So, let us agree that Christian fundamentalists are not proper Christians.

[BreweryYardRat]

They follow the Old Testament, rather than the New. They warp and distort the true teachings of Jesus to further their own ends of violence, bigotry, and stupidity. Even the ones who are intelligent in other matters almost never bother to question whether or not they are interpreting the words of Jesus correctly.

Thankfully, the ones who do question their interpretations usually see the light and become Democrats of some stripe or another.

The unrepentant fundies deserve their own label...I'm thinking "fundie-whackjob." Could please we start using that around here instead of tarring all Christians with the vile brush of fundamentalism?

We aren't all like that, honest.

[DoYouEverWonder]

1. I've been calling them

rapture ready bushbots.

But maybe there is one term we can all agree on? That might help.

[nebenaube]

2. I prefer christo-facist; thank you! n/t

[BreweryYardRat]

5. Yes, but you see, that's still tarring us all with the brush.

[knitter4democracy]

8. Fundy-fascist?

That might be more accurate.

[BreweryYardRat]

11. That's good.

[sueragingroz]

3. I'm down with that

I'm an atheist... so I don't know how qualified I am to comment, but I like to think that a "true" christian believes in things like the Golden Rule when looking for moral guidance...

[BreweryYardRat]

4. We try.

Generally when hearing about/encountering fundamentalists. ;)

[sueragingroz]

29. touche (n/t)

:)

[saltpoint]

6. At our house, we hang out with folks who readily make distinctions

between Bill Moyers who is a Christian and Jim Dobson who is a Fascist Asshole.

I understand the distinction you're asking for, and nowhere is it more surgically drawn than between those two examples, IMO.

Farther back, give me St. Francis but not Leo X.

Give me the anonymous Irish monk contemplating infinity on a rainy morning in the West of Ireland but please do not give me John Calvin.

I love fairly recent DUers' distinction when they use CHINO ("Christian in name only") to describe the fundies.

The fight to throw the fundies off the train is going to be a nasty one, I'm afraid. They're going to want to throw YOU off the same train.

We're rooting for your side to win that argument.

[BreweryYardRat]

Remind me what Leo X did?

I want to say forgave the men of Fourth Crusade for sacking Constantinople and raping/killing all those people, but I can't swear to it.

And thank you for the encouragement. I want to win.

[saltpoint]

13. For some, Pope Leo X is the poster boy for the selling of indulgences.

So soon the coin in coffer rings
The soul from Purgatory springs

--etc.

[BreweryYardRat]

15. Ah. Thank you.

I'd argue that Innocent III (the man who gave the go-ahead for the genocide of the Cathars) was much, much worse.

[saltpoint]

17. Yes. A formidable contender for the top honors in that category.

And in more recent times, how about Fred Phelps? My god what a monster.

[Taxloss]

27. The "real Christian" distinction is exactly what they throw at liberal

Christians - you're not a "real Christian". So the distinction is effectively useless. The trouble is that they're the ones defining American Christianity right now - and that's what liberal Christians have to do something about, because we "real atheists" can't do a thing about it.

So, what we call liberal Christians is irrelevant. It's what liberal Christians call themselves, that's the problem. Do liberal Christians call themselves the first line of defence against Christian extremism, or merely the last in the camps? Because there's work to be done.

On edit: whoops, meant to reply to the OP. My bad.

[saltpoint]

34. It's ok if you posted to me and not the OP because it gives me an

opportunity to say hi and to offer good wishes.

[Taxloss]

46. And to you!

:hi:

[mikelewis]

28. The only problem with that battle is...

True followers of Christ walk; so before we catch up to the caboose, the damn things left the station. Our mission has been to just try and catch the souls who couldn't hang on to this out of control freight train. Lately, there's been quite a few bouncing and skidding in the rocks next to the tracks. The only thing we worry about now is getting hit by the falling bodies.

The good news in all of this is the nature of the alliance between the corporations and the churches. It is a deal struck with the devil and cannot last. As the people grow poorer, they'll start to wake up to the reality they've helped create. They'll start to understand why the poor are blessed and why the meek will inherit the Earth. As Christians, we must let them beat on us until their Bibles are bloody and their hearts are ready to feel pity. That day may never come but if it should, you will truly see the "wolf dwell with the lamb".

[saltpoint]

35. Hi, Mike Lewis. The fault is mine for using the train metaphor, not

the OP's. On further thought, I see exactly what you mean.

I don't think an internal debate is possible to avoid in the church. It may involve schisms in whole denominations. And in the end, I think that's probably healthy.

Agree with you on the church/corporate alliance there... survivability is going to be the big story on that one.

[PoiBoy]

7. they're anti-american..

anyone who puts the word of their religion over the law of this land is anti-american and they should think about forming their own christian fundamentalist country somewhere off the coast of tierra del fuego perhaps...

[mcscajun]

9. Why not just cut to the chase and call them what they are?

Religious Extremists.

Gets the heart of the charge right out there, and doesn't tar Christians in general, or (and they may be out there; I don't know, being an atheist) Fundamentalists who are not RW Whackjobs.

[NC_Nurse]

10. I think you have to assume that

most people who are talking sh*t about "christians" here mean the fundies. There will always be people who are new and people who missed this thread or the
tons of other threads like it...who won't know the "agreed upon term" for it. If you feel you must defend Christianity all the time - that would be your issue. We are not all
unaware of the truly spiritual premises that this tradition is based on. In fact, I'd say it's many of it's most vocal "followers" or exploiters as I would call them ( like Falwell, Robertson, etc.)
that don't seem to know them. Don't let it get to you.

[BreweryYardRat]

12. Yeah, I know. It just gets wearing.

And there's folks who assume all Christians=fundies.

[KittyWampus]

14. They follow CHERRY-PICKED sections of the OT.

[BreweryYardRat]

16. Mmm-hmm.

[LanternWaste]

18. I guess I'm not a proper Christian

Ummmm.... I'm a Christian fundamentalist because I adhere to the Five Fundamentals as set forth by the Niagara Bible Conference.

I guess I'm not a proper Christian. Jeez, all this time I actually thought I was trying to adhere to the New Testament, but I see now that I don't.

Thanks for pointing out the error of my ways.


Unless of course you're confusing Literalism with Fundamentalism...

[OneBlueSky]

19. one of the best documentarians of the Dominionist movement . . .

is Katherine Yurica's site . . .

http://www.yuricareport.com

[Donald Ian Rankin]

20. I don't think there is such a thing as a "proper" Christian.

I don't think it's possible to define a platonic form of a religion to separate to what the actual people usually identified as followers of it believe.

The only usage of the word "Christian" that makes sense is to denote "people usually identified as Christians". Trying to use it to mean "People who believe things Christ would have approved of" is a recipe for trouble (for what it's worth, I think he'd disapprove of a lot of what both modern conservatives and modern liberals say, but have a lot more in common with the former than the latter, the same as anyone else alive 2000 years ago in the middle east, but that's neither here nor there).

Rather than using the word Christian to exclude fundamentalists, I think we need to add relevant qualifiers whenever we use it to mean anything other than "all those people generally identified as Christians".

[Lilith Velkor]

21. No.

If you see broadbrush statements about Christians here, you can hit alert because that's a violation of the rules.

I personally think that redefining "Christian" so that the term excludes Christians who disagree with you is as stupid and hateful as redefining "Anti-Semite" so that the term includes most Jews. Which is to say, pretty fucking stupid and hateful.

Y'all have a blessed day now.

[stepnw1f]

23. wrong.... Fundamentalists are a Cult

I bash them daily for fucking with religion, and glad to do so.

[Lilith Velkor]

45. By that logic, all Christians are a cult

I could be glad to bash them daily for fucking with the Jewish religion, but that would be against the rules, and would probably get tiresome after a couple weeks.

I reiterate: all religions have some followers who are assholes. It's human nature. Deal.

[mikelewis]

22. Forgive the fundies... they can't tell a circle from a sphere...

I think their main problem is that they do not understand the commandments; especially, the Second. Many of the Fundies I talk to are adamant about the Bible being the "Word of God on Earth." They believe that every single word in the Bible is written by God and expresses his will on Earth. The only trouble with that is, they are actively disobeying God's Number 2 Commandment. By claiming that the Bible is divine and that every thing written in it is sacrosanct, they are creating a false idol. It's always fun to bring up how many times the Bible has been altered and how many times passages and sometimes whole books have been added or removed over the years. It never seems to bother them that what was once the Divine Word of God is now just so much clutter on the cutting room floor.

By idolizing the Bible they fail to see its true use. The Bible is a Window to God just as we can be a Window to God. Just as we are imperfect so too is the Bible. The imperfections inherent in the Bible do not detract from its uses nor does it invalidate the message; it is merely an instruction manual that is meant to train your mind to be able to see abstractly. They don't seem to grasp the concept that we are merely circles in God's sphere. To them, the Bible is a book of magic and wishes, not a serious work of Art that opens your mind up to a much wider world. The Bible is meant to eradicate fear and liberate you from the confines of this dead world our eyes behold.

I used to grow frustrated with them and sometimes angry that they couldn't see something so blatantly obvious. I would try explaining to them the dimensional reality of God's kingdom but they usually go all slack-jawed and their eyes glaze over into a blank stare. They can't seem to grasp the concept that our existence is a square that exists within the confines of God's cube. The square cannot fully comprehend the cube because it lacks dimensional awareness. The Bible says that we are an image of God so in one sense we are like the reflection of God in the mirror. To God, our dimension is flat and entirely reliant upon his presence in front of our mirror. However, unlike a mere reflection, we are afforded the ability to move freely about the confines of the glass. We can choose to remain an image of God or we can choose to force him to turn away in sorrowful disdain. It's really our choice. No matter how hard I try, I can't seem to get them to accept this. Like I said, it used to bother me and sometimes their apostasy would anger me until I finally grasped the meaning of this...

Mathew 9:16
No one patches an old cloak with a piece of unshrunken cloth, for its fullness pulls away from the cloak and the tear gets worse.
People do not put new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise the skins burst, the wine spills out, and the skins are ruined. Rather, they pour new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved.

I fully understand the anger directed against "Christians" because of these fools. I used to share it. Now, their ridiculous version of Christianity doesn't bother me so much. I just shrug and look for a new wineskin. We can try and distance ourselves from them and rest in the knowledge that our view of heaven is better than theirs or we can take up the Cross and offer the true version of Christianity. I made the conscious effort to stop fighting their apostasy and start following the example Christ set. I listened to Gandhi as he instructed, "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." If you want the world to see what Christianity truly is, we must forgive these fools, "for they know not what they do".

[FoxOnTheRun]

30. It's nothing new

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2075095&mesg_id=2075095

[mikelewis]

32. I guess the most shocking thing about the world is the fact...

...that it never changes. Sure, we can rearrange the furniture but it's still the same people living under one roof. You can pick just about any time in history and find the same people doing the same things in the same way. All the Devil does is re-package evil and then sell it to the ignorant as a new flavor of the month. You'd think Man would grow tired of continually buying the same bullshit and repeating the same tired plot, over and over and over again. Of course, there is the possibility that some people simply just love the taste of bullshit.

[Warren DeMontague]

24. So, by your reckoning, "proper" Christians are superior to Jews?

Jews follow the Old Testament, too.

[BreweryYardRat]

44. Absolutely not.

Different religion, different beliefs, which I am not qualified to give an opinion on.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

[Warren DeMontague]

58. Jews follow the old testament.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. You have stated that the people you don't consider "real" Christians are following the old Testament as opposed to the New, the New presumably being morally superior and unimpeachable. What about Paul's views on women? That's the New Testament, isn't it?

1 Corinthians 11:3-10 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. 4 Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying, disgraces his head. 5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying, disgraces her head; for she is one and the same with her whose head is shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. 7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8 For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; 9 for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. 10 Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

1 Corinthians 14:33-35 for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. 34 Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.

1 Timothy 5:10 having a reputation for good works; and if she has brought up children, if she has shown hospitality to strangers, if she has washed the saints’ feet, if she has assisted those in distress, and if she has devoted herself to every good work.

Titus 2:3-5 Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips, nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, 4 that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be dishonored.

And what I'm also objecting to, here, is this idea that so-called "real" Christians can wash their hands of any responsibility for dealing with the religious right nutjobs who have -in large numbers- hijacked their faith by using declarations of fiat to write them out of being "Christian".

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Anyone who calls him or herself a "Christian" is as much of a "Christian" as anyone else who does. I'm certain there are plenty of "Christians" in this country who are perfectly happy to say that anyone who doesn't hate gays, or is pro-choice, is not a "real Christian".

[stepnw1f]

25. Recommended!

That's right Cracka!

[Redstone]

26. What about the good old-fashione name "Holy Rollers?"

I've always liked that one.

Redstone

[Igel]

31. I always find this sort of thing amusing.

I've found very few people take Christ at his word. Instead, they pick and choose what they want to believe. He didn't condemn or hate, and many people on DU that call themselves Xians condemn and hate neocons. RW Xians are no better, but I'm unconvinced they're any worse.

[Mr_Spock]

33. They INITIATE the HATE!!!!

How can you miss such an obvious point?

We would IGNORE the fundies if they just stopped trying to push their religion into politics and DESTROY our country!

[hfojvt]

38. Matthew 23:15 in red letters

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are."

Luke 11:43 "Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God."

But I am just picking and choosing. Your post kinda reminded me of my first read tonight
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0907-35.htm

[Montagnard]

36. I like to think in terms of "Red Letter" Christians

:dilemma:

[judaspriestess]

37. How bout we call them "Christians from Hell"

[Evoman]

39. I prefer people warp and distort the teaching of Jesus

to further their own ends of peace, togetherness, and justice. But I still think they are warping and distorting. The fact is, that the new testament makes little sense without the Old Testament. And Jesus never did specifically tell anybody to disregard all the old testament stuff (with the exception of eye for an eye, etc). So aren't you picking and choosing as well? Jesus didn't say anything about gays..so doesn't it mean they are sinful and evil? Sure Jesus said "love your neighbour", but are you actually loving them as gay people, or despite being gay? The fact that they don't apologize or WANT to stop being gay makes em bad people, doesn't it?

Look...I like me the left wing, friendly christians. Why? Because they are friendly, and they are left wing. Christianity has nothing to do with it. If you want to separate yourself from other christians (the religious right) why does it have to be on the basis of christianity? A christian is a christian is a christian. A good, moral person of any belief is better than any "christian"...why even bother identifying yourself as a true or proper christian?

[cosmik debris]

40. No, I don't agree

What credentials do you have that give you authority to decide who the "proper" Christians are? Were you ordained by Jesus to determine who is proper and who is not?

Don't you know that the fundamentalists say the same thing about liberal Christians? They think that they have the credentials and authority to decide. All you are doing is using a fundamentalist tactic to dehumanize those with whom you disagree. That makes you no better than them in my book.

[trotsky]

41. "Christians" are what they are.

You don't get to exclude someone from your group just because you don't think they're following the rules correctly. (Of course, they don't think YOU'RE following the rules correctly, either.)

Christians conducted the Inquisition. Christians tortured and killed people. Christians bomb abortion clinics, kill doctors, post the 10 Commandments in public buildings, and work to ensure homosexuals will always be treated as 2nd class citizens.

They may not be GOOD Christians in your opinion, but they're still Christians. Sorry. I know you're better than them, and I know you're different from them, but I just don't think it does us any favors to try and take the label away.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

42. Yeah, sigh...

call it like it is.

We don't, for example, try and say good men don't go to war. Everybody knows wars are the domain of the male gender. Which doesn't make all males war mongers.

But magic semantic trips don't do anything but put a little blush and lipstick on it.

[hunter]

43. Yeah, sigh...

There's some rotten apples in this barrel, but we are not apples, so the rot need not spread.

[Realityhack]

50. Unfortunately...

it does seem to be spreading. Real bummer that.

[Finder]

47. I don't agree with that...

A Christian is someone who believes that a deity impregnated a human virgin and the child born of that virgin performed miracles, was crucified, died and rose from the dead. Although there are many figures who share this myth, the one Christians believe in is the Jewish one whose followers convinced a Roman Emperor to make an official religion with mandatory tithing 300+ years after said event happened.

One may not be a Christian if they do not believe virgin girls can be impregnated by a deity.

One may not be a Christian if they do not believe humans can rise from the dead.

For those who do not believe in the above but believe in the principles set out in the Beatitudes, they are good people who do not need myths to treat others with respect but believe that only the teachings of Christianity taught such things.(which is incorrect) They remain Christians because they were brought up with it and it is ingrained in their culture or family tradition.

The group we call fundies would be fundies no matter what religion they belonged to or were brought up with. They need to have a leader whether it be religious, political, familial. They feel powerless(real or imagined)and seek leaders with perceived power.

[Zhade]

48. Can't agree - I'm not this 'god' person, so I don't KNOW...

...that they're not "proper" Christians.

Who's to say? The fundie Christians who cherry-pick the bible (which I don't even believe is anything more than myth), or the liberal Christians who cherry-pick it?

[Realityhack]

49. I agree. ON WHAT GROUNDS? should we accept such a deffinition?

I call BS. Frankly this is the no true Scotsman fallacy.

OP:
Why should we accept YOUR definition of what a ‘true Christian’ is over THEIRS? They would likely make the exact same claim (you are not a ‘true’ Christian) of you (in fact we know they do).

Why should we ignore a large percentage (your view OR theirs) when talking about Christians?
IMO we should not ignore either. The most uncommon views should be considered ‘extremist’.

But I see NO reason to exclude these people from the definition of ‘Christian’ any more than your view should be excluded based on their claims.

[SPKrazy]

57. Cherry Pick? Maybe

only in the idea that common sense prevails to distinguish between myth and historical writings in the bible.

Avoiding literalism doesn't make one a cherry picker in my opinion, but I also know that I'm not one who says the bible is the literal word of God.

Funny thing is that most of the RW fundies tend to say they are literalists, but in fact are not because they cherry pick what they focus on and believe.

[Dogmudgeon]

51. The Folly of Labels

Labels have their uses, but in the case of "defining" what people believe and hold dear, they utterly fail. And when it comes to people whose faith is little more than an artifice for their destructiveness, it's counterproductive, because it elevates them a position of leadership of a faith (or any other group) that may reject their behavior. This entire thread is based on a single, and flawed, idea: That we need a short, simple, pithy, universally-understood and all-inclusive word for effective name-calling.

We don't.

Many of us have struggled with this for years. We want a neutron bomb for moral warfare, the perfect label that accurately identifies the ratbastards but leaves the earthly saints off the hook. This approach has never worked before, and it won't work now. Bad folks exist in all social movements, and exert tremendous power in many of them. Yet even modern Fundamentalism-Evangelicism was once the largest progressive religious movement in America, and that branch of it still exists. One hundred years from now, it may be Quakers' leaders hands holding the whip, and the 15th or 16th or 17th Dalai Lama may be reviled by people of good will. Those examples may be difficult to conceive of, or may even be repugnant to consider, but it's worth keeping in mind that no faith, no group is immune to the influence of repugnant people and ideas. The Quakers, as a whole, have had a long history of social conscience; and the last two Dalai Lamas have been strongly progressive, but, as I've noted, so was the American Protestant Fundamentalist-Evangelical Christian movement that has lately degenerated into a moral ghetto run by unprincipled tribal bosses like Pat Robertson, Rousas Rushdooney, and Jerry Falwell.

It's useless to try to find a proper epithet for them -- we ought to stick to ad hoc labels, if we must use them at all. Far better to "cut them out" rhetorically and show how they're beyond the pale of spirituality, society, good sense, and human conduct, rather than to cut them a larger territory than they have already grabbed for themselves. Calling them "Christians" or "Christo-Fascists" or anything else gives them a legitimacy they don't deserve, and it incorrectly (and unfairly) stains the Christians who do not practice hatred. (The same thing likewise holds in non-Christian contexts.)

"Bad People" really need no label, and their predations do not deserve our respect. To paraphrase a certain popular Jewish philosopher, "you shall know them by their stench." The most truthful label of all may simply be the sense of nausea they create.

--p!

[struggle4progress]

56. !

[Goldensilence]

52. would like to agree but can't.

There are some bad americans. There are nutjob americans too. The nthere's Boosh. Unfortuantely they are american all whether we like it or not.

Have to agree how Trotsky put it earlier.

[NAO]

53. Fundamentalist Christians have 5 New Testament Basic Beliefs

Actually, I think that fundamentalists are authentic Christians.

I am an atheist now but if I were a Christian I couldn't see being anything other than a fundamentalist. Anything else is not grounded, has no authoritative basis, and ends up being a pick-and-choose "create your own religion" game.

The Fundamentals of the Christian Faith are:

1. The inerrancy of the Bible.
2. The divinity and incarnation of Christ.
3. Salvation by grace through Faith.
4. The bodily resurrection of Christ.
5. The imminent return of Christ.

Not really all that nutty sounding, unless you REALLY take #1 seriously...

The Skeptics Annotated Bible
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

[hunter]

54. The way I've always figured it is that if you are going to be Christian...

... you might as well be Catholic or Orthodox.

As you say, Anything else is not grounded, has no authoritative basis, and ends up being a pick-and-choose "create your own religion" game.

(The Orthodox have a slight edge here 'cause they go for the full immersion.)

:evilgrin:

[NAO]

55. I was deep-dunked as a fundy Baptist. & why I understand Catholics now

As a Baptist kid we were taught that when those Mary-worshiping, idolater Catholics died they put 'em in a shoot that went straight to HELL!

Now as an adult I know a few Catholics, and although I don't buy their dogma, I do understand the appeal. You need SOMETHING to ground your beliefs in...either The Bible, The Whole Bible, and Nothing But the Bible (Fundamentalist Protestants) or The Magesterium of the Holy Catholic Church, including, but not limited to, the Holy Scriptures. (Catholics).

In both cases, the believers think they have The Scoop, directly from God's Lips to their ears. (Either through the alleged verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible or alleged "Apostolic Succession" from Jesus to Peter to Linus...etc...to Joey Ratz (aka Benedict XVI).

[Danger Mouse]

59. As a Christian myself....

I think we have to accept that even slime like Fred Phelps and his ilk are, in some sense, still Christians. They just suscribe to a particularly hate-filled and small-minded interpretation of Christianity. But Christianity it still is.
We can't confront the skeletons in our family closet unless we acknowledge them.