MarkT

A Psychological Analysis of Fundamentalism

{ 5:48 PM, 7/2/2010 } { Posted in Fundamentalism } { 0 comments } { Link }

A Psychological Analysis of Fundamentalism

Fundamentalism is a religious movement, a theological & philosophical stand, a political and social force. I regard it most basically as a particular variety of psychological development. Fundamentalists of all religious and political varieties share the same character traits. It is the psychological
character of the fundamentalist that is at the root of the ideological interpretation termed "fundamentalism," not an intellectual or spiritual concept.

"Fundamentalist" is a term sometimes used to refer to anyone who is intolerant of other's beliefs. Fundamentalism is "not so much an ideology as it is an attitude, an attitude of intolerance, incivility and narrowness," says Walter Shurden, professor of Christianity and director of the Center for Baptist Studies at Mercer University. "It is an attitude that says, 'We have the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and we are going to impose it on you and control the system so that you will have to knuckle under to it.'" As anyone who has ever attended a meeting of two or more activists can attest, that attitude can be found at all points on the political and religious spectrum.

There are, however, specific traits to what can be called "right wing" fundamentalism (of any religion) that what is sometimes called "left wing fundamentalism" lacks: authoritarianism, sexual guilt, and attitudes toward women and homosexuals.

Psychological traits of fundamentalism:

a.. A strictly hierarchical and authoritarian worldview. Everything has to have a First, a Somebody in Charge. In any partnership, one partner has to have the deciding vote. Groups and societies work best with rigidly defined roles and stratifications. (There are people who believe this way who are not fundamentalists: at least, not religious fundamentalists.)

b.. Ethical development at the "reward and punishment" stage: morality must be defined and enforced by an external authority.

c.. A lot of guilt and fear about sex.

d.. Basic distrust of human beings; certainty that "uncontrolled," human beings will be bad and vicious, particularly in sexual ways.

e.. Low tolerance for ambiguity. Everything must be clear cut, black and white. Nothing can be "possibly true but unproven at this time, we're still studying it." Fundamentalists regard science as flawed precisely because science changes. (A striking characteristic of fundamentalists is that their
response to any setback which may instill doubt is to step up evangelizing for converts.)

f.. Literalism, usually including a limited sense of humor.

g.. Distrust of their own judgment, or any other human being's judgment.

h.. Fear of the future. The driving motivation of fundamentalism appears to outsiders to be fear that oneself or the group one identifies with is losing power and prerequisites and is in danger from others who are gaining power. This is not how fundamentalists put it.

i.. A low self-esteem that finds satisfaction in being one of the Elect, superior to all others. It seems to be particularly rewarding to know that rich people have a real hard time getting into Heaven.

The life experience of fundamentalist that seems to encourage these traits include:

a.. Conditional love: parents, or other authority figures, withheld love to control behavior.

b.. Other factors -- sometimes mental, emotional, or even physical abuse -- that minimized self-esteem.

c.. For those who grew up fundamentalist, the church was the central activity of family life, all else was subsidiary to the church, and social interaction with "non-believers" was discouraged, except when evangelizing.

d.. Those who have converted to fundamentalism often grew up without any firm philosophical framework, or experienced some trauma that destroyed their former framework. They were at a time in their lives when they needed absolute Answers.

Fundamentalist groups reinforce these traits:

a.. They insist on a rigid hierarchy of authority. The more extreme the group, the more authority is concentrated in one central figure.

b.. The group, and the authority figure(s) within the group, withhold or bestow love to control behavior. Misbehaving members are cut off from communication.

c.. They magnify current social and individual evils and dwell on the "innate wickedness of man."

d.. Sexual "immorality" is often their central cause.

e.. They promote a Truth which is superior to all other truths because it is absolute and unchanging.

f.. They promote distrust of one's personal judgment, being subject instead to the given truths of the group, the judgment of the church as a body, or the proclamations of a central authority figure.

g.. They are apocalyptic, foretelling an immanent and horrifying future which only the faithful will survive. Any disaster in the news is magnified as "a sign of the apocalypse.

The Alternative to Fundamentalism

Regardless of belief system, an individual is no longer a "fundamentalist" when one develops:

a.. An unconditional self-esteem and (usually in consequence) an unconditional love of others.

b.. A tolerance -- even enjoyment -- of ambiguity and diverse beliefs. One can cheerfully live with the fact that one's neighbor on one side believes that his little blue pickup truck is God and one's neighbor on the other side doesn't believe in God at all, and feel no compulsion to convert either of them. One is not frightened to question one's faith or explore alternatives.

c.. Free social and intellectual interaction with others, beyond -- or even without -- evangelism.

d.. A trust that one can "figure things out," along with a willingness to learn from others and to change one's mind.

e.. A faith that whatever the fluctuations in life and society, things can and will get better. A feeling of personal responsibility and resolve to make it so.

f.. A sense of humor.

It is not necessary to abandon all personal faith and beliefs in order to be tolerant of others. The majority of the followers in any of the world's religions are able to hold a strong personal belief and not feel threatened that others hold different beliefs.

How does anyone ever become an ex-fundamentalist? Any or all of these factors seem effective:

a.. Relationships with "non-believers" who become emotionally valued.

b.. Intellectual process: a build-up of contradictions between taught morality and the behavior of church authorities and members; unresolved questions in study of the Bible; what is taught about the world vs
observation.

c.. Receiving unconditional love and acceptance from a non-fundamentalist.

d.. A strengthened self-esteem, with the loss of the need for others to be Wrong.

e.. A spiritual epiphany, with a new faith that one's relationship with God is not conditional on "perfect" faith or behavior, that it can grow and change.

from http://anitra.net/activism/fundamentalism/psychology.html

Christian Right is Characterized By What It's Against

{ 8:07 PM, 28/1/2010 } { Posted in Fundamentalism } { 0 comments } { Link }

Christian Right is Characterized By What It's Against:

America's Christian Right is often characterized as a reactionary movement because it is reacting to modern developments and seeks to restore older, traditional social structures. Although the Christian Right has much to say about religion and morality, a lot of its social and political program can
be explained by reference to what they are against rather than what they are in favor of. Unfortunately, most of what they are against has become fundamental to the modern way of life.

The Christian Right is Anti-Science:

The Christian Right displays a consistent and almost unwavering opposition to modern science. The most obvious example of this is their opposition to modern biology and evolution. ... More than anything, this reveals their preference for ideology over facts, reality, and reason.

The Christian Right is Anti-Secularism:

A common target of Christian Right attacks is secularism: the idea that public institutions should be free from control or domination by religious institutions, interests, or doctrines. ...

The Christian Right is Anti-Feminism:

A significant development for the modern world has been the growing equality of women. Feminism, a political, social, and philosophical agenda for achieving equality, is opposed by the Christian Right. ...

The Christian Right is Anti-Liberty:

Greater restrictions on individual liberties is a hallmark of Christian Right political proposals. Whatever the subject area - sexuality, drugs, you name it - it would be highly unusual to find the Christian Right backing any sort of expansion on what people are free to do. Curiously, this does not translate into support for greater restrictions on what companies and corporations are permitted to do.

The Christian Right is Anti-Pluralism:

A significant amount of the Christian Right's agenda and activity can be explained as an outgrowth of their opposition to pluralism. Modernity is very pluralistic in terms of values, religions, politics, gender roles, and so forth. The Christian Right looks back to a time when they imagine society was more unified and homogenous, thinking that society was stronger and better then. ...

The Christian Right is Anti-Sex:

... the Christian Right to defend policies which appear to have no other purpose than to punish extramarital sex. ...

The Christian Right is Anti-Enlightenment:

The European Enlightenment represented a significant step forward in terms of politics, philosophy, and religion. The Enlightenment pressed the idea that people should use reason rather than faith and tradition when making decisions. The Enlightenment is the source of our modern political
philosophy and institutions; it's also a source of most everything the Christian Right opposes because it denies the inherent and necessary authority of traditional religious practices or institutions.

The Christian Right is Anti-Democratic:

... The Christian Right often opposes, however, principles of equality and neutrality which democracy requires - for example, giving equal time to non-Christians and not treating Christianity as if it were a favored religion and political ideology.

America's Christian Right as a Reaction to Modernity:

... Conservatives are, by definition, seeking to "conserve" traditional institutions, power structures and ways of doing things. ...

The real problem is the far right, especially the Christian Right, because they aren't merely trying to keep progress from happening too fast. Instead, they are trying to stop progress altogether and roll things back to an earlier stage of social and political development. They would undermine the achievements we have already made in civil liberties because they cannot accept the use of reason over religious tradition and dogma in social government. America's Christian Right is frequently described as reactionary because of how they seek to turn the clock back on American culture and politics - they
are 'reacting' to changes in modernity. In many ways, though, they are more revolutionary than reactionary because they are trying to create a new type of society which has never existed before.

One of the hallmarks of modernity has been the rooting out of various forms of illegitimate privilege, with Christian and religious privilege being among the last. Thus, it is hoped that reasserting special privileges and deference for Christianity and Christians will help hold the line against modernity. If you pay close attention, you will find that just about all of the complaints of the Christian Right involve a loss of privilege, and everything in their agenda involves a reinstatement of privileges. These privileges are inconsistent with modernity on every level and are a sign of just what aspects of modernity the Christian Right objects to.

from http://atheism.about.com/od/christianrightagenda/p/ChristianModern.htm

TIMELINE : FUNDAMENTALISM VS CONTEMPORARY THEOLOGY

{ 6:37 AM, 22/1/2010 } { Posted in Fundamentalism } { 0 comments } { Link }

1000s CE
- Glossa Ordinaria: a commentrary by a group of French scholars headed by Anselm of Laon. Discussion and questioning of the biblical text was encouraged through Aristotelian logic and dialectic.

1033 - 1109 CE
- Anselm of Bec thought it was possible to prove anything. He seldom quoted the Bible in his theological writing. Became Archbishop of Canterbury in 1189.
- Anslem's theory of atonement became normative in the west while Maximus' interpretation was normative with the Greek Orthodox.

1040 - 1105 CE
- RASHI (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhak) concerned with the plain meaning of scripture. Wrote a commentary on the Hebrew Bible concentrating on individual words that threw new light on the text.

1079 -1142 CE
- Peter Abelard rarely quotes scripture and raised questions without appearing to offer solutions.

1089 - 1164 CE
- Abraham ibn Ezra states that exegesis must give priority to the literal sense; while legend had spiritual value, it must not be confused with fact. He found discrepancies in the bibical text: Isaiah could not have composed the second part of Isaiah and Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch.

1110 - 1170
- Andrew of St Victor the first Christian scholar to attempt a wholly literal interpretation of the Hebrew Bible.

1135 - 1204 CE
- Maimonides tries to reassure Jews that both scripture and reason are in harmony. He agreed that anthropmorphic descriptions off God in the Bible must not be interpreted literally, and tried to find reasons for some of the more irrational biblical laws.

1170 - 1221 CE
- Spaniard Dominic Guzman gave serious attention to the literal sense in exegesis. Dominicans aimed to adapt Aristolelian philosophy to Christianity.

1194 - 1270 CE
- Nahmanides begins esoteric discipline of Kaballah. PaRDeS was an anagram for the study of Torah: peshat (the literal sense), remez (allegory), darash (the moral, homelitic sense), sod (the mystical culmination of Torah study). "Bible" is the Zohar - the Book of Splendour (probably the work of Moses
Leon). The innermost essence of God is En Sof ('without end') and was incomprehensible and not mentioned in the Bible or Talmud.

1214 -1292 CE
- Roger Bacon urged scholars to study the Bible in the original languages.

1225 -1274 CE
- Thomas Aquinas reconciles older spiritual method with new philosophy. His Scholastics felt sufficiently confident of their reasoning powers to liberate their theological speculation from exegesis.

1270 -1340 CE
- Nicholas of Lyre combined older methods of interpretation with the new insights of the Scholastics. Preferred the plain sense of historical exegesis. His "Postillae", a literal exegesis of the whole of the bible, became a standard textbook.

1275 - 1342 CE
- Marsillo of Padua challenged papal claims to be the supreme guardian of the Bible.

1329 - 1384 CE
- Wyckliffe, an Oxford academic, became enraged by the corruption of the Church and argued that the Bible should be translated into the vernacular so that common people did not have to rely upon the priesthood but could read the bible for themselves.

#######################################
1440 CE - INVENTION OF THE PRINTING PRESS
- People began to read newly printed Bibles in a modern way: relying on the Bible alone. Previously people did not own private Bibles and few had the literacy skills required to read a Bible.
#######################################

1405 -1457 CE
- Lorenzo Valla produces an anthology of the main New Testament 'proof texts' used to support Church doctrine. He placed the Vulgate version alongside the original Greek, pointing out that these texts did not always 'prove' what they claimed because the Vulgate was so inaccurate.

1466 - 1536 CE
- Dutch humanist Desiderius Erasmus publishes the Greek text of the New Testament. Due to the invention of the printing press, anybody who knew Greek could now immediately read the gosopels in the original.

1494 - 1536 CE
- William Tyndale states that the gospel is greater than the Church.

#############################
PROTESTANTISM BEGINS
#############################

1517 CE
- Luther posts 95 Theses

1525 - 1531 CE
- Tyndale Bible in English

1537 CE
- Thomas Matthew (really John Rogers)
- Henry VIII ordered a copy for every church

1557-1560 CE
- Geneva Bible
- First version to recognize the division of the text into verses

1561 - 1626 CE
- Francis Bacon, counsellor to James I of England, wasone of the first to argue that even the most sacred doctrines must be subjected to the stringent methods of empirical science. If these beliefs contradicted the evidence of our senses they had to go. He was convinced that there was no conflict
between science and religion since all truth was one.

1564 - 1642 CE
- Galileo Galilei tests Copernicuss theory and observes planets going around the sun. Silenced by the Inquisition and forced to recant.

1596 - 1650 CE
- Rene Descartes begins Cartesian philosophy. He maintained that there was no need for revealed scripture since reason provided us with ample information about God.

1609 CE
- Baptist Church founded by John Smyth

1611 CE
- King James Authorized Version Bible

1632 - 1704 CE
- John Locke founds Deism based upon reason alone.

1632 - 1677 CE
- Baruch Spinoza, a Shephardic Jew of Spanish descent, stated that the manifest contradictions in the Bible proved that it could not be of divine origin, the idea of revelation was a deluision and that there was no supernatural deity. What we called 'God' was nature itself. On 27th July 1656 Spinoza was excommunicated from the synagogue.

1642 - 1727 CE
- Isaac Newton scarcely mentioned the Bible in his work because he derived his knowledge of God from an intensicve study of the universe.

1667 -1752 CE
- William Whiston believed that early Christianity had been a more rational faith. He published a version of the New Testament in 1745 which excluded every reference to the Incarnation and the trinity.

1698 - 1760 CE
- Israel ben Eliezer begins the Hasidim ('pious ones') movement in Judaism (fundamentalist Judaism)

1711 - 1776 CE
- David Hume argued that there was no reason to believe that anything lay beyond the experience of our senses.

1724 - 1804 CE
- Immanuel Kant convinced that a divinely revealed Bible violated the autonomy and freedom of the human being.

1729 - 1786 CE
- Moses Mendelssohn argued that God had revealed a law code and not a set of doctrines on Mount Sinai and this left the mind entirely free. Jews must convince themselves rationally of the Bible's claims before they accepted it.

1768 - 1834 CE
- Friedrich Schleiermacher promoted a spirituality that was founded 'the feeling of absolute dependence' that was fundamental to all religion.

1800s CE
- Agreed by scholars of Higher Criticism that the Pentateuch was a combination of 4 independent sources.

1844 -1918 CE
- Julius Wellhausen showed that the four document theory was too simplistic as there had been additions to all four sources before being combined into a single narrative. He also asked why the prophets never mention the Mosaic law.

1859 CE
- Charles Darwin publishes Origin of the Species

1861 CE
- Seven Anglican clergymen publish "Essay and Reviews" which made Higher Criticism accessible to the general reader. This included:
- Moses had not written the Pentateuch
- David had not written the Psalms
- Biblical miracles were literary tropes and should not be understood literally
- Most of the events in the Bible were not historical

1881 CE
- Revised New Testament Greek by Westcot & Hort (using the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus).

1886 - 1929 CE
- Franz Rosenzweig argued that our daily lives should illuminate the Bible, and in turn the Bible will help us dicover the sacred dimension of our day to day experience. We required the new covenant of Jeremiah when the law would be written on our hearts.

1888 CE
- Mrs Humphry Ward publishes the best-selling novel "Robert Elsmore". Robert's wife states: "If the Gospels are not true as fact, as history, I cannot see that they are true at all, or of any value."

1895 CE
- Five Fundamentals formed

#######################################
FUNDAMENTALISM BEGINS
######################################

1914 CE
- Assemblies of God founded

1916 - 2000
- Wilfred Cantwell Smith argued that it was impossible to say what the Bible 'really' meant when any one of its verses was likely to have been interpreted in several different ways. Religious people have all worked out their religion within the confines of a particular place and time.

1925 CE
- Scopes "Monkey" trial

1940s CE
- Jewish philosopher Martin Buber believed that the Bible witnessed to God's presence at a time when he seemed absent. Exegesis could never stand still, since the Bible represented an ongoing dialogue between God and humanity. The study of the Bible must lead to a transformed lifestyle. Buber noted
that the rabbis called scripture a miqra, a 'calling out',. It was a summons that did not allow readers to abstract themselves from the problems of the world but trained them to stand fast and listen to the undercurrent of events.

1945 CE
- Nag Hammadi Library discovered in Egypt;

1953 CE
- Dietrich Bonhoeffer's "Letters Form Prison" published in English. Asks "Who is Christ for us today?" and talks of a "religionless Christianity".

1956 CE
- Jean Paul Sartre publishes "On Being and Nothingness" which contains a proof of God's non-existence.

1963 CE
- John A T Robinson publishes "Honest To God" which brings to the public items of Higher Criticism usually only discussed in theological colleges. Pronounces the end of theism and advocates Paul Tillich's "Ground of Being" as a description of God.

1969 CE
- Beginning of "Christian Rock" with Larry Norman's "Upon This Rock"

1973 CE
- Roe vs. Wade

1981
- James W Fowler publishes "Stages of Faith"

1987 - 1988 CE
- Televangelist scandals

1989 CE
- First woman ordained in an apostolic-succession church (the Protestant Episcopal church)

1991 CE
- John Shelby Spong publishes "Rescuing The Bible From Fundamentalism"

1992 CE
- John Dominic Crossan publishes "The Historical Jesus: The life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant".
- Australian Presbyterian Church begins heresy trial of Dr Peter Cameron, former Principal of St Andrew's College, Sydney University based on a statement discussing women's ordination.

1993 CE
- Jesus Seminar publishes "The Five Gospels" with probability ratings for all words of Jesus in the four gospels plus the Gospel of Thomas.

1996 CE
- Robert W Funk publishes "Honest To Jesus"

2005 CE
- The Dover Trial in which Creationism / Intelligent Design is definitively
ruled as not science.

2006 CE
- Richard Dawkins publishes "The God Delusion"

Currently CE
- Fundamentalism holds the Bible as the supreme "Paper Pope".
- Decline in attendance for all the major churches

Do you believe the bible?

{ 3:29 PM, 9/12/2009 } { Posted in Fundamentalism } { 0 comments } { Link }

The Chaser's War On Everything

See http://religiouscomics.net/?p=174

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Script from clip above:

...

Host: I went to some people in Texas who agreed that the bible is true to see if they would obey some of the bible's more extreme passages.

....

Host: My son, Harry Jnr. has been cursing me and I just wanted your help to kill him. (Quotes: Exodus 21:17; Leviticus 20:9; Matthew 15:4)

...

Host: If you're not going to kikh his ass can you at least deal wityh my brother? He's a homosexual adulterous fortune-telling dwarf with crushed testicles. (Quotes: Leviticus 20:13; Leviticus 20:10; Leviticus 20:27; Leviticus 21:30)

....

Man: I missed the hunchback dwarf thing.

Host: Yeah, well this it. Everyone has. This is why these hunchback dwarf priests are roaming our streets.

....

Man: Oh, yeah. You're in trouble!

....

Man 2: There is some literature in the bible that is not for this time but the past time.

Host: So what about homosexuals? Is that for the past time or for now?

Man 2: That's for now I guess.

Host: How can you tell? Is there an asterix next to it because here the bit that says we should kill the homosexuals that's right next to the bit that says we should put people to death for adultery? What do I have to do to get you to kill him? ...

from http://religiouscomics.net/?p=174

Karen Armstrong - WHAT IS FUNDAMENTALISM?

{ 7:05 AM, 29/11/2009 } { Posted in Fundamentalism } { 0 comments } { Link }

Intolerance and Fundamentalism Seminar

Karen Armstrong

Wednesday 26 January 2005

LSE

WHAT IS FUNDAMENTALISM?

... the militant piety that developed in every single major world faith during the twentieth century. We usually call it "fundamentalism."

...

fundamentalism is not an exclusively Islamic phenomenon. There are fundamentalist Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and Confucians, who all challenge the secular hegemony of the modern world. In fact Islam was the last of the three monotheistic religions to develop a fundamentalist
strain, long after it had erupted in Judaism and Christianity.

So what is fundamentalism? It is essentially a revolt against modern secular society. Wherever a Western polity has been established that separates religion and politics, fundamentalist movements have sprung up alongside it in protest. ... As part of their campaign, fundamentalists tend to withdraw
from mainstream society to create enclaves of pure faith.

...

The ubiquity of the fundamentalist revolt shows that there is widespread disappointment with modernity. But what is it about the modern world that has provoked such rage and distress? During the sixteenth century, the peoples of the West began to develop a new type of civilization that was
without precedent in world history. Instead of basing their economy on a surplus of agricultural produce, as did all premodern cultures, they relied increasingly upon technology and the constant reinvestment of capital, which freed them from the inherent limitations of agrarian society. This demanded radical change at all levels of society ~ intellectual, political, social, and religious. A wholly new way of thinking became essential, and new forms of government had to be evolved to meet these altered conditions. It was found by trial and error that the best way of creating a productive society was to create a secular, tolerant, democratic polity.

...

Culture is always contested, and fundamentalists are primarily concerned with saving their own society. Protestant Fundamentalists in the United States want America to be a truly Christian nation, not a secular, pluralist republic.

...

Perhaps the most important factor to understand about this widespread religious militancy is that it is rooted in a deep fear of annihilation. Every single fundamentalist movement that I have studied in Judaism, Christianity and Islam is convinced that modern secular society wants to wipe out religion ~ even in the United States. Fundamentalists, therefore, believe that they are fighting for survival, and when people feel that their backs are to the wall, some can strike out violently, like a wounded animal.

...

Because fundamentalists fear that secularists want to destroy them, aggressive and military action will only serve to confirm this conviction and exacerbate their fear, which can spill over into ungovernable rage.

...

In the United States, Protestant fundamentalists in the smaller towns and rural areas often feel "colonized" by the alien ethos of Harvard, Yale and Washington DC. They feel that the liberal establishment despises them, and this has resulted in a fundamentalism that has gone way beyond Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority of the 1970s.

....

The first step must be to look beneath the bizarre and often repulsive ideology of these movements to discern the disquiet and anger that lie at their roots. We must no longer deride these theologies as the fantasies of a lunatic fringe, but learn to decode their ideas and imagery. Only then can we deal creatively with fears and anxieties that, as we have seen to our cost, no society can safely ignore

Karen Armstrong is the author of The Battle for God; A History of Fundamentalism.

Biblemania is an Addiction

{ 6:56 AM, 29/11/2009 } { Posted in Fundamentalism } { 0 comments } { Link }

Sunday, October 22, 2006

Biblemania, or the "love of the Bible," is a deliberately contrived,
socially acceptable addiction no less destructive to the individual and
society as a whole than is heroin. The Bible pushers start in on their
victims very young, sometimes before they can read, and insidiously and
aggressively peddle their wares so that a child will become addicted to
biblical junk for his entire life.

Biblemania is a very tough habit to break - and it's meant to be. In order
to create Bible junkies, pushers must make their victims uncomfortable and
dis-eased, filling them with an intense self-loathing, so that, broken, they
will desire and be desperate for a fix. Bible pushers break their victims,
so they need to be fixed.

The biblemaniac is armored against rational criticism of his habit - and he
has a whole support system of fellow Bible junkies who will viciously defend
his addiction. The biblemaniac is in denial that he has an addiction or that
there is anything wrong with it. The biblemaniac's junk consists of sweet
and sugary platitudes laced with poison, but his addiction will not allow
him to see the poison. The Bible junk is no different than sugar - it may
taste good on the surface, but a steady diet of it will kill you. In
reality, Bible junk is worse than sugar, as, again, it is laced with poison.
And Bible junkies often have no other fare to supplement their poison-filled
diet.

Bible addiction is no laughing matter. Not only has it caused extreme
pathological behavior in individuals, but it has led to the annihilation of
entire cultures and the genocide of whole peoples. And, if the addiction is
not addressed, it will lead the world into an Armageddon from which it may
never recover, as its most virulent junkies - priests, pastors and
politicians - stand by gleefully rubbing their hands, waiting for the
biggest rush of their biblemania - the mushroom cloud of destruction.

Fortunately, there are treatments for biblemania. The first step, of course,
is to move beyond denial and to recognize the addiction and its harmful and
destructive affects on relationships and the quality of life. Next, we must
find "food for the soul" that is more palatable and healthful, including
appreciating the beauty of creation and humankind's enormous capacity for
love.

from http://tbknews.blogspot.com/2006/10/biblemania-is-addiction.html

{ Last Page } { Page 1 of 12 } { Next Page }

MarkT

A Psychological Analysis of Fundamentalism

Christian Right is Characterized By What It's Against

TIMELINE : FUNDAMENTALISM VS CONTEMPORARY THEOLOGY

Do you believe the bible?

Karen Armstrong - WHAT IS FUNDAMENTALISM?

Biblemania is an Addiction

About Me

Links

Categories

Recent Entries

Friends