Why not be a fundamentalist of any religion?

[Tom/Mutate]

I don't understand why the newspapers always say Christians, Jews and Muslims are ok as long as they are "moderate"..I don't understand it becasue noone seems to offer a list of the bits which are bad and bits which are ok..ie "creationism, thinking different faiths are going to hell, and disapproval of gays is bad, the peace and love stuff is good". 

I grew up in a conservative, fundamentalist Christian home, and I don't share their beliefs, but I respect them, for this reason.  Sometimes when ever I hear a liberal Christian speaking about the bits of the bible they discard, I hear arrogance - "my own culture and sensiblities are obviously the right ones, so Christianity has to change to accomodate them".   IMO, if the Jewish God says it's wrong to be gay, and it comes from a source you believe in, you should either agree with it or stop worshipping the Jewish God.

PS I went to Quakers for a period of time and they had very liberal beliefs and deep reasons for them so there are liberals I do respect.

I just don't understand when the Liberal newspapaers say stuff like "you shouldn't be discriminated about (X faith) - they are mostly moderate now and have dispensed with the intolerant bits"  I just think, does that mean in their eyes, its ok to follow a faith, as long as you discard the bits they don't like?  I just don't get it at all, to be honest.

[Tom/Mutate]

I think I will add to this.   In the new testament it says stuff like respect each other, don't hurt people, don't sleep around.  It also says that women should not speak in church and keep their heads covered.

Now in the church I grew up in, most of the women wore hats to respect this , but it wasn't a rule and some didn't.  I had a friend who was about 20 at the time who would put a hankerchief thing on her head.  They also interpreted that as that women shouldn't preach the sermon - thye could give bible readings, talks etc, but the actual sermon had to be delivered by a male preacher.

I grew up thinking that was the norm but I now know that the majority of churches in my hometown  see my childhood church as scrict and old fashioned and that it is in the minority.

And they made me sign a petition not to lower the gay age of consent when I was about 15. I just don't get any of it, to be honest.  If it's wrong, why is it in the Bible and how do people know its wrong?  Obviously Christians are getting conflicting messages through their prayers.

[Lucifer]

organised religion is mostly about power and culture, tom.  the definition of fundies is that they take whatever's written in the "holy book" (bible, koran, torah, etc.) as the literal truth, which must not be interpreted on an individual basis.  so the fundies don't interpret it, but leave it to those further up the religious hierarchy to do so, and they do so to further whatever agenda they have, generally.

they can do this because there is one "holy book", which is, basically, dogma.  and this depends on the time and the culture: if you read leviticus nowadays, it's utterly ridiculous - you'll be burning in hell cos you wear ripped clothes/eat prawns/have a wank?  yeah, right - it's potty.  but read it from the perspective of the times, and they were a relatively small group of people moving to another country and trying to establish a nation there.  so, obviously, resources were scarce and you had to keep your clothes together, cos there wasn't going to be a shop you could pop into and replace them.  shellfish in a hot country?  don't bother.  and they were trying to build up the numbers, so having a wank wasted a potential child, etc.  make sense?

but we're not nomadic, and we don't need to up the population, so it all sounds like utter mince now.  and that's where fundies have a problem, cos they still want to take everything literally.

a lot of what you ask is about interpretation.  when i was a catholic, i decided not to accept any "given" interpretation without questioning the whole shebang - my poor priest tried to field my constant philosophical debates, but he just wasn't up to the theological minutiae i wanted.  so yes, i did pick and choose the bits i fancied, if you like.

and that's why my spirituality/path/way of life (i prefer the latter) doesn't involve dogma, or a holy book, or interpretation: i'm more interested in issues/right and wrong/ways of working in the world, much the same as my politics, which are issue-based rather than party-based.

any of that answer any of your questions?  or even make sense? 

[Tom/Mutate]

Yeah, that was interesting to read, thanks.

[IlluSionS667]

I just don't understand when the Liberal newspapaers say stuff like "you shouldn't be discriminated about (X faith) - they are mostly moderate now and have dispensed with the intolerant bits"  I just think, does that mean in their eyes, its ok to follow a faith, as long as you discard the bits they don't like?  I just don't get it at all, to be honest.

"Multi-culturalist" "capitalist" "democracy" is based on mediocricy the lack of a solid belief system. Anyone who has a well-formed belief system either religiously or politically is regarded an extremist because they may form a threat to the foundations of "multi-culturalist" "capitalist" "democracy". They don't want people to think that the profit motive or the normallity of homosexuality actually might be wrong and they certainly don't want people to hold that as powerful ideals.

[Lucifer]

"Multi-culturalist" "capitalist" "democracy" is based on mediocricy the lack of a solid belief system. Anyone who has a well-formed belief system either religiously or politically is regarded an extremist because they may form a threat to the foundations of "multi-culturalist" "capitalist" "democracy".

i actually agree with illusionist on that point.

They don't want people to think that the profit motive or the normallity of homosexuality actually might be wrong and they certainly don't want people to hold that as powerful ideals.

and then he spoiled it with that bit, cos the rest of that sentence makes perfect sense.

[IlluSionS667]

They don't want people to think that the profit motive or the normallity of homosexuality actually might be wrong and they certainly don't want people to hold that as powerful ideals.

and then he spoiled it with that bit, cos the rest of that sentence makes perfect sense.

In our "multi-culturalist" "capitalist" "democracy", the normallity of homosexuality and the equality of all races are basic dogmas, just like the globalist economy, the profit motive and the right of pornographers to sell their filth in your average newspaper stand. Objecting to ANY of those dogmas can grant you the label of "extremist". Don't you see it's quite hypocritical of you to fully agree with me on my argument against the totalitarian nature of liberal-capitalist society yet behave equally intollerant with regards to the dogmas on which you agree?

[Lucifer]

not at all - i don't subscribe to the "agree with one bit of the package, agree with it all" mentality.  i prefer to have informed opinions, and question each bit, rather than being a sheep and taking everything as gospel (excuse the pun) because somebody tells me too.

but then, i'm not and never have been a fundie. 

apart from that, seeing homosexuality as normal and supporting the right of pornographers to sell stuff any old where are not equivalent issues: they do not equate in your argument, even.

and i feel your use of the word "dogma" is a little indiscriminate.  i don't hold to any dogma, which should be clear from what i've said above.

[Tom/Mutate]

I have to say, in my experience, its the people around me, the literal conservative fundamentalists, who seem more informed.  My whole family and their friends are all theology experts. They've studied it, they're read it in its original languages, they discuss the history of which books were accepted into canon and why ,etc.  Some of my liberal Christian friends who accept gays, etc, they don't seem to have a clue why, other than "it's modern, I'm not old fashioned".  They don't read their bible, they don't read books - they're the ones who are sheep and taking what society tells them as gospel, imo.

I personally believe that if Jesus existed then he wanted believers to be fundamentalist and bigoted - thats why I have had such a difficult time keeping my own faith, because I'm not.  And I couldn't be a liberal Christian, I just don't personally believe thats an option.
 
When I hear Rowan Williams on the news causing controversy by throwing out another part of the bible "its ok to be gay, its ok to be another faith, its ok not to take stories literally"  I think damn, why are you even in this religion, let alone the Arch-bishop of it.

[IlluSionS667]

not at all - i don't subscribe to the "agree with one bit of the package, agree with it all" mentality.

Neither do I. This is a completely irrelevant strawman argument.

What I was complaining about, was not the particular views held by our leaders but rather the hypocritical way they repressed dissident ideas while at the same time accusing others of censorship and portraying themselves as the pinnacle of free speech. It should not matter which dissident views are expressed and one should be equally appalled by the censorship of libertarians and anarchists as by the censorship of Muslems or fascists. Otherwise, you prove you're no better than the leaders you dispise.

i prefer to have informed opinions, and question each bit, rather than being a sheep and taking everything as gospel (excuse the pun) because somebody tells me too.

Yet you do exactly that when it involves certain liberal dogmas.

apart from that, seeing homosexuality as normal and supporting the right of pornographers to sell stuff any old where are not equivalent issues

They are relevant issues because they are the dogmas of liberal society that may not be questioned. If you do question them, a modernized version of the inquisition will accuse you of extremism and use their power you limit your freedom for expression, to defame your public reputation and they sometimes even put you in jail.

and i feel your use of the word "dogma" is a little indiscriminate.  i don't hold to any dogma, which should be clear from what i've said above.

A dogma is a view that cannot be questioned. If you believe the normallity of homosexuallity cannot be questioned or that the death of 6 million Jews by the hands of German national-socialists may not be questioned, then those are dogmas for you.

[IlluSionS667]

I personally believe that if Jesus existed then he wanted believers to be fundamentalist and bigoted - thats why I have had such a difficult time keeping my own faith, because I'm not.  And I couldn't be a liberal Christian, I just don't personally believe thats an option.

You perfectly describe the reason I developed into a pagan traditionalist. It lacks the bigotry, naivity and inconsistency of conservative Christians, whereas it also lacks the ignorance, narrowmindedness and hypocricy of liberals. It is a logically sound belief system that provides a strong basis for morallity and a mind that's open for new ideas.

[Lucifer]

sorry - i was going to respnd to your long response to my post, and then i saw the phrase "pagan traditionalist"!

if you knew anything about paganism, you'd know there is practically nothing which could possibly be called " pagan tradition", as most pagan stuff has been re-invented in the past 50-60 years or so.  ffs read ronald hutton's "triumph of the moon" (although that is about wicca and witchcraft, rather than general paganism, admittedly), and get some idea of what you're talking about before you spout off.

i shall now try and calm down before replying to your long response.

[Lucifer]

not at all - i don't subscribe to the "agree with one bit of the package, agree with it all" mentality.

Neither do I. This is a completely irrelevant strawman argument.

it is?  read it again, in context.  sorry if it's too sophisticated a point for you to appreciate.

What I was complaining about, was not the particular views held by our leaders but rather the hypocritical way they repressed dissident ideas while at the same time accusing others of censorship and portraying themselves as the pinnacle of free speech. It should not matter which dissident views are expressed and one should be equally appalled by the censorship of libertarians and anarchists as by the censorship of Muslems or fascists. Otherwise, you prove you're no better than the leaders you dispise.

now that's what i call a strawman argument (volume 39).  could you please point out to me where i have said i portray myself as the "pinnacle of free speech"?  or my hypocrisy?  or dissidence?

(i can't help but think of Rebus whenever i see the word "strawman" now - know what i mean, O Man?  )

i prefer to have informed opinions, and question each bit, rather than being a sheep and taking everything as gospel (excuse the pun) because somebody tells me too.

Yet you do exactly that when it involves certain liberal dogmas.

prove that.  how do you know i'm subscribing to "liberal dogmas", and not speaking from a position of experience, informed choice, years of research, etc., etc.?  you're making assumptions, and that's incredibly dangerous if you want to "win" an argument, let alone have any credibility.  "know thine enemy" comes to mind (as you've obviously set me up as your enemy).

apart from that, seeing homosexuality as normal and supporting the right of pornographers to sell stuff any old where are not equivalent issues

They are relevant issues because they are the dogmas of liberal society that may not be questioned. If you do question them, a modernized version of the inquisition will accuse you of extremism and use their power you limit your freedom for expression, to defame your public reputation and they sometimes even put you in jail.

please read what i say carefully: i used the word "equivalent", not "relevant".

and i feel your use of the word "dogma" is a little indiscriminate.  i don't hold to any dogma, which should be clear from what i've said above.

A dogma is a view that cannot be questioned. If you believe the normallity of homosexuallity cannot be questioned or that the death of 6 million Jews by the hands of German national-socialists may not be questioned, then those are dogmas for you.

again, read what i say, not what you'd like me to be saying.  as i stated quite clearly above, i question everything.

anything new to add?  or is this going to be another:

[IlluSionS667]

not at all - i don't subscribe to the "agree with one bit of the package, agree with it all" mentality.

Neither do I. This is a completely irrelevant strawman argument.

it is?  read it again, in context.  sorry if it's too sophisticated a point for you to appreciate.

Too sophisticated a point for me to appreciate?!?

You're funny.

now that's what i call a strawman argument (volume 39).  could you please point out to me where i have said i portray myself as the "pinnacle of free speech"?  or my hypocrisy?  or dissidence?

When I said that multi-culturalist" "capitalist" "democracy" is based on mediocricy the lack of a solid belief system and that anyone who has a well-formed belief system either religiously or politically is regarded an extremist because they may form a threat to the foundations of "multi-culturalist" "capitalist" "democracy", you said you agreed with that. I somehow drew the conclusion that you actually have a problem with that, but apparently you actually support it.

prove that.  how do you know i'm subscribing to "liberal dogmas", and not speaking from a position of experience, informed choice, years of research, etc., etc.?

Your attitude is very telling. Especially your tendency to use insults rather than arguments betrays a closed mind... although in this thread, you're not as bad as in others.

please read what i say carefully: i used the word "equivalent", not "relevant".

Do they need to be equivalent for them to be relevant? Both are dogmas and that's what matters.

again, read what i say, not what you'd like me to be saying.  as i stated quite clearly above, i question everything.

Have you at any time question whether 6 million people died during WW2? Have you at any time questioned whether all races are equal? Have you at any time questioned whether homosexuality is a deviant mental condition? If the answer is yes to all three, have you ever attempted to research these topics without judging a book by its cover?

[Lucifer]

not at all - i don't subscribe to the "agree with one bit of the package, agree with it all" mentality.

Neither do I. This is a completely irrelevant strawman argument.

it is?  read it again, in context.  sorry if it's too sophisticated a point for you to appreciate.

Too sophisticated a point for me to appreciate?!?

You're funny.

yep.  i made a living out of being funny, for quite a while.  well spotted.

now that's what i call a strawman argument (volume 39).  could you please point out to me where i have said i portray myself as the "pinnacle of free speech"?  or my hypocrisy?  or dissidence?

When I said that multi-culturalist" "capitalist" "democracy" is based on mediocricy the lack of a solid belief system and that anyone who has a well-formed belief system either religiously or politically is regarded an extremist because they may form a threat to the foundations of "multi-culturalist" "capitalist" "democracy", you said you agreed with that. I somehow drew the conclusion that you actually have a problem with that, but apparently you actually support it.

i don't "support" it as such, but i've seen it in action, which isn't quite the same thing.  think about it.  and it isn't as cut and dried as you try to present it, by any manner of means.

prove that.  how do you know i'm subscribing to "liberal dogmas", and not speaking from a position of experience, informed choice, years of research, etc., etc.?

Your attitude is very telling. Especially your tendency to use insults rather than arguments betrays a closed mind... although in this thread, you're not as bad as in others.

answer the question.  or are you avoiding it because you can't?

please read what i say carefully: i used the word "equivalent", not "relevant".

Do they need to be equivalent for them to be relevant? Both are dogmas and that's what matters.

word-twisting.  again, i challenge you to examne your definition of the term "dogma".

again, read what i say, not what you'd like me to be saying.  as i stated quite clearly above, i question everything.

Have you at any time question whether 6 million people died during WW2? Have you at any time questioned whether all races are equal? Have you at any time questioned whether homosexuality is a deviant mental condition? If the answer is yes to all three, have you ever attempted to research these topics without judging a book by its cover?

yep, yep, yep and yep.

next?