The Psychology of Christian Fundamentalism

guno said:
The need to sustain complex connections at the level of thought (not fact) through the evolution of mental abilities that are necessarily connected with developing all the metaphoric resources of language. The literal in contrast puts an end to thought. It offers the mind a way to shut down, to reify itself. It thereby exorcises the greatest fear: interpretation and its inevitable result, the conflict of interpretations and with it the terror of being forever bereft of dogmatic certitudes. A metaphor is the lighting flash of an intelligence that sees, as Aristotle asserts, connections that can only be sustained by a thought that thereby liberates itself from the immediate.

Literalism is the attempt to arrest all of this before it takes hold. It’s innermost necessity is the resistance to metaphor. For with metaphor one enters a world that has the power to unravel the literal mind. Let me offer one example. “There is no God and Mary is his mother.” In this great aphorism Santayana asserts an ontological impossibility and a psychological necessity. I once tried it out on some fundamentalist friends. They were at first puzzled by the unintelligibility of the statement then amazed that Santayana and I were so dumb we couldn’t see the contradiction. Finally the light went on, almost in chorus, the literalist deconstruction of the statement: “If he wasn’t a God how could she be a mother?” All attempts to suggest that the statement wasn’t meant to be taken literally only produced further confusion then frustration then anger. Santayana’s statement made no sense precisely because it was a koan, a paradox intended to produce reflection, even introspection. It was there I suggested that one would find the key to its meaning; not in the assertion that its meaningless constituted evidence that Santayana was perverse or mentally unbalanced. We were, of course, talking at irretrievable cross-purposes with no way to bridge the gulf between us. Which was, of course, the point of the exercise.

Literalism is the first line of defense of a mind that wants to put itself to sleep. A sensibility that like Nietzsche’s last man can only blink in blank incomprehension at anything that can’t be immediately understood. It is the great protection against a world teeming with complexities.



https://www.counterpunch.org/2005/01/08/the-psychology-of-christian-fundamentalism/
Click to expand...

News flash. God hates you. It's one thing to reject God. It is something else entirely to constantly try to lead others astray. God is laughing at you. You poor fool.
 
Fentoine Lum said:
Run along and dig into what real conservatives like Goldwater thought about the frothy-mouthed zealot fundamentalists.
Click to expand...

882ca3994f3d6798f1f7eac56046b0df--republican-presidential-debate-republican-party.jpg




quote_BarryGoldwater_onWomensRights_400x462.jpg
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
I think you're the only one offended here. The First Amendment has nothing to do with this; it has to do with a state-established and/or approved religion. *No* religious beliefs should not be part of public (i.e. government i.e. taxpayer-supported) functions. Not yours, not mine, not that Satanist guy over there, or that Muslim lady down that way. Understanding that this is what was intended by the 1st Amendment has nothing to do with being offended, which I am not.
Click to expand...

That is the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment. It also has a freedom of religion clause. Do you oppose paid chaplains in the military?
 
Flash said:
That is the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment. It also has a freedom of religion clause. Do you oppose paid chaplains in the military?
Click to expand...

I don't think that it is a negative thing, given what the military ppl sometimes have to face, and how many find comfort in their faith. That being said, they need to have chaplains who represent most religions, not just the most prevalent one. That, or don't have them at all.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
I don't want them trying to convert *me*. Most ppl feel the same. Religious freedom doesn't give you the right to knock on ppl's doors, invade their privacy, tell them they're going to hell if they don't follow your religion, or otherwise harass them. It merely gives them the right to worship as they please. Worship and evangelizing are not synonymous.
Click to expand...

They have the freedom to knock on your door and invade your privacy and you are free to ask them to leave or put no trespassing signs in your yard. Cities cannot require a permit for that activity (religious or political) unless they are soliciting money.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
I don't think that it is a negative thing, given what the military ppl sometimes have to face, and how many find comfort in their faith. That being said, they need to have chaplains who represent most religions, not just the most prevalent one. That, or don't have them at all.
Click to expand...

I think they have them for different religions. James Madison opposed chaplains for the military and Congress.
 
Flash said:
They have the freedom to knock on your door and invade your privacy and you are free to ask them to leave or put no trespassing signs in your yard. Cities cannot require a permit for that activity (religious or political) unless they are soliciting money.
Click to expand...

It's no different than door to door salesmen. Same laws apply. You don't have to answer the door. And if you do, you can always close it.
 
Flash said:
They have the freedom to knock on your door and invade your privacy and you are free to ask them to leave or put no trespassing signs in your yard. Cities cannot require a permit for that activity (religious or political) unless they are soliciting money.
Click to expand...

She is also wrong about worshipping and evangelism not being the same. Dead wrong.
 
Grugore said:
It's no different than door to door salesmen. Same laws apply. You don't have to answer the door. And if you do, you can always close it.
Click to expand...

I think it is somewhat different since there is no constitutional right to sell things but there is for religion and speech. I think they can require permits for sellers.
 
Grugore said:
It's no different than door to door salesmen. Same laws apply. You don't have to answer the door. And if you do, you can always close it.
Click to expand...

in concord, nc, I was called out by a resident for going door to door. I simply adapted a skip a few houses and circle back later [discrete] plan and was outside the "door to door" law/ rule/ offense. "wise as serpents and harmless as doves".
 
Flash said:
I don't understand---explain.
Click to expand...

Jesus was speaking with one of His desciples. He asked him, "do you love me"? He replied yes. Jesus then told him, "then feed My sheep", meaning witness to others. It is an act of obedience, and one way to recognize who the true Christians are. To simplify, you would not worship God if you did not love Him. . If you love Him, you would obey Him. So, worship and evangelism are inextricably linked.
 
Flash said:
I think they have them for different religions. James Madison opposed chaplains for the military and Congress.
Click to expand...

chaplains can be of any religion but they are required by military regulations to conduct services for within their unit........a Jewish chaplain is expected to conduct Last Rights for a Catholic serviceman........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top