You Guys Need to Communicate! (thoughts from an ex evangelical Christian)

apologies, double-posted while editingEdited by anastasia, : No reason given.

I disagree, Percy. A Fundementalist may indeed be an honest person, but taking the Bible literally in all matters is not superior to understanding the context in which it was written, or to using a God-given dose of reason to decipher the MANY meanings of scripture. I have not found that moderates on this forum abandon any part of scripture, but have ascribed a different meaning to passages which honestly no one has the 'true' answer to. We are all working with the same revealed truth, but it always, always comes down to an interpretation.To say someone 'knows and believes exactly what scripture says' is false IMO, as we can ALL know exactly what scripture says, but as you may notice, we only believe what we think it means or what our 'elders' have decided it means.The main problem I see in the Fundementalism movement is, that they have completely abandoned any tradition to forge their own way using only the Bible as reference. Thus, in a sense they are cut off from the rich background of tradition which gives meaning to many passages. And, most importantly, any true believer in revealed truth will know that it is a Living Truth, one which does not grow stale, but changes, grows, evolves and has meaning for all time. It is not a truth set apart and reserved for one sect or another. The instant a passage becomes The Only Holy Permanant Answer, the Bible has become a DEAD book. That is not to say things may be translated and used willy-nilly, but that there are many, many legitimate interpretations. The best way to interpret is to use ALL of the available information in order to gain more insight, and this includes science, tradition, history, archaeology, and common sense.

Too true, at the moment we leave behind child-like innocence, we leave behind that perfect place. With the dawn of the age of reason, everything is subject to our own incomplete knowledge of 'perfect'.Not to put meaning where you did not intend, of course, but to put my own slant to it.

Yes, I understand that you had only given a sampling of the views of Mr Harris. Thank you for the link; nothing too surprising there in comparison with what is heard on a daily basis at EvC.Although I had thought that he was comparing moderates and fundementalists, he is actually condemning them equally.I am sure that, given the right fanatical disposition of his adherents, Mr Harris' own exclusive views could on their own, further intolerence of others in the same way that any belief could.He makes a good point about 'belief' in general, and perhaps it would be a good topic starter; which beliefs exactly are most dangerous, how so, etc?For example, when does a belief in an immanent or eventual return of Jesus, turn dangerous?

Sorry, nemesis, I am always inserting foot in mouth. Honestly, when I heard the quotes of Sam Harris in context, any remark that I made was only tangentially relevent. Humorous, but probably a safe bet to say Revelations is right about that one. Well, I think I understand what Harris started to say about moderates, but it all went too general. And it IS very subjective; some think of fundementalism as fanaticism, I see it as a movement which began in the early 1900's, Bible-based, and having a lot of Calvinist doctrine. I think you and I are both probably fanatical about religion, moderate in action, and fundemental in belief, and that any of these adjectives can be interchanged mercilessly. Imagine Christianity dies out altogether. I try to imagine if it could be recreated as anything like what it is now based solely on the Bible and without the accompanying traditional interpretation. I guess the way I see it is that the further back you go, the better chance of understanding the context of scripture and how it was interpreted by those who first heard it, in their own time and their own language. Likewise, those who have gone out from various religious instititions and started small sola scriptura communities, have started their own traditions in interpretation removed from the parent 'plant'. Whether this is an accomplishment or a detriment is debateable. I suppose this is where my bias comes in. I know you are well versed in Hebrew studies, and just imagine if we could not understand the context of so many events of the Bible, because we had lost the entire traditional record of the Jewish people. Yet, from the time of the apostles onward, the traditions and customs of the early church have been abandoned as if no one could ever do anything worthwhile again. It is like we keep studying every little tiny move of Biblical figures in order to get more insight into the passages, when we should also say; 'hey, what did this passage mean to people of that generation?'.There can be a middle ground, I guess, but I tend to stereotype fundementalists as well, fundementalists, house-cleaners, throw it all out bare bones.Besides that, my post was pretty useless; a well-meaning shot in the big toe of the 'enemy'.

May I quote something from a book I have, entitled, 'Religion in the New World'? That might be too long, and I hope no one will get angry, but the book does a good job of showing the progression of religious movements in America, and how in many ways the adherence to any old traditions was pretty incongruous with the new lifestyles, challenges, experiences of the faithful. So, in a sense, they 'moderated' back then into fundementalism, did their own tossing of the irrelevent, and started a new tradition. That was possibly considered progressive, the destruction of what was no longer meaningful. Now I would say a moderate does the same thing.Edited by anastasia, : tyoing error

This is the same presentation, I think?The point is Percy, that his own beliefs are capable of being a huge part of the conflict in our world. Any belief is. Even if we were to all agree to be religious, or all to be atheist, we would find any reason to contend the beliefs of others. That is how it always will be. No christians can agree on aything, it is foolish to think all atheists wil agree on everything. The focus of the disageement will certainly shift, but in any world where there is no disagreement we cease to be human.Harris is but a preacher amoung preachers. His message is just as likely to be mis-read by an impassioned zealot as any other. for all of the conflict and injury caused by adherence to a religion, there is equal harm and injury caused by those opposed to religion. Take for example the French revolution, Communist China, the Soviet Union. All in all, there is a widespread idea amoung Catholicism that the religion will at some point be forced underground, and the ideas of those such as Harris, while totally black and white and 'above' everything, only further the ardour in those who are expecting this sort of thing. Essentially, he helps to 'prove' God.

Good Lord, I would like an open topic on the ideas of this man. He is supporting his own exclusive view by bashing those who are truly inclusive of other religions. If you are an exclusive fundementalist you are somehow better than a person who tolerates all views, yet someone who tolerates NO view is considered 'enlightened', all the while possessing a view. LOL.

Doesn't it make sense that a moderate will be MORE willing to criticize fanaticism? I think this characterization in general is based on straw men.What is a radical? What is a fundementalist?I do come from a long tradition of speaking out against radicals in my faith. Does that make me a fundementalist? Or a moderate who wants to preserve the intergrity of a belief? What I see as 'radical'; charismatic healing masses, group baptisms into 'the spirit', New Ecumenical masses, etc, may be what someone else calls progressive and tolerant.You speak out against something, you stand to be condemned as conservative and dull. You accept things, you are condemned as irresolute. .I do not think that any of the definitions used stand up to real scrutiny.

Yes, sorry I was only able to listen briefly to the second one before it started to distract my spouse. I will have to go back to it.Mainly, I think Harris is using way too much generalization. This seems to be his definition of 'moderate'. And it is unclear whether he may be speaking about moderates who are part of a religion, or those outside of religion who nonetheless respect the constitutional rights of others in personal belief. And which tradition is that? The tradtion which we are otherwise so relentlessly trying to pound into people's heads; tolerance of others?There is a big huge difference between respecting the believer and respecting the belief. It is just not possible for any observer, no matter how sympathetic, to cater to the beliefs of the whole world while making influential decisions.What it boils down to, and really I am trying to be objective, is another case of finger-pointing, 'if only everyone would get against religion, the world would be united, things would be sublime'. And yeah for Harris he can make a buck or two re-packaging the same old idealogy of a better society, and using the same old method of intolerance of others, that we were really supposed to be moving beyond.

All in all, I agree wholeheartedly with your post. I will defend the guy in this one line; out of context it sounds worse, but in context it probably entails worse. When Harris says; "they (fundementalists)know and believe exactly what they say", he means; exactly what the 'scriptures' say. Or, in other words, violent passages are taken just as literally and acted on just as fanatically, as those passages with peaceful messages. The problem is, anyone can know and believe exactly what the scriptures say, but what the hell do they actually mean? If anyone thinks and believes that scripture is commanding them to behave immorally, break civil laws, hurt others, etc. they need a wake-up call, and they need to be treated in exactly the same way as criminals of any other persuasion.Honestly, when you are outside of religion it is easy to point fingers, but when you are a completely religious, sane individual who functions normally and productively within the dictates of society, intolerance of any person, creed, background, or race is simply intolerance. You by no means have to agree with everyone, but you have to act rationally.Harris is no different from any other evangelist. He is 'converting' instead of forcing. There are plenty of examples of forced religious suppression, and forced religious expression. The tides have turned for both to 'evangelism'.I was thinking about some incidences of religious suppression; torture and blackmail of Buddhists in Tibet, Yiguan Daoists in Taiwan?, Catholics in Vietnam, and also about the old Hebrew scholar at my local pub, getting a school-boy grin at mere mention of the Bible, the guy next to him, here doing missionary work for the Bryn Athyn church of the New Jerusalem in Australia, the beautiful Russian liturgy, all of it. Do I want to live in a world where this culture and history is relegated to the museum's Ancient Wonders exhibit? Hell, no.

Thanks, I doubt that it was the best passage in the book, but I only mean to make peace with fundementalists here. It is very criticized belief, and I do wantonly take part in the criticism because ther is an obvious conflict of interest between Catholicism and those opposed to the institution. Fundementalists are an easy target in their visibilty and the familiarity which most Americans have with christianity in general.It is easy to forget that, before all of the arguments, the fundementalists were part of the movement to 'oppose' religion as it was, and to live in peace and harmony with their environment as the Puritans and Amish have tried. Everything started with an eye to improvement, and outside of the fanatic type, my problems with fundementalism are purely doctrinal. If people want to go nuts and get violent over their differences, they are just irrational. I am fine with violent debate.

I did think that could make an interesting debate proposal; what are the potentially dangerous claims of religion and what is dangerous about them? I don't think I would be the best wo/man for the job; I try to limit my beliefs to silly things like transubstantiation and the trinity. Funny, though, that he fails to mention as evil any of the known inclusive religions which do take a moderate view of other beliefs. I am quite curious as to why only Abrahamic faiths are suspect in his speeches. It is always possible that certain religions are not as desirable in content and leanings as others. I do not know enough about the 'up' side to Islam, as far as charity work etc, but I do know that innocent Muslims are victims of the actions of violence of their peers, and that wherever violence reigns, it is the good people of every faith who suffer.Harris may be well-meaning, or simply ambitious for his own sake. He is by no means original, and the arguments he uses are pretty much the same as those you hear at EvC on a daily basis. It is precisely the same vain hope at a better world that gives religion its impetus, as all things under the sun have been tried and have failed in the effort of world peace. Has religion failed? So far, yes. Everything will fail. It is ALL divisive without the personal commitment to equality by the individual.

In regards to this post and the one following, it is clearly up to Harris to supply some def for what a 'moderate' is. Jar, I believe is self-proclaiming moderate. In spite of my obvious adherences, I am considered a moderate by fundamentalists. No one here puts me and jar in the same category without some sort of definitive, if at all. If the definition is 'one who has a particular affinity for a certain religion, but does not discredit that of others' I doubt you will find many statistics. If the definition is 'anyone who tolerates another's views' well, heck, that is what America is all about, isn't it? We can take a poll here, see who will vote for religious tolerance, and who will oppose all religions...while at the same time having a belief...

Bonafide scripture is non-existant. One person's canon is another's apocrypha.Besides, I though the whole point was NOT to mention YHWH's name?