feeds the hungry.
|
Nothing but truth feeds the hungry. | ||
| Christian Morality | |||
| |||
| Derivation of Philosophy | |||
|
|
HOME The Basics Definitions What Sin Is Morality Applied Thomas Aquinas Fundamentalism Spirit World Creationism List |
The Consequence of Fundamentalism
Fundamentalism is not a real religion; it is an ideology aligned upon worldly power mongering without regard for real morality.
The most significant fact about fundamentalism is that its promoters make a mockery of everything Christ taught in their theology and in their lives. They promote greed, exploitation, domination, materialism, elitism and a war against the lower classes. Then they concoct a theology which rationalizes that standard. Slavish literalness with the Bible is how their reality is falsified.
One problem with inerrancy is that no two minds have the same realities in them; and therefore, simple words never mean the same thing to different persons.
Another problem with inerrancy is that a few words cannot properly represent the important complexities of religion. A large amount of context is needed to create correct meaning.
Another thing to realize about inerrancy is that error cannot be determined by humans with the absoluteness, finality and purification that fundamentalists impose through the claim of inerrancy. The goal should be to increase understanding. Truth is something humans can only work towards; it cannot be arbitrated by humans.
Therefore, to say "inerrant" is to say someone's corruption is to be imposed as fact. It's like saying the government only allows perfect automobiles to be sold, and then some brand is given as supposedly perfect.
Underlying the supposed innerancy is the claim that some human products are not human products at all but God's infallible work. This is said to include every word of the persons whom Christ chose to be purified through the act of "atonement" on the cross.
Such super humans are identified as being "born again," which is arbitrarily determined by the fundamentalists. For example, they say or imply that I produce nothing but human corruption, while their contradictions, lies and misrepresentations are said to be the infallible work of the Holy Spirit.
Catholics say only the pope and bishops are so infallible, while fundamentalists say every one of their supporters is so infallible. However, there is no real difference, because the conservative Catholics who support the pope and (some of) the bishops claim to be producing the same infallible and unquestionable truth as their superiors.
The more obvious truth is that everything in the Bible but Christ's words is a product of humans and is often prone to be interpreted erroneously. Even Christ's words have to be tested for truth to determine their correct interpretation.
For example, there is a quote of Luke's (Luke 16:1-13) which often cannot be explained and could be a misinterpretation of something Christ said. Picking one person's interpretation and calling it inerrant would be arbitary. It shows the fallacy of inerrancy, as it applies to all interpretations.
Another problem with inerrancy is that much of what Paul said is blatant falsehood and should not be propagated as theology. Examples are negating all law including the Ten Commandments and claiming that sin is not possible in the spirit world.
Results show that the primary reason for fundamentalists harping on inerrancy is to lock in Paul's corruption as unquestionable fact. A test of truth shows that Paul's theology contradicts everything Christ taught.
Fundamentalism is defined in the dictionary as over-literalness. It primarily applies to allegories being interpreted literally. It promotes falsehood and reduces rationality to the ridiculous. It's like saying the sun rises in the morning while insisting on technical correctness.
The conclusions of fundamentalists are not credible. I'll say this in a ridiculous way to save a lot of words.
To fundamentalists, God was supposedly so glad to have Christ killed that he forgave everyone their sins because of it. Now all you have to do to cash in on it is repent, which means joining someone's group and making a donation. You can then sin your way into heaven, because everything you do is the work of the Holy Spirit. Fundamentalism is used to erase human accountability for morality by saying, in effect, that God created the human mess; God is going to fix it; and there is nothing humans can do about it (because they are saved by faith without works). Therefore, human activity is disconnected from moral truth, and everyone must accept the elitism, bigotry, selfishness, extremism and intolerance of fundamentalists. Notice that there is not a thing in fundamentalist theology that tells anyone how to live. The lives of fundamentalists are worldly, which means satan controls the process instead of God. What good does it do to love God if satan controls their lives? A hinge point to this subject is atonement. It is not a concept which should have entered Christianity. Centuries before Christ's time, the prophets were telling the Jews that sacrificing animals on an altar was not the way to worship God (Isaiah 1:11, Hosea 6:6, Psalm 50:13,14). Why then did the practice ever begin. Sacrificing animals began with the religion of the demons long before Abraham's time. It seemed logical to the followers of Abraham, because it was how food was cooked, and it was sort of like throwing a party for God. Extending it to worship seemed like a logical consequence. But there never was a logical symbolism to the practice. The meaning which the demons gave it was to test allegiance through a sinful act. Therefore, using sacrifice for symbolism in Christianity was absurd. Slaughtering animals never did have a symbolic message, and slaughtering Christ, all the less so. Christ described the meaning of everything he did in terms of the truth about morality which it demonstrated. His crucifixion showed that corrupted persons would crucify God for healing the sick, raising the dead and teaching morality. To then say that the act of killing Christ was a wonderful deed because of atonement contradicts the moral truth. It is synthesizing a mysterious virtue, where all else showed a horrendous sin. The only basis for the synthesis is Paul saying so. Paul did not have any valid authority to do so. Christ himself did not claim to have the authority to synthesize concepts on his own. He said he was told what to say by God. Paul did not base his authority on being told what to say by God. The only basis for Paul's authority is that he was supposedly struck by lightning and repented. That's not a valid basis for synthesizing anything. If Paul wanted to teach by showing the logic and evidence, that would be a valid human activity. What is not valid is to synthesize something for which there is no logic and evidence, so no one can evaluate it independently. Paul wasn't aware of the difference between synthesizing and providing reason based on evidence. He synthesized and made himself out to be an authority, because he was driven to lord over others with authority. Therefore, if there is such a thing as atonement, it has to come from Christ, not Paul. Christ never indicated that there was any such concept. The reason why it matters is because atonement is used as a route to becoming a hypocrite, as Christ railed against. It strips away the truth about sin and allows elites to become holier than thou (self-righteous). The religious authorities of Christ's time developed a system of exploitation based on an absolute, literal and mechanistic interpretation of Scriptures. By sprinkling blood on an altar, their sins were taken care of. To prevent moral standards from being developed, they stripped rationality from Scriptures. It was an obliteration of rationality. Then they exploited and oppressed everyone else calling it God's work. They "bound up heavy loads for others to carry, not lifting a finger to budge them" (Mat 23:4). They "shut the doors of God's kingdom in men's faces, not entering themselves and inhibiting those who tried to enter" (Mat 23:13). Paul then did the exact same thing with Christianity, even using the same gimmick, atonement. But the process did not get developed thoroughly until recent times, when it took the form of fundamentalism. Only the recent disintegration of religion allowed the absurdities of fundamentalism to escape realistic criticism. Atonement acquired opposite meanings as it drifted from its starting point in sacrificing animals on an alter to Christ's crucifixion. It went from a) making a commitment to overcoming sin by paying a price to b) having no responsibility for sin because someone else took care of everything. Paul changed what atonement meant from humans attempting to overcome their sin to changing God by committing sin. It's a blasphemous concept to claim God is the one who needed to change. If atonement were the purpose of Christ's crucifixion, the apostles should have been the ones to crucify Christ instead of his enemies. When animals were burnt for atonement, the persons who wanted to appease God did the burning of the animal. Neither Paul nor modern fundamentalists tell us what human responsibilities should be in overcoming sin. But they both harp. Paul harped on boasting vs. humbleness. Fundamentalists harp on abortions. Why isn't the rest of sin relevant, if a few superficial points are relevant? Fundamentalism is like General Motors going around and saying you don't need an automobile. It's the same as saying there is nothing you have to do do get saved, because everything was taken care of on the cross. Why does anyone need to be told? Reversing everything Christ taught is the only reason. What is the purpose of religion, if sin was taken care of through atonement? Religion seems to have the purpose of informing us that religion is not relevant. Why do they work so hard to convince us? Maybe it's because common sense indicates otherwise. Fundamentalism is not just an alternative form of Christianity; it is a battle against Christ's version of Christianity. Christ's purpose was to overcome sin. If any mention is made of overcoming sin, fundamentalists say it is a human corruption and opposed to God, because God already took care of sin on the cross through atonement. Fundamentalists insist that there is nothing they have to do to get saved—first because they already got saved when they were supposedly born again, and secondly because they cannot improve themselves. Christ made mumerous statements to the contrary, which was in fact his whole purpose in teaching. For example, he said, "Refrom your lives!" (Mat 4:17). Reform means change. What in the word change do fundamentalists not understand? The conquering purpose of fundamentalism is indicated by their attempt to take over society and government. One of their purposes is to "take back the schools," so they can promote creationism and God in the schools.
Addendum. What you are supposed to be doing, instead of allowing gimmicks like atonement to become an excuse for sin, or a reason for doing nothing about sin, is overcoming sin. To do that, you learn to tolerate sin against yourself without producing a counterforce. It is being effect rather than cause. Christ taught morality as being effect rather than cause, because it is almost impossible to be cause over anything without perpetrating injustices, which is sin; but there is no sin in being effect. One then acquires the awareness and correct habits for overcoming sin. The exception is in opposing the more extreme sin, which is codified as crime, because it is too harmful to be tolerated. But most of that is done by the police, so individuals don't have to.
A person then opposes sin in a nonpersonal way by developing truth which does not include a subjective degradation of persons. Truth creates its own force which opposes sin in a justifiable way. Quotes of Paul's related to atonement: (Eph 5:2) "He (Christ) gave himself for us as an offering to God." Offering means sacrifice. (Rom 5:11 KJV) "...Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonment." Atonement is the theology of sacrifice. (Rom 5:9) "Now that we have been justified by his blood..." Justifying through blood is the theology of sacrifice. (Rom 8:3) "Then God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh as a sin offering,..." Sin offering means atonement. (Eph 1:7) "It is in Christ and through his blood that we have been redeemed and our sins forgiven." Forgiving sins through blood is the theology of sacrifice.
Atonement Analogy Second Atonement Analogy What Christ Said About Atonement Inerrancy Abolishing Reason in Religion Lying Scribes Overcoming sin Fundamentalism Analogy Near Death Experiences - outside link, shows purpose of human life. |