Christianity in moderation
June 20, 2006
Surfing about this morning I ran across a statement about Christianity that I’ve seen fairly often. It is usually a response an atheist or agnostic makes to the charge that atheist characterization of Christianity does not represent the majority, moderate, experience.
At the Martian Anthropologist it goes a-little-somethin’ like this:
But isn’t the Christian “fringe”? really just following the Bible to the letter? Aren’t the moderates the ones picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to believe, and which parts to discard (or, as they put it, that section no longer applies)? [ What IS a Christian Moderate ]
The implication, occasionally stated but usually left in the subtext, is that Fundamentalists may be misguided, intolerable, and dangerous — but at least they adhere rigorously to a principle, whereas moderates base their opinions on whim and personal preference.
Now, the Anthropologist has a very long comment thread which I admit I haven’t read in detail. Here’s the question I’ve never seen asked anywhere this is expressed: why do so many atheists and non-Christians — who, if a Fundamentalist told them the sky was blue, go out and check — accept this Fundamentalist characterization of Christianity as though it were a scientifically established fact? Especially when it’s ludicrous on its face. Why accept Fallwell’s concept of Christianity over Alfred North Whitehead or Karl Barth?
Someday I hope to pin someone down on that.
Posted in Religion, What The...?!?
content rss
June 20th, 2006 at 11:35 am
As an agnostic, I don’t think fundamentalists practice a pure version of Christianity. They may claim to follow the Bible in its most literal sense, but they’re guilty of completely ignoring the stuff in the Bible they think contradicts the way they want to live - mostly, it’s the stuff about love and forgiveness and how you’re supposed to treat others.
June 21st, 2006 at 7:59 pm
Yeah, I absolutely think you’re right on that. I don’t have any objection to atheists or agnostics — I just think critiques of religion ought to be based on reality and not straw men.
I hope you don’t think I meant to include you in the above, though — you’re very focused in your criticism, and I should take care to be more focused in mine.
June 26th, 2006 at 9:04 am
[...] jbruno: Excellent, Thud. Consensus is the purpose… Christianity in moderation: [...]
April 26th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
On the question of why “atheists choose to believe fundamentalists when they say they’re the purest voice of religion,” I submit that atheists, by definition, must logically defend their position against the polar opposite to their own belief system (for atheism is inarguably a belief system, as is Christianity), and they must therefore craft their arguments in opposition to the fundamentalist position, or risk being accused of a logical fault in their reasoning.
It’s a source of endless entertainment to me: One team pitched against another team, hurling cunningly crafted logical (or faithful) word bombs over a philosophical divide.
There is value only in the endless discourse; there can be no victor in this war of hope and hopelessness. When the only tool you possess is a hammer, all your problems look like nails. We have only words in our toolbox, but the “problem” of faith requires, perhaps, a screwdriver. The photograph cannot explain or understand the photographer.
April 27th, 2007 at 4:42 am
Jeff, thanks for the contribution. The only problem I see with your idea is that it still seems to see fundamentalism as the most perfect form of religion, even though other forms are very radically different.
I think the doctrinaire version of atheism as a lot more in common with fundamentalism than either side would like to think.
May 3rd, 2007 at 9:48 pm
I don’t know if fundamentalism is the “most perfect form of religion”.
I think of it as the foot turning “to the right”, as we are told not to turn to the right or to the left but walk straight on the path of faith.
Another time we are told not to be overly righteous, for why should we destroy ourselves? That’s not to say we shouldn’t be devout, but there’s a difference between a devout Mother Teresa and a religious extremist.
********
http://surfcountry.blogspot.com
May 12th, 2008 at 7:21 am
[...] spirituality in the service of material wealth and political authority. That’s why it should never be used as the model for religion, even among those who are [...]