I have been thinking lately about how fundamentalism, especially religious fundamentalism, is a kind of sickness that takes over the brains of those who practice it, even very intelligent people, and I'm wondering if any of you have seen a very incisive logical rebuttal or proof against religious fundamentalism or dogmatism.

I'm tired of merely saying, "Just because it is written thus, doesn't make it so," in rejoinder to someone who says that because it is so written in the Bible, or the Koran, or the Vedas, it makes it so. Does this make sense?

I mean, I could wake up tomorrow, proclaim that God had spoken to me, pull out a pen, write it all down, and publish it as the "word of God," and by gum if not a goodly portion of people would believe me, buy the book, and immortalize my name in eternity. (Yes, I see the relation to Y2k.) That's all scriptural writing is, productions by HUMANS, not God, which somehow fundamentalists have decided is the final last word because, even though it was written by a human, it has attained the proportion of myth.

I'm wondering if any of you have stumbled upon a really easy to read, logical rebuttal to this "inscribed in stone" mentality, clearly organized, impossible to refute. I realize it is futile to try to argue with a fundamentalist, but I would at least like to be able to provide material that is impossible to logically refute. Is there a concise web site somewhere that presents the logical rejoinder?

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), July 13, 2000

Answers

The problem is that disproving someones belief isnt that same as dissuading them from believing what they choose to believe. You cant disprove belief. They can always say: I dont believe that. And essentially its the end of the argument. You cant prove a negative. I.e., you cant prove that Aliens never have landed on the earth.

Probably the clearest example is people who believe that the age of the earth is around 4000 years because of some odd biblical calculations. You can show via carbon dating and other methods that its not true but their answer is always: I dont believe that. However it is quite another thing for them to insist that their beliefs have equal validity with what can be proved and disproved objectively and should be taught in schools.

What is most intersting (at least to me) is that people who usually operate in such a way reject other belief systems even though they cant disprove those other beliefs either. And their belief in their belief system doesnt usually extend to jumping off of bridges because they dont belief in gravity.

-- The Engineer (spcengineer@yahoo.com), July 13, 2000.

all scripture,is alot easier to understand,if you 1st understand-the PLAN!!

-- al-d. (dogs@zianet.com), July 13, 2000.

The plans will soon be in our hands, my master.

-- Darth (DV@emperor.net), July 13, 2000.

Engineer: "And their belief in their belief system doesnt usually extend to jumping off of bridges because they dont belief in gravity."

Has to be one of the best lines I've ever read.

Celia, I was trying to think of an answer to this, but I think the Engineer said it best...you really can't disprove what someone believes and "fundamentalism" (at least as I think you mean it) is a belief system.

Take one of cpr's posts today as an example (the one titled "Stupidity" or something like that). This person put these pictures up on a web site claiming they are "check points". Now most people who look at these shots know that these "check points" are "weigh stations" for trucks and buses, etc. (one of which appears to be no longer operational; hence the barbed wire fence surrounding it). But because this person *believes* in an evil government plot in support of the NWO, suddenly these "check points" take on a whole new (sinister) meaning.

The problem in attempting to "provide material that is impossible to logically refute" is that if someone doesn't want to believe it, they aren't going to believe it. And the scientific method be damned.

Let me know if you find something, though. I'd be very interested in reading it (email addy is genuine).

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), July 13, 2000.

Celia - I mean, I could wake up tomorrow, proclaim that God had spoken to me, pull out a pen, write it all down, and publish it as the "word of God," and by gum if not a goodly portion of people would believe me, buy the book, and immortalize my name in eternity.

Here's a 10-step plan for starting your own religion that may be of assistance in your endeavors.

(I once considered doing the same thing but the responsibility for all those Lost Souls was more karma than I was willing to take on. -g-)

Just for giggles, you might also want to check out Biblical Errancies and be sure to have Frank explain Biblical "Science". (He's big on "science", you know...)

Personally, I'd like someone to explain why the "Christians" in any group are the ones most likely to be narrow-minded, bigotted, self-righteous and downright hateful towards anyone who believes or acts differently than they do. This seems to be a direct contradiction to what I believe Christianity to be and I've yet to reconcile the dichotomy in their beliefs and behavior. I mean, where does the Bible say "Hate one another"?

-- LunaC (PlayNiceWithOneAnother@Jesus.com), July 13, 2000.

"Personally, I'd like someone to explain why the "Christians" in any group are the ones most likely to be narrow-minded, bigotted, self-righteous and downright hateful towards anyone who believes or acts differently than they do."

Luna, I couldn't agree more. This world is full of these narrow-minded, bigotted, self-righteous, downright hateful, tee- totaling, Bible-Thumping, name calling, mud slinging, street witnessing, Republican voting, tounge speaking, gay hating, holy rolling, forum trolling, fish souling, bad bowling, never knowing, lawn mowing, tithe giving, always forgiving, have no misgivings, working for a living bigots. These poor miserable creatures have smaller brains than we do, and they have not evolved as much as we have.

Celia You sound like you have something in common with me. We both believe we are right. I believe that my Christian faith is right, you appear to believe that your rejection of my Christian faith is right. It puts us in the same boat. Hopefully you see this.

-- Butt Nugget (catsbutt@umailme.com), July 13, 2000.

Sooner or later, most people have an overwhelming need to believe in something beyond their own senses. Celia, why do you feel the need to refute fundementalists unless they are getting in your face? I know some Christian fundies and they never get in anyone's face. Anyway, for me, I am very content to let them believe what they want. I have no need to rebut them. Their faith practices are none of my business.

Luna, why do you only pick on Christian fundamentalists? Strikes me that Muslim fundamentalists are more fanatic. I am not criticizing all Muslims, only those who drive suicide bomb trucks into crowds of innocent people because they think that will get them to Paradise.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), July 13, 2000.

Butt - These poor miserable creatures have smaller brains than we do, and they have not evolved as much as we have.

It's not about brains, it's about loving HEARTS!

-- LunaC (PlayNice@Jesus.com), July 13, 2000.

Lars - Why do you only pick on Christian fundamentalists? Strikes me that Muslim fundamentalists are more fanatic. I am not criticizing all Muslims, only those who drive suicide bomb trucks into crowds of innocent people because they think that will get them to Paradise.

If we had Muslims poking their fundamentalism in my face every time I turned around, I'd pick on them too! I'm non-discriminatory that way. -g-

-- LunaC (EqualOpportunity@PickerOnner.com), July 13, 2000.

For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength. 1 Corinthians 1:25

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 14, 2000.

Celia: I have gone round and round with many a Bible thumper on this very topic. The bottom line is there is no logical rebuttal anyone can provide to support his belief that the writers of the Bible were literally inspired by God.

Luna: you wrote, 'Personally, I'd like someone to explain why the "Christians" in any group are the ones most likely to be narrow- minded, bigotted, self-righteous and downright hateful towards anyone who believes or acts differently than they do. This seems to be a direct contradiction to what I believe Christianity to be and I've yet to reconcile the dichotomy in their beliefs and behavior. I mean, where does the Bible say "Hate one another"?'.
You responded to your own comment. The basis of Christianity is "Love one another". Any sick individual can act poorly and claim to do so for his religion -- does that mean he belongs to it or embodies it?

-- aqua (aqu@fin.a), July 14, 2000.

Nugget- man. Bad bowling? ROTFLMAO-tpp funny.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), July 14, 2000.

I agree with Lars on this one. As a nonevangelist myself, I don't feel a need to "mess" with the belief systems of others. I DO, however, like to know WHY folks believe what they believe.

I enjoy looking into the different versions of the bible for my own benefit, and I probably wouldn't do this unless fundamentalists pointed out particular quotes. For instance, in the Harry Potter thread, J presented something from Galatians. When was the last time you heard anyone quote scripture from Galatians? It's perhaps the smallest and least-quoted book in the Bible. Researching the different versions of the bible, I found that X versions used the term witch [which is what we were discussing], Y versions used the term sorcerer, and a few more referenced something closer to the original translation from the Hebrew which more closely identified with poisoner [as in one who offers another a poisoned drink.] It wasn't important to me that I report back to J on the results. It was simply important to me to do the research for my own edification, and I wouldn't have done that had J not mentioned it. This helps me explain [to myself] why Christians come in so many flavors and believe so many different things.

Life makes a lot more sense if you see it from the point of view of others, IMO. I'd always wondered why Moslem women covered their hair in public. After talking with a Moslem neighbor, I learned that a female's hair is likened to a private part in that faith. Heck...if I thought my hair was a private part, I'd cover it in public as well. If I believed in a devil and that belief system included witches and wizards as being FROM the devil, I wouldn't want my kids reading Harry Potter either. If I were committed to evangelism, I'd probably even tell others they were wrong if they did. It's not easy to understand the belief systems of others, but the process is interesting, IMO. I have no interest in refuting what others believe.

Luna: Thanks for the links. I've explored several areas of at least one, and I'll keep them for future reference.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 14, 2000.

Thank you for your responses. To clarify, I do not wish to deny people their rights of faith. I myself believe in God. However, when a religion's social policies extend into the bedroom or into the lives of women across the world, for example, then I may feel compelled to speak out against it.

I find the sexism of most fundamentalist religions quite appalling. I have just finished reading a book about Afghanistan, and what the Taliban is doing against women there borders on a kind of gender genocide. This is fundamentalism taken to an extreme.

We are so used in this country to "live and let live," that we forget that the "word of God" is often used as a weapon to attack gays, women, children, even, and in some faiths, the divorced or the remarried, or those that wish to use birth control.

There is a line where religious belief crosses well over into civil rights, and it there that I think the battle rightly begins. If any religion deliberately employs fundamentalist strategies to oppress any group, be it a minority or a gender, I think it right to speak out against such "beliefs."

The Nazis believed that the Jews were inferior. Such fundamentalist beliefs led to the extermination of millions of Jews. Catholics believed that those who did not profess fidelty to Papal law were heretics, and they engaged in unbelievably cruel torture, all in the name of their fundamental beliefs.

Similarly, the Taliban believe that any woman who is accused of adultery ought to be stoned to death, and thus they stone them to death in public stadiums in front of thousands today. They believe that homosexuals should be buried alive, and thus they bury them alive. Women caught wearing the wrong style of dress are publicly beaten, sometimes to the point of death. Merely because when stepping over a stone a bit of their ankle showed.

What should we make of such "freedom of religion"?

It is this kind of fundamentalism that I should like to oppose with reason. It exists in America as well, though under much less shocking guises.

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), July 14, 2000.

Celia:

I agree with your latest post. I draw the line when someone's faith interferes with the lives of others. My arms don't extend to other countries, but this is one reason that I vote the way I do.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 14, 2000.

Mr. Nuggett, you said,

This world is full of these narrow-minded, bigotted, self-righteous, downright hateful, tee- totaling, Bible-Thumping, name calling, mud slinging, street witnessing, Republican voting, tounge speaking, gay hating, holy rolling, forum trolling, fish souling, bad bowling, never knowing, lawn mowing, tithe giving, always forgiving, have no misgivings, working for a living bigots.

Whew! You scared me for a minute there. Thankfully, my wife is *always* nagging me about my avoidance of mowing the lawn, so I know you weren't addressing me :-)

Celia, you said:

Catholics believed that those who did not profess fidelty to Papal law were heretics, and they engaged in unbelievably cruel torture, all in the name of their fundamental beliefs.

I agree with you completely! Those heretics just got what they deserved, in fact, most got off too easily.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 14, 2000.

Those heretics just got what they deserved, in fact, most got off too easily.

Troll alert.

-- LunaC (DogginFrankie@Dunce.com), July 14, 2000.

Celia, I think one problem we have is that we use the same words but ascribe different meanings to them. The origins of Christian Fundamentalism come out of the Fundamentalist/Modernist Controversy during the beginning of the 20th century (and the end of the 19th). Many of the mainline denominations were admitting pastors that denied beliefs considered core to the Christian Faith (i.e. Christ's atoning death on the cross, the virgin birth, the infallibility of Scripture, etc.)

The Christian Fundamentalists drew up a list of beliefs that they thought were fundamental to the Christian faith. This is where they got the nickname Fundamentalists.

I believe that you are refering to a different type of Fundamentalist. Could you claify?

-- Butt Nugget (catsbutt@umailme.com), July 15, 2000.

Well, you might want to substitute the word "extremist." I'm thinking of religions that use their scripture as hard outlines of human action. Dogmatism, perhaps. Anyone who uses the name of God to justify their man-made laws. This isn't limited to Christianity, of course. It includes most of the world's oldest religions. There can be Islamist fundamentalists as well as Christian fundamentalists.

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), July 15, 2000.

Celia:

It appears you are fighting against one instantiation of standard human nature. In this version, it's a set of strict rules for everyone else, with enough flexibility of interpretation to allow *you* to behave like *they* do, without yourself violating the rules they did when they behaved the same way.

The rules "inscribed in stone" are always mutually ambiguous. You can't kill people, but you can't tolerate (for example) other gods. When you encounter someone who worships other gods and won't change, you'd have a problem, except you can pick the rule suitable for your purposes, whatever you decide to do. Scripture will always support you, and not them, given the appropriate selection and interpretation.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 15, 2000.

Flint,

I don't think I'm picking and choosing from a set of strict rules. Since I was raised Catholic, I don't think I'm picking or choosing at all, just mindlessly functioning within a subconscious norm that was unfortunately hammered into me at a tender age and which I can never wholly rout from my psyche (try as I might!).

(Actually, that's a whole new topic: how to totally redress the soul and become new. Is there a ten-step plan to learning how to think and feel like a Protestant, for example? If so, I'd like to know it.)

I don't really admire strict rules, though I can appreciate the allure of authority, and how it so often acts as a siren song for seekers. I'm thinking instead that there are certain eternal truths about the value of universal ethical norms, and that such norms can be shown logically to be the best for human societies.

Whenever scripture crosses over into characterization of the "inherent nature" of a group of people, I find such descriptions logically insupportable. Scriptural texts are often used to justify or support the ill-treatment of certain groups of people, and such "religions" violate universal human rights.

I'm thinking more of discarding scripture altogether as a tool to support or refute behavior or belief, and using human reason as the only tool to support human conduct and laws. I understand your point that scripture is ambiguously used to support the user. But I don't want to use scripture to refute the use of scripture. I want to use logic to refute the idea that scripture is the "word of god" and not the word of humans.

You're a master of logic, Flint. What would you use?

But ... perhaps there's no answer to this one. As several have pointed out above, you can't use logic to influence the beliefs of another.

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), July 15, 2000.

Celia--

You listed several atrocities directed at women and missed others. I am no expert here (I only spanked my wife when she asked me to) but several horrible examples jump to mind: The Hindu practice of suttee in which a widow is expected to join her husband's funeral pyre while alive (I wonder if this is still practiced); the custom of female "circumcision" that is practiced in some black African tribes (I don't know if this "circumcision" is religion based or not); the ancient Chinese custom of foot-binding upper-class female children rendering them cripples as adults.

I don't think the common denominator here is religion so much as a cultural universal in which women were/are treated as property or worse. The modern feminist movement is curiously silent about female circumcision.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), July 16, 2000.

Flint, I don't think I'm picking and choosing from a set of strict rules. Since I was raised Catholic, I don't think I'm picking or choosing at all, just mindlessly functioning within a subconscious norm that was unfortunately hammered into me at a tender age and which I can never wholly rout from my psyche (try as I might!).

(Actually, that's a whole new topic: how to totally redress the soul and become new. Is there a ten-step plan to learning how to think and feel like a Protestant, for example? If so, I'd like to know it.)

I don't really admire strict rules, though I can appreciate the allure of authority, and how it so often acts as a siren song for seekers. I'm thinking instead that there are certain eternal truths about the value of universal ethical norms, and that such norms can be shown logically to be the best for human societies.

Whenever scripture crosses over into characterization of the "inherent nature" of a group of people, I find such descriptions logically insupportable. Scriptural texts are often used to justify or support the ill-treatment of certain groups of people, and such "religions" violate universal human rights.

I'm thinking more of discarding scripture altogether as a tool to support or refute behavior or belief, and using human reason as the only tool to support human conduct and laws. I understand your point that scripture is ambiguously used to support the user. But I don't want to use scripture to refute the use of scripture. I want to use logic to refute the idea that scripture is the "word of god" and not the word of humans.

You're a master of logic, Flint. What would you use?

But ... perhaps there's no answer to this one. As several have pointed out above, you can't use logic to influence the beliefs of another.

-- Butt Nugget (catsbutt@umailme.com), July 16, 2000.

Sorry about that last post, I copy and pasted Celia's post so I could use it as a reference, but accidentally hit the submit key before I typed my response.

Celia,
I want to use logic to refute the idea that scripture is the "word of god" and not the word of humans.

First, it seems (although I might be misinterpreting you) that you are trying to 'prostelyze' (or share) your world view/belief system. How is this more acceptable than a religious person sharing his belief system?

Second, how do you know that the genesis of your logic is founded upon the truth? Your worldview might be very logical and intelligent, but at the same time be wrong if it is built upon a faulty presupposition.

But ... perhaps there's no answer to this one. As several have pointed out above, you can't use logic to influence the beliefs of another.

This statement can be applied both ways. To you it might seem the religous person is being illogical. To the religious person trying to share his faith with you, you might seem to be illogical. How do you know you are correct?

-- Butt Nugget (catsbutt@umailme.com), July 16, 2000.

That didn't quite turn out how I had planned. Sorry.

-- Butt Nugget (catsbutt@umailme.com), July 16, 2000.

Celia:

I was trying to imply that the scriptural edicts of "God" are indistinguishable from the legal edicts of man. Both espouse rigid principles intended for universal application, yet both include principles that often prove mutually antagonistic in given situations.

Now, Man, imperfect and shortsighted as he is, can't help doing this. So for example, we have laws guaranteeing freedom of association with those we choose, and other laws prohibiting discrimination against identifiable groups. When we choose NOT to associate with an identifiable group, which principle do we use?

So if God is wise enough not to hand down mutually contradictory principles while Man is not, and if scriptural decrees are mutually contradictory (and they are), then: *Either* scripture isn't really from God, or God is as confused and ambiguous as Man, giving His rules no procedural superiority, or else God's channels of communication with Man are so noisy we don't know WHAT He wants.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 16, 2000.

On a thread two or three weeks ago I posted some comments regarding the creation of that phenomenal body of work known as The Bible. Most biblical scholars agree that the writings found in the Bible commenced fifty (50) years after the death of Jesus. This simple fact should give us reason to question the accuracy of the events and suppositions that were reported, so to speak.

Remember the old grammar school experiment with 10 people? Whisper a short thought to the first person and look at the result when it reaches the end of the line. We live in the golden age of data collection and how would we fare if we waited 50 years to report on an incident? Can you even begin to imagine how this shook out over 2000 years ago?

Down through the centuries the Bible has provided us with countless versions and interpretations, depending on the agenda being served (North, Koresh, etc.). If ever there was a volume of words open to infinite interpretation, the Bible has to be the all-time champ.

As a close second, I nominate my digital cameras instruction manual.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), July 16, 2000.

Let's see if I can html this post correctly:

Flint:
"So if God is wise enough not to hand down mutually contradictory principles while Man is not, and if scriptural decrees are mutually contradictory (and they are), then: *Either* scripture isn't really from God, or God is as confused and ambiguous as Man, giving His rules no procedural superiority, or else God's channels of communication with Man are so noisy we don't know WHAT He wants."

Please specify which degrees are mutually contradictory.

Ra (tion@1.1):
"Most biblical scholars agree that the writings found in the Bible commenced fifty (50) years after the death of Jesus. This simple fact should give us reason to question the accuracy of the events and suppositions that were reported, so to speak.

While many liberal scholars place the dates of scriptures 50 years or more after Jesus's death, conservative scholars do not. Also with the exception of Hebrews (solely because we do not know who the author is) and perhaps the Gospel of Matthew (again it has been attributed to Matthew as early as 150 AD) all of the authors were either apostles or close associates of apostles. (This is important because it means eyewitness accounts as opposed to information that has been regurgitated numerous times).

-- Butt Nugget (catsbutt@umailme.com), July 16, 2000.

I didn't get enough sleep last night. :-)

-- Butt Nugget (catsbutt@umailme.com), July 16, 2000.

There are seventeen primary English language versions of the Bible published and sold in the United States today.

Amplified Bible

Contemporary English Version

Gods Word

Jerusalem Bible

King James Version

New American Bible

New American Standard Bible

New Century Version

New International Version

New Jerusalem Bible

New King James Version

New Living Translation

New Revised Standard Version

Revised English Bible

Revised Standard Version

The Message

Today's English Version

Butt, I agree that the origins of the Bible seem to change dramatically depending on which group of scholars is delivering their findings. It is this very inconsistency that gives me cause for skepticism. Hardly a year can pass without some new scientific findings that debunk or alter that which has always been taken for granted. I just have trouble believing that we could know what really happened 2000 years ago.

But then, thats what faith is all about isnt it? You either does or you doesnt with many variations on both themes. Back to my camera.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), July 16, 2000.

Ra(tion1.1), I agree it all boils down to faith. I can't convince you and you can't convince me.

As for the list of Bible translations, they actually have very little to do with the Bible itself. There is big money in developing a Bible translation. As long as this is the case, expect a new translation every year or so.

-- Butt Nugget (catsbutt@umailme.com), July 16, 2000.

Well Butt, heres that magic word again:

trans7la7tion

1 : an act, process, or instance of translating: as a : a rendering from one language into another; also : the product of such a rendering b : a change to a different substance, form, or appearance

1, paraphrase, rendering, restatement

Of course all of this has little to do with the Bible???????

And Butt, I do have faith. I believe that its all up for speculation and is possibly the all-time fantasy scam. Which variation do you subscribe to?

-- Ra (tion@l.1), July 16, 2000.

"translations have nothing to do with the bible itself."

Which bible would that be? Isn't that the whole point? Modern translations aren't the problem. There are 350 different translations of the bible, and it started so long ago that it seems ridiculous, to ME, for ANYONE to suggest that there is ONE bible, or ever was ONE bible.

While modern translations are created to make money, previous translations were produced for political reasons. Look at the KJV, for instance. King James didn't like the bible of his time, so he produced one that would "fit" with HIS desires.

Here's a lengthy article which tries to deal with only one concept of Christianity: Everlasting Death. Short of knowing how to translate the original languages involved, which would necessarily include a knowledge of word meanings at the time, I find it hard for ANYONE to accept ONE translation [no matter HOW old] as the ONE bible.

For whoever asked about feminists and female circumcision, it just doesn't come up very often. The countries that circumcize females do a LOT of strange things, IMO. Where would one begin if one wanted to get involved in their cultures? Personally, I refused to have my son circumsized. To ME, this was a religious custom that infused itself into mainstream culture under a claim that it was important for cleanliness, etc.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 16, 2000.

"For whoever asked about feminists and female circumcision, it just doesn't come up very often."

Anita--

I brought that up in the context of ongoing, cross-cultutral, worldwide atrocities to women. You're right, that doesn't come up very often. Why?

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), July 16, 2000.

Celia and everyone,

Great conversation. Celia, It IS futile to try to argue with a fundamentalist. Perhaps all that can be done is the "sowing of seeds". As I was reading the following I couldn't help but relate it to my experience of Y2K. Perhaps this can provide insight for others.

Any philosophy, theory, or ideology that is based essentially on faith, irrationality, and blind obedience to unsubstantiated allegations, propositions, and promises is bound to be highly vulnerable to criticism and attack. The contentions of people who rely more on faith than reason, belief than proof, compliance than criticism, superstition than science will always be subject to refutation and disproof.

Key elements in the New Testament's response to this problem are solidification and isolation. Adherents are to be made so determined in their faith that no amount of contradictory evidence will loosen their resolve. The attitude the New Testament seeks to create is, "I don't care what evidence exists to prove that various phenomena or precepts in the New Testament are fraudulent and the work is essentially an indoctrinating tool wielded by a dominant group, if the Bible says it, then it must be true." Once this outlook is inculcated, the door has slammed shut to any further dialogue. Reasoning is no longer of any use, Jesus has taken over.

Solidification works best through isolation. Believers are warned to refrain from argumentation and disputation with critics and nonbelievers. The latter are to be considered misguided and that's that. Don't listen to them is the message of Col. 2:4: ("Do not let anyone deceive you with false arguments, no matter how good they seem to be"); I Tim. 6:20-21: ("Avoid the profane talk and foolish arguments of what some people wrongly call 'knowledge'"); II Tim. 2:23-24: ("But keep away from foolish and ignorant arguments; you know that they end up in quarrels."); and Titus 3:9-10: ("But avoid stupid arguments, quarrels, and fights about the Law. They are useless and worthless. Give at least two warnings to the person who causes divisions, and then have nothing more to do with him").

Even the most rational, logical, peaceful, thoroughly researched discussions are to be avoided because they supposedly create nothing more than quarrels and fights. This has been the time-honored approach of demagogues for centuries -- indoctrinate and isolate, isolate and indoctrinate. The real reason arguments are to be shunned is that Christian teachings cannot withstand rational analysis and believers are liable to be swayed by it.

It is strictly taboo for believers to criticize or test what they are told, according to Matt. 4:7 ("Do not put the Lord your God to the test") and Rom. 9:20 ("But who are you, my friend, to talk back to God? A clay pot does not ask the man who made it, 'Why did you make me like this?'").

Mark 11:27-33 relates a story in which Jesus is asked, "What right do you have to do these things? Who gave you such a right?" Jesus replies that if they will answer his question, he will answer theirs. His question is too difficult for them, so he closes by saying, "Neither will I tell you, then, by what right I do these things." In other words, don't question Christ's authority. He isn't obligated to reply.

*Need to stop here. Posting second half next

-- Debra (whatcanbe@said.com), July 16, 2000.

Testing

-- ?? (???@???.com), July 16, 2000.

*Second half

Testing is not needed, since by some mysterious process the alleged truth of Christianity will be shown to believers. Luke 7:35 says, "God's wisdom, however, is shown to be true by all who accept it," and I John 2:27 says, "As long as his Spirit remains in you, you do not need anyone to teach you. For his Spirit teaches you about everything, and what he teaches is true, not false."

As far as scriptural teachings are concerned, it is virtually impossible for a critic, analyst, or observer to be honest, sincere, and well-meaning. The New Testament depicts him as a cunning, deceitful, hypocritical trickster consciously or unconsciously leading unwary Christians down the rose-lined path to destruction. Proving the contrary is ruled out from the beginning. Here, more than anywhere else, the New Testament propounds the ultimate in closed- mindedness. To cast suspicion on all those who question the accuracy of biblical beliefs by depicting them as false prophets and deceivers is the ultimate in misrepresentation. Although not directly stated, the New Testament has given its adherents the impression that any and all critics are frauds bent on misleading the unwary.

The following verses bear this out Matt. 7:15: ("Be on your guard against false prophets; they come to you looking like sheep on the outside, but on the inside they are really like wild wolves"); Matt. 24:11: ("Then many false prophets will appear and fool many people"); Matt. 24:24-26: ("False Messiahs and false prophets will appear, they will perform great miracles and wonders in order to deceive even God's chosen people, if possible"); II Peter 2:13: ("False prophets appeared in the past among the people, and in the same way false teachers will appear among you. They will bring in destructive, untrue doctrines"); and I Tim. 6:3-4: ("Whoever teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the true words of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the teaching of our religion is swollen with pride and knows nothing. He has an unhealthy desire to argue and quarrel about words").

When the amount of facts, data, and evidence tending to invalidate Christian beliefs becomes overwhelming, the ultimate in isolation techniques is employed. Believers are assured they possess a secret truth incomprehensible to outsiders. Although a mountain of evidence may exist to prove that following Jesus involves a deceptive, masochistic form of self-torture that only benefits those in charge, biblicists are told to ignore reality and view critics as hopeless devil-agents incapable of understanding the higher "truth." In essence, the New Testament's message is, "Forget what reality says, listen to what I say. Are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?"

Finishing up in the following post

-- Debra (??@??.com), July 16, 2000.

Relevant verses are I Cor. 2:6-7: ("Yet I do proclaim a message of wisdom to those who are spiritually mature. But it is not the wisdom that belongs to this world, or to the powers that rule this world.... The wisdom I proclaim is God's secret wisdom, hidden from mankind"); I Cor. 2:13-14: ("So then, we do not speak in words taught by human wisdom.... Whoever does not have the Spirit cannot receive the gifts that come from God's Spirit. Such a person really does not understand them; they are nonsense to him, because their value can be judged only on a spiritual basis"); I Cor. 1:20-21: ("God has shown that this world's wisdom is foolishness! For God in his wisdom made it impossible for men to know him by means of their own wisdom. Instead, by means of the so-called foolish message we preach, God decided to save those who believe"); I Cor. 1:27: ("God purposely chose what the world considers nonsense in order to shame the wise, and he chose what the world considers weak in order to shame the powerful"); I Cor. 3:18-20: ("If anyone among you thinks that he is wise by this world's standards, he should become a fool, in order to be really wise. For what this world considers to be wisdom is nonsense in God's sight.... God traps the wise in their cleverness.... The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are worthless"); I Cor. 4:10: ("For Christ's sake we are fools; but you are wise in union with Christ!").

Again the New Testament manages to turn ominous defeat into partial victory. Contradictory data is portrayed as a test of the believer's faith. The more out-of-tune with reality Christianity becomes, the greater the test and ultimate reward Teaching an individual to "become a fool in order to become wise" ranks with the ultimate in indoctrination. If this isn't a black-is-white approach, what is? The lengths to which the elite will go to generate support are truly awesome.

For very interesting reading go here and follow some links:

http://www.aracnet.com/~atheism/writ/dovewing.htm#CRITICS

Sorry, next time I'll just link?

-- Debra (whatcanbe@said?.com), July 16, 2000.

Relevant verses are I Cor. 2:6-7: ("Yet I do proclaim a message of wisdom to those who are spiritually mature. But it is not the wisdom that belongs to this world, or to the powers that rule this world.... The wisdom I proclaim is God's secret wisdom, hidden from mankind"); I Cor. 2:13-14: ("So then, we do not speak in words taught by human wisdom.... Whoever does not have the Spirit cannot receive the gifts that come from God's Spirit. Such a person really does not understand them; they are nonsense to him, because their value can be judged only on a spiritual basis"); I Cor. 1:20-21: ("God has shown that this world's wisdom is foolishness! For God in his wisdom made it impossible for men to know him by means of their own wisdom. Instead, by means of the so-called foolish message we preach, God decided to save those who believe"); I Cor. 1:27: ("God purposely chose what the world considers nonsense in order to shame the wise, and he chose what the world considers weak in order to shame the powerful"); I Cor. 3:18-20: ("If anyone among you thinks that he is wise by this world's standards, he should become a fool, in order to be really wise. For what this world considers to be wisdom is nonsense in God's sight.... God traps the wise in their cleverness.... The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are worthless"); I Cor. 4:10: ("For Christ's sake we are fools; but you are wise in union with Christ!").

And as an example one we are presented Steve Heller.

-- passerby (amazing@this.place), July 16, 2000.

anybody home?

-- lmnop (test@tb.k), July 16, 2000.

Mr. Nugget,

When I was in college, by fortuitous chance I studied philosophy and biology at the same time, and the blinders I had had about religion came down, and things began to make sense to me in a new light. I am not trying to impose a new faith on anyone, nor do I know if logic has some ultimate value over a form of understanding we haven't yet uncovered. Of all ways of understanding, however, I think logic and science tell us the most truths. Once you get outside the confines of a dogma, and into the open world where free ideas are exchanged in unfettered fashion, truth can come to light. See Debra's post below, about isolation and indoctrination. All fundamentalist faiths try to keep their flock isolated from other ways of seeing. To try to keep one's group ignorant of the wider world is a key indicator of a repressive and usually oppressive religion. Secrecy and tight control by the leaders of a religion lead to abuses of power within its clergy and various forms of discrimination, abuse, and control applied against its women and children.

To say one way of understanding is superior to another is not the point. The point is to find a way to pull the blinders off the eyes of fundamentalists through free debate with an emphasis on logic and science.

Flint, I don't think we can know what God wants except for ourselves, and even then it's a bit of a game. The problem arises when someone tells others what God wants for them (religion). The relation/communication with God is, to my mind, a strictly personal one, and to impose one's conception of God upon the world is the first mistake. I mistrust the person who is trying "help" others find God.

Hinduism is slightly refreshing to me because one chooses whatever god appeals to one. Even in a single family, members will worship various gods. No one minds. No one proselytizes. Yet even the philosophy of the some of the vedas is very repressive and ignorant, especially in its delination of the "nature" of women and of castes.

Debra and Anita: thanks for the links.

And about other forms of torture and abuse to women in the world: it happens so often in so many guises that merely keeping tabs on one's own backyard is difficult. Every woman must began in her own home, her own life. Then eventually women can extend to the small world about them. Fighting intolerance overseas is difficult. Men will someday realize that universal human rights extended to all will serve to benefit men as much as women and children.

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), July 17, 2000.

Is this working?

-- testy (only@a.test), July 17, 2000.

Celia< - All fundamentalist faiths try to keep their flock isolated from other ways of seeing. To try to keep one's group ignorant of the wider world is a key indicator of a repressive and usually oppressive religion. Secrecy and tight control by the leaders of a religion lead to abuses of power within its clergy and various forms of discrimination, abuse, and control applied against its women and children.

That is a huge generalization. While it is true that many Christian groups wearing the label 'Fundamentalist' are anti-intellectual and anti-education, you are totally wrong to apply it to all groups. Many groups you would label Fundamentalist strongly encourage secular education among its members. I do have to add though, that they encourage their membership to use discernment in everything they learn, and not just sop up everything as a sponge.

Debra, I do not have time to answer your post right now as I am starting to get late to work, but I will say this. Many of the verses you use are stripped from their context. Placed in the proper context they are saying something completly different than you are trying to make them say.

-- Butt Nugget (catsbutt@umailme.com), July 17, 2000.

"It will be the proud boast of woman that she never contributed a line to the Bible."

The above quote was taken from this LINK.

Any discussion of bondage and the Bible would be remiss if the Biblical role outlined for women was omitted. In both the Old and New Testaments women are assigned a position not appreciably different from that of domestic servants. Their status is demeaning, debilitating, and wholly incompatible with self-respect and confidence. Except for Mary, Eve, Ruth, Sarah, Rachel, and a few lesser figures, few biblical women have roles of significance and even fewer are worthy of emulation.

Eve, for example, is blamed for the creation of Original Sin. The Bible says as much: "For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner" (1 Tim 2:12-14, NIV). Is it any wonder that women's groups oppose this narrative. With his usual wit Ingersoll once observed: "...nearly every religion has accounted for all the devilment in this world by the crime of woman. What a gallant thing that is! And if it is true, I had rather live with the woman I love in a world full of trouble, than to live in heaven with nothing but men" ("Ingersoll's Works": Vol. I, p. 358). One of the saddest and most perplexing dilemmas one can experience in modern society is confronting women who strongly believe and defend a book that so clearly assigns them a degrading and subservient status. How do you reach those who are defending a philosophy that is so totally opposed to their interests.

Continued in next post...

-- Debra (...@....), July 17, 2000.

To use the vernacular, the Bible is sexist and permeated with male supremacy, as the following verses show only too well: "...and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee" (Gen 3:16). "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man..." (1 Cor 11:3). "Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man" (1 Cor 11:9). "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husband, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife... therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husband in every thing" (Eph 5:22-24).

Anyone desiring more proof should read: Deut 21:10-14, 24:1-4; Judges 5:30; Esther 1:20-22; Rom 7:2; 1 Col 3:18; Titus 2:4-5; 1 Peter 3:1; Lev 12:2, 5; Gen 3:20. If these are not sufficient there are more. The evidence is overwhelming. Apologists try to softpedal the entire mater, but facts are stubborn things. It isn't just Paul but the entire Bible that's guilty. Is it any wonder that feminist, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, once said: "The Bible and the Church have been the greatest stumbling blocks in the way of woman's emancipation" ("Free Thought Magazine": Vol. 14, 1896). And she also said, "I know of no other book that so fully teaches the subjection and degradation of women" ("Eight Years and More," Elizabeth Cady Stanton, p. 395).

Not to be outdone Ingersoll again displayed his wisdom by saying: "...it [the Bible] is not the friend of woman. They will find that the writers of that book, for the most part, speak of woman as a poor beast of burden, a serf, a drudge, a kind of necessary evil -- as mere property" ("Ingersoll's Works", Vol. 12, p. 43). "As long as woman regards the Bible as the charter of her rights, she will be the slave of man. The Bible was not written by a woman. Within its lids there is nothing but humiliation and shame for her. She is regarded as the property of man... She is as much below her husband, as her husband is below Christ" ("Ingersoll's Works", Vol. I, p. 396). But, perhaps, George Foote made the most poignant comment of all: "It will be the proud boast of woman that she never contributed a line to the Bible."

-- Debra (...@....), July 17, 2000.

Lars:

I don't want you to think I'm ignoring your question, but I thought I already addressed it. There are FEW feminists in the countries in which you note these atrocities. In these same countries, other rituals occur that involve both genders [equally strange, IMO.] I don't consider myself a feminist, but even if I were, I'd be concentrating on problems occurring in my OWN country.

I'm anti-circumcision in EITHER gender. Some males in countries that include female circumcision include male circumcision at puberty. It's up to the parents of the children to say, "Enough is enough." I did that for my son. No one ever tried to circumcize my daughters. It doesn't come up in Western countries, because it's not DONE in Western countries.

Is that more clear?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 17, 2000.

I really liked your article.I totally agree with you that all religious writings are purely man made.Unfortunately religious fanatics are immune to logic.I was raised as a christian and I was always told that The Bible is the word of God bcause God said so.When i pointed out contradictions and concepts that are obviously illogical,believers would always respong that "our minds are not big enough to understand the grand plan".I take exception to that . I believe that my mind is capable of understanding anything that makes sense.These two statements :"because God said so" and "our minds cannot understand" are the only defences against logic.Unfortunately theses two defences are so ridiculous that you cant even answer them.Relegious fanatics really are unbelievably dumb.I dont know weather to feel frustrated ,pitifull or superiour.but I'm certain that organised religion is one of the main evils that face us as a species. It has been responsible for the majority of wars,divides and prejudices that continue to plague us.Although I believe in freedom of religion I think that people should be more responsible.Do parents have the right to brainwash their children in the name of religion?

-- julian p (jul_p@hotmail.com), December 07, 2000.