Help this atheist understand

[Az]

I have been studying religion for some time now with a focus on the fundimentalists. I believe I understand their mindset and of course it worries me. But the issue I am not sure I understand are the moderate and liberal theists.

Here is my quandry. Where in the bible or the teachings of Jesus do you believe that tolerance and acceptance of nonbelievers is preached?

See this is the problem. The fundimentalists believe they are right. They believe that their intolerance to things not condoned by the bible is simply turning their back on Evil. They believe that those that do not adhere to their beliefs are following evil teachings as well as spreading evil.

From my studies I understand where and when Christianity became infused with Humanist ideals. The Age of Enlightenment brought about this infusion. Due to social pressures from increasingly complex populations no one belief system found sufficient leverage to rule the societies. Factionalism and the rise of reason brought this about. This describes the larger social path that this fusion entered through. But it doesn't explain individual reasoning. It doesn't explain how individuals manage to maintain the balance in their own minds.

So that is really my question to the moderate and liberal theists here. How do you abide the existance of someone such as myself and others who do not share your beliefs or even seek to teach ideas in opposition to your beliefs. Do you perceive us as evil? Do you believe you should tolerate evil?

It is the absolute conviction that they are right and everyone else is wrong that drives the fundimentalists. If we can come to understand how those that believe can also tolerate those that do not believe then perhaps we can find a way to bring change to the fundimentalists without assaulting the beliefs.

[papau]

1. Jesus is "the Word made flesh" - none get to Heaven except by the Word

but there may be many paths to the word. We know our path will get us there - we do not know other paths will not unless they reject the "Word"

We worship God - not a human who lived 2000 years ago.

You assume that a faith in there being no God - and given creation that takes a lot of faith - makes one - or should make one - seem evil to a Christain.

I do not see it that way. You may have made a choice different than mine about going to heaven - but that was your choice.

Morality and ethics are indeed part of religion, but they can co-exist apart from religion.

[HawkerHurricane]

2. The Parable of the Samaritan

Lost in the translation: Samaritans were worse than the Pagan Romans, they were HERETICS: They worshipped Jehovah (they SAID, anyway) but denied the need for the Temple, denied all but the first 5 books of the Bible, didn't follow the LAW of Deuteronomy, barely followed the laws of Leviticus...

And Jesus made one the superior of a Pharasee and a priest.

Your neighbor is NOT your cobelievers, your neighbor is the man who shows you kindness, whether Roman, Jew, Pharasee, Saducee, or something else altogether. And it's not YOUR job to punish people for breaking God's law, God will do that thankyouverymuch.

The Fundies hate thier own Messiah; they deny the love of Jesus in favor of the LAWS of the Pharasees.

[papau]

4. Well said! :-)

:-)

[Az]

6. So is there a way to get the fundimentalists to see this? n/t

[regnaD kciN]

14. Well, for one thing...

...you might learn to spell "fundamentalist" correctly!

;-)

[Az]

18. My bad

Forgive me. :D

[murray hill farm]

43. Why do youall correct spelling?

come on now? Is that really an important thing to point out to folks? You knew what he was saying? It remeinds me of a story I once heard about a woman (a teacher) who, after receiving a wonderful and passionate love letter from her husband, gave it back to him with the spelling corrected. What a loss she experienced with her priority being spelling and not the message. Isnt this the same?

[Xipe Totec]

48. The Paomnnehal Pweor of the Hmuan Mnid

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

Amzanig huh?

[murray hill farm]

51. vrey cool!

thnaks for swohnig me taht!!

[sangh0]

60. Wow!

I maen, taht's wlid!!

[foo_bar]

62. don't drag Babylon into this

Teh Lord works in mysterious ways.

[bunkerbuster1]

89. Would you prefer that the OP be corrected by US, or

...by a Freeper, in another forum?

we kid because we love.

[Calvinist Basset]

21. A very good answer--but not the only one, of course.

This has been the tension for centuries: people teaching that the Bible promotes exclusivity *or* inclusivity. To a degree, however, it is not an either/or matter--it is the tension in the middle where we should place our focus.

On the one hand, holiness is important. We should strive to keep from those things that pollute, ruin, destroy.

On the other, we must also be willing to open ourselves to be God's servants in the midst of those persons and things that may not benefit us personally.

Where we run into trouble is when we fail to declare certain things as legitimately evil, and when we cross the boundary and wrongly affix the label to a person. As a friend of mine says, "Be careful of what you hate. The line between 'what' and 'whom'
is razor thin and easily crossed."

If you read the teachings of Jesus, though, you will note he seems to straddle that tension fairly well. On the one hand he issues a call to repentance and holiness to all people. This is where the fundies tend to gravitate. But Jesus also speaks strongly of breaking down boundaries and being welcoming, inviting. This is where we progressives tend to settle.

For me, the answer comes in the fulness of scriptural witness. And when you take the whole thing into account, it becomes pretty clear that we are to treat people with respect and love--but wrongdoing itself is what we must work against. The thing to note, though, is that combatting "evil" can be effectively done in loving, tolerant means.

So, in answer to your question, I cannot see you as undesirable or intolerable. I see you as one who is also created, "in God's image" and as a creation declared to be "very good." Your atheism perplexes me, to be honest, but it does not make me hate you.

I might add that I am proficient in biblical languages and history, so I have insight to passages that are often "missed" in translations. Suffice it to say, there is far more to say about God's love being manifest in humanity than wrathful vengeance.

Take a look at Jesus' teachings, and take them at face value--just like the one I replied to here--and you will see a much more tolerant faith than what many "followers" of Jesus like to admit.

[sangh0]

61. I have a question for you

You say "For me, the answer comes in the fulness of scriptural witness" What do you mean by "scriptural witness"? I'm unfamiliar with the term.

[regnaD kciN]

25. There are other passages as well...

For one, Jesus's command to "judge not, lest you be judged." Also the parable of the wheat and the tares, where Jesus makes clear that it is not the Christian's job to "root out" those they may see as non- or even anti-Christian, but that one should let God handle that in his own time. Peter, in his second letter, points out to his readers that God is waiting patiently for those outside the faith to find him, rather than simply ringing the curtain down on the world and sending non-believers to eternal destruction.

But just as central to the message of tolerance is the example of Jesus's own life. Rather than coming to "lay down the law" against those insufficiently religious, he welcomed all to join him, even those considered "bad" or "irreligious" by the standards of the time. Finally, he even accepted his own capture and death, rather than allowing his followers to put up an armed struggle to save him.

[HawkerHurricane]

41. The problem is not what's in the book, but rather what's...

emphasized.

The Fundamentalist movement(s) decry those 'liberal' churchmen who speak of the 'Social Gospel' and the allegorical interpretation of the Bible while IGNORING anything that contradicts their arrogant, bigoted worldview.

The Protestant Reformation was the triumph of Paul of Tarsus over Simon Peter.
Modern Fundamentalism is the triumph of Saul the Pharisee over Jesus Christ.

[robre]

83. holy crap what game is that with the hurri 2 (i think its the hurri 2)

[donheld]

84. Welcome to DU

:hi:

[Sleepysage]

3. The problem is...

...so-called "fundamentalists" are still highly provincial in their reading of the Bible. Despite their claims to bare textualism, they are still reading a text that has been translated in a particular way and can be rather selective in what parts of the text to highlight. For all of their vitriol toward homosexuality, for example, Jesus didn't say one word about it. They have to reach back to the OT or to the later development of Paul to get that. Still, they cling to it as if Jesus, himself, railed against homosexuality.

My jaundiced eye toward "Fundamentalism" is due to their spurious claim to textualism (an echo of Scalia). It's just the same old "back to basics" crap that's been done for ages.

[regnaD kciN]

17. I'd go beyond "provincial"...

As a liberal mainstream Christian who has read the Bible through cover-to-cover twice in his life, plus traversed much of it many times over by following the cycle of readings in the (Episcopal) Daily Office, what drives me nuts about "inerrantists" (those who claim that every word of the Bible is literally true) is that, for however much they claim to "follow" the Bible, and however much they may have memorized specific "proof-texts," it is obvious by their very claim that they've never read the whole thing, or even anything close to it. Because, had they done so, they could never hold to their belief in inerrancy, because not only isn't Scripture inerrant, it clearly doesn't claim to be!

[mdhunter]

5. I think the answer for most

lies in their view of the authority of the text of the bible. Fundamentalists, as you are aware, take the words as truth and, theoretically at least, do not deviate. Once you allow for any part of the Bible to be "merely" allegorical, or subject to interpretation, you must allow for all of it to be so subject because the question then becomes, of course, why we should not hold that one section as doctrinely pure as the others. So, no deviation can be tolerated.

Liberal Christians aren't buying this. Their faith is personal and the Bible is a guide, and clearly they think it is a good one. And, I'd have to concur. But, they do not find it to be an infallible or entirely accurate work. So, to answer part of your question, it is unlikely that you could find strict scriptual support for acceptance on non believers, or strict scriptual support for homosexuality. That being true doesn't much matter to liberal Christians. For them, the salient part of being Christian is founded on a) the belief in Christ and his works and b) the attempt to, essentially, emulate those works. That does not require a strict cosmogony or teleology - and many, finding some parts of the Bible unsavory (who really wants to believe the contradictions in even the Creation story?) are at liberty to take the entire work as allegorical, as a guide, and to take from it what they please.

Hmm, looking back over this, let me apologize for horrible structure and rambling.

[AwakeAtLast]

7. Jesus could have become intolerant many times

but chose not to. He could have fought, screamed, cursed, even killed the people who were calling themselves believers or followers, yet still persecuting him. His example is what shows us that we must be tolerant and accepting, lest we turn you away from all that faith has to offer. My idea of a modern Jesus would be one that would enter a brothel or a bar on Sunday mornings instead of a church. He would show those people that they need not be cleansed before becoming "clean".

I hope this is helpful to you. The teachings of Jesus are not so cut and dried the way the fundies try to make them seem. He was a very complex person, and I believe anyone would agree with me.

[whalerider55]

8. interesting question, but

i would reframe it.

beliefs narrow our view of the world. as alan watts pointed out, a belief is what you accept as true; it implies that there are things that you are unwilling to accept as true, regardless of whether they are or are not. A belief, when you actually think about it, is only valid if there is a mirror, a yin to the yang- a thying or set of things you don't believe in. You can believe in white, but it won't ever make sense unless you have a black in opposition that you don't "believe in."

watts proposed faith as the most powerful spiritual force. faith is acceptence of both sides of the equation; of understanding that today is a bad day 'cos yesterday was a good one, and at some point, you'll have another bad day.

belief is holding your breath, faith is exhaling and inhaling.

belief is only accepting one road to the destination; faith is the understanding that there are a lot of roads to the destination, and the understanding that no one road is better than another- just because they all get you to where you are going.

so imho, beliefs tend to lend themselves to intolerance, nationalism, demonizing, and all sorts of "justifiable" negating of the core value of each human being.

i am far from an expert, but it is hard for me to believe that a prophet like jesus or moses or mohammed would predicate a message for all humanity on the importance of hating your neighbor.

just my two cents.

whalerider55

[Az]

10. But the hatred is disguised

They do not see their position as hatred. They see it as rejection of evil. People naturally reject things which they believe are evil. These individuals do not see themself as preachers of hatred. They see themself as the guardians of good. They see their anger as justified.

[whalerider55]

16. the public conversations project...

in MA has been working for years on what are called "intractable conflicts", where POV's are deeply entrenched and the sides are profoundly polarized. Issues like abortion, like Northern Ireland and Serbia.

by bringing such polarized groups together in small numbers, and facilitating dialogue around what they can agree on, they've discovered some very interesting things.

one is that you cannot demonize someone once you have shared some sort of communicative intimacy. you can disagree, but you have a very hard time negating their humanity. that is a very profound finding, and offere tremendous promise.

the second, is that people realize that they have attitudes, dreams and hopes in common- lots more than they ever imagined.

becoming right and wrong suddenly gets a little fuzzier.

Ireland is a perfect example of this evolution taking place, where catholics and protestents, particularly women, have banded together to change an ethos of hatred and violence.

and being right is over-rated.

whalerider55

[Az]

20. Sounds promising, but

how do we impliment something like this. Particularly before it becomes necissary.

I have been working within the atheist community on something along this line. Instead of simply running around an opposing believers we attempt to show that we to are part of the society. With our own drives and sense of moral responsibility. Interacting with them will defuse much of the mistrust.

Trouble is this is hardly something the fundamentalists are likely to look on favorably. In fact there is a constant drone of avoiding contact with other cultures and beliefs. They coach each other about how to don the armor of God when dealing with nonbelievers or different beliefs.

[RevCheesehead]

22. Sometimes they really do look like that ostrich, don't they?

Last year, I was speaking with a gay friend of mine. He has been active in WI's "reconciling movement" - a group which advocates for full inclusions of the LGBT community in the United Methodist Church.

He and his partner showed up at one of our conference-wide clergy meetings to picket and protest. I asked what was going on within the movement, and he told me that they were extremely upset with the conservatives ("the confessing movement"). The reconcilers had been trying to arrange meetings for clear and rational dialogue about homosexuality, and had reached out to the conservatives several times. He got really angry and said, "They won't even sit down at a table and discuss this with us. They told us we were not welcome, and they refused to even listen to us." They came to protest, because they wanted the clergy to know what was, or was NOT happening.

Love thy neighbor, unless he is gay...
Good lord, deliver us!

[progressoid]

28. I don't think it's going to happen

with fundamentalists. It's easy to have this discussion here with reasonable people but I don't think fundis are at all interested bridging the gap between us and them. What's in it for them?

I remember having many discussions (some heated and some calm) in college with people we now categorize as fundamentalists. However, I don't ever recall coming to any common ground.

Maybe it's late or maybe my meds are wearing off but I say we just ignore them or maybe just politely point out what humongous idiots they are!

:evilgrin:

[IndyPriest]

31. You may not be able to do it, but other Christians may

Practically speaking, the wall between you and the Fundies will be too thick for you to dig through 99% of the time. It'd be an amazing Fundie who'd engage you in a real conversation (though I like very much the experiments in MA).

Strategically, you may have to enlist the aid of folks like BHN, (down-thread). And even for folks like BHN, it's going to be tough sledding because the Fundies regard THEM as evil, too. But in any case, this conversation has to go on among people who call themselves Christian. You don't have a snowball's chance. And part of the problem among Christians is there's no licensing agency for the use of the word. Any yahoo can believe anything he wants, open any church he wants, and call himself "Christian." But for all that, that's where the conversation has to be placed. Moderate and liberal Christians are going to have to step up to the plate. And the argument is going to be: what does it mean to be Christian?

In response to parts of your original post: Luke's gospel has Jesus using the Samaritans THREE times to make the points posted up-thread. Others scriptures you might refer to are those about Jesus meeting the woman at the well (in John), dealing the lepers (throughout), dining with the tax collectors and sinners (Luke), rejecting the teachings of the Pharisees (thoughout), dealing with the woman caught in adultery, commanding eternal forgiveness and love of enemies, and so on. In fact, in any honest reading of the NT, you'd be well accepted in Jesus' company.

More than this, though: for myself, I'd say this: any atheist who wants a good and just world and works for it is an EXAMPLE of the energy Jesus called "God." If you are one of those, you wouldn't be just tolerated in my world; you'd be celebrated.

[BeHereNow]

32. Tough sledding is RIGHT!

My sister-in-law won't speak to me because
I won't kneel at the altar of Bush and I also declare
openly to her that he is a wolf among the flock.
I base ALL of my discussions with her IN scripture.
It is like talking to a pod-person.

I pointed out 1John 4 and testing the spirits.
I asked her to document Bush EVER fullfilling even
ONE of the examples set forth in that scripture.
She can't because he hasn't.

Word to all wishing to confront fundies on
whether or not Bush is a Christian.
Read 1John 4.
End of story.
bhn

[BeHereNow]

34. Oh, I forgot to say...

WELCOME TO DU Indy Priest!
Is that indy as in "independent" or "Indianapolis?"

bhn

[IndyPriest]

53. Catholic

But too much of an independent thinker for most bishops these days. Catholics have their own brand of fundamentalism.

Thanks for the welcome!

[BeHereNow]

57. Thomas a Kempis and Henri Nouwen

are two of my favorites...
"The Imitation of Christ" is the most powerful
book I have ever read- second to the Bible that is.
I also love "The Seeds of Contemplation" by Merton.
I had an older friend, who has passed now, who suggested
to me that I might want to look into becomeing a Catholic.
I went to her Church with her and they denied me
Communion- that was the end of my Catholic experience.
She was so mad, she waited until after the service and
then gave it to her Priest but good.
I remember her saying to him,
"WHO are you to deny another Christian communion?
A guest, no less..." The Priest said, "Well she is welcome
to attend classes." She said, "And just why would she want
to after today?"
I miss Rita.
She turned me on to de Chardin.
bhn
O8) Rita...

[IndyPriest]

59. A toast to Rita!

This thread's getting old, but in case you check back in, I just wanted to join your salute to Rita!

[lizzieforkerry]

71. I am a Catholic and after this election

I am having a huge crises of faith. Do you think a liberal can still be a Catholic? Our Diocese pushed Bush big time!

[IndyPriest]

73. Catholic and liberal?

Absolutely. Most Catholics are. They just need a good talkin' to! Current leadership is pretty pitiful. Lots of similarities between what's going on in the country's leadership and what's going on in the church's.

But I don't want to stray too far from the topic AZ had in mind. How would you deal with atheists, lizzy?

[lizzieforkerry]

74. I don't know, most Fundies think Catholics are evil...

I think Fundies are suffering from our "need it now" culture. They try and convert for 10 minutes and then get frustrated that someone doesn't automatically believe everything they are saying (they forget that it took them a lifetime to learn it). So they get angry and label them as evil so they don't have to do any hard work, or admit that they have failed at a task that God has given them. As Christians we should consider that it could take years to lead someone to Christ, through actions, prayers, and education. And if they still choose to not believe we should love them as Christ taught us too. I am Christian because my parents were Christian, if my parents were Jewish, I too would probably be a Jew, Muslim, atheist etc. Would I be evil if this was my background? More people have been killed in the name of Christ than anything else. I don't believe non-Christians are evil, I believe people without morals and ethics are evil, and they can be in any religion.

[IndyPriest]

75. Fundies are the real atheists

I think you've got the gist of it. - The problem Fundies must face is that the God they believe in is a figment of their imaginations. They don't really believe in God at all. That was the whole thing between Jesus and the Pharisees, scribes, and Sadducees. They were the Fundies of their day. Jesus called them on it. Pissed them off so much they killed him.

[Zen Democrat]

77. They "see" nothing. They are blind.

Jesus said in response to a question about a parable that those who have eyes see and those who have ears hear. The fundamentalists are neither seeing nor hearing the truth. They are sheep being fed a steady diet of distortions and fear by false prophets that prey upon their weaknesses and insecurities. The blind are leading the blind.

Jesus said "Blessed are the peacemakers." Jesus said "As you judge, you will be judged likewise." Those who have no love or mercy will be judged without love or mercy. Poor fundies.

[seabeyond]

9. god is omnipresent, we are all one

god is all................

i just told a teacher and then a principle and next the superintendent of the private school i just pulled my kids out of

kids and people in that school are deciding who the christian is and isnt. that is too much for us. we dont do that in our house. i dont care if it is an athiest, i see their lite whether they do or not.

so my answer to you, whether you believe in god, universe, love (as in energy), lite...whatever one may chose or not chose in belief, i see the lite in all. some call it spirit

i dont need to do anything beyond that, that is all i am asked to do

if god is all, who am i to decide to seperate, exclude

[Az]

12. Not too far apart

We are all human. We see feel the connectivity we have with each other. We derive means and explanations for things we see. While we may disagree on the absolute explanations we can find agreement on the fact that we all hope for the best for each other whatever that may be.

[seabeyond]

42. nobody knows, lol, this i know

so i always bring it to love. i know,........(from experience of 43 years and seeing the way it works in my life)........to bring it to love, what ever it may be. things work out just fine

i dont have to have all the answers, well in my view, with love, you have the answer. to be it. in action. in intent. then what we create to experience will be in that

[0rganism]

11. Read the Sermon on the Mount, it's in there

Even being an atheist myself, I try to keep up on this stuff.

Matthew 5:43-48, NIV (Jesus talking)
43 You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?
47 And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?
48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

[jdonaldball]

13. Jesus also said "In my Father's house there are many mansions", and

there is a good joke about this (I heard from a Catholic Priest!)
It goes: Rabbi Goldstein died, arrived in Heaven and saw Saint Peter at the gate. Of course, the Rabbi was surprised, but Saint Peter said, "AH, welcome Rabbi! We've been waiting for you! Everything is prepared, come with me."
So, Peter takes the Rabbi down a long hallway, past various luxurious rooms, and all the doors are open. One room is full of Muslims, kneeling and doing their ritual prayers. Another is full of
Tibetan Buddhists. Another is full of Zen Buddhists (who move from room to room of course). Another, Indians burning some incense in front of a statue of Ganesh. In another, some Australian aborigines telling stories. And so on.
Then they come to a closed door, and the Rabbi is curious, so he reaches for the doorknob, but Saint Peter grabs his arm, pulls him back and tells him to keep quiet.
Then they come to a room full of Orthodox Jews, all debating with each other and so on, and the Rabbi says, "Ah, this is perfect! Thank you. But tell me, who was in that room with the closed door, and why could we not go in?"
And Peter said, "Oh, those are the Christians. You see, they think they're the only ones here."
:-)

[Cuban_Liberal]

15. Our late rector once remarked...

One day, someone mentioned that they found it sad that a certain physician here, a Muslim gentleman, would not go to Heaven, because he 'wasn't a Christian'. Msgr. Niebrugge looked that person straight in the eye and said very evenly, "He's a better Christian than 90% of my parishioners".

'nuff said.

:)

[sangh0]

67. Here's a good question to ask right-wing racists

"Do you think you're going to get into heaven with that attitude?"

The answer is usually "No"

"Well, do you think Satan's gonna segregate Hell for your convenience?"

[zeemike]

24. Good joke

But not so far from the truth

[RevCheesehead]

19. My first response is to look at Romans, chapters 9-11.

In it, Paul addresses the theological questions pertaining to "the Jews who reject Christ" and the gentiles, who are "grafted in to the olive branch." Paul leaves the question of the inclusion of Jews, indeed even of Gentiles, to God alone. He reminds the gentiles that they were once excluded from God's covenant, and were grafted in by the grace of Jesus Christ."

In United Methodism, we use a four-part system in determining our theology (known as the "Wesleyan Quadrilateral." Each part is important to gain a full understanding of ourselves, our faith, and our mission as Christians.

1. Scripture - the interpretation of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures (Old and New Testaments), as God's revelation to us. Scripture is our primary source of understanding God and God's will.

2. Tradition - what has been the teachings handed down through the Apostolic church? How have we interpreted God's word in 2000+ years? What things are considered doctrine?

3. Experience - what is our first-hand understanding? Slavery may have been acceptable a long time ago, but it is no longer - therefore, we do not own slaves. Experience has shown us that we needed to grow in our understanding of the value of every human being.

4. Reason (this was Wesley's addition) - Human beings are capable of deep thought, and must make certain decisions that may stand apart from scripture, tradition, and experience. The primary question here is to ask, "is it reasonable that this _______ can be interpreted as compatible with Christian theology?"

With the use of reason, we are free to ask difficult questions: do we allow women to be ordained? Is it OK for a Christian woman to have an abortion? How do we understand Homosexuality? How do we understand people who are not of the Christian faith? What about atheists?

It is important to note that Reason alone usually is not enough to make certain decisions. All four parts of the Quad. must be engaged in making theological interpretations.

[zeemike]

26. I like that logic Rev.

And it fits with what i think Jesus stood for.

After all when the man asked Jesus what he must do to earn eternal life Jesus said that he only needed to follow the Ten Commandments.
He never said that he should put on the armor of god and fight the devil or any of those silly things you hear from the fundies.

[zeemike]

23. Here is my view

"Where in the bible or the teachings of Jesus do you believe that tolerance and acceptance of nonbelievers is preached? "

Organism has answered that well, but I would also add that the charges against Jesus by the religious community of the time accused him of hanging out with publicans and sinners, and he himself said "What you do to the least of those in the kingdom of God you do to me"

But to see just when the church began to change you only have to look to the letters of Paul. Paul was converted to the cause and became the one that made Christianity acceptable to the Roman empire. Now I am not against Paul, because he saved Christianity from being wiped out completely, and if he would not have did what he did the whole story of Jesus would have been lost to the world.
And it is interesting to note that the most quoted person in the bible by the fundies is Paul not Jesus. In fact it is rare to here the fundies quote Jesus, and when they do it is out of context and always followed with an "explanation" from Paul.

I have no problem with atheist or agnostic (for one thing I used to be one) because they are just being honest with themselves and if they do not see the possibility of a God it is not because they have given it no thought at all.And among the people I have known in my life I would trust an atheist or agnostic person long before I would trust someone that says they have been born again. (that statement is most always a self deception.)

[BeHereNow]

27. Fundies are not Christians.

That is the first thing to understand.
Why? Because they have put something
between their hearts and God.
What? Their egos and self-worship.
They lean on their own understanding,
not God. Big "no-no" in Christianity.
They are led and believe in MEN, not God.
As in NOT GOOD.

I could go on and on about this, according to scripture,
which is, by the way, the only way to converse with a fundie
as you quickly learn they have NO idea what is said in scripture,
but I will try to illustrate in short this principle central in
all things Christian.
First of all, as a Christian, I have only two commands
from God.
1. Love the Lord with all my heart.
2. Love my neighbor as myself.
(On edit: More accurately, as God has loved me.)

I am asked to demonstrate two spirtual truths of God
through physical actions.
1. Baptism
2. Communion

All God asks me to do where you are concerned
is be an example of His love. I fail at this miserably the majority
of the time, which is good- it strengthens my humility
and dependence on Him.

Finally, there is a teaching in 1 Corinthians about how
a Christian is to conduct their interactions with non-believers.
NO WHERE is "evil" mentioned in reference to a non-believer.
In summary, if you, as a non-believer ask me to join you
for a meal, I am to do so freely. If you at some point declare
that the meal is a "sacrifice," meaning observance of
law over grace, I am not to eat it, and by not eating it,
I am not condemning you, I am teaching by example
that grace has replaced law. I am in no way to judge you.

The fundies are operating on law, which makes them
guilty of the worst sin in the bible.
HYPOCRISY and FALSE teaching.

As a Christian, let me assure you- I do not
consider you evil. I consider you my brother-
For all I know, you will wake tomorrow and
know God. That's how He works and it is strictly
on His timeline, not mine.
All I am to do is let you know that I believe
and that He changed my life. I assure you,
I had nothing to do with it when it happened.
As a matter of fact, I had never been further away
from believing in my life- and blammo- it happened
to me on April 23, 1995. Trust me, I wasn't looking.
THAT is the power of God.
It's fine with me if you don't believe;
just believe that I do.

BHN

[m berst]

29. a few thoughts

"How do you abide the existence of someone such as myself and others who do not share your beliefs or even seek to teach ideas in opposition to your beliefs."

This is not even an issue. Jesus didn't create an exclusive club that some belong to and some don't. He didn't say who should or who should not be excluded. It makes no difference to me one way or another if you agree with me or not, and I don't presume to know who is or who isn't right. I also don't consider Christianity to be my "personal view" or "belief system" as so many non-Christians assume. It has nothing to do with me. I have my personal taste in ice cream, but not in matters of morality and faith.

"Do you perceive us as evil?"

Certainly not by virtue of anyone's self-proclaimed membership in any club.

"Do you believe you should tolerate evil?"

I believe that we should stand up to evil, but there is just as much evil among those who claim to be Christians as those who do not. "By their fruits shall you know them" and even then, it is not for me to judge the person as good or evil, let alone punish or attack them.

"It is the absolute conviction that they are right and everyone else is wrong that drives the fundamentalists."

Not quite, although some may act as though this were true. For me the core of my Christianity is the absolute conviction that I am probably wrong in most things.

"If we can come to understand how those that believe can also tolerate those that do not believe then perhaps we can find a way to bring change to the fundamentalists without assaulting the beliefs."

The Religious Right is a political movement, not a religious movement. Christianity is just the "bait" to lure people in to support reactionary politicians.

When Christians in general are attacked, this drives the flock closer to the deceivers - the Dominionists and the neo-cons.

Many Christians vote Republican not because many Democrats are non-Christians, but because of a perception that the Democratic party stands for no moral values whatsoever. When the Democratic party takes strong unambiguous moral stands, then the Christians are less vulnerable to the Republican party's propaganda.

Strong stands for helping the poor, for ending the war, against torture - all of these would trump same-sex marriage and abortion as defining issues with many if not most Christians in my opinion. The Democratic party won't take these strong moral stands, and the Democratic party won't look at its own mistakes and instead demonizes the other side.

[BeHereNow]

30. Hmmm...question.

Great post M.
But I have one question-
Do you really think that Christians, true Christians that is,
voted for Bush and the anti-christ platforms of the Republican
party?
The people I know as true Christians were led in
discernment by H.S. in these matters.
I do recall the fact that "even the elect" will be deceived though.
BHN

[m berst]

33. good question

I think that there were more deceived than there were true believers in Republican ideas. It was an odd political season, because supporters of both candidates mostly talked about what was wrong with the other candidate. I don't know how this enormous divide developed.

I think it is difficult for liberals to see the way that many Christians see the Democratic party now. Certainly, they are being lied to and misled, but there is just enough truth to it that it flies.

It takes two to tango, as they say. The Democrats keep walking into every trap that the gang of theocratic fascists set for them. Just as it only takes one nutcase preaching damnation toward gays to taint the view of many liberals against all Christians, one "they are idiots for believing in fairy tales" remark is all it takes to taint the Democratic party in the minds of many Christians. What kind of person would describe another person's moral principles as idiotic?

As I said in other posts, I think that very few people go back and forth from the conservative theological groups to the liberal political groups. I find that I am much, much more accepted as a liberal among conservative Christians than I am as a Christian among liberals. I don't say this to argue for or against any cause, nor to prove that one "side" or the other is right or wrong. I tell Christians that they have a blind spot when it comes to liberals, and I tell liberals that they have a blind spot when it comes to Christians. Christians are open to this, but unfortunately most liberals are not. I never had a Christian yell at me for trying to bridge this gap, but a liberal is more likely than not to jump on me or at the very least view me with intense suspicion.

I shouldn't lead people to believe that I have a solution to the problem, or even a full understanding of it, but I do believe that there is a lot of misunderstanding and not enough discussion.

Most Bush voters in my estimation, are extremely naive and unaware politically, and we make a mistake to read too much into their motives and opinions.

There are 2 factors I think -

1. The ability and willingness of the Republicans and Dominionists to con and bamboozle people.

2. The total failure of the Democratic party to operate with any moral principles, or at the least, failure to communicate any moral principles.

This doesn't mean that the Democrats should "get religion" (I cringed when I heard that Pelosi was quoting from scripture after the election) - more like get a backbone, and show tolerance to those people - however misguided they may be - who are trying to apply some moral principles to politics.

Many Republican voters believe that the Democrats are opportunists who will not take a stand for anything. The DLC keeps proving them to be right about this.

[BeHereNow]

35. I think the Telly-Evangelicals are to blame too.

As far as perpetuating the prejudice against the
Democratic party or so called "Libruls."
I think the biggest problem lies in the fact that
just as many so called "patriots" have no idea
what it means to be a patriot, so too the so called
"Christians" have no idea what it means to be a
Christian- unfortunately, both have based their
belief in popular personalities and not the
principles of patriotism and Christianity.
THIS is the disease of America- idol worship,
whether it is Brittney, Bush or Billy Bob Bible thumper
on their televisions. They will follow anyone
their televisions tells them to.

bhn

[m berst]

37. I agree bhn

The televangelists are immensely powerful and are destroying Christianity in my view, and are well on their way to destroying the government and the society, as well. No local pastor can compete with them, and these Dominionists have control of his or her parishioner's minds. The televangelists have also completely trashed out the image of Christianity to those of other faiths and non-believers - not that this is a big problem, except to the extent that it prevents strong intelligent liberal voices from being heard by the church goers and so further isolates them in Dominionist-Neocon Hell and to the degree that it deprives the Democratic party of their support.

[zeemike]

38. I think you understand very well

perhaps not perfectly, but no one does.

[morgan2]

36. its because christianity is paradoxical

There is no right answer. On the one hand jesus taught not to judge other people, but if we never judged others actions then society would fall apart. Its all about what part of the bible people tend to focus on. If we always turned the other cheek, the greedy among us would slap us on that cheek and take the shirt off our back.

Also there does seem to be two main differences in how people look at the bible.

One that it is the truth, and that anyone not believing in jesus will not get to heaven. If thats the case then it would be a compasionate persons responsibility to do everything he/she could to get others into heaven. That would be the ultimate good act. A key point to this would be that one's beliefs are what we will be judged on after death.

The other is that Jesus was a teacher, trying to show people a better way to live. That we should strive to be the best person we can be. In this case our actions, not our beliefs will be what we are judged on after death. This group would tend to be open to people with others beliefs, because what one believes doesn't matter.. it's their actions.

You can find support for either belief system in the bible, I would tend to say the first group would find more support in the old testament. From what I've read of the New Testament, it certainly is more in line with the second group. Any Christian shouldnt really be caring about the Old Testament, because the New Testament is God's new covenant with man.

[zeemike]

39. Not as paradoxical as you might think

"but if we never judged others actions then society would fall apart"

That is true in a world without government.
But you must learn something form the Old Testament that is important.
God gave to Moses only ten commandments and it was on these commandments that the Law of Moses was built. This is much like our constitution where it is the foundation of all of our laws today.
The Law unlike the constitution or the Ten Commandments can be changed and often is in our world today to meet the needs of society.
It is through this law that we judge right and wrong in a secular manner. The justice system is the ones that do the judging and it leaves us free to not judge others, and in fact the principle of Innocent until proved guilty is based on this principle of non judgment.

[morgan2]

46. dont you get it?

Laws are judgements. You dont think a jury deciding to put someone in jail for life is a judgement? What do you think a "judge" does? They judge other people all the time.

And again the Ten Commandments have no meaning in Christianity, they are part of the covenant between moses and God. The New Testament between Jesus and man overrode these laws.

[zeemike]

47. No I guess you didn't get it

That is the porpoise of the law and the legal system is to judge.
We however are not part of that system unless we are called as jurors and asked to pass judgment, that is a secular legal system.
The commandments however are not the law but the basis on which the law was constructed by Moses.

And Jesus did not overturn the ten commandments in fact he upheld them when a man asked him "what must I do to attain eternal life" And Jesus told him to obey the commandments. the changes that Jesus made was in the law. for example when he said "it is said of them of old and eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth but I say..." and when he stopped the stoning of the woman for adultery, he changed the law, because the law required it.
It is a mistake to confuse the commandments with the law/

[murray hill farm]

44. I agree..

i never feel anger toward those who try to convert me..and they do try..ha..i feel that they are trying to help me and to save me from their perspective and their belief. It is not my belief that i will go to hell if i do not take the fundamentalist Christ into my heart, etc. But, it is their belief..and tolerance works both ways..in that I do respect their right to their belief..which includes their need to save me. Also, i never argue with such a person..or try to convince them they are wrong, etc. I do tell them that i appreciate what they are trying to do..to save me...but that i have my own belief system..and do not wish to defend it or explain it..and that is usually enough.

[Az]

45. Reactions and results

My current reaction to those that seek to convert me is not to disimilar. I express that I understand that their actions are out of good will and not some aggressive motive. I differ in that I am willing to discuss my positions in a noncombative manner. I try to dismantle any illusions they may have about nonbelievers.

But here is the problem. I do not evangelyze. I do not try to convert others in an organized structure. They do. Even though they will not succeed in converting me they will succeed in other cases. And their numbers will continue to expand. And their agenda is not one of tolerance peace and understanding.

This is why I am asking this question. We need to find a way to either slow down their movement or change its path to embrace tolerance and an open society. The course before us now will only teach them this lesson through violence and bloodshed. I am seeking a peaceful route to changing this course. I cannot accept that answer that they are beyond change. That is giving into the inevitability of bloodshed. That is unacceptable.

[zeemike]

50. I believe there is an sawer

And that answer if in the teachings of Jesus. And I think that the post here on this thread gave you ample evidence for the tolerance that Jesus preached.

But it is not your problem it is ours, that is, those of us that know and understand the teachings and have so far failed to make them prominent in the minds of the people that can be converted away form the fundamentalist false teaching and toward the real message of Jesus.


But all of you atheist and agnostics can help by just giving us your support and not dump us in the same trash can as the fundies.
We do not need to convert you, because your actions and beliefs are similar enough to ours to be partners instead of adversary's.

[msmcghee]

40. Another atheist view . .

I see a fundamental mistake in most of these posts. You assume that religious belief, fundamental or otherwise, come from some rational process - and that if we point out to them the logical problems with their belief they will "see the light" of reason and adopt a more benign worldview.

Have you considered the possibility that religion is actually the result of a hormonal / psychological process? Especially that strong ideological beliefs release chemicals in the brain that people become addicted to - just as much as crack or heroin.

This addiction is strong enough that these people will find some set of strong ideological beliefs to immerse themselves in, regardless of the underlying logic.

They will choose from those that society offers. (Part of the high comes from acceptance by similarly addicted peers.)

It is also probable that peoples' ability / desire to immerse themselves in strong ideological belief systems changes with meta-social circumstances. i.e 9/11 caused many who were on the border to cross over to eagerly seek that strong ideological mindset in order to relieve the anxiety of being threatened by terrorism.

I believe the US culturally (as opposed to Canada or Europe) consists of millions who don't have a socially learned mistrust of strong ideology. These new converts are the people who voted for our "strong leader" in the last election and put him over the top.

This mindset abhors ambiguity, seeks final solutions, loves strong, uncompromising leadership and violent resolution of conflict. They violently exclude those who don't "believe". They epitomize the "you're with us or against us" view and they believe the threat to them and their beliefs from non-believers is strong enough that it justifies any means to defeat the non-believers. In this case that means "liberals".

These are the people who take civilization to war. No amount of reasoning will change this. They will find their drug - and it's also true that in times like these, with the type of leadership we have, other, stronger forms of it will evolve to fill that need. And many more will die before this is over.

What I'm saying is there is probably nothing we can do to prevent them from having their Reformation - which is what these dark, destructive periods of human civilization are called. In the past, no amount of reason ever prevented them from playing out their destiny and killing many millions of innocent humans in the process - but good luck.

[immoderate]

54. Excellent point.

I have suspected that some of these attitudes derive from structural, maybe chemical, maybe wiring, features of the brain. Certainly those who study how to achieve power over others (perhaps a similar structure) exploit these tendencies in their subjects. consider the hard wired tendencies of pack animals. We're not that different.

--IMM

[datasuspect]

55. i think if more people realized this

the net percentage of internet arguments would fall dramatically.

thanks for putting into eloquent words what i have been thinking for quite some time.

i think it's high time to read more books.

[X900BattleGrape]

49. At least they don't blow you up because you're not a believer

Might be better off studying Islam and trying to understand their fundamentalists.

[zeemike]

52. Have you ever heard

Take the log out of your own eye before trying to get the splinter out of someone else?

[immoderate]

56. Not that they don't want to.

Check out the history of Europe. Blowing up is not the only way to kill people.

--IMM

[sangh0]

69. FYI

You're agreeing with a tombstone

[immoderate]

70. Should I disagree with the tombstone?

???

--IMM

[sangh0]

72. Probably

The laws of probability suggests it wouldnt be a bad idea

[Az]

76. History, learn it or repeat it

Any belief system that declares itself the absolute authority on lifes matters carries with it a threat to society. That claim to authority combined with the power to act on it can lead to destruction of any that disagree.

[datasuspect]

78. why study islam

when we have our own home grown christian taliban right here in the good ole u.s. of a.?

[Warren DeMontague]

86. Yeah, unless you happen to be an unbeliever in a gay bar,

or working at a Planned Parenthood Clinic.


(F*cking Yahoo. Nice name, tombstone-boy.)

[lastliberalintexas]

58. "Love your neighbor as yourself"

Jesus said the greatest commandment was to "Love your God with all your heart", and next to love your neighbor as yourself. He never said to love only your Christian neighbor, or only your straight neighbor, or only your neighbor who is anti-choice or ... You get the picture.

I hesitated to answer because I only consider myself to be a mrginal Christian. But even as a fairly interested (or disinterested depending on your view) observer of Christianity, I don't see that Jesus taught anything but love, tolerance and understanding.


Nope, you'll never get the fundies to see that. For one, most of them don't even know their own Bible. They've either never read it, or only read selections for their Sunday school class, or only the parts of the passages cherry-picked by the preachers. Most of the fundies I know (and I know quite a few), are as intellectually lazy as Bush. They don't want to actually read the Bible, they simply want someone else to explain it to them. And of course, most of them have never heard of the more tolerant and loving aspects of Christ's teachings.

Second, most of them don't care. Quite a few of these people need to feel superior to someone else, for some reason, any reason. They might be poor white trash, but they're going to heaven- unlike that godless commie/homo/harlot/etc. And I say that as a generalization, just because most fundies tend to be white, but of course there are some people of color in that group as well. There is a groupthink amongst the fundies which is astounding, almost like they've been lobotomized, even if temporarily. But the lack of intellectual curiosity, the unquestioning support of authority figures, and the inability to accept proven facts which don't comport with their worldview of them as a group scares the heck out of me.


And so you know- I find it easier to "abide the existence of someone like you" than I do that of the fundies...

[OnionPatch]

63. Interesting post

I consider myself a Christian but pretty unconventional.

For me it's very simple: someone messed around with the Bible translation somewhere along the line and changed "my message" to "me." I believe that when Jesus said "no one can come to the Kingdom of Heaven except through me" that he actually meant through his message. (Which was simply to love one another.) People in those days loved to worship something or someone, though. They were so used to worshiping someone that "Love one another" was not enough for them. Some sneaky SOB took advantage of that and changed it around to where you have to believe in Jesus instead of just his message/philosophy. Certainly a power maneuver.

I firmly believe that anyone with a good heart goes to Heaven and that is anyone of any religion or no religion as long as they are good people. (What Heaven is is another subject.)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

64. Hmm, I like that interpretation

:thumbsup:

[Liberal Christian]

66. It's all in you understand the text

It's all in how you understand what is being said in John 15. Jesus said in that context, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by me." He did NOT say, "No one is saved except through me." He did NOT say, "No one comes to the Kingdom of Heaven except through me." He did NOT say, "Everyone goes to hell unless you come to me."

He said, "No one comes to the FATHER except through me." I have come to interpret him as saying, "I am the lens through which you come to know the God who is expressed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is not the only way to know God. There are many ways to know God and to experience God's presence in the world. But to know God in the way that I make him known, as the God who wishes to be in relationship to the world, you have to know him as I do, because I am his face in the world. This is God known in simple human relationship -- the relationship of Father to Son. Without a Son (or Daughter), a man cannot be a Father. Without a Father (or Mother), a man cannot be a Son. If you want to know God as experienced in the intimate dance of relationship expressed in the Trinity, you have to come to me because the way I'm showing you is new and different."

[IndyPriest]

68. Spot on!

If I were to shorten that a bit, I think that crucial passage says: "Don't believe those bastards who are currently selling you religion from the Temple. If you really want to know what God's like, listen to me."

[salin]

65. To me, by example, the story of the Good Samaratin comes to mind

the 'religious' man (of the cloth at the time) - walks by and can't be bothered to help the person in crisis.

The hero of the story, the one who stops to tend to the person in crisis, is of a different race and creed. What is important is not his beliefs or race.. but his actions.

Story to me suggests more than tolerance... but valuing on character and judging that character on how one treats others, particulary others in need.

[disconnected]

79. i really wouldn't worry about it

people use RELIGION(I separate religion and faith) to justify alot of things, it makes them feel as if they can do something bad without being to blame.
If you're an athiest I don't think you should even worry about it.
Most fundies never even read the bible themselves, or only read sections, and those who read the whole thing, interpret it by their pastor's words.
You'll know these types by the lack of critical thinking skills.

[donheld]

85. Welcome to DU

:hi:

[Zen Democrat]

80. One of my imaginings ...

is related to the scripture in which Jesus said "I was naked, yet you did not cloth me. I was hungry, yet you did not feed me." Perhaps when a believer crosses over and sees Jesus, he will appear to each person as the image of their own intolerance and condescension.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

81. The Golden Rule as this agnostic sees it

In the words of Christ:

Matthew 7:12: "In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets."

Also stated in Mark 12:31: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

And another variation in Matthew 25:40: "Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."

Not unique to Christianity, variations on the Golden Rule are found in most world religions, including the Hindu, Jewish, Islamic, Taoist, Buddhist, Confucian, Sikh and Wiccan faiths. It is usually interpreted to mean that we are to do no harm to one another - including, ostensibly, condemning one another to eternal damnation. After all, that's God's decision to make.

Fundamentalists who believe God has selected them to separate the wheat from the chaff have a different take on the Golden Rule: You do to the sinner what you would expect to have done to you as a sinner yourself.

Interestingly, the only text I know of that contains this interpretation of the Golden Rule is in the Satanic Bible by Anton Le Vey, who holds that we are suckers if we forgive those who transgress against us (which we are explicitly told to do in The Lord's Prayer, one of the most basic, best-known Christian prayers).

Fundamentalists seem to like the hellfire-and-brimstone Yahweh of the Old Testament more than the loving, forgiving Christ of the New Testament. I see it as another sign of their disdain for evolution. ;)

[IndyPriest]

92. This is So right on

Best line of the many good ones in this post: "You do to the sinner what you would expect to have done to you as a sinner yourself." LOL! So true. The God fundies believe in makes absolutely no sense to a compassionate human being. And that evaluation, often made by atheists, leads me to believe that atheists are far more often better Christians than fundies!

[The Traveler]

82. That's easy

What fundamentalists forget is that YOUR relationship (or lack thereof) to the Divine is not THEIR problem. It is yours. By taking that on, they create a lot of futile strife for themselves, and other problems. They also, of course, neglect their own relationship with God when they become focused on the details of yours. This principle is all over the Gospels. (It is my own opinion that Paul should be avoided at all costs. This boy just could not let go of the Old Covenant.)

On the other hand, I am responsible for pursuing my own relationship with the Divinity/God/Whatever label you wish to hang on it, and your opinion of the matter is completely irrelevant to me. It is not that rational discourse is unimportant to me ... it is merely in this matter pointless.

Utimately, one's own experience is more important than debate on this matter. Trying to convert you is worse than useless. If I succeed, you will proceed based on "blind faith" rather than on your own real spiritual experience. Since that experience is almost certain to be different from my own I would actually be doing you harm. You begin to act out my experience rather than acquire your own. Empty ritual and irrationalism is the inevitable end result. Evangelism has in this manner produced a new generation of Pharisees, those who cling to particular beliefs and patterns of ritual with no real basis except blind faith, which usually translates as a response to a nameless inner fear. That result is the antithesis of the Jesus Christ teaching, one objective of which is the liberation of the human heart ... not its subjugation.

If you are interested in test flying your own relationship, as a sort of experiment in the spirit of "let's see what happens", I recommend Matthew Fox's "Sermon on the Mount", which provides a mystical interpretation of the Sermon. The Sermon provides a stunningly clear and simple method of working. But there are other methods of working. Labels seem to be important to people, but seem also to be completely immaterial to the Divine. The principle advantage of the way as taught by Christ is simplicity. It works for me. Others obtain better results with different traditions. Feelings matter here ... one's aesthetic and emotional response to a body of teaching is very important.

Catandenda's Don Juan advised "Find a path with a heart and follow it to the end." I really have little to add to that ... so it is easy and comfortable for me to enjoy people of diverse beliefs and/or non-beliefs.

[Warren DeMontague]

87. Let this Atheist/Taoist/Discordian/Spiritual Free Agent Put it this way...

While swearing like a sailor.. then I'm off to bed.

I don't give a rat's ass WHAT anyone else chooses to believe in. Really. I mean, it's interesting from a discussion standpoint, sometimes, as in information and free idea exchange between equals, but when it gets into the territory of them trying to convince me of the existence of invisible beings, giving me the "good news", or telling me what to do or not to do (alone, or amongst consenting adults) with my dick, frankly, it gets tiresome and onerous. When it crosses the line into (and this is where the fundies come in) people trying to write LAWS pertaining to the above, or trying to push creationism, prayer, etc. into public schools, well, then we have a problem.

How do we get the fundamentalists to tolerate unbelievers? Hell if I know. Good luck. I think what we need to do is get everyone to a place where they can live and feel comfortable with their OWN interpretation of reality without having the need to constantly foist it on their friggin' neighbor. Having people understand the fundamental civic and historic American Patriotism underlying the bedrock notion of the Separation of Church and State would go a long way, as well.

But I don't think either of those things are happenin' any time soon. Good night.

Edit: I know HL Mencken's definition of Puritanism, but I also think that one of the definitions of Fundamentalism must be a rigid belief system that is inherently threatened by the mere presence of competing or dissenting worldviews. This is pretty universal to all fundamentalist strains of thought, they combine a certainty that they have the one and only line to the capital-T "Truth" with a seemingly obsessive desire that everyone agree with them completely.

[nascarblue]

88. I believe its combination of things....

...that can be simplified into a label like "intolerance".

I grew up Catholic, went to Catholic school for 8 years, so I know the bible pretty good. Not great, but good. I believe the crime is in the interpretation. If you take a good look at how some of the extreme Christian right preachers interpret the bible, it's a big distortion. Just type in "Armageddon" or "Rapture" into google and you'll be shocked at some of the wild interpretations. The scary side note is that there is a boom in these extremist evangelical websites. And each one more wild in their interpretations.

We, as liberals know that Jesus WAS a liberal and WAS tolerant. He came down to earth to let us know that it was TIME for the new testament. That the old testament was whacked and outdated. I mean they were doing all kinds of things in the old testament that would land you in jail for a loooong time. I've always wondered why the "rapture right" doesn't debate the bible. They seem so smug now, it might be a good time to reveal them. I think that would be a great democratic strategy. The Falwell's and Robertson's of the world just love to be on TV. Some enterprising station should book a show on Christianity where they have two evangelicals, one a liberal, one a right wing rapturist, and have a discussion(more like a debate) about what their individual interpretations are. I can't think of anything that would shine a better light on the intolerance any better.

[GreenPartyVoter]

90. Good, Lord. Trust me, honey, I can "abide" you and folks from other

faith traditions much more easily than I can fundagelicals.

As you noted, progressive Christians many times have more in common in terms of philosophy with atheists than they do their religious brethren.

[Malva Zebrina]

91. There will never be complete understanding

in many groups simply because religion teaches absolutes.There is Jesus(God) and then on the other hand there is Satan. Following that logic, non belief in Jesus equals evil or Satan. No inbetween allowed. Agnostics are more easily accepted, it seems.

If any person of a religious faith that believes atheism is evil or Satan approaches me, knowing I am an atheist, and attempts to understand, I will be glad to discuss that matter with them. In all the time I have been debating with extremist literalist fundamentalists or even others who seem to be more inclined to see gray areas, I have met only one with whom I could have a pleasant and respectful conversation and he was a Baptist minister (not Southern Baptist) We had nmore than one debate that ended pleasantly with mutual respect.

And he did not start with the usual talking points of the fundamentalist (I used to be an atheist, thing)so easily recognizable

There are some teachers also that I admire for their courage to explore issues that to atheists are a concern--for example, Bishop Spong. I would enjoy sitting down with him to talk religion.

But, I do not think that ever, any minister, priest will preach from the pulpit, without being condescending or patronizing, that atheism is acceptable, --and that is to be expected.

That is my point, I guess.

I would settle for the simple goal to quash any conversations or attempts to infiltrate the government and having to do with matters of separation of church and state and other things such as America is a Christian Nation, the founders wrote Christianity into the consitution because they were Christians (although this may be also a concern for those not of the Christian faith too) and other teachings that serve to marginalize the beliefs or non beliefs of others.

If those attempts at incursion can be kept under control, then I am satisfied and really have little desire to join arms with or try to find common ground with the extremist literalists or those like them who get in my face with their religion. Even if the common ground is the local garden club, they inevitably show little respect for non belief and are compelled to proselytize and witness--loudly. There are some groups that I contribute to regularly in order to keep up -- AU,PFAW and ACLU who I believe work to protect the Consitution and the rights of atheists, as well as others.


.