Help With Fundie Brother

[Hillary]

The saddest part is that he will have absolutely no idea why you have taken offence.

Incidentally -

he's hardly being a zealot about it

Do you still think this, Battlehymn Republic?

Eh, he may not be expressing a lot of sense, but at least he's using conciliatory language and isn't name-shouting yet. I skimmed the posts, but he didn't seem like a homophobe racist based on the messages shown here. The worst he's done is imply that JLTucker is an atheist because of some sort of trauma or pain.

He is point-blank trying to convert JLTucker, even though he knows JLTucker is an atheist who does not want to be preached at.

Dammit, he is preaching BECAUSE JLTucker is an atheist. He contacted JLTucker out of the blue simply in order to do this. How does this not make him a zealot.

the fact remains that you problem is spiritual. You need to repent of your sins, turn to Jesus Christ, and let Him cleanse and wash and forgive you of all your sin.

How exactly is this conciliatory language? This is the fucking problem with fundies; they believe they have an absolute right to preach their revolting religion at other people and act with great astonishment when anyone finds this rude and offensive.

If the boot was on the other foot and JLTucker had contacted his brother out of the blue to tell him that his God was a total myth and he was being an absolute mug to believe in the bible, you'd be singing a very different story, I'll bet.

[Battlehymn Republic]

This is the fucking problem with fundies; they believe they have an absolute right to preach their revolting religion at other people and act with great astonishment when anyone finds this rude and offensive.

But by what justification would you say that they have no right? Certainly under some contexts it would be distasteful and frowned upon to preach one's religion to others. But legally speaking, how do 'fundies' have on rights to preach their religion?

And boot-other-foot: replace fundies with atheists, replace 'preach their revolting religion' with 'promote the refutation of religion.' How is that any different?

If the boot was on the other foot and JLTucker had contacted his brother out of the blue to tell him that his God was a total myth and he was being an absolute mug to believe in the bible, you'd be singing a very different story, I'll bet.

No, not really. Because both sides would be believing that they are doing the right thing in helping the other person. Both believe that the other are afflicted with a spiritual or an intellectual sickness that must be cured, though the "afflicted" does not realize it. It just depends on how the person offering the "cure" goes about conducting it.

Based on the messages alone it seemed like JLTucker's brother was engaging in discourse, nothing more. He isn't browbeating him- yet. He's just trying to start a discussion, and if JLTucker doesn't want it, he can certainly say so. But it's hardly as if his brother (judging by the messages alone) is forcing his beliefs upon him.

Again, since I don't really know the guy, I am certainly open to misinterpretation of his messages. And if so, then I am sorry about that.

[chitoryu12]

And boot-other-foot: replace fundies with atheists, replace 'preach their revolting religion' with 'promote the refutation of religion.' How is that any different?

And do atheists do such a thing? Does a large number of atheists try to push their beliefs on others and act as if there is something wrong with anyone who thinks different?

[Darth Wong]

And boot-other-foot: replace fundies with atheists, replace 'preach their revolting religion' with 'promote the refutation of religion.' How is that any different?

News flash: there is an actual scientific and logical basis for refuting religion. Your brand of mindless relativism is pure stupidity. You cannot equate the aggressive selling of religion with the refutation of it, any more than you can equate aggressive fraud advertising with aggressive anti-fraud advertising.

Perhaps for your next trick, you can explain to us how the antivirus software makers are just as bad as the virus makers.

[Battlehymn Republic]

And boot-other-foot: replace fundies with atheists, replace 'preach their revolting religion' with 'promote the refutation of religion.' How is that any different?

And do atheists do such a thing? Does a large number of atheists try to push their beliefs on others and act as if there is something wrong with anyone who thinks different?

Not at all. I'm just setting up a hypothetical counter-example.

As for my mindless stupidity (which I assure you, Lord Wong, that I do possess in ready amounts), I do not feel that the above example is a clear demonstration of it. I equated atheists to fundamentalists only for the purpose of saying that both groups have the right to promote their belief system, contrary to what Hillary wrote.

[Darth Wong]

As for my mindless stupidity (which I assure you, Lord Wong, that I do possess in ready amounts), I do not feel that the above example is a clear demonstration of it. I equated atheists to fundamentalists only for the purpose of saying that both groups have the right to promote their belief system, contrary to what Hillary wrote.

You act as though both groups have a "belief system". Only one of them is peddling a "belief system": can you guess which one?

[Drooling Iguana]

Perhaps for your next trick, you can explain to us how the antivirus software makers are just as bad as the virus makers.

Have you tried to use a Norton-infected system recently?

[Battlehymn Republic]

As for my mindless stupidity (which I assure you, Lord Wong, that I do possess in ready amounts), I do not feel that the above example is a clear demonstration of it. I equated atheists to fundamentalists only for the purpose of saying that both groups have the right to promote their belief system, contrary to what Hillary wrote.

You act as though both groups have a "belief system". Only one of them is peddling a "belief system": can you guess which one?

Yes, yes, atheists do not have belief, they lack a belief system, refuting religion is simply clarifying the true nature of the world and ridding superstition and all that, et al.

But atheists who do that are still spreading some sort of message, aren't they? And the point is that they're allowed to do it and it's their right to do it? And if so, isn't it the right of fundamentalists to do so? And even if it's a bad thing, well, they still have it in their rights to do it, don't they?

[Darth Wong]

Yes, yes, atheists do not have belief, they lack a belief system, refuting religion is simply clarifying the true nature of the world and ridding superstition and all that, et al.

But atheists who do that are still spreading some sort of message, aren't they?

So are mathematicians. The key point is that their message is not tied to a religion, so it can be taught in schools. They should not be treated the same.

And the point is that they're allowed to do it and it's their right to do it? And if so, isn't it the right of fundamentalists to do so? And even if it's a bad thing, well, they still have it in their rights to do it, don't they?

Do you honestly not understand why the teaching of religion is not the same as the teaching of science? Why do you think it's OK for a teacher in school to flatly state that the Greek gods are myths rather than real creatures?

[chitoryu12]

And boot-other-foot: replace fundies with atheists, replace 'preach their revolting religion' with 'promote the refutation of religion.' How is that any different?

And do atheists do such a thing? Does a large number of atheists try to push their beliefs on others and act as if there is something wrong with anyone who thinks different?

Not at all. I'm just setting up a hypothetical counter-example.

As for my mindless stupidity (which I assure you, Lord Wong, that I do possess in ready amounts), I do not feel that the above example is a clear demonstration of it. I equated atheists to fundamentalists only for the purpose of saying that both groups have the right to promote their belief system, contrary to what Hillary wrote.

A total piece of shit counter-example, you mean. Setting up something hypothetical means that it's not totally outlandish. Out of all the atheists I know (two in real life and all the ones here), not one of them has tried to push their beliefs on anybody, nor acted like people who disagree with them are the scum of the Earth.

[Shogoki]

Based on the messages alone it seemed like JLTucker's brother was engaging in discourse, nothing more. He isn't browbeating him- yet. He's just trying to start a discussion, and if JLTucker doesn't want it, he can certainly say so. But it's hardly as if his brother (judging by the messages alone) is forcing his beliefs upon him.

Err, no, JLTucker sent him a message, instead of addressing the points in it, he just ignored and preached some more about how you must believe in his god for your own good or else you'll go to hell.

[Battlehymn Republic]

Yes, yes, atheists do not have belief, they lack a belief system, refuting religion is simply clarifying the true nature of the world and ridding superstition and all that, et al.

But atheists who do that are still spreading some sort of message, aren't they?

So are mathematicians. The key point is that their message is not tied to a religion, so it can be taught in schools. They should not be treated the same.

Sure thing. But when did the subject of schools come up? I'm responding to Hillary's initial complaint that fundamentalists think that they have the right to preach everywhere.

Oh.

Well, when I said that fundamentalists would and should have the same rights as atheists in promoting their beliefs (or unbeliefs), I had in mind the promotion of that in a public place, or in a private context such as JLTucker's brother to him. I did not consider the teaching of such beliefs in schools. I just meant that his fundie brother trying to preach to him isn't exactly something that is outside of his rights.

Fundamentalists preaching in classroom... that is something altogether different, and yes, that would be outside of their rights.

Also, just how the hell would one 'teach atheism' in school, anyways? Science is by its nature atheistic, but there have been religious believers who have found it compatible with their other beliefs. But science isn't exactly the same thing as atheism.

And the point is that they're allowed to do it and it's their right to do it? And if so, isn't it the right of fundamentalists to do so? And even if it's a bad thing, well, they still have it in their rights to do it, don't they?

Do you honestly not understand why the teaching of religion is not the same as the teaching of science? Why do you think it's OK for a teacher in school to flatly state that the Greek gods are myths rather than real creatures?[/quote]

But I'm not talking about the teaching of science, am I? I'm talking about a case where atheists would go around spreading their message by confronting religious beliefs and refuting them directly, and promote their unbelief to unbelievers and try to get them to deconvert. And I'm saying that they would be accorded the same rights as fundamentalists who preach, and vice versa. Where exactly are we in disagreement?

And I probably have misinterpreted Hillary's point, and if so, I concede whatever points necessary.

[Battlehymn Republic]

And do atheists do such a thing? Does a large number of atheists try to push their beliefs on others and act as if there is something wrong with anyone who thinks different?

Not at all. I'm just setting up a hypothetical counter-example.

As for my mindless stupidity (which I assure you, Lord Wong, that I do possess in ready amounts), I do not feel that the above example is a clear demonstration of it. I equated atheists to fundamentalists only for the purpose of saying that both groups have the right to promote their belief system, contrary to what Hillary wrote.

A total piece of shit counter-example, you mean. Setting up something hypothetical means that it's not totally outlandish. Out of all the atheists I know (two in real life and all the ones here), not one of them has tried to push their beliefs on anybody, nor acted like people who disagree with them are the scum of the Earth.

Okay, it was a shit counter-example.

[Kihmbar]

I am only an amature study of theology, but I believe I can answer some Christian doctrinal questions which have arisen from this post.

First off:

According to this website, C.S. Lewis lost his faith in 1913. And it's relevant because to Shannon, it's "evidence" that God can restore faith to anyone if they let him.

What's the difference between God restoring faith in the willing and the willing restore the faith themselves?

Absolutely nothing. Shannon probably thinks that there is a difference, but he'd be hard-pressed to say what it is.

I don't have my references with me (so I can't give you chapter and verse), but the difference is that faith is a gift from God. It does not originate from the individual, but it is given by God. That being said - I think this reference to CS Lewis is irrelevant. According to Christian doctrine, a person's faith is unique to the individual (so CS Lewis's faith isn't going to be imparted to Jeffery).

Secondly:

God has revealed Himself dispensationally and progressively through the Bible through history. You may try, but you can't deny it.

This part of Shannon's message mentioned dispensationalism (which is an interesting study if you're a theologan, but isn't something laypersons often cite). Based on this reference, either Shannon is studying to be a pastor or is being spoon-fed arguments. I could be wrong - he could be like me and enjoy studying theology for fun, but most folks find theology very boring.

Again I don't have my references handy to give you a full explaination - let it suffice to say that dispensationalism is a method folks use to analyze the Bible. If you are interested in debating him, you may want to look into dispensationalism so you will know where Shannon's comming from when he references Bible verses (and interprets them for you). [My rule of thumb is to question the teachings of anyone who is going to interpret something for you.]

I cannot promise to have all the answers (I have only done an amature study of theology, but I have read several texts used in seminaries) and I cannot promise to have logical answers (I am still trying to figure out some things), but I offer my assistance if you would like to know more about where Shannon is deriving his Christian doctrine.

[JLTucker]

I just received another message from him after I blew his argument out of the ground. The first part of this message was directed to a message I sent to him today, telling him that I accept his concession after he had not responded when my argument was delivered three days ago.

Subject: every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord

Body: Listen here, unlike you, I have a life. I have a wife, 2 kids, full-time job, and great friends that I see at least twice a week. I can't just sit around on the computer all day long like you. But your response is on the way. And let me just give you a preview, you're not as smart as you conceitedly think you are.

This should be interesting. I want to see him refute the points I made, thanks to you guys here.

[Surlethe]

What's the difference between God restoring faith in the willing and the willing restore the faith themselves?

Absolutely nothing. Shannon probably thinks that there is a difference, but he'd be hard-pressed to say what it is.

I don't have my references with me (so I can't give you chapter and verse), but the difference is that faith is a gift from God. It does not originate from the individual, but it is given by God. That being said - I think this reference to CS Lewis is irrelevant. According to Christian doctrine, a person's faith is unique to the individual (so CS Lewis's faith isn't going to be imparted to Jeffery).

I'm fairly certain that Wyrm was asking what the objective difference is, rather than what the doctrine says. As far as within theology, I tend to see a problem with faith being a gift from God rather than a personal choice; if it's a gift God gives without discrimination to anyone who asks, then there's once more only a semantic distinction between the person coming up with his faith and God instilling it in him.

CS Lewis was mad at God and thought that was atheism, consequentially, his apologetics when he finally returned to religion is incredibly poor to any modern atheist, but nonetheless highly regarded by the religious.

From what I understand, it's because his arguments within the Christian theology tended to be sound, although he was indeed a piss-poor apologist. He's not alone, though; as far as I know, there are precisely zero Christian apologists with good, sound arguments.

That would only work if they were already reasonable. If they have conditioned themselves that all other views are wrong and that even thinking about those views is satanic, about the only thing that might work is therapy. Trying to be a friend just so you can deconvert them is going to result in hearing lots of "Satan has deceived you" and "I'll pray for you", church-going, "I'll ask my priest about it" and subsequent amnesia about anything you might have said, and ultimately it's likely to amount to nothing.

Why would a friendship that exists solely to convert the other person amount to anything in the first place? It is indeed possible that a fundie will still refuse to listen to those he considers friends, but it's still more likely that he'd listen to friends than to strangers out of the blue.

Monks isolate themselves in monasteries precisely because they do not want to hear most of what the outside world has to say. The "peace" they seek in a monastery is primarily defined as the elimination of most of the outside world.

Yes, this is true. I had assumed that in the first part of his post, Chitterbug was still talking about fundies in general.

[Big Phil]

I just received another message from him after I blew his argument out of the ground. The first part of this message was directed to a message I sent to him today, telling him that I accept his concession after he had not responded when my argument was delivered three days ago.

Subject: every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord

Body: Listen here, unlike you, I have a life. I have a wife, 2 kids, full-time job, and great friends that I see at least twice a week. I can't just sit around on the computer all day long like you. But your response is on the way. And let me just give you a preview, you're not as smart as you conceitedly think you are.

This should be interesting. I want to see him refute the points I made, thanks to you guys here.

Sounds like you managed to piss him off by not simply agreeing to listen to him. Is stirring up family drama really want you want to accomplish with this? He's clearly going to continue pushing the issue, and depending on your family's religious leanings, you might end up looking like the bad guy here. Might it not be better to simply drop the issue and ignore him?

[JLTucker]

You have a point there, sanchez. After further thought, it would be wise to let this go. Thanks for your help everyone.

[Patrick Degan]

Perhaps for your next trick, you can explain to us how the antivirus software makers are just as bad as the virus makers.

Have you tried to use a Norton-infected system recently?

Not a very good example, as it demonstrates incompetence rather than malevolence.

[TheKwas]

It sounds to me like he's being honest, the least you can do is give a basic outline of your stance and let him chew on it. Many here are quick to judge 'fundies' and give up on them immediately, yet with that attitude how do you expect to actually help them or help the current social problems associated with fundamentalism.

[sketerpot]

It sounds to me like he's being honest, the least you can do is give a basic outline of your stance and let him chew on it. Many here are quick to judge 'fundies' and give up on them immediately, yet with that attitude how do you expect to actually help them or help the current social problems associated with fundamentalism.

By discrediting them and making them look like a bunch of insane idiots to everybody else. Make it so that fundamentalists are ashamed to speak in public, just like we do with racists.

A fundamentalist mind is damn near immutable on religious matters, but the people who don't give it much thought are much more susceptible to your influence. Just ask an advertiser.

[TheKwas]

Yeah, I thought the thread was only one page long and missed the last two pages. Answer him only to the extent that it is amusing to tear apart his arguments. Fundies are fun for the ego in moderation.