Author Topic: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?  (Read 15996 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ultimate Paragon

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 8423
  • Gender: Male
  • Tougher than diamonds, stronger than steel
Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
« Reply #60 on: May 08, 2014, 03:10:21 pm »
Maybe Jesus's history was twisted by his disciples.  On the other hand, Plato probably made his own alterations to the work of Socrates, either by accident or on purpose.  Does that mean Socrates didn't exist?

Interesting choice of analogy, because "the historical Jesus" has its own version of the Socratic problem.

For those that don't want to click that link, the Socratic problem is the difficulty in figuring out what Socrates' actual ideas were and separating them from those of Plato (and other sources). As far as I know there's no controversy over whether there was a person named Socrates who was sentenced to death in Athens in the year whatever BCE, which we might call a "historical Socrates". Then there's the character in Plato's dialogues, who is also named Socrates and was also sentenced to death, but this Socrates has some specific beliefs and makes some specific arguments, etc. Both Socrates were philosophers, but we only know the philosophy of Socrates-the-character. We can imagine it would be similar to that of the historical Socrates, but we don't actually know that.

So if I start talking about the philosophy of Socrates, am I talking about a real person or about a character in Plato's writings?

Analogously with Jesus. Let's say for the sake of the argument that everyone agrees that there was a guy named Jesus who founded Christianity around the first century CE, and call that person the historical Jesus. Great. But the figure of Jesus in the Bible also works miracles and teaches disciples and curses fig trees and whatnot. When people talk about Jesus nowadays, they are usually talking about a deity or a prophet or a religious teacher, and none of those things necessarily correspond to the historical character. If the words of Jesus in the Bible were wholly or partially made up by the gospel writers, then when you quote him and say "love your enemies", are you quoting Jesus-the-character or the historical founder of Christianity?

If it were the case that there was a Jesus-the-founder-of-Christianity, but he worked no miracles, was not the son of a god, and his teachings were not accurately reflected in the New Testament, is it still meaningful to call him "the historical Jesus"?
That's a good question.

Offline Barbarella

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2767
  • Gender: Female
  • A Little REY of Sunshine!
Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
« Reply #61 on: May 09, 2014, 10:58:49 am »
I see it this way, all scriptures are mythology. Mythology does not mean "not true". Mythology are fictitious stories that are written to provide various spiritual and/or ethical lessons or illustrations. Each character is a metaphor of something. Their actions & words are meant to reflect how the various forces of the universe or whatever work.

I approach it all like a lot of people approach Eastern Mythologies like Hinduism. The Deities are not literal superbeings floating around somewhere, they're simply archetypes of cosmic forces & principles meant to illustrate this sort of thing in a manner that people understand.

So, this Jesus character is a mythical figure meant to represent something or impart some higher knowledge. Whenever he was a real person or not is trivial. If he did exist, he probably had a different name. If any of these tales are highly embellished & mythologized takes on actual events, it's likely that most characters are actually written in pseudonyms. Their names changed to reflect their nature & as a plot point. Notice how a lot of Bible names describe the characters & their circumstances (even future ones)? I'll bet Jesus was loosely based on one or more of the various Jewish itinerant rebel/prophet types roaming the countryside at that time (with stuff from Mithras & whatnot tossed in).

In the end, to paraphrase The Book of Ecclesiastes, "It's all vanity". Hence why I'm an Eclectic NeoPagan. Scriptures are best seen as ahistorical myths & fables meant to impart Divine truths. But in the end, you can't put the Divine, whatever it is, in a book. Scriptures might provide some ideas & insight but they shouldn't be adhered to. I could care less.


Offline Sigmaleph

  • Ungodlike
  • Administrator
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3615
    • sigmaleph on tumblr
Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
« Reply #62 on: May 09, 2014, 08:40:14 pm »
But in the end, you can't put the Divine, whatever it is, in a book.

I know what you mean, but my contrarian side just wants to invent the religion of bibliotheism and call that a heresy.

It's surprising how often my immediate reaction "invent a new religion just to make a point"
Σא

pyro

  • Guest
Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
« Reply #63 on: May 25, 2014, 02:51:52 pm »
But in the end, you can't put the Divine, whatever it is, in a book.

If you don't know what it is, how can you know whether it can be put into a book or not?

Offline Witchyjoshy

  • SHITLORD THUNDERBASTARD!!
  • Kakarot
  • ******
  • Posts: 9044
  • Gender: Male
  • Thinks he's a bard
Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
« Reply #64 on: May 25, 2014, 03:22:17 pm »
But in the end, you can't put the Divine, whatever it is, in a book.

If you don't know what it is, how can you know whether it can be put into a book or not?

I'm guessing it's something along the lines of "I may not know what the divine is, but I know what it isn't."
Mockery of ideas you don't comprehend or understand is the surest mark of unintelligence.

Even the worst union is better than the best Walmart.

Caladur's Active Character Sheet

Offline Barbarella

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2767
  • Gender: Female
  • A Little REY of Sunshine!
Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
« Reply #65 on: May 26, 2014, 10:35:07 am »
As for the whole thing about Socrates/Plato & Historical/Biblical Jesus, I tend to look at it this way....I applies with any famous person who's been morphed into an idealized image....it's the message that counts.

Let's take two real-life famous activist types, Mohandas Gandhi & Mother Teresa. In real life, both actually believed & did some questionable things, even if they did and said some wonderful things. What people may be doing, knowingly or not, is admiring the myth rather than the real person. However, that myth contains a persona and message that humanity needs & could and should strive for.

Same is true for Thomas Jefferson. The real-life Jefferson was likely a hypocritical jerkass slaveowner in the worst way. But the Jefferson of those writings, the Jefferson taught in schools, was one of the most brilliant thinkers & statesmen. A man who taught that everyone is equal & free. The man who emphasized the importance of keeping religion & government separate (thus keeping both pure & sincere and allowing freedom to believe or not believe).

The fact is, when a person shows love for a religious or historical or a celebrity (be they thespians, presenters or musicians), they're really following a shadow. However, the shadow has meaning & that meaning has a purpose & a sort of reality. This is why the saying "Never meet your heroes" is a good thing. Sometimes, the person turns out to not be who you've imagined.

The great wisdom of Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Jesus, Socrates, Thomas Jefferson, etc. is still very much real & valuable, even if certain realities of these figures may be questionable or in doubt.

Offline Ultimate Paragon

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 8423
  • Gender: Male
  • Tougher than diamonds, stronger than steel
Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
« Reply #66 on: May 26, 2014, 12:15:02 pm »
As for the whole thing about Socrates/Plato & Historical/Biblical Jesus, I tend to look at it this way....I applies with any famous person who's been morphed into an idealized image....it's the message that counts.

Let's take two real-life famous activist types, Mohandas Gandhi & Mother Teresa. In real life, both actually believed & did some questionable things, even if they did and said some wonderful things. What people may be doing, knowingly or not, is admiring the myth rather than the real person. However, that myth contains a persona and message that humanity needs & could and should strive for.

Same is true for Thomas Jefferson. The real-life Jefferson was likely a hypocritical jerkass slaveowner in the worst way. But the Jefferson of those writings, the Jefferson taught in schools, was one of the most brilliant thinkers & statesmen. A man who taught that everyone is equal & free. The man who emphasized the importance of keeping religion & government separate (thus keeping both pure & sincere and allowing freedom to believe or not believe).

The fact is, when a person shows love for a religious or historical or a celebrity (be they thespians, presenters or musicians), they're really following a shadow. However, the shadow has meaning & that meaning has a purpose & a sort of reality. This is why the saying "Never meet your heroes" is a good thing. Sometimes, the person turns out to not be who you've imagined.

The great wisdom of Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Jesus, Socrates, Thomas Jefferson, etc. is still very much real & valuable, even if certain realities of these figures may be questionable or in doubt.
Well said.  I doubt anybody really fits the idealized image people have of them, except for Mr. Rogers.

Offline Barbarella

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2767
  • Gender: Female
  • A Little REY of Sunshine!
Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
« Reply #67 on: May 26, 2014, 12:36:17 pm »
As for the whole thing about Socrates/Plato & Historical/Biblical Jesus, I tend to look at it this way....I applies with any famous person who's been morphed into an idealized image....it's the message that counts.

Let's take two real-life famous activist types, Mohandas Gandhi & Mother Teresa. In real life, both actually believed & did some questionable things, even if they did and said some wonderful things. What people may be doing, knowingly or not, is admiring the myth rather than the real person. However, that myth contains a persona and message that humanity needs & could and should strive for.

Same is true for Thomas Jefferson. The real-life Jefferson was likely a hypocritical jerkass slaveowner in the worst way. But the Jefferson of those writings, the Jefferson taught in schools, was one of the most brilliant thinkers & statesmen. A man who taught that everyone is equal & free. The man who emphasized the importance of keeping religion & government separate (thus keeping both pure & sincere and allowing freedom to believe or not believe).

The fact is, when a person shows love for a religious or historical or a celebrity (be they thespians, presenters or musicians), they're really following a shadow. However, the shadow has meaning & that meaning has a purpose & a sort of reality. This is why the saying "Never meet your heroes" is a good thing. Sometimes, the person turns out to not be who you've imagined.

The great wisdom of Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Jesus, Socrates, Thomas Jefferson, etc. is still very much real & valuable, even if certain realities of these figures may be questionable or in doubt.
Well said.  I doubt anybody really fits the idealized image people have of them, except for Mr. Rogers.

Indeed. Even an episode of The Simpsons agrees with me on this with the "Jedediah Springfield" episode.

Offline davedan

  • Lord Cracker
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3539
Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
« Reply #68 on: May 26, 2014, 08:09:40 pm »
Apart from the fact that no one goes around telling you to (renounce all pretence of knowledge/ regard our reality as a shadow of the true paradigmic truth - insert whatever here) because there really was a (socrates/ plato -insert person here). Apart from which an idea of whether a religion is based on mystery revelation or a charasmatic leader is essential not only for those who wish to understand the faith but those who are part of it. The whole idea changes a person's approach to that religion (not necessarily for the worse).

As for heroes not living up to their reputations, well that is because we are all human and we are all different. People give Jefferson a hard time because he fucked his slaves. The implication being that he was a rapist because they could not as a slave withold their consent. While it certainly doesn't paint a rosy picture of him it is now impossible to know the state of the relationship he had, unless of course we find something authentically from the slaves which gives their view.

Ghandi seemed to have a weird repressed sexuality which involved him liking to hang around teenage girls.  I don't think you can discount or should ignore everything else they have said or done because of this. The same way Clinton was still a very good president despite getting a blowjob.


There is some suggestion that Mother Teresa was in fact a fraud and did very little to help anyone while jetting around the world. Which would be a different category. But essentially the fact that a person is flawed, even terribly, just makes them human.


Offline Ultimate Paragon

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 8423
  • Gender: Male
  • Tougher than diamonds, stronger than steel
Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
« Reply #69 on: May 26, 2014, 08:16:59 pm »
As for the whole thing about Socrates/Plato & Historical/Biblical Jesus, I tend to look at it this way....I applies with any famous person who's been morphed into an idealized image....it's the message that counts.

Let's take two real-life famous activist types, Mohandas Gandhi & Mother Teresa. In real life, both actually believed & did some questionable things, even if they did and said some wonderful things. What people may be doing, knowingly or not, is admiring the myth rather than the real person. However, that myth contains a persona and message that humanity needs & could and should strive for.

Same is true for Thomas Jefferson. The real-life Jefferson was likely a hypocritical jerkass slaveowner in the worst way. But the Jefferson of those writings, the Jefferson taught in schools, was one of the most brilliant thinkers & statesmen. A man who taught that everyone is equal & free. The man who emphasized the importance of keeping religion & government separate (thus keeping both pure & sincere and allowing freedom to believe or not believe).

The fact is, when a person shows love for a religious or historical or a celebrity (be they thespians, presenters or musicians), they're really following a shadow. However, the shadow has meaning & that meaning has a purpose & a sort of reality. This is why the saying "Never meet your heroes" is a good thing. Sometimes, the person turns out to not be who you've imagined.

The great wisdom of Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Jesus, Socrates, Thomas Jefferson, etc. is still very much real & valuable, even if certain realities of these figures may be questionable or in doubt.
Well said.  I doubt anybody really fits the idealized image people have of them, except for Mr. Rogers.

Indeed. Even an episode of The Simpsons agrees with me on this with the "Jedediah Springfield" episode.
Is there anything The Simpsons hasn't done?

pyro

  • Guest
Re: Should fanatical Christians really be called "fundamentalists"?
« Reply #70 on: May 28, 2014, 09:38:22 pm »
Apart from which an idea of whether a religion is based on mystery revelation or a charasmatic leader is essential not only for those who wish to understand the faith but those who are part of it. The whole idea changes a person's approach to that religion (not necessarily for the worse).

One of the most irritating religious ideas, almost as bad as the idea that everybody knows that the fundies are right and just won't admit it, is the idea that believing the supernatural claims of Christianity is harmless if you're wrong. People act on this stuff, and if you're not acting on it, you don't actually believe it. You will know the quality of a tree by the fruit it produces.