Real World Event Discussions

Israel

POSTED BY: Wulfenstar
UPDATED: Sunday, March 8, 2026 16:45
VIEWED: 4330
PAGE 4 of 5

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Friday, February 11, 2011 12:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
Niki, how are you defining "fundamentalist" Christian here? I think generalizations, though really hard to avoid, can be problematic. I guess depending on how you define it, I'm a "fundamentalist" Christian, I'm certainly a Christian either way.

AS Niki said, she never mentioned fundamentalist christian or otherwise, just included it in a quote.

But here is an extract from what wiki says:

Quote:
Fundamentalist Christianity, also known as Christian fundamentalism, is defined by historian George M. Marsden as "militantly anti-modernist Protestant evangelicalism." Marsden explains that fundamentalists were evangelical Christians who in the 20th century "militantly opposed both modernism in theology and the cultural changes that modernism endorsed. Militant opposition to modernism was what most clearly set off fundamentalism."[1] The name is taken from the title of a series of essays published by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles, The Fundamentals:

A third strand—and the name itself—came from a 12-volume study The Fundamentals, published 1910-1915.[11] Sponsors subsidize the free distribution of over three million individual volumes to clergy, laymen and libraries. This version.[12] stressed several core beliefs, including:

* The inerrancy of the Bible
* The literal nature of the Biblical accounts, especially regarding Christ's miracles, and the Creation account in Genesis.
* The Virgin Birth of Christ
* The bodily resurrection of Christ
* The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross

By the late 1920s the first two points had become central to Fundamentalism.

A fourth strand was the growing concern among many evangelical Christians with the fruits of modernism and the higher criticism of the Bible. This strand concentrated on opposition to Darwinism.

I've done a bit of snipping, but that is kind of the crux. I'd say that was an accurate representation.

Fundamentalist Christians believe in the total truth of the Bible and shun modernity in the form of evolution, in particular. Which would all be well and good if they kept it to their own sects, but they appear to be highly prominent politically in the US and push agendas such as teaching creationism in public schools, and anti gay and anti abortion based legislation.

Basically if it were all down to the 'fundies' and the 'jihadists'we'd all be at holy war.

DREAMTROVE

Friday, February 11, 2011 12:25 AM

Niki

Not the way it works. They grow up and go to school like anyone else, and after school they leave the community for a couple years. Then they come back, and are asked if they want to join the church, get married, and raise a family. 90% do. Those who don't aren't shunned. The shunned are people who go back and then bring something viewed as a disrupting influence from the outside world into the community.... in theory.

The snag comes when there is a personal conflict. Someone with power has something against some new church member and decides to screw them over.

Given the number of problems with our society, and how we treat kids in our school, I think we're in no place to throw stones. I feel fairly certain they have the better of it, for the most part, and that life for the kids is easier than it is out here. As for the adults, they chose that community.

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, February 11, 2011 12:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Basically if it were all down to the 'fundies' and the 'jihadists'we'd all be at holy war.

As an ex-fundie, I feel I know a lot about that subculture. I was in it for 10 years, from ages 12 to 22, when I was proclaimed "gangrene in the body of Christ" which needed to be cut off before infecting the rest of the body.

Needless to say, I am not all that fond of fundies.

BUT, there are good, decent fundies out there, who are kind and not war-mongering and judgmental. Had I not been shunned, I hope I would have been one of them. I even know fundies who are anti-capital punishment and pro-choice, gay-friendly and profanity-using. True, there aren't a lot of them, but they do hold their ground in their fundie communities.

-------
Hell, the only reason the Government hates crime at all is that it despises competition. - Frem

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Friday, February 11, 2011 1:12 AM

Yeah, I get that CTS. But as a political force, a collective, what they stand for worries me. I don't want an extremely powerful nation to be led by people who don't believe in evolution and believe in the unerring nature and history of the Bible, and worse, welcome a world war which would herald the return of Jesus.

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, February 11, 2011 1:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
But as a political force, a collective, what they stand for worries me.

You mean you don't want people who spend $27 million on a "Creation Museum" to be in charge of the country?

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/the_creation_museum_1.php

Hehehehe.

I remember seeing a dystopia movie called Rising Storm.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100464/

It was about a futuristic, totalitarian Christian fundie state. The paramilitary enforcers in the movie had to say "Praise Jesus" after everything they said, which inevitably resulted in the classic line: "Fuck your rights. Praise Jesus!"

I can totally see that happening if they should ever take over.

-------
Hell, the only reason the Government hates crime at all is that it despises competition. - Frem

NIKI2

Friday, February 11, 2011 11:37 PM

DT, thank you for educating me, I didn’t know that. I’m not “throwing stones”, I don’t like aspects of either society, and respect other aspects of each.

CTTS:

Quote:
there are good, decent fundies out there, who are kind and not war-mongering and judgmental

I just call those “Christians”...or “real Christians”, however their philosophies may differ. In the vernacular of our age, “Fundamental Christian” is pretty much what’s defined in Magons’ quote...or else brings to mind “Evangelical” or “right-wing Christian”. Definitions change, and how people define things in their own minds changes, too.

Magons also spoke for me with

Quote:
Yeah, I get that CTS. But as a political force, a collective, what they stand for worries me. I don't want an extremely powerful nation to be led by people who don't believe in evolution and believe in the unerring nature and history of the Bible, and worse, welcome a world war which would herald the return of Jesus.

CTTS...that last one...

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, February 12, 2011 4:11 PM

Rrrrrgh!

Don't eeeeven get me started on religious folks today - we got another chained-to-furniture with forced scripture reading case today, with a temporary hold and likely emancipation coming out of that, as well as possible custody of a younger sibling rather than see em dumped into the meat grinder of the foster care system.

Anyone who pushes their religion with force instead of leading by example is a fucking barbarian, period, and should be unwelcome in modern day civilization - if they wanna go back to the "good ole days" (i.e. Dark Ages) fine, fuck em, let THEM live that way, even encourage it by refusing to associate with em, do biz with em, the whole nine yards, make them the outcasts they DESERVE to be.

That's a form of shunning I could get into.

Oh yes, and the management of site three has absolutely, completely ZERO problem with me going ballistic on trespassers offering unwanted religious solicitation, so long as there's no *obvious* evidence of anything really untoward, which there won't be... in fact, there might not be any evidence of anything... at all.

The local JWs cross the STREET when walking past this place, if that tells ya anything.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

RIONAEIRE

Monday, February 14, 2011 6:05 AM

Well I do believe in the litteralness (I don't know if that's a word, who cares) of the Bible. I'm a creationist: I do believe in microevolution, but not the macro, I believe in natural selection, the passing on of advantageous traits and change (to a degree) based on that. I do believe that Jesus is coming back someday but I'm in no hurry to rush it, besides anything I do won't have an impact there on anyways. But as I said I'm not in a hurry, I'm young yet and hope to live a long life here first. I do not believe in forcing people to fake like they believe, because I know you can't force someone to believe so faking is all you can get from such methods. It acomplishes nothing good and does a lot of harm.

You all can call me whatever you want, I don't much care, it is the least of my concerns.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

DREAMTROVE

Monday, February 14, 2011 8:47 AM

CTS

actually, I like what the guy is trying to do, re answers in genesis, creation museum. There are a lot of misguided efforts but he seems to be really interested in steering people to caring about the world. What do I care if people are wrong? I mean, consider how many republicans and democrats we have. Regardless of where you stand, at least one if not both groups have to be overwhelmingly wrong. Ergo, society has to survive a large portion of the population being wrong.

Oh, and have you seen Equilibrium?

Frem

Do you reserve the same contempt for socialists under a similar logic?

Riona

Double Huh? Sorry, not going to argue a belief system, I just don't follow the logical position. What do you mean microevolution/macroevolution, and what constitutes a literal word of God? If a book is culled from the Bible, is it no longer the word of God, and if so who gets to make that decision? Surely not the editors.

There was a user on the board, who may still be lurking somewhere, who was pursuing the topic and brought up some interesting points.

So, channelling Antimason for a sec. (this is basically a repost of the arguments he brought up, and yes, he's a fundie, and my apologies if i get some of these points wrong.) If the Bible has multiple versions, and they disagree, then which is right? If in the 1880s the Bible underwent 30,000 edits, then did it become wrong? How many edits can it endure through the centuries, and how corrupt does that make the text? Should we be reading it Hebrew and Greek? What about books taken out, or books that might have been put in? Some people say that John is a forgery, or that portions of Paul and Revelations were copied from older scripture. If this turns out to be true, what does that mean? (And my personal favorite question) if all of the stories in the bible were taken from somewhere else, should we not read those translations as well, the Sumerian, Assyrian and Egyptian? What if they conflict with the Hebrew text, or if those people who wrote the story worshipped a different God, or several, are those religions true as well?

Antimason IIRC also believed in the literal word, but was curious as to what this said, and he sent me searching and I found a lot of curious and disturbing things on that search. Not the least of which is that the KJV I read online is not the same text as the one I read in the book, and not because the online text is different, but because of the changes in the 18th and 19th c.

CUDA77

Monday, February 14, 2011 3:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
.....

Why the fuck do we care about Israel? Or China? Or Palestine? Or Europe?

Call me naieve (and Im sure you will), but really?

They are not our kin (to bogart a southern term).

So, unless they mess with us, why do we send money to them, bother with them, or consider them a threat?

I mean really.

Can China hurt us? North Korea? If we were actually self-sufficiant, what threat are they to us?

I mean, come on.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

For once Wulf, I am in complete agreement with you. Maybe if our money that we spend on those countries went to actual good and not just giving them more and better ways to kill the people they/we oppose, I could understand it. But basically playing armory so a bunch of various religious nuts can shoot each other to shit seems like an incredible waste of money, resources and time to me.

As for China and them, until they give me a real reason to be scared, I see no reason to fear them. To me, Kim Jong Il and family are nowhere near as scary or are a big threat to this country as some of the people we personally elected in this country to political office are.

Socialist and unashamed about it.