Dangerous Fundamentalist Justifies Terrorism

[BVS]

I think the basic point is the difference between grace theology and works theology.

But we can't even get all those that fall under the umbrella of Christianity to agree on this.

 

[nbcrusader]

It would be interesting to see the demographics of the individuals on this board. My guess is that, when compared to the world at large, we are better educated and have higher standards of living.

My point in saying this is that there is a large percentage of the world population that we may be tempted to describe as having education levels and economic levels low enough to be "desparate".

I believe the power of the "reward" for martyrdom will be attractive to the "desparate" and "non-desparate" alike.

 

[nbcrusader]

But we can't even get all those that fall under the umbrella of Christianity to agree on this.

Perhaps, but under a grace theology, the incentive for something like martyerdom is missing.

 

[BVS]

Perhaps, but under a grace theology, the incentive for something like martyerdom is missing.

But what I'm saying is there are Christians who do believe it takes works as well. Those that murder abortion doctors believe they are doing God's work, and choose to be martyrs by accepting the death penalty or life in prison.

 

[nbcrusader]

I know - its not Christian v. Muslim

It is Grace v. Works

Works, under any religious scheme, is ripe for abuse.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Works, under any religious scheme, is ripe for abuse.

As is 'grace' - if someone only has to say a prayer in order to be forgiven all their 'sins' what's to stop them committing horrendous crimes safe in the knowledge that all they need to do is say a prayer again and all their crimes are forgiven?

 

[BVS]

I know - its not Christian v. Muslim

It is Grace v. Works

Works, under any religious scheme, is ripe for abuse.

Ok I get what you are saying now. Sorry I misunderstood.

Let's take this a step further and say works under and scheme, is ripe for abuse. Be it a cult, government, family, etc. You have a leader, who 9 times out of 10 doesn't believe 100% in what they speak but they know it works to help gain power. Now they may use religion or anything else to push their agenda. But anyone who begins to believe that they must kill, eat poison, sacrifice babies all these things that naturally go against our own human morals or well being, in order to obtain what they want is a person who's desperate and or uneducated.

 

[deep]

As is 'grace' - if someone only has to say a prayer in order to be forgiven all their 'sins' what's to stop them committing horrendous crimes safe in the knowledge that all they need to do is say a prayer again and all their crimes are forgiven?

like bearing false witness concerning WMDs
to scare the American people into supporting a war

or blowing the cover of a CIA agent

or a little torture, here and there

 

[nbcrusader]

As is 'grace' - if someone only has to say a prayer in order to be forgiven all their 'sins' what's to stop them committing horrendous crimes safe in the knowledge that all they need to do is say a prayer again and all their crimes are forgiven?

Actually, there is quite a difference. In your example, you suggest that someone is motivated to commit a crime because of a perceived lack of eternal consequence. That is not much of a motivating factor.

Getting a reward to commit the same crime is much more of a motivating factor.

 

[yolland]

How do you create a deterence when an eternity of worldly pleasure is sold to these young men as a reward for their deadly acts?

...I think the basic point is the difference between grace theology and works theology.

The problem with this analysis is that it assumes a simplistic cause-and-effect relationship between Islamist rhetoric and individual bombers' motivations. One might just as easily (and unconvincingly) argue that what is really needed is a 'Muslim Vatican' to act as a moderating counterbalance against the 'Muslim world's' destabilizing tendencies towards ideological anarchy, personality cults, and politicization of religious discourse.

Among terrorist organizations, the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka still hold the dubious record for 'highest number of suicide attacks committed'--yet they are a secular association, based on ethnic nationalism (and drawing from both the Tamil Christian and Tamil Hindu communities). Clearly, 'works theology' is not a factor there--nor any other type of theology.

My point is not that all suicide bombers ultimately think alike, but that it seems dangerously shortsighted to assume Islamist rhetoric about 'eternal rewards' adequately explains, say, the relative surge of interest in 'martyrdom' among young Sunni Iraqi males lately. Why the sudden increase in receptivity to this 'theology'? Does the fact that many (not all!) of the insurgents are religious Muslims somehow render them immune to 'secular' motivations like revenge for perceived humiliation; or an obligation to one's uphold personal or collective honor; or even the appeal of a heroic death? Where is the hard evidence that a 'grace theology' would act as a disincentive to terrorism?

 

[melon]

I know - its not Christian v. Muslim

It is Grace v. Works

Works, under any religious scheme, is ripe for abuse.

Unfortunately, I believe that is merely a semantical game. Instead, the "grace" crowd often still judge someone by their "works" as "evidence" that they have not accepted Christ--even if the person claims to be Christian--and that they're going to hell.

Same game. Different scam.

Melon

 

[nbcrusader]

When did we swing back to the same indictments of conservative Christianity?

 

[80sU2isBest]

Unfortunately, I believe that is merely a semantical game. Instead, the "grace" crowd often still judge someone by their "works" as "evidence" that they have not accepted Christ--even if the person claims to be Christian--and that they're going to hell.

Same game. Different scam.

Melon

Just because a person may look at someone's behaviors and say "I have my doubts as to whether that person is really a Christian" doesn't mean he's necessarily fallen back into a system of works, as opposed to grace.

The Bible says that Christians will be known by their fruit. I'm not saying that Christians have perfect fruit, but if I meet someone who claims to be a Christian, but over time show no Christian fruit, it's quite natural to wonder whether the person really is a Christian.

 

[80sU2isBest]

When did we swing back to the same indictments of conservative Christianity?

This is still FYM, right?

 

[melon]

Just because a person may look at someone's behaviors and say "I have my doubts as to whether that person is really a Christian" doesn't mean he's necessarily fallen back into a system of works, as opposed to grace.

The Bible says that Christians will be known by their fruit. I'm not saying that Christians have perfect fruit, but if I meet someone who claims to be a Christian, but over time show no Christian fruit, it's quite natural to wonder whether the person really is a Christian.

I know the theology, and I know the theory. I often think that, in practice, it is different.

And that's why people like Fred Phelps exist.

Melon

 

[U2@NYC]

Don't wanna be an American Idiot

A "U.S." Idiot, you mean...

 

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
"
So, adding my definition of "fundamentalism" to what you said above, am I correct when I say that your belief is that:

The belief that every word in the Bible is true is a dangerous thing?

Or, to put it in the context of all religions:

The belief that every word in any "holy" book is true is a dangerous thing?"

yes.

Personally, I think that for you to say that - nay, even to hold that belief - fans the flames of hatred against people of faith. Christians are executed and jailed all over the world for simply sharing their faith, especially in China. You may not be the actual executioner, but by holding such prejudiced views against Bible-Believing Christians (calling us "dangerous"), you are partially to blame.

 

[financeguy]

Sorry 80s but that is complete and utter rubbish.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Sorry 80s but that is complete and utter rubbish.

It certainly is.

 

[financeguy]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
"
So, adding my definition of "fundamentalism" to what you said above, am I correct when I say that your belief is that:

The belief that every word in the Bible is true is a dangerous thing?

Or, to put it in the context of all religions:

The belief that every word in any "holy" book is true is a dangerous thing?"



Personally, I think that for you to say that - nay, even to hold that belief - fans the flames of hatred against people of faith. Christians are executed and jailed all over the world for simply sharing their faith, especially in China. You may not be the actual executioner, but by holding such prejudiced views against Bible-Believing Christians (calling us "dangerous"), you are partially to blame.

Right.

So for me to say - nay, even to hold the BELIEF - that all religions are wrong (and I do hold that belief, incidentally) means that I am 'fanning flames of hatred'.

Come off it.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Right.

So for me to say - nay, even to hold the BELIEF - that all religions are wrong (and I do hold that belief, incidentally) means that I am 'fanning flames of hatred'.

Come off it.

Dude, I agree with you. I even said "it certainly is" when you said it was rubbish.

 

[sallycinnamon78]

These idiots are sick, worthless little pieces of cancerous rectal sputum on the pimpled anus of humanity.

 

[anitram]

Sorry 80s but that is complete and utter rubbish.

Looks like 80s wants to make a point re: previous discussions on homophobia...

 

[80sU2isBest]

Looks like 80s wants to make a point re: previous discussions on homophobia...

Almost got it, but the discussion wasn't about homophobia. It was about my belief that homosexuality is wrong. Homophobia is defined as the fear or hatred of homosexuals.

 

[financeguy]

Ok I understand now.

 

[Irvine511]

Almost got it, but the discussion wasn't about homophobia. It was about my belief that homosexuality is wrong. Homophobia is defined as the fear or hatred of homosexuals.

you've completely misunderstood and your analogy to homophobia is utter bullshit. just look at my thread about the father who beat his child to death because he was afraid the child, at 3, was gay. your endorsement of homosexuality being "wrong" adds to a climate where it is okay to view homosexuality as lesser, as less than human, as less than acceptable, as a deviation from the norm, as something to be feared. and people die in such climates.

to go back to what i was originally saying, i find that people who take each and every literal word of the bible to be true to be dangerous because they are then willing to submit their rationalit and conscience to the words of the Bible. that, to me, is a fundamentalist, by your own definitions, though i would argue that you don't adhere to the definition of a fundamentalist that you mapped out for yourself.

what seems to be lost is the fact that you are INTERPRETING the bible, and because this is an interpretation, a very human process, there are going to be errors, and most people are humble enough to realize this. no one of any credibility believes the word was made in 7 days, that Adam and Eve were literal, that a snake actually spoke to Eve, that Noah built an arc and the world flooded. this is a kind of know-nothing/world-is-flat type of thinking that claims the Grand Canyon was made only 3,000 years ago instead of over millions of years.

that kind of thinking is absolutely dangerous.

 

[80sU2isBest]

you've completely misunderstood and your analogy to homophobia is utter bullshit. just look at my thread about the father who beat his child to death because he was afraid the child, at 3, was gay. your endorsement of homosexuality being "wrong" adds to a climate where it is okay to view homosexuality as lesser, as less than human, as less than acceptable, as a deviation from the norm, as something to be feared. and people die in such climates.

It's the same thing, Irvine. Can't you see that? The government officials in China and some otehr countries see Christianity as dangerous...therfore, anyone caught sharing the Gospel can be jailed and executed. Don't you see that if my belief that homosexuality is wrong adds to the climate in which gays are treated as less than human, then it follows that your belief that Christian fundamentalism (defined here as belief in every word of the Bible) is dangerous adds to the climate in which Christians are executed and jailed because the government thinks they're dangerous? If you can't see that, then you are purposely closing your eyes to it.

to go back to what i was originally saying, i find that people who take each and every literal word of the bible to be true to be dangerous because they are then willing to submit their rationalit and conscience to the words of the Bible. that, to me, is a fundamentalist, by your own definitions, though i would argue that you don't adhere to the definition of a fundamentalist that you mapped out for yourself.

This makes me curious; in what way am I not a fundamentalist?

no one of any credibility believes the word was made in 7 days, that Adam and Eve were literal, that a snake actually spoke to Eve, that Noah built an arc and the world flooded. this is a kind of know-nothing/world-is-flat type of thinking that claims the Grand Canyon was made only 3,000 years ago instead of over millions of years.

that kind of thinking is absolutely dangerous.

How in the WORLD can you say that no one of any credibility believes in those things? Is it because you don't? How very arrogant of you!

 

[Irvine511]

It's the same thing, Irvine. Can't you see that? The government officials in China and some otehr countries see Christianity as dangerous...therfore, anyone caught sharing the Gospel can be jailed and executed. Don't you see that if my belief that homosexuality is wrong adds to the climate in which gays are treated as less than human, then it follows that your belief that Christian fundamentalism (defined here as belief in every word of the Bible) is dangerous adds to the climate in which Christians are executed and jailed because the government thinks they're dangerous? If you can't see that, then you are purposely closing your eyes to it.




This makes me curious; in what way am I not a fundamentalist?



How in the WORLD can you say that no one of any credibility believes in those things? Is it because you don't? How very arrogant of you!

1. no, it is completely different. you've totally misunderstood, and perhaps that's my fault for not communicating better. it's not about believing the Bible, it's about believing in (your) literal interpretation of the Bible to the point where you subdue your rationality and conscience and live your life in strict adherence to that. i am saying nothing against Christianity at all, much less saying that Christianity is "wrong" in the way that you feel free to level such judgements against homsexualilty. i am saying that a specific practice of Christianity -- or *any* religion ... religion itself really is the problem here, because it offers such absolutes -- can be very dangerous. don't think Christianity is free from the hijacking that's currently going on in Islam. all religions -- because they are religions -- are susceptable.

2. because i don't think you do subdue your rationality.

3. no, it's because science says that this type of literalness in regards to the bible is completely, utterly, and totally scientifically bogus. anyone who knows anything about geology knows that the grand canyon was formed over millions of years, but since some people find things like "science" and "facts" get in the way of their small-minded interpretations of the bible.

it's allegory. it might be true, but it is not fact.

 

[80sU2isBest]

1. no, it is completely different. you've totally misunderstood, and perhaps that's my fault for not communicating better. it's not about believing the Bible, it's about believing in (your) literal interpretation of the Bible to the point where you subdue your rationality and conscience and live your life in strict adherence to that.

Then you did word it wrong - big time. You originally said that believing every word of the Bible to be true is dangerous.

2. because i don't think you do subdue your rationality.

Thank you. As I've said in another post, I do believe the Bible to be 100% accurate. However, my interpretation of the Bible is certainly open to being wrong.

And yet, there are certain things that aren't really open to interpretation, that just about everyone would say "this means so and so", because of the straight-forward way in which they are worded.

3. no, it's because science says that this type of literalness in regards to the bible is completely, utterly, and totally scientifically bogus. anyone who knows anything about geology knows that the grand canyon was formed over millions of years, but since some people find things like "science" and "facts" get in the way of their small-minded interpretations of the bible.

it's allegory. it might be true, but it is not fact.

To believe that every word of the Bible is true does not necessarily mean that every word must be taken literally. The Book Of Revelation is a shining example of that. Some people take it literally, and some people take it symbolically. Still others, such as myself, use a literal/symbolic hybrid interpretation: John then Revelator was shown the future - in his vision, he saw things that had not been invented yet, like fighter jets, tanks, etc., and described them the only way he knew how, as crazy looking creatures.

As for the "creation in 7 days", that could also be allegory, as in scripture, it says that to God, a day is as a thousand years, the idea that time doesn't mean to God what it means to us. It limits us; he is not limited. In fact, he is outside the sonfines of time. I do believe that God created the universe and everything in it. However, whether he did that by setting off the Big Bang or what, I don't know.

I do believe that every thing the Bible presents as actually happening did happen, especially Adam and Eve. I know that some Christians think Adam and Eve are allegory, but I think they're missing something; if Adam and Eve did not exist, Christianity largley falls apart.

First, I believe every word that came from Christ's mouth, and Christ spoke of Adam and Eve, as if they actually existed:

"And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Matthew 19:4-6

As a side note, he also spoke about Abel (Mt. 23:35), Noah (Mt. 24:37), and the flood (Mt. 24:38)

Another reason that Adam and Eve are very important to Christianity is because it is through them, the mother and father of the human race, that the original sin and the sin nature entered the world. The Old and New Testament make it clear that this sin nature (sinful spirit), which started with two people, is passed down to every single person who is ever born. The New Testament, in fact, says that the sin nature is the reason that people cannot enter Heaven, because God cannot abide in the presence of sin. However, upon a person being "reborn" or "regenerated", the sin nature is crucified for that person and is replaced with a new nature; the nature of Christ, the Holy Spirit. It is is that new, sinless nature that makes a person acceptable Christ. It is very important to note here that I said "sinless nature", not "sinless flesh"; I am talking exclusively about the spirit. Adam and Eve are very important to the passing down of the sin nature.

"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." -
1Corinthians 15:22

"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned-- (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.) Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous." Romans 5:12-19

 

[verte76]

I don't see the harm in believing every word in the Bible is God's Word. As a liberal Catholic it is a belief I do not share. The belief itself doesn't imply stupidity or hate. All faith is a suspension of reason. When I take the Eucharist at mass, I'm doing something I can't pretend to understand intellectually. It's the same thing, different article of faith. Just because you can't explain something using logic doesn't invalidate the belief, it makes it an item of faith and not reason. Stupidity and hate is something completely different, it's the addition of an intense negative emotion or of completely being in the dark about something and not being able to admit it.