quote:Dagonee, I can't shake the feeling that you are being intentionally obtuse. You know what Tom means, but you have yet to actually address his point that funamentalism in general is a dangerous thing.
You know what twinky, (edit: voluntarily remove very insulting comment). Tom made a sweeping generalization that people who hold the fundamentalist belief are evil and dangerous, even those who don't want to push their agenda on others. He's assigning blame for the actions of one group to members of a related group. In fact, he called them great threats to this country, making no distinction between believers and actors. And he has confirmed repeatedly in this thread that it's the beliefs themselves he holds dangerous, not how they're acted upon.
quote:If you don't like his definition, then offer your own, for f*#@'s sake, instead of offering snappy one-liners.
If someone says "X is dangerous," it would very rude of me to redefine X on my own and then use that definition to refute his points. I'm very clear on what Tom means, and I've had no reason to change my original assessment of it.
For f*#@'s sake, Tom is the master of snappy one-liners in these discussions. You want to say something substantive, do it. You don't like the way I'm posting, report me, ignore, refute me, or shut the hell up.
posted
"Tom made a sweeping generalization that people who hold the fundamentalist belief are evil and dangerous, even those who don't want to push their agenda on others."
Well, no. I made a blanket statement that the fundamentalist belief -- fundamentalism, if you will -- is evil. The people who ascribe to it may or may not be evil. (And even then, I suspect we should really be using the word "fanaticism," and the only reason we aren't is that people may be uncomfortable with the concept of Christian fanatics.)
posted
You know, it doesn't really work all that well to put "(edit: remove insulting comment)" in there if you don't want to be insulting. Especially when we can see that it's not really an edit.
Edit: That's odd. When I wrote that there was no edit notification at the bottom of your post. If that was just my browser being weird then ignore the second sentence.
quote:Yep. They're all bad in the same way that a Palestinian kid who roots for the stone throwers is bad.
All fundamentalists are bad as someone who roots for stone throwers. Even if they don't root for someone who does the bad actions. That's what you said, Tom.
posted
Dag, I think you're going to regret that post in a minute. Not the content, but the delivery.
--------
As a pure numbers game, of course fundamentalist Christians are more dangerous than terrorists. There are more of them. Taken as a whole, water balloons are more dangerous than terrorists.
Fundamentalists are human, and there are a lot of them. Selected members aren't annoying because they are fundamentalist - they are annoying because they are human. If it wasn't one belief set that justifited the inevitable crappy human actions, it would be something else.
Condemning a whole people because of a few of them are hypocritical humans IS lazy and bigoted. But that's human. Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:You know, it doesn't really work all that well to put "(edit: remove insulting comment)" in there if you don't want to be insulting. Especially when we can see that it's not really an edit.
Edit: That's odd. When I wrote that there was no edit notification at the bottom of your post. If that was just my browser being weird then ignore the second sentence.
I wasn't trying not to be insulting, I was trying not to subject others to the vulgarity. And I edited out of my post in the reply window after pasting it in from my word processor. I edited the post immediately after, but did not add that edit at that time.
quote:Dag, I think you're going to regret that post in a minute. Not the content, but the delivery.
Possibly. But twinky obviously hasn't regretted his, at least not enought to take any action.
I've had to hear arguments just like Tom's all my life aimed at Catholics (specifically at me) from people making grand generalizations based on a partial understanding of what some Pope did to Gallileo. This is not a philosophical issue for me.
posted
I hope this doesn't sound rude, but did you ever think your life might be a little more enjoyable if you didn't take everything quite so personally?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, kat, it's not that I believe fundamentalist humans are capable of doing stupid things. It's that I believe fundamentalism ITSELF is a stupid thing. Ergo, they have chosen to hitch their cart to a horse full o'evil, even if they don't realize it or if they think that horse is going somewhere nice along the coast.
In other words, I think that believing that human lives -- and the ethical structures we've built up to protect them -- are meaningless outside of the context of faith is an inherently dangerous philosophy. It produces a mindset that, far too easily, can be used to justify literally any wicked policy while simultaneously repressing examination or discussion of such policies.
I cannot think of a single case in which fanaticism is healthier than its alternatives.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag: I'm sorry this has been a lot to take. I very much appreciate how you explain your religion here - Catholics everywhere should be proud of you.
quote:In other words, I think that believing that human lives -- and the ethical structures we've built up to protect them -- are meaningless outside of the context of faith is an inherently dangerous philosophy. It produces a mindset that, far too easily, can be used to justify literally any wicked policy while simultaneously repressing examination or discussion of such policies.
So what you're saying is that terrorists are the ultimate expression of everything you find scary in fundamentalism. That's fine - and a whole lot less gratuitously insulting.
---
I half expected saxon to pass me something groovy.
posted
You know what, I don't take that much personally. For some reason someone calling me obtuse seems personal. For some reason, calling someone evil based on a perverted understanding of their beliefs strikes me as personal.
posted
I agree, actually. Catholics take a lot of crap, and Dag's generally very patient when sticking up for his religion.
(Dag, do you not see the distinction between calling a philosophy evil and calling people who call themselves adherents of that philosophy evil? Personally, I don't think most fundamentalists have critically examined enough of their faith to really understand the evil on which they're hanging their hats.)
quote:In other words, I think that believing that human lives -- and the ethical structures we've built up to protect them -- are meaningless outside of the context of faith is an inherently dangerous philosophy. It produces a mindset that, far too easily, can be used to justify literally any wicked policy while simultaneously repressing examination or discussion of such policies.
While an ethical construct outside any sense of responsibility to a higher authority can also justify any wicked policy while simultaneously repressing examination or discussion of such policies.
posted
Dags, I'll grant you that the obtuse thing was personal. I'm not convinced that Tom was talking about you or your specific beliefs, nor that he misunderstands things as much as you think he does, nor that you fully understand his position. That may be because I, myself, am misunderstanding things. But I'll certainly agree that the obtuse thing was personal.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"While an ethical construct outside any sense of responsibility to a higher authority can also justify any wicked policy while simultaneously repressing examination or discussion of such policies."
Only if you attempt to classify that ethical construct as unassailable. And, as far as I know, the only way to do that is to appeal to a higher authority.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good point, Dag. I think the issue here is individuals choosing to be evil. I don't think there are many groups of organized religion that I would call evil. "Give me your money and you will be saved" comes to mind, if I am trying to just come up with something on the fly.
If you examine the actual doctrine of the group, you will find mostly good most of the time. But the followers, being human, will often twist those doctrines to serve their own purposes.
Does the same go for terrorists? If we look at the doctrines of Islam, does it condone their behavior, or are they smaller clumps who in their bitterness and anger, have twisted Islam to their purposes?
Is that what a fundamentalist or fanatic is? Someone who has twisted doctrine to an evil purpose?
quote:Only if you attempt to classify that ethical construct as unassailable. And, as far as I know, the only way to do that is to appeal to a higher authority.
Or if you pronounce a whole host of ethical constructs as inadmissible because they do rely on a higher authority.
posted
I read this entire thread before posting, and nowhere has Tom actually called YOU a fundamentalist OR a fantic, Dagonee. But you went ahead and made that assumption right after his first post, and everything you've posted to this thread since then has played off that assumption. I assumed you were doing it on purpose, since I didn't know that this was a hot-button issue for you.
Edited to add: Clearly, I was wrong, and you aren't being obtuse. Sorry for saying so, then.
quote:Dag, do you not see the distinction between calling a philosophy evil and calling people who call themselves adherents of that philosophy evil? Personally, I don't think most fundamentalists have critically examined enough of their faith to really understand the evil on which they're hanging their hats.
Tom, you've not made that clear at all:
quote:I think it's safe to say that all Christian fundamentalists have pledged allegiance to the Christian god and are therefore responsible for His behavior.
quote:All these fundamentalists have to fall back upon, then, is their faith that the complete destruction of the human race is better -- on an absolute moral level -- than any other alternative.
I find that philosophy pretty darn evil, and am unapologetic about it.
There's not many other ways to take these statements.
Besides, there's an inherent unfairness to what you're doing. If what the fundamentalists believe is true, then that belief contains compelling arguments as to why those acts aren't evil. You're picking and choosing from amongst their beliefs.
quote:Dags, I'll grant you that the obtuse thing was personal. I'm not convinced that Tom was talking about you or your specific beliefs, nor that he misunderstands things as much as you think he does, nor that you fully understand his position. That may be because I, myself, am misunderstanding things. But I'll certainly agree that the obtuse thing was personal.
I didn't think he was talking about my beliefs until much later in the discussion.
posted
Farmgirl, my brother in law is currently attending Dalls Theological Seminary. it's a wonderful school, if your pastor is a graduate from there then he is certainly a very intelligent and dedicated person, it's not an easy program to complete.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
To answer my own question about what a fundamentalist is or a fanatic:
I think a fundamentalist is someone who is trying to get to the heart of their religion, feeling that the main group has gone astray. They may be good or bad. But fundamentalism of itself is not evil, IMO.
A fanatic, on the other hand, implies being misguided. It is a better word, I think.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Can we condemn them as evil just because their Faith, every bit as strong as yours, didn't happen to share the same tenets?
I claim it is evil in that it goes against my morality. Isn't that what we all define evil as being? I understand Tom and twinky thinking the God of the Old Testament is evil. I disagree, perhaps because I feel I have additional information that puts those things in perspective.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: There aren't any records of God or Jesus appearing to these poor heathens to save their souls.
If you believe that The Book of Mormon is an actual scriptural and historical record, then yes, there is.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bev - you define evil as per your individual sense of morality. Do you believe in the possibility of something as evil that you might not personally consider as evil?
Or better - something someone else considers evil but you don't classify it as such. Is evil then subjective, a matter of opinion and perspective?
And I may have to sit down and read the Book of Mormon for reference material - but I haven't seen anything in secular history to suggest this.
posted
Trevor, I believe in an absolute morality, that God is the only one who fully understands it. I think that I may be wrong on some of my assessments. I am, after all, only human. And all us humans seem to differ ever-so-slightly in our regard for what is moral and what is immoral. I do not condone the behavior of terrorists. But they believe they are doing God's will. I think they are not.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think a fundamentalist is someone who is trying to get to the heart of their religion, feeling that the main group has gone astray. They may be good or bad. But fundamentalism of itself is not evil, IMO.
I think that's a good definition, actually -- or at least, it makes sense to me and I can't offhand think of any group I would consider "fundamentalist" who doesn't fit that description.
I don't think fundamentalism is evil, but I think it can be dangerous simply because that sort of focus can result in narrow-mindedness and outright blindness, things which I think are very, very dangerous. I think everybody needs to be able to at least LISTEN to everybody else, and fundamentalism can lead to fanatacism:
quote:A fanatic, on the other hand, implies being misguided. It is a better word, I think.
I agree that fanatic is a better word, but would you consider a Christian fanatic "misguided" even though they believe in one of the same books as you? (Leaving the Book of Mormon aside for the moment, let's just stick to the one book all Christians have in common for now ).
Edit:
I guess what I mean, to clarify, is: would you consider such a person "misguided" or just "overzealous" or some similar adjective?
quote: I agree that fanatic is a better word, but would you consider a Christian fanatic "misguided" even though they believe in one of the same books as you?
Sure. I believe there are Christian fanatics, and many of them believe in the Bible as I do. Heck, I believe there are LDS fanatics and they believe in all the same books of scripture as I do. Yes, I think it can be dangerous and even evil when taken too far.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
I've lost my direction but I double my speed The signs on your heart are too tough to read This road is too lonely, I cry for the light. I race past your window, get lost in the night. And the trail is too dim, or my soul is just damned, Am I chasing shadows or do you hold my hand? My unwhispered question, "Am I out of your grace?" Is forgotten behind me, sacrificed to the chase. And so I run or I limp, I fly or I crawl You lift up my heart, but then let me fall. I'm not looking for answers, just a moment of peace But the dark path runs long, and there is no release.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, you make me never want to even try to write poetry. That's gorgeous. Do you have a book?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Do the numbers really matter? I think the reasons matter far more."
Why did God have Jesus killed, again? There are several Christian religions which believe that this fulfilled a need for blood sacrifice. If the numbers don't matter, why is this philosophy different from what the Mayans did?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see some pretty major differences from the outset. But perhaps I don't understand Mayan culutre all that well. Tell me, were their human sacrifices willing sacrifices, or were they forced? Were they taken from the rebellious, or as prizes of war? I don't know the circumstances, so that makes it hard to compare and contrast with something else.
Tom, how familiar are you with LDS doctrine about the atonement? I am not an expert on the doctrine of other denominations, so I don't know how it compares. I have never believed that "God killed his Son". I do, however, believe that the atonement was necessary for mankind's redemption from the consequences of the Fall.
posted
PSI, in what sense? I imagine to some people I am a fanatic. I prefer "dedicated". I figure the difference is in whether, in the eye of the beholder, the person is misguided in their dedication.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not much for rhyming couplets usually, but your wordplay's pretty good, Scott. Of course, I knew that already from your propensity for humour
quote:Sure. I believe there are Christian fanatics, and many of them believe in the Bible as I do. Heck, I believe there are LDS fanatics and they believe in all the same books of scripture as I do. Yes, I think it can be dangerous and even evil when taken too far.
Then I think we mostly agree. I imagine there are plenty of specific cases we'd disagree on, but that's fine as long as we're speaking the same language Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't feel like reading the 32433432545 posts that turned up while I was at work, but why did God punish the whole species for a mistake 2 people made? This never, ever, ever, makes sense to me...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Death coming was a consequence, but not a punishment. The fall had to happen - it was part of the plan from the beginning.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
twinky, I just saw your second post w/ edit about the obtuse comment. Thanks.
What are rules of ettiquette on removing parts of a post that, as Kat so wisely predicted, I regret the delivery in? Is it disingenuous to do so once people have commented on it?
posted
God follows laws and is bound by them. The consequence of Adam and Eve partaking was death. No way around that. Christ's death and subsequent ressurrection allows all man to be ressurrected, good or evil. The ressurrection brings them back into the presence of God the Father. Whether or not they stay in His presence is another matter.
The other consequence of the partaking is the nature to sin. No one can sin and thereafter endure the presence of God except through the atonement of Christ, His suffering for the sins of man. There was absolutely no other way.
This, of course brings up a whole slew of new questions. Feel free to ask.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
it's a wonderful school, if your pastor is a graduate from there then he is certainly a very intelligent and dedicated person, it's not an easy program to complete.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
