Epistemological and psycho-social considerations on mainly christian fanatism

For convenience I will shorten 'fanatic fundamentalist christians' to 'ffuchs'. Please notice spelling and disregard phonetic similarities.

While ffuch efforts of monopoly in some areas and historical periods have become so much a part of daily life, that it's practically transparent, it's still nonetheless a conspiracy for world domination.

As a champion of liberal democracy, I'll put on my shining armour, mount my white horse and present my impression of the ffuch conspiracy's methodology.

1/ Vulgar propaganda.

Parroted, secondhand religious instruction. Me godguy, you badguy. Fire, brimstone, Satan etc. Such ffuchs usually have little or no real knowledge of 'christian' scripture.

2/ Hit-and-run

Public meetingplaces, like e.g. an internet forum, is a messageboard or wall for religious graffiti. Deliever a sermon and disappear.

3/ Circular argumentation

'Christian' scripture is true, because it's true. 'Christian' aims are true, because 'christian' scripture says so.

4/ Deciding debate parameters

'Christian' assumptions and semantics are the only accepted 'meetingplace'. Practically anything can be disregarded as 'irrelevant' on these terms.

5/ Faith

"My personal 'christian' faith and corresponding experience is valuable, and can't be debated". Many of the 34.000 such personal denominational subjective interpretations of 'christianity' conveniently forget the 'subjective' part and fight each other and practically everybody else also, pretending to be objective.

6/ Victimization

From the perspective of liberal democracy, open debate is beneficial, and considering such an open debate as infringing on religious rights is incorrect. The aim of ffuchs is ''christian' privileges, while the aim of liberal democracy is everybody being in the boat together.

7/ Fools' errands

Criticism against ffuch ideology is met by demands of 'evidence'. If such 'evidence' is incontestable, it will mostly be ignored. Otherwise this evidence is 'biased', and in both cases a conscientious critic has wasted 1 - 3 days.

8/ Least-point-of-resistance diversion tactics

If nothing else helps, ffuchs will concentrate on a semicolon in the wrong place and lead critics in a merry dance out-of-main-context, delievering endless arguments, which doesn't seem to lead anywhere nor having relevance; tirering out opposition.

9/ Hardcore approach

As a last resort, and if practically possible, ffuchs will fall back on good old-fashioned censorship, 'editing', falsification or outright violence.

I do not suggest, that all 'christians' or even all 'christian' fundamentalists use any or all of the above methodology. Neither that they are they alone on it: Neo-nazis, Stalinists, Jihad-fanatics etc use similar techniques.

Fanatics of all kinds only have one aim: Totalitarian control of power. And as long as it stays on a theoretical level, even suggestions of 'taking over' must be accepted as part of shooting it out. But fanatics must be prepared to take as good as they give, and living in a self-ascertained bubble of ineffabillity, this is a BIG problem for many of them.

Dear me. I forgot some points, which I'll add:

10/ Through-the-back-door

Twisted logic.

11/ 'They did it first'

12/ Hypocrisy

Ffuchs setting standards, they are not willing to use themselves.

Sounds just like what I see Fox News/Neocon supporters use, especially on this site.

Re: Damwel

I'm not familar with the sources, you refer to due to both being european and not having TV.

(I consider TV as most unholy and disruptive for 'spiritual' growth; though being liberal, I'll not suggest a ban on it)

Originally posted by bogomil
Fanatics of all kinds only have one aim: Totalitarian control of power. And as long as it stays on a theoretical level, even suggestions of 'taking over' must be accepted as part of shooting it out. But fanatics must be prepared to take as good as they give, and living in a self-ascertained bubble of ineffabillity, this is a BIG problem for many of them.

edit on 10-9-2010 by bogomil because: Insufficient material

ffuchs? Nice. I'll have to agree with you that fundies are annoying, don't understand their own scripture, and piss more people off than they convert. I also hate the term: soulwinning, like it's a game or something.
You had me until about here in your rant. Really? Totalitarian control of power? There may be some fringe fundies that want to establish a theocracy, but any educated Christian would be against this. God's Kingdom is "not of this Earth". To enforce Biblical law like Muslims do with Shariah, would compromise free will and would be men attempting to establish God's Kingdom on Earth... minus God (protip: God can and will do this alone, people have only ever messed up in the endevour). Fear and force also make the most tenuous converts (if you can call them that). The law of God is written in the hearts of all and that is where it should be followed, its a personal effort, though likeminded groups are good for positive reinforcement. A society, much like the Biblical Israelies might strive as a people to live by God's word (failed), but it is a community effort, one people, one mind. If you weren't with the program you weren't an Israelite and if you claimed to be you were an apostate. Christians are a global community, without an anchor. If we were as localized as the Israelites we would probably band together for support and protection, but there are enough of us spread out where this isn't necessary. There is no 'Christian' conspiracy to establish a totalitarian society, it is unbiblical.

Unless, like many anti-Christians your ire is aimed at our God. In which case, He isn't forcing you to obey Him, but there will be consequences for seperating yourself from Him and His gifts. God created the universe, and from Him all good things come. He is the only One that deserves power and service and the only One to whom my knee bows.

Re Kallisti

It's certainly a surprise to see my old thread revived. It's from a time, when I (in ATS terms) was more 'naive'. In the 'long' meantime (also in ATS terms) I have become considerably more hardened, as you know from another thread. So had I initiated this thread now, it would have been formulated differently.

But to the point: The elitist/egalitarian confrontation is far more complex, that most threads imply. It ranges from epistemological searches of 'relative reality fundaments' including an analysis of basic assumptions, methodology, functional 'tools' etc; via ideological doctrines (e.g. political or religious); to how it all manifests in social contexts.

The resulting debate-outcome of this confrontation is usually a hopeless mess, best examplified by Tom Lehrer: "If you ask a stupid question, you get a stupid answer". Many participants paint themselves into the corner of a special perspective (usually doctrinally defined), and refuse or are unable to respond or relate to anything outside this corner
(I often call this a holy bubble, where everything is pre-arranged in a rigid self-reinforcing structure, where external components are threatening 'irritants', and thus ignored).

That was the 'philosophical' background. To the practical level:

I will eventually come around to 'power', but first....the manifestation of an ideology in a social context can be quite housebroken for several reasons. Either is the option of invasive methods impossible (e.g. secular society won't allow religious excesses breaking secular laws) or from genuine egalitarian and liberal attitudes in the individual. Though many invasive extremists play games with this and present lip-service to appear housebroken. The power here is 'physical'.

Many ideological adherers belong to the intrinsically 'decent' category, never lifting a finger to harm anyone. But from mechanisms I'm unable to understand, these 'decent' people often vehemently defend an ideology, which basically is elitistic. When I criticise the doctrines of such an elitist ideology, it's not because I believe all adherents go around stoning homosexuals to death. My criticism is directed at the elitist doctrines. But the 'decent' supporters take it as a personal attack, and polarize themselves into black/white positions. Thereby legitimating the really 'bad guys', who in any case want to provocate polarization to a point of open violence (hard-core commies used to do that quite a lot in my youth). At the ideological level power is manipulative, propagandistic and implies infiltration or Machiavellian tactics.

Finally the epistemological level (which practically never is reached). For all extremist ideologers this is to be avoided at all costs, and consequently a dialogue between logic/science and 'faith' is out of the question. Even between 'faiths' a dialogue is impossible. Here power is knowledge and an 'open' system (as opposite to a 'bubble').

In a context from this former thread where we met recently, I can assure you, that I don't throw the word 'fascist' around lightly, using it as an insult to people disagreeing with me. I use it in as precise semantic meaning, concerning how 'power' is applied.

I will give you my perspective on this (open for questioning). I often end in the situation, where the argument: "No, YOU are the fascist, preventing me from performing my specially sanctioned privileges". In this situation I read 'specially sanctioned priviliges' as 'self-righteous fascism' (God, Marx or some other 'authority' support me). And ofcourse, an epistemological debate on God or Marx is heretic, blaphemic etc. So eventually the militant extremist will end up in confrontations, where power is the inevitable result.

Even liberal, egalitarian society will be in this situation ever so often, but power per se is here handled on the still stumbling principle of co-sensus, law, constitution, election etc.

Obviously you decide to ascribe power to your god. The question is, how you will react to the opposition of non-christians or secular society.

I hope you can see, that I in this, albeit circumstantial, way am open for a common communication platform. Hope it didn't bore you to sleep.

reply to post by bogomil


Sorry to keep you waiting on a reply, I forgot about the thread. You bring up some good points about the people who use religion as a polarizing agent: "us against them". You are also justified in saying that there are elitist elements to religion. "What may seem right to men is not right to God", to be perfectly honest, things like prohibition of homosexuality as an abomination, do happen to bother me. My cousin is a homosexual and a minister in relatively liberal congregation. I don't like it because I don't think it's fair to make someone a certain way and then forbid them from acting that way. However, I am also aware that I don't have the slightest hint of omniscience so I respect God's authority on matters such as this. At any rate, this example issue is so blown out of proportion by both sides that they fail to understand how insignificant it is. I have several theories on why homosexuality was forbidden by Jewish law (not enough Jews in that time to allow sterile couples) and why it might be acceptable now (overpopulation; voluntary sterility is now a good thing). Still, these are my thoughts and I am not God. At any rate, anyone can be forgiven of their sins when they mess up YHWH's commandments, they just have to repent.

Pretty much any idea has the ability to polarize people and/or lead to inclusive elitism due to hubris. Scientists are notorious for this (think eugenics). There are two ways to handle an opposing viewpoint. You can either get mad and enter a conflict with whomever opposes your monopoly on the truth or you can, as Ya'hshuah told us (history shows that we didn't listen), "shake the dust off your sandles" and leave them to their opinion. I'm confident enough that I have put my faith in the truth that I don't have to light people on fire to agree with me and assuage my insecurities. This is what saves the true faith of Christianity from the many false Pontiffs, we have the word that exposes them all as liars and hypocrites. As Ya'hshuah said to his disciples when they asked him to rebuke a man who was not a disciple casting out demons, "He who is not against us is for us". It is sad how few Christians take this to heart. YHWH is good, only evil is against Him. There are good people who do not see eye-to-eye with the Christians, if they do good, they are good people even though they are not Christian. They do not have the way, the truth, and the life but they may work for the good. It is our responsibility to share the way, the truth, and the life with everyone, but not everyone will agree. So, having done all we can, we will leave them to think about it. Our war is not with them, but those that do evil.

reply to post by bogomil


In forming your opinion of Christianity, please level your scrutiny at the historical claims of the faith, and in particular, the person of Christ - not at the behaviors or beliefs of Christians.

Thanks.

reply to post by followtheevidence

In forming your opinion of Christianity, please level your scrutiny at the historical claims of the faith, and in particular, the person of Christ

Christians are here and readily available for examination. Christians generally claim that Jesus went away, therefore not readily available for examination.

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by followtheevidence

In forming your opinion of Christianity, please level your scrutiny at the historical claims of the faith, and in particular, the person of Christ

Christians are here and readily available for examination. Christians generally claim that Jesus went away, therefore not readily available for examination.

The historical claims of the faith are recorded, which include of course the life and person of Christ.

Again, please level your scrutiny at the claims of the faith (in Scripture) and in the person of Christ (again, also in Scripture).

Thanks.

Originally posted by kallisti36

Originally posted by bogomil
Fanatics of all kinds only have one aim: Totalitarian control of power. And as long as it stays on a theoretical level, even suggestions of 'taking over' must be accepted as part of shooting it out. But fanatics must be prepared to take as good as they give, and living in a self-ascertained bubble of ineffabillity, this is a BIG problem for many of them.

edit on 10-9-2010 by bogomil because: Insufficient material

ffuchs? Nice. I'll have to agree with you that fundies are annoying, don't understand their own scripture, and piss more people off than they convert. I also hate the term: soulwinning, like it's a game or something.
You had me until about here in your rant. Really? Totalitarian control of power? There may be some fringe fundies that want to establish a theocracy, but any educated Christian would be against this. God's Kingdom is "not of this Earth". To enforce Biblical law like Muslims do with Shariah, would compromise free will and would be men attempting to establish God's Kingdom on Earth... minus God (protip: God can and will do this alone, people have only ever messed up in the endevour). Fear and force also make the most tenuous converts (if you can call them that). The law of God is written in the hearts of all and that is where it should be followed, its a personal effort, though likeminded groups are good for positive reinforcement. A society, much like the Biblical Israelies might strive as a people to live by God's word (failed), but it is a community effort, one people, one mind. If you weren't with the program you weren't an Israelite and if you claimed to be you were an apostate. Christians are a global community, without an anchor. If we were as localized as the Israelites we would probably band together for support and protection, but there are enough of us spread out where this isn't necessary. There is no 'Christian' conspiracy to establish a totalitarian society, it is unbiblical.

Unless, like many anti-Christians your ire is aimed at our God. In which case, He isn't forcing you to obey Him, but there will be consequences for seperating yourself from Him and His gifts. God created the universe, and from Him all good things come. He is the only One that deserves power and service and the only One to whom my knee bows.

God bless you.

Finally people are pointing out the whole FREE WILL part. I Can't stand people blaming their or others' actions on God. Such a cop out.

Atheists if you don't believe in God that is perfectly fine, however don't try to blame God for other peoples' actions as you would not blame God for your own.

reply to post by followtheevidence

The historical claims of the faith are recorded, which include of course the life and person of Christ.

Again, please level your scrutiny at the claims of the faith (in Scripture) and in the person of Christ (again, also in Scripture).

Thanks.

I fully intend to evaluate the claims of the faith as recorded in the canonical gospels. It will appear in the Conspiracies in Religion forum, since I detect a serious conspiracy, the tracks of which were only sloppily covered up. It may take me a couple of days probably to write up in a manner acceptable to my mediocre standards. But coming soon.

You're welcome.

This present thread, though, does specifically address Epistemological and psycho-social considerations of Christians. The subject matter is concerning Christians and not Christ.

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by followtheevidence

The historical claims of the faith are recorded, which include of course the life and person of Christ.

Again, please level your scrutiny at the claims of the faith (in Scripture) and in the person of Christ (again, also in Scripture).

Thanks.

I fully intend to evaluate the claims of the faith as recorded in the canonical gospels. It will appear in the Conspiracies in Religion forum, since I detect a serious conspiracy, the tracks of which were only sloppily covered up. It may take me a couple of days probably to write up in a manner acceptable to my mediocre standards. But coming soon.

You're welcome.

This present thread, though, does specifically address Epistemological and psycho-social considerations of Christians. The subject matter is concerning Christians and not Christ.

LoL is that a threat or warning

Preach good exiled shaman PREACH! lets hear the new belief system you espouse, or should I say religion lol.

reply to post by MasterGemini

Preach good exiled shaman PREACH! lets hear the new belief system you espouse, or should I say religion lol.

They Stole His Body - The Hijacking of Jesus
Seems to be some sort of mix.

I couldn't have said it better Bogomil, dear like minded friend, 'horns' off to you.

A year has passed since I launched this thread, and I have learned much from my participation on the religion-related subforums on ATS concerning christian fundamentalism.

Being north-western european, and thus used to functional secular society and the corresponding low-profile of local fundamentalists, my internet-meeting with (mostly US christian right) has been something of an eyeopener. I still have the occasional problem with adjusting to the 'values' presented by christian extremists; that such individuals and attitudes can exist at all is still an enigma to me.

(As a comparison I can mention the hard-core commies of former times, who actually DID learn something from recent political history and mostly became socialists instead).

So on background of the past year's experience, I have some additional observations on some points, somewhat more sophisticated than my initial OP.

I find, that the extremist christian often is a soured and embittered person, possessed with a proselytizing complex. Faith being faith, with few options of supporting the pushing of religion with 'facts' and with an apparent attitude of feeling unjustly thwarted, when opposition to preaching manifests, the preacher feels 'persecuted' by opposition and often responds on a personal level with as strong character-defamation as forum-rules allow. I have the impression, that extremist christians sincerely believe, that they have some protected species privileges.

When the extremist christian gives 'facts' a shot trying to appear more housebroken, such 'facts' are usually hijacked from more rational systems than faith, and have been 'adapted' to fit with proselytizing purposes and with very little real knowledge of the hijacked system.

A few examples:

a/ An evergreen is the extremist christian claim, that only christian ethical values can function. Bluntly postulated and with practically zero knowledge of utilitarian ethics and political philosophy in egalitarian, liberal, secular, constitutional democracy.

b/ Cosmetic statistics, where the categories are so muddy (or straight out falsified at times), that they are worthless. Protestants suddenly include the often claimed 'non-christian-catholics' as 'christians' (for the duration), the ½ - 1 billion rather passive nominal christians are 'religious', muslims are brothers/sisters in theism and even buddhism/hinduism can be fitted to such cosmetic statistics one way or another. Growth/decline rates are freely fabulated or doctored.

c/ Science/logic hijacking, which is quite a subject on its own. To cut it short, mainly by creating an absurd phantom-version of science/logic, which has next to nothing in common with the real thing.

I think if you substitute any religion or political ideology for 'Christian' this thread becomes a good guide for dealing with people whose minds and bodies are riddled with cognitive dissonance.

When you boil down religious and political ideology, you always hit some failure of logic. The next step is to make excuses, lash out emotionally, physical violence, or one could simply try and form a more consistent view.

Secular ethics will be the future if we can make it passed the present.

Originally posted by DINSTAAR
I think if you substitute any religion or political ideology for 'Christian' this thread becomes a good guide for dealing with people whose minds and bodies are riddled with cognitive dissonance.

When you boil down religious and political ideology, you always hit some failure of logic. The next step is to make excuses, lash out emotionally, physical violence, or one could simply try and form a more consistent view.

Secular ethics will be the future if we can make it passed the present.

Thanks for your response, and in principle I agree with you with the reservation, that it's both unfair and intellectually dishonest to make sweeping generalizations.

My admittedly not very polite or diplomatic criticism is targeted towards a fortunately narrow group. There is a majority from all ideologies, which decently gets along with secular, egalitarian principles.

My main concern here is the presently small, but invasive and elitistic group of christians.

In spite of being both a vegetarian and environmentalist myself, I detest militant vegans and green fascists the same way and would in the proper context manifest that similarly to what I do here.

reply to post by bogomil


As I read your op it occurred to me that the points you listed could well be used to describe the way all fanatics react and correspond with others outside of their prespective groups.
You could change the "Christians" in "ffuchs" to environmentalist, globalist, atheist or any other " "ist and your argument would work just as well.
Quad

Originally posted by Quadrivium
reply to post by bogomil

 

As I read your op it occurred to me that the points you listed could well be used to describe the way all fanatics react and correspond with others outside of their prespective groups.
You could change the "Christians" in "ffuchs" to environmentalist, globalist, atheist or any other " "ist and your argument would work just as well.
Quad

Did you read my post just above yours?

It may clarify some of the finer details, so you don't feel tempted to take black/white perspectives on this thread (don't know if you would. Just in case).

reply to post by bogomil

Thanks for your response, and in principle I agree with you with the reservation, that it's both unfair and intellectually dishonest to make sweeping generalizations.

The statement I made is not beyond the scope of fair argument. People that hold beliefs that are not logical will either defend those beliefs in some irrational way or change their beliefs when they are challenged. To make a conclusion on anything, one must start from a foundation without abstraction or assumption. Any assumption or use of abstraction must be reasoned but remain apparent in the conclusion.

From a common argument for Christianity.... "God must exist because something cannot come from nothing."

The assumption is that "God must exist" and the reason is "something cannot come from nothing". The argument states that God exist (i.e. be 'something') because 'something' (God being a part of this group) cannot (a loaded word to say the least) come from nothing. The argument contradicts itself without further explanation into where God came from.... which is impossible, thus making the conclusion "God must exist" with no evidence is not logical.

My admittedly not very polite or diplomatic criticism is targeted towards a fortunately narrow group.

Your criticism can be applied to all people. The real problem lies with most individuals not being able to see abstractions for abstractions and assumptions as assumptions. Some people, like those that this thread is about, refuse to be aware of theirs.

There is a majority from all ideologies, which decently gets along with secular, egalitarian principles.

That is because it is incredibly hard to constantly be blind to reality 100% of the time. I do have issues with common uses of the word 'egalitarian'. I believe that all people are fundamentally equal in value in accordance with self ownership.However, I do not believe that a system can be created to effectively make people economically or socially equal through coercion (barring, of course, destruction of all people). I think I am in agreement with you but please clarify.

In spite of being both a vegetarian and environmentalist myself, I detest militant vegans and green fascists the same way and would in the proper context manifest that similarly to what I do here.

It is good to see passed the assumption of "If I hold belief A, I must use the violence of the state to make it so everyone has to at least abide by my beliefs".

I think I would be an environmentalist too, if it didn't mean associating with those dammed green fascists.