Fundamentalism and Revisionism

[jbseth]

Hi All,

In regards to fundamentalists, one of the problems that I've had with them is in trying to understand "how" they can justify some of their rigid and in some cases seemingly hypocritical religious points of view.

An example of what I'm talking about here is how it is, that some Christian fundamentalists can believe that it is OK to kill any doctors who perform abortions.

The idea here being that whenever these doctors abort these unborn babies, they are killing living human beings who have a "Right to Life".  The issue here is that the Christian belief system is based upon the Ten Commandments and one of these Ten Commandments says, "Thou Shalt not Kill".  Thus, whenever these doctors abort an unborn baby, in their minds these Christian Fundamentalists view this as a violation of this commandment and this is wrong. But this commandment applies to all Christians; even these Christian Fundamentalists.

What about the, "Right to Life", of the doctors who perform these abortions?  When a Christian Fundamentalists kills one of these doctors, aren't they also violating this commandment? Furthermore, aren't they being extremely hypocritical, whenever they do so?  How can these Christian Fundamentalists fail to see this, or how can they possibly justify this type of activity to themselves?  This is one example of what it is that I just don't get about them.




Lately, I have been reading the book, "The Guru Papers" by Joel Kramer and Diane Alstad. This book, in addition to covering many topics that have to do with Gurus and their disciples, also talks about many related topics, such as cults, fundamentalists and revisionists, addiction, control, mystical experiences and channeling for example.  In the section on fundamentalism, I discovered that these authors had some very insightful comments about this topic. In fact, they actually address this very issue of "killing" that I just brought up in my text above.  Below, I'll paraphrase some of what these authors had to say about fundamentalism. This paraphrased information comes from "The Guru Papers" by Joel Kramer and Diane Alstad, Part 2, Chapter 1.


The main focus of fundamentalism has to do with personal salvation after death. It has to do with the requirements necessary to save your soul after you die.  The fear behind fundamentalism is that without powerful constraints, people would run amuck.

Fundamentalists construct rigid categories of good and evil that battle for the souls of people.

Fundamentalists all basically share the same type of religious viewpoint. Furthermore, this viewpoint or worldview is that the religious rules that they follow are the unchallengeable and unchanging dictates of some higher power (Jesus, God, Allah, etc.). These rules serve two purposes. They program the individual to obey the authority of the higher power and they curb people's inclinations to run amuck.

The great appeal of fundamentalism is that it offers religious certainty. These are the rules set down by this higher power.

In regards to the worldview of the fundamentalists, the simpler, the better. Their worldview consists of a simple universe with a simple good (those who follow the rules) and a simple evil (those who don't) and along with all of this a set of simple explanations that can never be disproven. This worldview gives them their religious certainty. 

For fundamentalists, their worldview that offers them personal salvation after death and because of this, they are extremely resistant to anything that "threatens" the "certainty" of this worldview.  This is one of the reasons that they are so rigid in their beliefs.



Now, along with all of this, the authors of this book actually address the issue of how and why the fundamentalists can justify "killing" others in regards to their fundamentalist worldview. Once again, I'll paraphrase what they have to say here.



As a group, the fundamentalists then to be very "hawkish" in there worldview. They often favor the death penalty, whenever dealing with their enemies.

For them, to say, "If you break the rule against killing, we'll kill you" is only inconsistent in a verbal sense. It is however, totally consistent with their agenda of doing whatever it takes to ensure that the rules are followed. Here they'll justify this "killing" of others by bringing up other rules such as, "An eye for an eye...," etc.  Christ's crucifixion itself also justifies killing as a means to some greater purpose. If God has his only son tortured and killed in order to save humanity, then it must also be OK for fundamentalists to kill someone who violates one of the rules of their religious worldview, or perhaps this may even be expected.

For fundamentalists, since they believe that their rules come from a higher power, doing whatever it takes to protect them is justified. Anything that is designated as evil, such as the rule breakers, the infidel, the evil empire, etc., all can be treated "outside" the rules in the name of protecting the rules. This inevitably results in putting the rules before the people.

Here what fundamentalists really care about is keeping their religious certainty and protecting their worldview that gives it. Protecting this worldview and its morality always takes precedence over the morality itself. The more certainty there is that these rules must be obeyed, the easier it is to sacrifice others who differ.



Wow. I thought that all of this information was incredibly insightful.  Now I understand how some of the fundamentalist can see things the way that they do. This definitely doesn't mean that I agree with it, however.

(These authors also make some very interesting comments on both 1) revisionists and 2) some things to keep in mind in regards to religious tolerance, that I'll post in a follow along post, here in a day or so.)


With this in mind, I can now see how it is probably the fundamentalists in the Catholic Church who resist any changes to the Catholic Church belief system. Changes that we sometimes talk about here in this forum such as: 1) no longer requiring that priest to be celibate, and 2) no longer requiring that women avoid any contraception. 


-jbseth

[Sena]

With this in mind, I can now see how it is probably the fundamentalists in the Catholic Church who resist any changes to the Catholic Church belief system

jbseth, I don't think the Catholic Church can ever be reformed. It needs to be consigned to the dustbin of history.

[LarryH]

Here they'll justify this "killing" of others by bringing up other rules such as, "An eye for an eye...," etc.

I find it interesting that Christians who use this argument are actually going against the teachings of Jesus: "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5: 38-39)

It was a pope who said, "Kill them all and let God sort it out."

The "eye for an eye" idea originated in what may have been the first written code of laws, brought down from a mountaintop by the Babylonian king Hammurabi. He got it from "the sun God". "An eye for an eye" was a small step in the right direction, in that it had been more common to kill someone for putting out another's eye. Later, Moses would repeat the magic trick of receiving a code of laws from a god on a mountaintop with his 10 Commandments.

[jbseth]

I find it interesting that Christians who use this argument are actually going against the teachings of Jesus: "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5: 38-39)

Hi LarryH, Hi All,

Yeah, I agree. I suspect that Christian Fundamentalists ignore this statement, not because it's not valid, but because it doesn't support their religious agenda. Just like how they ignore one of the Ten Commandments that says, "Thou shalt not kill".  I think that this is one of the major issues to be aware of, in regards to fundamentalists. They tend to ignore those things that don't fit their religious beliefs and agenda.


From what I've read, it seems to me that anything that threatens their religious certainty, their basic belief system about good and evil and their beliefs about their salvation after death, is basically ignored because it doesn't fit within their limited belief system.   

However, I suspect that the reality is that they ignore these things because these things pose a real threat to them. This threat comes from the possibility that these fundamentalists might actually be wrong in regards to their religious beliefs.

As a result of this, I suspect that fundamentalists really don't want to look at or face the possibility that they could be wrong. If that were the case, then, what would they believe; they might have what is sometimes referred to as a "crisis of faith". I think that it is this possibility, this possibility that if they looked at these things, they might have a "crisis of faith" and it is this fear, that's really behind much of the fundamentalists beliefs and behavior. This, I suspect is the real reason why they ignore the things that don't fit into their limited belief system.



This idea that I just shared about the fundamentalists potentially having a "crisis of faith", came to me from what some biblical historical scholars have said about their personal experiences, when they first became aware of biblical scholarship in college.  For some biblical scholars, when they first began to realize and became aware of the very many inconsistencies that exist in the Bible, they had a "crisis of faith". That is, they began to question many of the previous Christian beliefs that they held. For some of them, this was a very troubling time.

However, as I also understand it, many of them, over time, apparently resolved this "crisis of faith" issue, for themselves. Along with this, many of them then remained Christians afterwards. However, while many of them remained Christian, their new understanding of biblical scholarship completely changed their ideas and understandings of what it means to be a Christian.



Somewhere in one of the biblical scholar books that I've read, one of the scholars mentioned that this "Eye for an eye" concept was never intended to be taken as some sort of justification for a later action, after someone has personally brought harm to you.  Instead they said that it was always intended to be taken as an upfront rule or guideline to be followed when associating with people.

That is, this concept was always intended to be taken more along the lines of "Do not bring harm to someone else, because harm might then be brought on to you." It was intended to be taken as just a more negative variation of the "Golden Rule" which says, "Do onto others, as you would have them do onto you".

If this is, in fact, true, then obviously, somewhere along the way, someone misinterpreted the intention behind it and perhaps this is the reason why the "Golden Rule" expresses this same basic concept in a more positive variation.

I'd say that if the whole idea behind this concept, really was intended to be taken as an up front rule when dealing with people, then either the Christian Fundamentalists have either completely misunderstood it or more likely completely ignored it, because it doesn't fit their agenda, in the same way that they did/do ignore your Jesus statement and the Ten Commandments.

-jbseth

[LarryH]

That is, this concept was always intended to be taken more along the lines of "Do not bring harm to someone else, because harm might then be brought on to you." It was intended to be taken as just a more negative variation of the "Golden Rule" which says, "Do onto others, as you would have them do onto you".

A fundamentalist "logic" might go something like this: "The Bible says that I am a sinner. Therefore, in my self-loathing, I deserve to be punished. Therefore, I would have others do harm to me as just punishment. Therefore, per the Golden Rule, I am allowed to do harm to others."

[jbseth]

Hi LarryH, Hi All,


I agree, or even something like this.


If God didn't stop people from killing his Son, then he must have expected people to do this, on his behalf.

Thus, God expects people to kill others on his behalf. This would include anyone who violates his rules.

Therefore, God expects people to kill those who performs abortions and those who practice homosexual activities, for example.


-jbseth
 

[Deb]

That is, this concept was always intended to be taken more along the lines of "Do not bring harm to someone else, because harm might then be brought on to you." It was intended to be taken as just a more negative variation of the "Golden Rule" which says, "Do onto others, as you would have them do onto you".

Funny, when I was reading this last post my mind went right to the Golden Rule, seeing "eye for an eye" as a distorted and flipped version of that: do unto others as they do to you (or as they do to others, in the case of abortion).

According to this article , the eye/eye phrase was meant in the circumstance of a court case before a judge. "An eye for an eye was thus intended to be a guiding ethic for legislators and judges; it was not meant to advocate personal vengeance." As Larry mentioned, Jesus condemned the practice in the Sermon on the Mount:

"Furthermore, Jesus condemns the practice of personal retaliation in the Sermon on the Mount saying, "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you" (Matthew 5:38-42)."

Being religion, politics, or other, I think many people find it easy to rationalize doing harm to others (censor, shame, shut down, injure and even kill) who do not share their beliefs because they accept their own beliefs as THE TRUTH. They gravitate, naturally, to others who share and enforce their beliefs. And a lot of people will go to any length to defend and hold onto beliefs with which they identify.

A Psychology Today article explains it nicely, "When people disagree with us, their disagreement not only influences the validity of our beliefs, but it calls into question our personal identities—the kind of people we want to believe that we are." Which probably feels like questioning our basic validity.

As far as those who rationalize killing a doctor who does abortions, they would say "look at how many lives I will save by doing this." They are doing justice in their minds, being a hero. More so that they are "sacrificing" themselves as they will surely get caught and have to pay a price for what they's done. I feel any person who is willing to cause physical harm to someone who does not share their beliefs is a fanatic and extremist.

I learned a bit about religious fundamentalism from a neighbor. She's no longer living—she died with an undiagnosed illness, wasted away for more than a year. I still feel that she died because she could not deal with a family situation that went against her very strong religious beliefs.

[Deb]

If God didn't stop people from killing his Son, then he must have expected people to do this, on his behalf.

Good point.

Actually, while god "said" thou shalt not kill, HE's the one who sent his only begotten son to Earth to be sacrificed for others' sins, so he broke his own most fundamental rule. Essentially, god killed his own son (post-natal abortion?), and it was premeditated. "Do as I say, not as I do." Is that in the Bible too?

[jbseth]

"Do as I say, not as I do." Is that in the Bible too?

Hi Deb,

I don' think that comes from the bible, but I could be wrong.

-jbseth

[jbseth]

I feel any person who is willing to cause physical harm to someone who does not share their beliefs is a fanatic and extremist.

Hi Deb, Hi All,

I was curious about what Seth had to say about fundamentalism and so I looked it up on the Seth Search Engine. He doesn't say a lot about fundamentalism, but he did have quite a bit to say about a somewhat similar topic, "fanatics".  I found that Seth has a lot to say about fanatics in NOME, mostly in Chapters 7 and a little bit from Chapter 8.

In the spoiler below, I've captured some of what Seth had to say about fanatics in NOME.

There seems to be very many similarities in what Joel Kramer and Diane Alstad, describe as a "fundamentalist" in their book, "The Guru Papers", and what Seth describes as a "fanatic" in NOME. 

Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.

-jbseth

[jbseth]

Hi All,

Along with "Fundamentalism", the authors of "The Guru Papers", Joel Kramer and Diane Alstad, also had some interesting things to say about both "Revisionism" and how we deal with both fundamentalism and religious tolerance, given the state of our world today.

I think that they make a very good point here. Perhaps this is something that we should think about.  I'll paraphrase below what they had to say about these topics below.



Here's what they had to say about both "religion" and "revisionism".

Religion provides both a worldview and moral system. It also includes a theology that explains and justifies them both.

Historically many religions undergo revisions that end up creating different groups or different sects, each developing in time a new and different belief system. These revisions typically occur as a result of dissatisfaction with the existing belief system due to either corruption or its loss of relevance and hold over the people.

Today, the worldwide increase in both fundamentalism and in revisionism is a reflection of the stagnation that exists in the current orthodoxy.


Revising a religion often consists of two different aspects. Revising the theology and revising the institution itself.

In regards to a church or religion, often people are not really all that interested in the intricacies of some theological discourse. Instead, they are looking for a place to be with people who have similar ideas, especially for their children. A prime example of this is what can be called the consumer-driven churches. Previously churches told people how to live; now people are telling the churches what they want.

In regards to some of the revisionist Christian churches, sin, damnation and punishment are out, while supporting the concepts of a loving acceptance of yourself and others, and an increase of self-esteem, are in.

In some revisionist Christian churches, many who call themselves Christians no longer even see Christ as God. Instead they see him as a great teacher.





In regards to tolerance, the authors say the following, again I'll paraphrase.

With liberal-minded people, there is a tradition of being tolerant of others. This includes being tolerant of the different philosophies and religious beliefs of others as well. At the same time, fundamentalists typically show little if any tolerance for anything that falls outside of their specific belief systems.

Respecting people's right to have differing beliefs, is one thing. But this does not mean that those religious beliefs themselves must be or should be respected. Unfortunately, this concept of religious tolerance has often come to include not being critical of others' beliefs as well.

The problem with tolerating the viewpoints of intolerant people, is that the aim of these intolerant people, is to do away with tolerance itself.




In regards to how we should deal with tolerance, given the present state of our world, the authors also say the following, again I'll paraphrase.

Given the state of our world today, human survival, as a race, is no longer a given. It will only be prolonged if we are able to redirect what is destructive to our species and to our world.

The focus on fundamentalism is the salvation of the individual after death. On the other hand, the focus of modern revisionists is to broaden their religion to include caring about the present and future of this planet.

Historically, whenever a changing world brought up a rift between the old and the new religious belief systems, the old would eventually fade. This typically occurred because the old belief system couldn't adequately incorporate the new world changes into its framework. However, this often took time, and occasionally it also resulted in both upheavals and bloodshed.

In our present time, the game is different. Humanity is not only facing the need to change, it is also facing an ecological time clock for its survival as well. We may no longer have the time to just wait for the old to fade away.  As a result of this, the old can win by simply impeding whatever transformations are necessary long enough for the time clock to run out. And although this victory would be Pyrrhic, we suspect that those with an apocalyptical mentality would not care.

Because of this, we can no longer afford to be tolerance of all religious beliefs. Tolerance needs to be redefined. It needs to encourage a discourse that can question the validity and viability of any belief, based upon its impact on the world.


I have to say that this makes a lot of sense to me.  Can we really afford to just sit back and do nothing, for example, while the Catholic Church continues to encourage its women to not participate in any form of birth control? Does that make any sense at all?

The great news is that the people themselves, the Catholics, seem to be figuring this out on their own, for themselves, and they're doing what's needed.
   

-jbseth

[LarryH]

[jbseth]

Hi LarryH,

I really love that image, that's really great. 

-jbseth

[jbseth]

Hi All,

Fundamentalists often view situations in rather simplistic terms of "good and "evil" (or in terms of "good" and "bad", which is a form of black and white thinking). Seth had some interesting things to say about this. Here's some of what Seth had to say on this topic in NOME:


NOME, Ch 7, S852

[...]

When you are discussing the nature of good and bad, you are on tricky ground indeed, for many — or most — of man's atrocities to man have been committed in misguided pursuit of "the good."

Whose good (question mark)? Is "good" an absolute (question mark)? In your arena of events, obviously, one man's good can be another's disaster. [Adolf] Hitler pursued his version of "the good" with undeviating fanatical intent. [...]

[...]

(10:27.) At what expense is "the good" to be achieved — and whose idea of the good is to be the criterion? Man's pursuit of the good, to some extent now, fathered the Inquisition and the Salem witch hunts. [...]


NOME, Ch 10, S868

[...]

You will often condone quite reprehensible acts if you think they were committed for the sake of a greater good. You have a tendency to look for outright evil, to think in terms of "the powers of good and evil," and I am quite sure that many of my readers are convinced of evil's force. Evil does not exist in those terms, and that is why so many seemingly idealistic people can be partners in quite reprehensible actions, while telling themselves that such acts are justified, since they are methods toward a good end.

(Long pause at 9:32.) That is why fanatics feel justified in their (underlined) actions. When you indulge in such black-and-white thinking, you treat your ideals shabbily. Each act that is not in keeping with that ideal begins to unravel the ideal at its very core. [...]

- jbseth

[jbseth]

Hi All,

Here in this topic we've been talking about various religious concepts such as fundamentalism, revisionism, good, evil, and sin. Now, along with all of this, I thought that I'd also add some thoughts from Seth about all of this.

In NOME, I found four paragraphs, where Seth explains his ideas on all of this. In the first paragraph, he starts out by talking about religious laws and sin. Then, in the second and third paragraphs, he moves on and makes a series of "you are / were born"  statements. In these two paragraphs, he reminds us of who we really are.

Then, in the fourth paragraph, he talks about how many of our problems are committed as a result of both our misinterpretations about the nature of good, and our beliefs. According to what Seth says here, our problems have nothing to do with either "sin" or some force of "evil" that exists in the world.

For me personally, I think that what Seth says here, makes much more sense than those religious ideas of "sin" and the existence of some force of "evil" that supposedly exists in the world.  Here's what Seth has to say in these four paragraphs in NOME.



NOME, Ch 9, S862

[...]

Religious laws deal with sin, whether or not a crime is committed (pause), and religious concepts usually take it for granted that the individual is guilty until proven innocent. And if you have not committed a crime in fact, then you have at least sinned in your heart — for which, of course, you must be punished. A sin can be anything from playing cards to having a sexual fantasy. You are sinful creatures. How many of you believe that?

(Deliberately:) You were born with an in-built recognition of your own goodness. You were born with an inner recognition of your rightness in the universe. You were born with a desire to fulfill your abilities, to move and act in the world. Those assumptions are the basis of what I will call natural law.

You are born loving. You are born compassionate. You are born curious about yourself and your world. Those attributes also belong to natural law. You are born knowing that you possess a unique, intimate sense of being that is itself, and that seeks its own fulfillment, and the fulfillment of others. You are born seeking the actualization of the ideal. You are born seeking to add value to the quality of life, to add characteristics, energies, abilities to life that only you can individually contribute to the world, and to attain a state of being that is uniquely yours, while adding to the value fulfillment of the world.

(9:29.) All of these qualities and attributes are given you by natural law. You are a cooperative species, and you are a loving one. Your misunderstandings, your crimes, and your atrocities, real as they are, are seldom committed out of any intent to be evil, but because of severe misinterpretations about the nature of good, and the means that can be taken toward its actualization. Most individual people know that in some inner portion of themselves. Your societies, governments, educational systems, are all built around a firm belief in the unreliability of human nature. "You cannot change human nature." Such a statement takes it for granted that man's nature is to be greedy, a predator, a murderer at heart. You act in accordance with your own beliefs. You become the selves that you think you are. Your individual beliefs become the beliefs of your society, but that is always a give-and-take.


- jbseth

[LarryH]

[Deb]

Ha ha ha, loved the memes Larry. And my Christian neighbors think I'm nuts because I'm not on board. Kinda takes the sting out of the idea that I'm going to burn in hell forever.

Thank you for the reality check. 

[Sena]

Larry, Christian theologians are highly intelligent people whose reasoning is illogical. They claim that the nastiness of the Old Testament was put right by the sweet and lovely Jesus Christ, but they still insist that the Old Testament is the revealed word of God which cannot be questioned.