Fundamentalist Christian?

[Guest roger]

What these extreme religious folks need are a bunch of athiests to bang their heads together...

[Arbuscule]

Scary, given that conservative evangelicals of Tracy's stripe do indeed punch above their weight, as doc rockster says

Arnie she did indeed espouse the old old chiliast heresy, not heard that one for a while As has been said though, her main concern seemed to be the name Obama. Obama Narrow minded fundamentalist zealot with little conception of Christianity.

[Guest Deanne65]

There is nothing "fundamental" about being a parochial-minded, bible-thumping yahoo. If you want a more historically accurate rendering of the the "real" fundamentalist Christ-ian, go back to the good ole days, when followers of the Jesus-cult were fed to the lions. Any other rendition is tainted by social, political, and moral considerations, not necessarily consistent anything meaningfully fundamental. These days, being fundamentally Christian, is more about belonging than it is of believing. Man is, after all, so profoundly a rule-governed being, and defiance and compliance inform our species. And in no small way, extremist views, be they religiously informed or not, often appeal to one's need for rough-and-ready instruction!

Edited February 7, 2010 by Deanne65

[HvyFuel]

Are you attempting to say there are no violent christian extremists Deanne?

[Guest Deanne65]

Are you attempting to say there are no violent christian extremists Deanne?

That is a non sequitur question. There is violence everywhere, and religions inculcate the good with the bad, no less than so many secular ideas. However, with religion, one either hates it or loves it, there is no middle ground. Secular ideologies-the closest one might come to comparing apples with oranges (religious vs. secular ideas)-, especially in modern cultures, are often couched in positivistic and empiricist language, and so most come to regard what science has to say as morally good or, in the very least, morally neutral. In an ideal world, science would generally furnish the necessary discipline of mind needed to tackle so many problems that science has set before itself to solve-too numberable to list. And, in the aggregate, most scientists are keenly aware of the limitations-social, political, and moral- that make science only one of many means of problem solving. In matters medical and scientific, as within the behavioral sciences, and its pseudo-scientific blandishments, there is a tendency to emphasize the determined in the individual-most agreeable to its practitioners, given the advances in neurobiology-as opposed to the individual as self-determinded, and free-which are, indeed, deeply morally implicative. Of course, rendering the citizen as a sick, dependent, child, has its strategic effects, most notably for those who are looking to control. This latter statement is most assuredly not informed by any real science. Science will always come up against its own limitations, especially where moral considerations play an important role in defining the kind of society envisioned by its "engineers".

Edited February 8, 2010 by Deanne65

[HvyFuel]

Sorry, was that yes or no?

[Arnold Layne]

Deanne65 ... WTF is that all about? I have yet to grasp a single post you've posted, to be honest!

[Guest Deanne65]

Deanne65 ... WTF is that all about? I have yet to grasp a single post you've posted, to be honest!

Everyone on this board gets bent out of shape because of the inane comments of one idiot, half-literate, bible thumper, when the real danger lies elsewhere. The power of any one church has long since passed, and Christianity no longer has the power that it once did. What many fail to grasp is that science has become the means of ordering man, and the universe, and that such a paradigm shift has yet to tie up the "loose ends": the scientific view is a reodering in the making. I do understand and appreciate the coming to pass of a theocentric world view, and do see the possibilities to be had in the use of scientific tools and principles, after all, my own university training included much science. However, the application of science, as if such were an end in itself, is scientism, a perspective that is fraught with many an inconsistency and shortcoming. To think of science (and by extension, notably in modern culture, medicine) as a panchreston (all-explaining), is no better than a Theocentric perspective, if the former is not tempered by moral and ethical considerations: dogmatism is dogmatism.

Edited February 8, 2010 by Deanne65

[callywally]

sorry deanne but you sound like you're trying to sound well read and clever but you end up babbling about nothing in particular.

[Guest Deanne65]

sorry deanne but you sound like you're trying to sound well read and clever but you end up babbling about nothing in particular.

I disagree. I make a valid, if not covoluted, point. This is a discussion that goes to heart of the human condition. Science, as the principle means of ordering our world, is not a neutral endeavor. Human beings use the tools and principles of a respective science, and the manner in which science comes to inform our lives is not simply a matter of uncovering mysteries and arriving at truth. There are social, political, and moral factors that shape and direct science, especially so with the behavioral sciences. With god now out of the picture, and god-butt yahoos relegated to the fringes of modern culture (no matter what you might think differently of we, Americans), science has become the new means of ordering mankind, with emphasis on the physicality of his being. Science MUST tread lightly, and history bares out the results of not paying heed to such an appeal.

Edited February 8, 2010 by Deanne65

[Comrade Stoker]

You are clearly a bright person Deanne but I honestly cannot fathom any of your posts in this thread. They sort of sound good but after reading them I am sat here thinking................. "Hhhmmm what did that mean? Hang on I don't get it, its too difficult to read and make sense of, I need to get some cat food and bread, oooh look there's a grape on the floor, I'll pick that up in a minute"

Edited February 8, 2010 by MartininLondon

[weed_G]

There is nothing "fundamental

That is a non sequitur question. There is violence everywhere, and religions inculcate the good with the bad, no less than so many secular ideas. However, with religion, one either hates it or loves it, there is no middle ground. Secular ideologies-the closest one might come to comparing apples with oranges (religious vs. secular ideas)-, especially in modern cultures, are often couched in positivistic and empiricist language, and so most come to regard what science has to say as morally good or, in the very least, morally neutral. In an ideal world, science would generally furnish the necessary discipline of mind needed to tackle so many problems that science has set before itself to solve-too numberable to list. And, in the aggregate, most scientists are keenly aware of the limitations-social, political, and moral- that make science only one of many means of problem solving. In matters medical and scientific, as within the behavioral sciences, and its pseudo-scientific blandishments, there is a tendency to emphasize the determined in the individual-most agreeable to its practitioners, given the advances in neurobiology-as opposed to the individual as self-determinded, and free-which are, indeed, deeply morally implicative. Of course, rendering the citizen as a sick, dependent, child, has its strategic effects, most notably for those who are looking to control. This latter statement is most assuredly not informed by any real science. Science will always come up against its own limitations, especially where moral considerations play an important role in defining the kind of society envisioned by its "engineers".

your post would a good one(and I would agree) if you were arguing against mono-philosophy or even atheism/science vs religion, but I don't think thats the point being made..most of the posters have made it clear they are not negating religion in general..but rather this woman's extremism and intolerance ..which is something different

..these days the term 'fundamentalist <insert religious follower>' has come to mean people who are extreme in following their religious beliefs iow inflexible or intolerant of anything else outside their beliefs...and not in the true/old sense of the word ..eg a fundamentalist christian would mean someone who follows the original teaching of Jesus, love thy neighbor..non violence..tolerance etc iow the fundamental principles at source

[Russkya]

Science keeps itself in check don't worry about that. Fundamentalist religious groups don't.

[MickeyShine]

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear

Dunno, it got taken down!

[Guest Deanne65]

There is nothing "fundamental

That is a non sequitur question. There is violence everywhere, and religions inculcate the good with the bad, no less than so many secular ideas. However, with religion, one either hates it or loves it, there is no middle ground. Secular ideologies-the closest one might come to comparing apples with oranges (religious vs. secular ideas)-, especially in modern cultures, are often couched in positivistic and empiricist language, and so most come to regard what science has to say as morally good or, in the very least, morally neutral. In an ideal world, science would generally furnish the necessary discipline of mind needed to tackle so many problems that science has set before itself to solve-too numberable to list. And, in the aggregate, most scientists are keenly aware of the limitations-social, political, and moral- that make science only one of many means of problem solving. In matters medical and scientific, as within the behavioral sciences, and its pseudo-scientific blandishments, there is a tendency to emphasize the determined in the individual-most agreeable to its practitioners, given the advances in neurobiology-as opposed to the individual as self-determinded, and free-which are, indeed, deeply morally implicative. Of course, rendering the citizen as a sick, dependent, child, has its strategic effects, most notably for those who are looking to control. This latter statement is most assuredly not informed by any real science. Science will always come up against its own limitations, especially where moral considerations play an important role in defining the kind of society envisioned by its "engineers".

your post would a good one(and I would agree) if you were arguing against mono-philosophy or even atheism/science vs religion, but I don't think thats the point being made..most of the posters have made it clear they are not negating religion in general..but rather this woman's extremism and intolerance ..which is something different

..these days the term 'fundamentalist <insert religious follower>' has come to mean people who are extreme in following their religious beliefs iow inflexible or intolerant of anything else outside their beliefs...and not in the true/old sense of the word ..eg a fundamentalist christian would mean someone who follows the original teaching of Jesus, love thy neighbor..non violence..tolerance etc iow the fundamental principles at source

"Evangelical" might be somewhat more clarifying than "fundamental", with less of a pejorative meaning. The Fundamentalist-Evangelical, as engendered in the United States, is a peculiar creature indeed, being the product of the First Amendment, and concomitantly, of the conspicuous lack of any one State "sponsored" religion, like Europe experienced. This relative freedom of (from) religion, as guaranteed by the U.S. constitution, made for some rather peculiar protestant "offshoots", most notably Mormonism, and Christian Science. These American religious brands present no real social or political danger in any real sense. However, in no small way, the Fundamentalists, and Christian "cults", do inform politics and social issues, to a point., but mostly peripherally.

Edited February 8, 2010 by Deanne65