 'missionary-based' groups have done. If these people could be honest with the facts, o.k. but most people (especially here in Japan) simply do NOT have the resouces not the time to check out persuasive, silver-lined arguments regarding the data bases--the Tanakh, the first century Christian canon, and the Quran. Let's be honest, reasonable, and fair .
I know that the fundamentalists have a warm feeling when they think of their religion. The funny thing is, I have just a warm feeling when I think of mine, but it is tempered with an openess, a willingness (nay, a searching for) questions that cannot be answered by someone else's religion. To me, the pursuit of these questions is the very essence of religion. (Not so for the fundamentalists!)I have always been amazed by how fundamentalists hate certain questions. Fundamentalists always get uncomfortable when I discuss religion with them. (Get uncomfortable? Shouldn't they be enjoying it...?) For me, the more probing and key-point questions, the better. When it gets to that high intellectual point, it's fun!
I am not suggesting that we have debates with the fundmentalists. Many times that is a waste of time. Instead, I am suggesting we ask these questions to ourselves, and to other open-minded people. Debating (and pushing religious concepts to the limits) with open-minded people is how the fun I am talking about gets created.
Excellent point Buntaro. Fundamentalists are afraid to question because they subconsciously fear that their beliefs will not stand up to scrutiny, but are unwilling to abandon something that is a source of comfort to them. It is largely fear of the unknown - whereas the likes of us relish the opportunity explore the unknown and find out it beats 'comfort' hands down!
I'd personally love to hear one of these "uncomfortable" questions. Can we define "fundamentalists" first, just to make sure we're talking about the same group??
I'd personally love to hear one of these "uncomfortable" questions. Can we define "fundamentalists" first, just to make sure we're talking about the same group??
May I sugguest that one may be able to define a 'Christian' fundamentalist as one who would either get very angry and totally attack the questioner on some totally irrelevant point, not answer and try to change the subject, offer some quite illogical and naturally impossible explanation, or (among other possibilities) make an effort to pretend there is no problem when one would ask such 'Christian' the following:
How can it be possible that Jesus (a member of the Trinity, and virtually equal to God) couldn't remember what he had said so much of the time when he (supposedly, as a fundamentalist would naturally believe) inspired the penning of the Gospel narratives? [Direct quotations are claims to know what a speaker has said verbatum, and a such would have to be the same as if the conversation had been recorded--they represent historical fact. Yet it is impossible to say two or more different sentences at one time, so some of the Gospel writers just got it wrong--actually a rather matterial portion of it wrong. Therefore we just cannot say that that history is correct, and it boils down to the most logical, realistical conclusion that the Bible is wrong. (the OT does not fair much better).
Depending on the response to that question, I'd say we could have a pretty fair gauged understanding of whether the other party were a fundimentalist or not.
I have argued and argued with fundamentalists, and I have come to the conclusion that a lot of it is just a waste of time. I haven't quite gone so far as to let them walk all over me, but I don't instigate such discussions, or try to debate with them. Fun debates assume the other person has an open mind, which fundamentalists do not have. I can debate with them and win, but I now realize that there are better ways to spend my time.
Having rip-roaring discussions with open-minded people, however, can be a lot of fun. Unfortunately, it is so difficult to find open-minded people!!!
May I sugguest that one may be able to define a 'Christian' fundamentalist as one who would either get very angry and totally attack the questioner on some totally irrelevant point, not answer and try to change the subject, offer some quite illogical and naturally impossible explanation, or (among other possibilities) make an effort to pretend there is no problem when one would ask such 'Christian' the following:
That definition from a theological standpoint has too many variables in it. If it were not for the word "Christian" in it, it could apply to any number of people or groups or to cult members who call themselves Christian. One needs a valid mutual point from which to start before one can address a problem or discussion.
And I see Buntaro doesn't want to answer at all. *shrugs*
I have had little experience with missionaries so I have a small question.
Is it the view of the missionaries to aid a person without a "must convert" agenda or is the job of the missionaries to convert as many people as they can?
Whenever I hear of missionaires they are always depicted as people who force you to your way of thinking.
1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
2. a. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
b. Adherence to the theology of this movement.
My italics in the first definition indicate what I mean by 'fundamentalist'.
"'I'd personally love to hear one of these "uncomfortable" questions."
"And I see Buntaro doesn't want to answer at all. *shrugs*"
--> Oh, I am always ready to respond, as long as there is an atmosphere of openess rather than contentiousness. It is one of the most important things in my life to promote open-mindedness in religions, and promote critical-thinking to "goofy" religious ideas.
The most important thing in inter-religious communication is repect. Some people feel that my pointing out "goofy" ideas in their religion is disrespectful, which is why I shy away from such a thing. Pointing out inconsistencies in the Bible, etc, can turn into a negative experience, even though it would very educational to some people. Pararousia-san, do you lean more towards the liberal or conservative side of the religious spectrum?
Tsuyoiko and Buntaro,
Thank you for both of your replies. I have been a Christian since October 9, 1969 and I have read & studied the Bible both as a personal source of strength, truth and direction and as a textbook in college. I'm aware that many people start off life from a place where there is more of an absence of godly influence in their lives and from that lack of truth, they are forced to piece-meal together what makes sense to them. People gather truths from one source and from another until they form a life's philosophy or creed. I certainly don't wish to sound puffed-up in any way, but I have found Absolute Truth in Christ. Not, mind you, the errors of Christians and those who would call themselves Christians down through the ages, so please don't bring up Hitler and so many others who have mis-used truth to their own maniacal means. We can't look at people like ourselves to discover Truth.
This thread has crammed together so many people's experiences with so many different types of Christians, non-Christians, cult members, ad naseum. Then somewhere someone threw in the word "fundamentalist". I assume that we're not including fundamentalist Muslims, but are fundamentalist Mormons included? I consider myself to be "fundamentalist" but even Webster/Tsuyoiko's definition doesn't clarify things a great deal. When you toss out the word fundamentalist you have to throw in a bit of theology too...quite a bit of theology actually to really define the group to which you're referring. I personally do not foam at the mouth if someone asks me a question to which I don't have an answer as was implied in another post...does that make me less a fundamentalist?
We have to come to a common gridwork from which to debate or an agreed upon perspective or we will quickly whip up a cloud of dust that does no one any good.
I've always found a good starting point in a discussion to be the simple question, "who did Christ claim to be." If that cannot be resolved, then issues about everything else really do not matter. Correct? Without Christ, there is no Christianity, Bible, fundamentalism, etc., etc., and no debate.
My dear comrade, Paraousia--the name reminds me of the Greek word for 'presence'--let me first say that I am honestly happy that you ARE happy with your belief-system, regardless of whatever. Happiness is very important for the human psyche. then, if you would look over the entire context of my later post, I think you would realize that it is not theologically oversized.
We have been running along the thread of 'missionaries in Japan' and things that entail that subject. In this line of thought, I would like to maybe clarify that post to make it clearer.
Without doubt we are talking of Bible based groups (I carefully read ALL seven pages and found a fair degree of ignorance on the Bible) and in trying to find a gauge for 'fundamentalist' I think we would have to go down to the Bible itself--that is the very foundation for all tenents and dogma. ( I mean, you'd have to agree, what would anyone know if there had actually been no written documents left over?) So, when one discusses the Bible in factual detail with another who is making any effort to propugate anything from that same source, and provides the facts to show that that source is not reliable, one of two things may occur--the other party may take a reasonable, logical, and realistic stance towards the facts, or may take the opposite. The person who takes the opposite, I would argue, could be described as a 'fundamentalist'. Christian fundamentalism has to keep the Bible intact as a single-volume book by a single omniscient author, inerrant in the smallest of detail. When this clause of dogma is undermined, one who would thus show signs of being fundamentalist in nature (according to the above gauge) who refuse to adhere to what is known to be true fact.
I hear you Bruntaro, but would suggest that next time the opportunity comes around, try to get the one who's attempting to publish his/her Christian dogma, to explain the Synoptic Problem, or how it could be that all those direct quotes (a claim to KNOW, verbatum what one has historically spoken {and what is done cannot be undone}) are mostly impossible to reconcile. Ask them who actually penned say, the Book of Matthew--it wasn't the disciple for sure. What about the Book of John? According to the Muratorim Fragment (sp?) dated back to the mid-second century, that book was compiled by at least three or four people with the aged Apostle sitting as editor or, since the fragment's latin is obscure, the others sitting in as editors on John's telling. Arguments along these lines, not about abstract philosophical conceptions and such, produces results. DRAWBACK: one has to take the time to study the Koine Greek, and the Greek recensions, biblical literature, classical Hebrew, the BHK, LXX, and reaaally study the whole dadburn collection of scrolls and letters. It took me some 10 years.
Some have given some good tactics for getting away from those who wish to publish--and these ARE people that we are talking about, so without bashing the human behind the activity (many are rather 'mind-controlled' into a mode of thinking--not necessarily how to think, but what to think) I have know a good number of Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, as well as Southern Baptist, Penacostal, etc. My grandfather was a devout Methodist circuit preacher, several uncles on 'missions to save the world', and they are all held dearly in my heart, but I would say that they are fundamentalists, and so if they want to discuss their religious beliefs with me they'll have to prove the validity of the Bible first--which they have failed to do, and so never talk to me about their religious ideas any longer.
This is a great discussion on the missionary work in Japan.
I'm aware that many people start off life from a place where there is more of an absence of godly influence in their lives and from that lack of truth, they are forced to piece-meal together what makes sense to them. People gather truths from one source and from another until they form a life's philosophy or creed.
As I think I have said before, I didn't start out this way. I was brought up a Christian - and believed it - until the age of 12 or 13, when a lady at church told us that if we wished to go to heaven we had to surrender our lives to Christ. This put all kinds of questions in my head, and in attempting to answer these questions I lost my faith and found my truth. I'm sure I'm not alone.
Do you believe that the Bible is literal? Are you intolerant of other views and opposed to secularism? If so I would also consider you a fundamentalist.
Pararousia said:
I've always found a good starting point in a discussion to be the simple question, "who did Christ claim to be."
@ Pararousia - I wouldn't really call you a fundamentalist. You have your belief, but you strike me as open minded to other peoples points of view. You read them and discuss them in a balanced and intelligent way, not just on this thraed, but on others as well. You have never forced your views on others, or got very nasty when faced with others attacking your beliefs. I have found that fundamentalists are extreme in their beliefs and are unwilling to hear anything that goes against their beliefs.
Pararousia said:
I've always found a good starting point in a discussion to be the simple question, "who did Christ claim to be." If that cannot be resolved, then issues about everything else really do not matter. Correct? Without Christ, there is no Christianity, Bible, fundamentalism, etc., etc., and no debate.
I find with or without Jesus there would still be fundamentalism amoung other religions, especially Jews. Remember that the OT is Jewish in origin, not Christian. I'm sure there is enough in that testament alone to create fundamentalists. As to Jesus and his claims we must tread carefully within the way that people interpret texts within the NT. I have met people within the Christain community, but from different denominations that will argue that one piece of text means something different to what the other believes
Tsuyoiko said:
As I think I have said before, I didn't start out this way. I was brought up a Christian - and believed it - until the age of 12 or 13, when a lady at church told us that if we wished to go to heaven we had to surrender our lives to Christ. This put all kinds of questions in my head, and in attempting to answer these questions I lost my faith and found my truth. I'm sure I'm not alone.
This is what drove Douglas Adams to become an atheist. It was about the same age I started to question religion as a whole. It struck me that nobody was willing to answer these questions to satisfy me. It was the lack of logic or willingness to listen to difficult questons . the main one being "What was before God?". I'm sorry if this will upset any believers out there, but as a non-believer you expect other nonbelievers to answer the question of what created the universe? but you seem unwilling to answer what created God? Just normally duck out of an answer by saying God is eternal.
Mars Man said:
DRAWBACK: one has to take the time to study the Koine Greek, and the Greek recensions, biblical literature, classical Hebrew, the BHK, LXX, and reaaally study the whole dadburn collection of scrolls and letters. It took me some 10 years.
Do you study other religions as well? I find the whole subject quite fasinating. along with mythology and ancient history you can see where these belief systems come from.
I agree. The fact you are asking our opinion and willing to listen suggests you are not a fundamentalist Pararousia.
Mycernius said:
It was about the same age I started to question religion as a whole. It struck me that nobody was willing to answer these questions to satisfy me. It was the lack of logic or willingness to listen to difficult questons . the main one being "What was before God?"
I think it is natural to question things when you hit your teens. The lack of logic is probably my main problem. I operate on the principle of Occam's razor, and it seems that religion overcomplicates things unnecessarily. The main question for me was why surrendering my life was seen as a good thing. For me, it is important to take responsibility for one's own life and to have as much control as possible.
Firstly to answer Mycernius' question: Yes. I have studied Buddhism, the lesser wheel type stuff, but not so deeply. I think this is more of the Shri Lankan style teaching. I have studied Hinduism--have read the Mahabharata and the Ramayana, along with some adbridged translations of the RigVeda. Of course I have looked a little into Judism--as so well pointed out a number of times in this thread line, it is the basis for our (very likely Essenian based) Christianity. I do have the tanakh--the work done by Kittle which is like the second edition of the BHS which is a compilation of fragments and scrolls which either support the Leningrad B-14 Hebrew work or differ from it. I have the same thing, sort of, in the Greek (ie. the Septuiguint(sp?)) {Hey, I always tell my new students at the Uni, my spelling accuracy is only 70%} I have read on Taoism and Shinto , as well as Islam, but do not I Ching, nor the Nihongi , nor the Quran (though I've read portions of the later and have seen journal reports on the different readings of some places in the Quran). I'm very into Nature at the moment--but not quite what you would call 'Naturalism'. I happen to be as big on science as I am on religious knowledge.
OH, and by the way, it came to mind yesterday, after having posted that I left room for misunderstanding. I did not study the biblical stuff with the presupposition that it was wrong, setting out then to prove so, no I was once a Christian, I was studying so as to really know the truth--let me tell you dear folks, I was almost 'hope-to-die' Christian. ( sounds like that could be labeled with that 'F' word, but obviously not, because like our dear friend Paraousia, I kept an open mind towards the whole thing and when something didn't click, I studied all the harder to see where the glitch lay--and I found it, its the writtings of some 40 different people over a span of some 600 or so odd years all thrown together into one book-like form by some fundamentalists who wanted to see it as all having come from a single author.
Paraousia, there is a slight logic loop problem in one earlier statement, it seems. I tried to quote just that portion here, but I'm not sure if I got it. Anyway, it's the point about. . .'if there's no Christ, then there's no . . .Bible. . .' There problem may lie in that one could equally argue that without the Bible, there would be no Christ. I mean, we can only have conscious, empirical knowledge about something which has been so recieved by our brains, and we all know the old 'pass the sentence down the line ' game that is so funny when it comes out all wrong. Regardless of the memory techniques that the Middle Easterners and other used, which were almost miraculous in themselves, there would have been greater corruption if it had only been left up to oral story telling. It's good to keep in mind that the different genres of the Gospel story, even as close as they are to the source ( the Q theory, or the possibility that the Hebrew language 'Book of Matthew source 1 could have been as early as 41CE) are still flawed because of human error. You just can't remember everything. jj
Therefore, I think it would be preferable to put the source of information about any particular in the first prioity of importance, rather than the opposite. Wouldn't you reason that way?
Finally--and please do forgive my wordy posts--getting back to a comment about arguing with the missionaries by (UH OH...Buntaro?) if they prove to not be able to honestly answer the Synoptic Problem questions or show realistic and logical power of reason when I explain the truth behind texts such as 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 3:14-17, then I talk no more because, as you learned from experience, it seems, you just can't get anywhere with them. Besides, to quote one from the book on Murphey's Law:
THE FIRST LAW OF DEBATE: Never argue with a fool--people might not know the difference.
Enjoy this great summer !!
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
