Why do Fundies have such a HUGE Persecution Complex?

Post Reply New Topic

You really don't know me well enough to label me a "go-with-the-flow" person who isn't a threat. I think what you mean is that I do not set out to be a complete dick and constantly tell everyone who disagrees with my views that they are going to burn in hell for eternity.

I disagree that there is any contradiction. And the fact that I am Christian without clashing against naturalism does not make me seem non-threatening. There are enough fundies like Keet who are divorced from reality and clash against basic science that the scientific/academic community is casual in disregarding them as idiots. A Christian who has no conflict with science does challenge assumptions, though. It makes it harder for naturalistic atheists to dismiss all Christians as delusional. It goes against their belief that science and religion are incompatible. For a lot of them, that is much more disturbing than yet another YECist.

The timeline contradicts with that of the Bible's, so if the evolutionary timeline were true then the Bible is falsified. That's the basic dilemma. Also, if Abraham's real, then is Terah? Is Terah's father? And so on. Or are they just somehow symbols of some nebulous thing or another? I know there are ways that people interpret around to have their cake remain whole and yet also eat it too, but I don't see that as being right to do.

While I generally have some disinclination from criticizing people who've told me stuff about number theory, I would have to say that you generally do seem to fit the stereotype more sophisticated atheists of "liberal Christians". That is, you're pretty vague on explicit details in your theology and explanations just for exactly how you cohere Christianity with modern science. I recall, a while ago, you talked about not delving into theology at all because atheists and fundies would hound you or something like that (it may have been something about being unable to change minds or something, but the reason seemed pretty post hoc). There was another time where you spoke of how the lack of free will seemed kill a materialist ethical project but then admitted that the predeterminism of Calvinism creates a conundrum that you couldn't reconcile, yet brushed it off under the notion that no belief system could be "consistent and complete". You've also told me, in the past, that I've exaggerated your acceptance of Christian materialism, yet you've yet to clarify exactly what your beliefs are regarding souls vs completely physical brains when it comes to consciousness.

At this time I do not have any satisfactory way of resolving that problem.

Here's the conundrum I face:
Free will is almost certainly illusory. There is no proposed naturalistic explanation for it, so it would need to be some sort of divine mystery (and likely requiring a dash of Cartesian dualism). The problem with this is that because of Newcomb's paradox, omniscience and free will cannot coexist in the same universe.** If God knows what I am going to do tomorrow, then it follows that what I am going to do tomorrow has already been decided, which negates the possibility of free will. Open theism can sort of get around this, but it's not an acceptable answer to me for a variety of reasons.

But then once you reject free will and become a determinist, the problem of evil (or more specifically of salvation) seems even more insoluble than before. Calvinism essentially states that huge numbers of people will burn eternally in hell because of factors utterly beyond their control. This contrasts with Christianity's notions of a just and merciful God. The idea that we are held morally accountable for decisions that we did not make seems insane. Universalism evades the seeming unfairness of sending some people to hell and not others, but again it has problems.

So yeah, I don't have a good way of reconciling all my beliefs into a perfectly consistent framework. I'm not sure there is any complete and consistent view of the world.

** Note: I am assuming throughout that we dismiss compatibilism as the self-evident nonsense it is. Compatibilism boils down to P ^ ¬P, letting you prove anything by assuming contradictory axioms.

As to morality, I think that at least for human purposes we need to get over such notions. If we are to be judged by some moral code, that is a task for God and not for man. We just have to figure out how to live with each other as peaceably as we can manage.

I'd also comment on mild irony of me contrasting "materialists" and "Christians", as there is a very, very small intersection between those two categories, and Orwell (the bearded Irish-Ohioan, not the English author) is a member of that tiny intesection.

But I'm not a deist. Nor am I nearly as strict a materialist as Pedant and AG seemed to think. So in all three cases, the perception of my religious views is significantly closer to atheism than what I actually believe.

So the answer I get from Dent and Ska is that they do indeed believe a rationalistic or empirical approach to the world is inconsistent with theism, and that is why I am sometimes mistaken for an atheist. That's not really a surprising claim, though, considering I know you both have a bias on the subject.


OK, but are skepticism and Christianity mutually exclusive?


Well, when there is a debate that does not explicitly involve religion, I will generally avoid phrasing a response in a theistic manner just so the discussion isn't sidetracked into yet another religious flamewar. Besides that, my interpretation of Christianity tends to be left-wing compared to the stereotypical American Christian, so if I ever bring up the religious basis for my beliefs when talking to right-wing Christians, it ends up being very foreign to them, so we would just be talking past each other.


Not insulting per se, but a bit perplexing. I am not surprised that right-wing Christians reject me as a heretic—my theology is very different from theirs, my politics are different from theirs, and worst of all I'm a biology student. I don't fit into their particular narrow box, so in their typical black-and-white manner they decide I am a godless heathen. It is less clear to me why atheists would consider me to be one of them.


"Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.) " -Walt Whitman

Just for the record, even though you have what I consider to be an inconsistent philosophical synthesis in relation to the Bible and origins, I have never said anything about people "burning in Hell" for not agreeing with me on origins. Although it is foundational to the Gospel, the Gospel is what saves - that Jesus died for your sins and if you accept Him as your Savior and Lord, then you are saved - and not the mental acceptance of every secondary doctrine in existence. You are as much a Christian as I am, even if I can't stand your inconsistency on secondary matters.

Are you saying that people don't go to Hell for not voting Republican?

Could a practising Sodomite, who accepted Jesus as his Saviour and Lord, end up in Heaven?

In the days of the Early Church, tens of thousands of Christians were killed in front of stadium audiences each year for the entertainment of sadistic wackos.

Are you saying that people don't go to Hell for not voting Republican?

Could a practising Sodomite, who accepted Jesus as his Saviour and Lord, end up in Heaven?

Depends what the republicans stand for at the moment. If they shift their goals to be in opposition to the will of God, then it would be wrong to vote for them. As it is right now, they are generally still the lesser of two evils.

Your second question answers itself.

part of the christian narrative is the epic battle between good and evil. The concept of persecution is just a facet of that.

It should be obvious, but I'll say it anyway: believing in God does not necessarily mean believing in biblical inerrancy.

So, yes?

No.

Why not?

You know very well why not, so I'm not going to bother with you.