It’s Only Fundamentalist Christians They Hate
| March 28, 2006 | Posted by Dave S. under Intelligent Design |
Arden Chatfield explains that the Darwinian narrative apologists don’t hate all Christians. That would be wrong says he. They only hate fundamentalist Christians and that’s okay because the fundamentalists, he explains, desire to enslave and dominate others.
Let’s dissect this a bit.
Wikipedia defines a Christian fundmentalist as a Christian who believes in
the inerrancy of the Bible, the virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the authenticity of his miracles.
According to this 2002 CNN/Time Poll
CNN/Time Poll conducted by Harris Interactive. June 19-20, 2002. N=1,003 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.
“Which of these statements comes closest to describing your feelings about the Bible? The Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word. The Bible is the word of God, but not everything in it should be taken literally, word for word. The Bible is a book written by men and is not the word of God.”
To be taken literally: 36% of all adults
So roughly 70 million adult Americans are “fundamentalist” Christians.
Boy oh boy, Arden. That’s a lot of people to hate. Are you sure you have that much hate in you?
And what exactly is your definition of “enslave” and “indoctrinate”? Pardon me for asking but it seems that putting a sticker in a biology textbook saying that evolution is a theory, not a fact, falls a bit short of enslaving and indoctrinating doesn’t it?
Indoctrinating, at the least, would be like having your pet story of past evolution be the only one that can be legally discussed in a public school biology class and even going so far as to make it illegal to even criticize that theory.
It also seems a bit of stretch for you to claim this is an attack on science. Attacks would be like burning down PZ Meyers’ laboratory in the dead of night like it was an Alabama fundamentalist Christian church.
What you are doing Arden, is called “projection”. You are assigning your own rotten motives and methods to others. Shame on you.
45 Responses to It’s Only Fundamentalist Christians They Hate
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
“Overwrought, paranoid, knee-jerk bigotry.”
‘Bigotry’? Have you asked Dave lately what he thinks of Muslims?
If you think I’m going to be apologetic for being intolerant of a religious culture that reduces women to chattel then you have another think coming. Liberals like you have some really friggin’ warped values that you cling to. You condemn a religious culture that won’t allow wanton destruction of the unborn as they grow inside their mother’s womb but you refuse to condemn a culture that treats the same women as chattel. You’re one dumb bunny, Arden. If Darwinian theory was really operative you yourself would be among the unborn (actually the unconceived but unborn had more poetry in this instance). -ds
nostrowski:
‘Enslave’ was just hyperbole. That makes it okay.
Well, I’d say that “church burners” isn’t a popular politically-driven caracature.
And I agree that it’s inflammatory as well, applied to anyone except the fringe to which it applies — though it seems to be a reasonable accusation against those that actually celebrated the burning of churches, and I believe you are familiar with those words of glee.
It’s kind of like calling a crowd of people celebrating the 9/11 disaster a “bunch of terrorists”. Well, it’s not exactly accurate, but the sentiment is certainly there. I’d certainly be nervous about what their kids and mine are learning if a member of the dancing crowd moved in next door and ran for the school board.
There’s the danger of inflammatory words and actions. They don’t help much.
You say that like you don’t realize how funny it is saying “church burner” is “inflammatory”. You guys need to give me a break here. I was just trying to “turn up the heat” in the discussion. “Light a fire” under the arses of the opposition. “Fuel” the debate. “Spark” some controversy. “Heat up” some emotions. “Ignite” a “flame” war…
-ds
ArdenChatfield’s comments have been most interesting, but sadly off mark. I’ve spent a fair amount of time over at PT getting to know them and trying to understand their perspectives. There is a consistent message coming from them: just how deeply hateful and disrespectful they are toward Christians, Christianity, or anything Christ/Jesus related, “fundamentalist” or not. I’d invite everyone reading this to go to PT and read for yourselves just how little they understand about a faith they’ve personally decided to reject and whose followers they believe are… what was it Dawkins said?
Other than that underlying foundation of hatred, I love the folks at PT. They are entertaining and can be quite engaging on many interesting topics. I pray for their peace, happiness, and greater acceptance toward people of faith. After all, hatred does as much damage to the hater as it does the hated.
Actually, dougmoran, I believe hatred does far more damage to the hater for often the hated simply don’t care. While ArdenChatfield wastes what we can only assume is his valuable time casting epithets at ghosts, the intended targets of his ad hominems are blissfully unaware of his frothing and ostensibly obsessive distaste.
“Would you say it’s fair to characterize you as more likely to set a fundamentalist church on fire than someone who, all else being equal, doesn’t think the people who attend the church are out to enslave and dominate you? -ds”
So now I’m being judged by what you ‘think I’m likely to do’?
Let’s call it “profiled”. -ds
What was that quote, oh yeah, “judge not lest ye be judged”?
Judge all you want. Considering the source, I won’t mind.
(Probably not one of your more favorite Bible quotes.)
I have more favorite Shakespeare quotes than Bible quotes. Maybe you forget that I’m not a Christian in any reasonable sense of the word. Maybe a deist in my less agnostic moments. So you’re really barking up the wrong tree.
That is interesting as both a glimpse into your concept of due process and as an example of your willingness to ascribe actions to people you don’t know at all.
I know you through your writing.
Let’s spin that around: “Would you say it’s fair to characterize you as more likely to send in death threats to a Supreme Court Justics than someone who, all else being equal, doesn’t think the judge committed a horrible miscarriage of justice?”
Yes, that’s a fair characterization. Congratulations on having a rational thought. Was it the first time for you?
(That’s hyperbole, BTW, Dave.)
No, it wasn’t. But I should have known anything resembling a rational thought coming from you must have been an accident. Silly me.
That seems to meet your criteria for ‘evidence’ pretty exactly. You no doubt think it’s a very unfair statement, which it is. So why is your statement any more justified?
Surprise. I didn’t think it was at all unfair. It makes perfect sense.
Besides, last I checked, those church fires WERE SET BY A BUNCH OF BOYS FROM NICE CHRISTIAN FAMILIES, not some wicked urban atheist evolutionists. Remember???
Maybe they were adopted.
nostrowski:‘Enslave’ was just hyperbole. That makes it okay.
I find those who classify others without proper knowledge innocent of hyperbole and, to put as kindly as possible, guilty of ignorance. You obviously have little experience among “fundamentalist” Christians who are concerned with protecting their children from omnipresent doses of broadcasted smut and not in the slightest desirous of enslaving you.
Ooo, Dave finally calls me a liberal. Now the gloves are off! The Shakespeare quotes were just a warmup, I guess.
My point, Dave, is that it is hypocritical to condemn people for religious bigotry when you do precisely the same thing, or worse, but it’s supposedly justified when it’s a religion you don’t like.
I’m no great fan of Islam, either, but I daresay you’re in no position to be condemning people for religious bigotry. If you want to say religious bigotry is bad, you can’t turn around and say it’s okay for other groups you dislike.
Glad you’re not a ‘hater’, Dave.
Responding to you is becoming “excessively annoying” to me. If you don’t know what all that entails ask your fearless leader Herr Fuhrer Doktor Professor Vesley. Come back soon, but not too soon, if you get my drift. There’s nothing at all wrong with justifiable religious bigotry. Not all religious beliefs deserve respect. You simply have no discernable ability to separate the wheat from the chaff. -ds
Afghani Moslems Demand Execution for Christian Convert
Man, our fundies have just got to catch up!
nostrowski:“Overwrought, paranoid, knee-jerk bigotry.â€Â
ArdenChatfield:‘Bigotry’? Have you asked Dave lately what he thinks of Muslims?
I don’t feel compelled to ask Dave anything. I was addressing your statements. Not his. Deflection won’t deter me from what is clearly overwrought, paranoid, knee-jerk bigotry.
DaveScot:
“This is very basic Christian theology that kids learn in Sunday school when they’re little. At least that’s when I learned it. The way to the Father is through the Son.”
I have no problem with that, but you are making my point. What the vast majority of fundamentalists follow is an interpretation of the bible, as presented by the churches, sunday schools, and their own views.
My point was that interpreting everything in the bible literally would make one’s actions unforgiveable in a modern context (moreso wrt the OT, but in the new as well), and people generally do not do so, even if they state that they do. Hence, the poll is not representative of reality.
No, it wouldn’t make their actions unforgivable. You don’t understand basic Christian theology if that’s what you think. If they followed Christ perfectly they’d be the most loving, charitable, tolerant people imaginable. You need to go away and come back when you’re not a stupid troll. -ds
nostrowski- It’s when that obsessive distaste and frothing reaches a breaking point that the picture changes. The seed of hate grows silently within, taking root in every dark place, forcing out the light until only darkness remains, and then bursts forth from its enslaved host who is now the instrument of it’s will. Alas, the hater, who first saw himself as the purveyor of truth and light, now finds he is a slave to falsehood and darkness.
Dougmoran: Thanks. I enjoyed that. What need have they for a tyrant who are capable of enslaving themselves?
“The ignorance of posters like jasonng or hamilton would be funny were it not so…well, isn’t willful ignorance actually stupidity?”
Radaractive, no offense but maybe you should get a sense of humour. Jt636 was willingly misrepresenting Christians and I was only mocking such a ridiculous comment in response. Ridiculous comments do not deserve well-thought out replies. I think you shouldn’t jump to conclusions so easily. Maybe actually read what the other guy said so you understand the context? That’s what smart people would do, and I assume you are one too?
Let us actually try and get some where. I find it really funny that people especially people who hate Bush (not related to anyone on this board) cite the “Fear” that the GOv. tries to pour our on us. In fact Michael Moores last film highlighted this substantially and actually made the case that our Gov. was willfully making us affriad. Now what you might ask does this have to do with this blog? Well, the very same tactics of fear are playing themselves out here. You know there is theory coined by I can’t remember who but it basically says that any time we don’t undersand someone we make them the “other.” This is how I believe humans have been justifying killing other people and enslaving them for our known history. Now this “other” mentality plays itself out on both sides of this debate. For one side a incredible fear of fundamentalism sprouts attacks based on the Fact/Value misunderstanding (Nancey Pearcey) between science and religion. On the other hand we have those fundamentalist who are affraid? that people without a moral conscience are taking over this country and must be stopped. And dare I say there are people just like me who don’t fit into either camp but walk a middle line of understanding trying to keep the moral framework without the hard edged fundamentalist approach. However, this will never work itself out in our society since it seems like those who don’t understand fundamentalism will fear and hate it without an understanding of those who are actually fundamentalists. And the same for the other side. If you are not part of the left then you are a right but maybe both are mistaken in one sense or another. But we are never allowed to discuss that since we resort back to our stereotypes about the other side. The difference being that some stereotypes are more justified than others.
So what does all this jargon have to do with Fundamentalism. Well, I think you must understand that fundamentalism has different meanings to different people. It doesn’t mean to everyone that you must take the bible exactly as you understand it 4,000 years after it first was orally passed down but that you must try and jump into each cultures setting to understand what is being said and commmunicated. Futher that means taking knowledge in with you when you interpret and understanding you can be wrong. If there is one complaint I have of what liberals would call fundamentalists it is that they do not understand the word fallible with regard to interpretation. However, at least they have a working knowledge of scripture which many on this board have shown is lacking within our current culture. If you don’t understand fear and kill it. hehehehhehehe Just kidding.
In any case many christians will unkowningly be dumped into the fundamentalist camp but there is little they can do about it. I guess I like what someone said earlier, “Luke 6:27-35″. I don’t think I could have said it any better myself.