NationStates Jolt Archive

Am I the only Christian that is stuck in the middle here? I'm neither an aetheist or a fundamentalist who thinks every little thing is immoral or a sin.

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one here who isn't one or the other. I have a strong faith in God and I attend church, but I agree with gay civil unions, I believe that we shouldn't stop pornography or anything like that. I am however, pro-life though I really don't care about Roe Vs. Wade or anything like that.

Why is it that when someone hears you're a Christian, they automatically assume you're a racist, gay hating, bible thumping TV evangelist?

Why is it that when some Christian hears that you don't mind gay civil unions or porn, they think you're some sort of agnostic or aetheist?

I'm stuck in the middle here, and want to know if I'm the only one, and if not if anyone else is pissed at being cornered?

Am I the only Christian that is stuck in the middle here? I'm neither an aetheist or a fundamentalist who thinks every little thing is immoral or a sin.

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one here who isn't one or the other. I have a strong faith in God and I attend church, but I agree with gay civil unions, I believe that we shouldn't stop pornography or anything like that. I am however, pro-life though I really don't care about Roe Vs. Wade or anything like that.

Why is it that when someone hears you're a Christian, they automatically assume you're a racist, gay hating, bible thumping TV evangelist?

Why is it that when some Christian hears that you don't mind gay civil unions or porn, they think you're some sort of agnostic or aetheist?

I'm stuck in the middle here, and want to know if I'm the only one, and if not if anyone else is pissed at being cornered?

I doubt your alone in this type of feeling. I was pretty much like that until I became agnostic. I guess its just easier for people to lump eachother into a group rather then take the time to get to know individuals.

Basically that is exactly the way I am. I believe abortion, homosexuality, etc are wrong and sinful, but I don’t think its the governments place to legislate such things. To my knowledge, Jesus never forced anyone to follow what him.

I'm sure there're others, but they seem to be in the minority here on NS.

I'm sure there're others, but they seem to be in the minority here on NS.


That's weird, as we actually make up a large percentage of the American population I think.

Why should a Christian be thought of as a racist? Jesus was by far not a racist, and if we're emulating him, we shouldn't carry that stereotype. I think that a lot of that has to do with the backwoods white folks in the South (I can talk about them, because I live there) who claim to be Christians, but do nothing of the like. Don't get me wrong, I fall way short of the standards that Jesus has set, but no one should preach hate against a certain race just because they're different.

This is reassuring, I tell you. If people like you guys, people who knew that christianity was about the love of Jesus and not ramming it down people's throats or attacking them (did Jesus not tell us to turn the other cheek? live and let live?) where more common, your faith would have nothing to worry about, and I probably wouldn't be doubting mine. :)

Actually, I believe it says somewhere that Christians should stay out of politics.

I think that the majority of people at this forum are like you, its just the most vocal ones are the extremists.

Basically that is exactly the way I am. I believe abortion, homosexuality, etc are wrong and sinful, but I don’t think its the governments place to legislate such things. To my knowledge, Jesus never forced anyone to follow what him.

Sorry but with those views I'd label you as far along the road to fundamentalism.

Just because you don't want to impose your views doesn't make you different to them, since you basically seem to believe all the same things as most of the religious far right.

Sorry but with those views I'd label you as far along the road to fundamentalism.

I never said I wasn’t a fundamentalist, I’m just not an extremist.

I never said I wasn’t a fundamentalist, I’m just not an extremist.

/me chuckles loudly. :rolleyes:

/me chuckles loudly. :rolleyes:


Why is that funny?

Why is it that when someone hears you're a Christian, they automatically assume you're a racist, gay hating, bible thumping TV evangelist?


Because of those Christians who think that if you don't mind gay civil unions or porn, you're some sort of agnostic or atheist. Those fundamentalists give normal Christians a bad name.
Sorry for that. We atheists are only human.

Why is that funny?

Hey no fair, I'm the one pulling the passive-aggressive here.

What's funny is that you don't seem to get that Fundamentalists and Extremists are basically the same thing.

You believe almost all the same things as an extremist, but since you don't try to force your thoughts on others you don't classify yourself as one of them?

Big woop for your opinion, but I think you're still an extremist, despite your lack of motivation to back up your conviction.

After all, you're here on this site espousing your views, what's that if not at least subliminally trying to impose your thoughts upon unbelievers?

Here's a question;
Would you decry those who support legislation of your views on a matter of principle, or would you let it slide without comment simply because you agree with the change?

Here's a question;
Would you decry those who support legislation of your views on a matter of principle, or would you let it slide without comment simply because you agree with the change?

I find all legislation for the purpose of morality to be detestable. People should be allowed to live their lives in the way they see fit. My country’s refusal to allow gay marriage is disgusting, and the reasons given are inadequate to justify limiting liberty.

I find all legislation for the purpose of morality to be detestable. People should be allowed to live their lives in the way they see fit. My country’s refusal to allow gay marriage is disgusting, and the reasons given are inadequate to justify limiting liberty.

Yet you believe gay marriage (and generally being gay) is in itself a sin and an evil upon society?

How is that reconcilable?

Am I the only Christian that is stuck in the middle here? I'm neither an aetheist or a fundamentalist who thinks every little thing is immoral or a sin.

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one here who isn't one or the other. I have a strong faith in God and I attend church, but I agree with gay civil unions, I believe that we shouldn't stop pornography or anything like that. I am however, pro-life though I really don't care about Roe Vs. Wade or anything like that.

Why is it that when someone hears you're a Christian, they automatically assume you're a racist, gay hating, bible thumping TV evangelist?

Why is it that when some Christian hears that you don't mind gay civil unions or porn, they think you're some sort of agnostic or aetheist?

I'm stuck in the middle here, and want to know if I'm the only one, and if not if anyone else is pissed at being cornered?


Hey, you're not alone :fluffle:

Thing is, the fundamentalists/extremists are just louder, I guess. And they'll keep on argueing long after the moderates gave up because they saw that it's pointless.
The more extreme you are, the more attention you'll get here, but there are a good number of moderate people on this forum as well.

The problem with extremists on either side is that they won't let you use the same lable of religion unless you agree 100% with their interpretation of it.
I'm Catholic, always have been, always will be, yet the other day I got an earful by another Catholic who just couldn't believe that you can actually critisise Catholic dogma and still be part of the church.... :rolleyes:

Yet you believe gay marriage (and generally being gay) is in itself a sin and an evil upon society?

How is that reconcilable?

There's a difference between "sin" and "evil upon society"

A sin is something an individual comits, that's his own choice, it has to be on his on conscience (if the individual regards it as sin as well, that is).
An evil upon society is something that affects others as well and may harm them, therefore they need to be protected from it.

You can very well view homosexuality as sin (I wouldn't, but that's just my opinion) but not as an evil upon society. In which case you yuorself would find it wrong and wouldn't do it, but you wouldn't go around blaming other for doing it. Simple. That's called tolerance.

Yet you believe gay marriage (and generally being gay) is in itself a sin and an evil upon society?

How is that reconcilable?

I don’t believe its an evil upon society. It is a lifestyle that I personally don’t agree with, just as you seem to disapprove of mine. We all have a right to our opinions.

I don’t believe its an evil upon society. It is a lifestyle that I personally don’t agree with, just as you seem to disapprove of mine. We all have a right to our opinions.

Have I said I disapprove of your lifestyle?

Does a follower of the far right have a right to his opinion? Does he have a right to publically espouse them?

Also I think you're playing semantics, if I were to say you believe that being gay is an evil (sin) upon your secular society (Fundamentalist Christianity), I would be correct, at least according to what you've told me?

Please excuse my curiosity, you do seem to have commendable tolerance despite your views, I wonder, how far does that tolerance extend?

Would you tollerate two gays kissing in public?

How about if they happened to be outside your Church?

Am I the only Christian that is stuck in the middle here? I'm neither an aetheist or a fundamentalist who thinks every little thing is immoral or a sin.

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one here who isn't one or the other. I have a strong faith in God and I attend church, but I agree with gay civil unions, I believe that we shouldn't stop pornography or anything like that. I am however, pro-life though I really don't care about Roe Vs. Wade or anything like that.

Why is it that when someone hears you're a Christian, they automatically assume you're a racist, gay hating, bible thumping TV evangelist?

Why is it that when some Christian hears that you don't mind gay civil unions or porn, they think you're some sort of agnostic or aetheist?

I'm stuck in the middle here, and want to know if I'm the only one, and if not if anyone else is pissed at being cornered?

Generalizations are rarely completely true. I'm atheist and I have nothing against people who believe in god, I don't hold their views against them. Many atheists and christians I know don't really care about people's religions they just want to be left alone about their convictions. Then again I know people on both sides who are quite cruel to people unlike themselves. So I see your aggravation and understand it, but it's part of life. No matter what you do you'll get bothered about it. Best move on to more pressing matters.

There's a difference between "sin" and "evil upon society"

Most Fundamentalists would disagree with that statement, in my experience.


You can very well view homosexuality as sin (I wouldn't, but that's just my opinion) but not as an evil upon society. In which case you yuorself would find it wrong and wouldn't do it, but you wouldn't go around blaming other for doing it. Simple. That's called tolerance.

Again, that's not the view I see espoused by the majority of Fundamentalists.

Most Fundamentalists would disagree with that statement, in my experience.



Again, that's not the view I see espoused by the majority of Fundamentalists.

So, you are grouping people together without ever listening to their opinion? Interesting...

You know, I came across a large number of people, inside and outside churches. The only thing they ALL had in common was that no two of them ever agreed completely on all things.
I'm a Catholic critisising the church for being too conservative, for excluding others, for trying to force a certain structure to faith. I know of Catholics who critisise the church for being too tolerant, too lenient, too multi-faced. Yet, we are both Catholics.
Who's to say that fundamentalists of other Christian confessions cannot differ in the same way?

Who's to say that fundamentalists of other Christian confessions cannot differ in the same way?

I didn't say that fundamentalism didn't contain diversity, I was talking about the majority.

And there is a noticable majority.

I just remembered the lyrics from a Styx song that fits here....


It's from the song Borrowed Time.

"I'm so confused by the things I read.
I need the truth, but the truth is I dont know who to believe.
The left says yes and the right says no.
I'm in between and the more I learn, well the less that I know."

Have I said I disapprove of your lifestyle?

No, I suppose I should remember the old adage about assuming.

Does a follower of the far right have a right to his opinion? Does he have a right to publically espouse them?

Everybody has a right to their opinion. That’s freedom of speech.

Also I think you're playing semantics, if I were to say you believe that being gay is an evil (sin) upon your secular society (Fundamentalist Christianity), I would be correct, at least according to what you've told me?

Being gay is one’s own sin. It has no effect on society.

Would you tollerate two gays kissing in public?

I don’t see why not. I have witnessed heterosexual couples kiss in locations that I consider inappropriate, but have said nothing.

How about if they happened to be outside your Church?

I believe that people should have the right to allow or disallow whatever they want on their private property, within the constraints of the law. If the church that owns the property allows it, then I would tolerate it. If the church that owns the property doesn’t allow it, then the couple should be informed of this. If they persist, the owners should have the right to remove them from their property.

I didn't say that fundamentalism didn't contain diversity, I was talking about the majority.

And there is a noticable majority.

I doubt that. You may perceive them as a majority, though, as the more strict and intolerant people get about their views, the louder and the more frequently they will "discuss" them. Moderates tend to state their view and maybe get into a rational discussion within limits, but they won't ever be as single-mindedly determined about them...

Undelia, I wish more people were like you :)

I doubt that. You may perceive them as a majority, though, as the more strict and intolerant people get about their views, the louder and the more frequently they will "discuss" them.
I disagree, regretfully I think that's wishfull thinking.

Moderates tend to state their view and maybe get into a rational discussion within limits, but they won't ever be as single-mindedly determined about them...

Quite right... and that's why the extremists are the quickest growing faith groups across the world.

That's only til a true moderate political party comes along....

Am I the only Christian that is stuck in the middle here? I'm neither an aetheist or a fundamentalist who thinks every little thing is immoral or a sin.

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one here who isn't one or the other. I have a strong faith in God and I attend church, but I agree with gay civil unions, I believe that we shouldn't stop pornography or anything like that. I am however, pro-life though I really don't care about Roe Vs. Wade or anything like that.

Why is it that when someone hears you're a Christian, they automatically assume you're a racist, gay hating, bible thumping TV evangelist?

Why is it that when some Christian hears that you don't mind gay civil unions or porn, they think you're some sort of agnostic or aetheist?

I'm stuck in the middle here, and want to know if I'm the only one, and if not if anyone else is pissed at being cornered?

As an atheist, I salute you for though I do nort share your religious beliefs, I concur with your sentiments and respect your faith.

I disagree, regretfully I think that's wishfull thinking.


Quite right... and that's why the extremists are the quickest growing faith groups across the world.

Shall we put that to the test? ;)
Let's see what other NSers think...

As an atheist, I salute you for though I do nort share your religious beliefs, I concur with your sentiments and respect your faith.

Thanks. I have no problem with aetheists either. Though some do try too hard to convert me. I'm firmly in my faith. The way I see it, if there's a heaven, then I was right, and if I just die, well then what's wrong with that. I was just wrong. No harm done.

My whole philosophy is to not push my philosophies on others, except to push them to adopt kids, as there are too many on the streets of course.

Pro-adoption? That's a philosophy few think about.

Pro-adoption? That's a philosophy few think about.

I have two adopted brothers and I have to say, it's only for certain families, some just wouldn't cope with the situation.

Shall we put that to the test? ;)
Let's see what other NSers think...

My first assertion is opinion and was stated as such.

However it is a fact that fundamentalists (Of all flavours) are the fastest growing faith groups in the world today.

I am unsure as to whether this has always been the case.

I have two adopted brothers and I have to say, it's only for certain families, some just wouldn't cope with the situation.

Agreed. Adoption isn't for everyone, but there's so many in the US waiting to adopt, yet they have to go through years of red tape. It's just not fair to them or the kids that need to be adopted. Have you heard what the street kid numbers are for Moscow lately?

I have two adopted brothers and I have to say, it's only for certain families, some just wouldn't cope with the situation.

Very true... but my opinion has always been that if you want to care for a child, care for one of those already there first. Absolutely wanting a child of your own is too egoistic for my taste...

There's a difference between "sin" and "evil upon society"
This is a pretty simple concept, I dunno why Chaos was having so much trouble with it. If you're a Jew, you're not supposed to eat pork, but I doubt his mind is blown by the fact that they don't want to outlaw bacon.

That's only til a true moderate political party comes along....
We already have one, they're called the Democrats. Someone freeze me and wake me up when there's a liberal party again...

Agreed. Adoption isn't for everyone, but there's so many in the US waiting to adopt, yet they have to go through years of red tape. It's just not fair to them or the kids that need to be adopted. Have you heard what the street kid numbers are for Moscow lately?

I prefer a certain amount of red tape to weed out the oddballs and the unsuitables. I think adoption is easier here in the UK though?

My first assertion is opinion and was stated as such.

However it is a fact that fundamentalists (Of all flavours) are the fastest growing faith groups in the world today.

I am unsure as to whether this has always been the case.

That's difficult to tell, really. I do believe that fundamentalists are growing faster today than, say, 20 years ago. But I have my doubts if they really are the fastest growing faith groups. Can you back that up in any way?

This is a pretty simple concept, I dunno why Chaos was having so much trouble with it. If you're a Jew, you're not supposed to eat pork, but I doubt his mind is blown by the fact that they don't want to outlaw bacon.

I was asking for philosophical justification, is there something wrong with that?

And aren't you using the example of Jews rather hastily?

If I recall correctly the idea of proslytizing is anathema to Judaism, unlike Christians who are specifically charged with spreading the worship of God. Thus is your analogy still apt?

I was asking for philosophical justification, is there something wrong with that?

And aren't you using the example of Jews rather hastily?

If I recall correctly the idea of proslytizing is anathema to Judaism, unlike Christians who are specifically charged with spreading the worship of God. Thus is your analogy still apt?

If I remember correctly, nowhere in the christian bible is there an order to change profane laws to fit the laws of faith. However, there is a very clear statement to keep out of politics and to keep faith and government seperate...

I was asking for philosophical justification, is there something wrong with that?
You were asking in a very condescending manner, even after he explained himself pretty clearly. You just looked anxious to lump him in with the sort of person he said he wasn't.

And aren't you using the example of Jews rather hastily?
No.

If I recall correctly the idea of proslytizing is anathema to Judaism, unlike Christians who are specifically charged with spreading the worship of God. Thus is your analogy still apt?
Yes, because I actually read the words the guy wrote.

You were asking in a very condescending manner, even after he explained himself pretty clearly. You just looked anxious to lump him in with the sort of person he said he wasn't.

I agree.



No.

Yes.


Yes, because I actually read the words the guy wrote.
Can you elaborate?

I prefer a certain amount of red tape to weed out the oddballs and the unsuitables. I think adoption is easier here in the UK though?

A certain amount, yes. But how long does it take to visit a home, make sure they are financially stable, look through a person's criminal records, and find a kid for em?

My apartment complex did a background check and checked that my parents were financially stable within a day.

Can you elaborate?
I can, but there's no need to.

I'll just make the point that if you want to look down your nose at extremists, you shouldn't be one yourself.

I'm an atheist and I found your posts insulting.

I can, but there's no need to.

I'll just make the point that if you want to look down your nose at extremists, you shouldn't be one yourself.

I think you're reading connotations into my writing that I did not intend, please elaborate on your thoughts and I shall attempt to justify or explain what I said.

Merely deeming me as unworthy of an explanation is very... condescending.

I'm an atheist and I found your posts insulting.

Uh huh, like I asked, elaborate on why please.

Sorry but with those views I'd label you as far along the road to fundamentalism.

Just because you don't want to impose your views doesn't make you different to them, since you basically seem to believe all the same things as most of the religious far right. Actually, fundamentalists generally don't get the fundamentals of Christianity at all - the name came from the "monkey trials".

I don't try and impose Christianity on other people, neither do I condemn them - however, I do have certain strong views which I am unwilling to compromise on. Religious Left Fundamentalism if you like. ;)

I can't believe you need further clarification...

OK, I'm just going to say what you already know, because it just happened a few minutes ago, but since you asked...

The guy said he held specific beliefs, but didn't think the laws should be altered to match them.

You "chuckled loudly" at this and said "big woop" to his beliefs, when all along it was you who didn't understand (or at least process) what he was saying, because you were busily doing the same thing you were accusing him of doing.

I find all legislation for the purpose of morality to be detestable. People should be allowed to live their lives in the way they see fit. My country’s refusal to allow gay marriage is disgusting, and the reasons given are inadequate to justify limiting liberty. I'm inclined to agree with you… however, I don't agree if lives are involved. If something has a very real infringement on other peoples' lives/life, then that's a different matter - like murder, for instance.

I can't believe you need further clarification...

OK, I'm just going to say what you already know, because it just happened a few minutes ago, but since you asked...

The guy said he held specific beliefs, but didn't think the laws should be altered to match them.

You "chuckled loudly" at this and said "big woop" to his beliefs, when all along it was you who didn't understand (or at least process) what he was saying, because you were busily doing the same thing you were accusing him of doing.

Finally!

Now I get what you're upset about.

Now read what I said again please, because after the intentionally confrontational opener comes my opinion, that one's classification of oneself as not fundamentalist simply because one believes the tenets of fundamentalism but does not act upon them is moral hipocracy.

I believe that it is firstly a person's opinions and not primarily their actions which define them.

A communist can still believe in the tenets of communism even if he lives in a capitalist society, surely his living and working in a capitalist society doesn't change the fact that he'd be happier in comerade-land.

Replace communist with any term you like, including Fundamentalist Christian, and I think that maxim holds true as part of a social disorder which I believe many suffer from.

Undelia (or 'The guy' if you prefer) later justified his position and I ended up agreeing with some aspects of his views.

Now you accuse me of being an extremist... makes me wonder really.

Before I continue, I state that I am not religious, especially not Christian. I coild be described as a Nihilist, I suppose.

I don't mind fanatics. I don't mind extremists. They simply stand for what they are, whether Christians, Muslims, Jews, Socialists, Fascists, etc. They take their writings and religious codexes seriously without interference from other beliefs. And they are very few, whic is even better. The moderate/liberal Christians, Muslims, etc. not only take a hypocritical stance in this ("Yes, the bible goes against homosexuality but...[hypocrisy]") but they are many and tend to support the fanatics (Tom DeLay, Ayatollah Khomeini, Pat Robertson etc). If all these half-believers actually had the choice to become fanatics or reject the faith completely I would respect it.

Before I continue, I state that I am not religious, especially not Christian. I coild be described as a Nihilist, I suppose.

I don't mind fanatics. I don't mind extremists. They simply stand for what they are, whether Christians, Muslims, Jews, Socialists, Fascists, etc. They take their writings and religious codexes seriously without interference from other beliefs. And they are very few, whic is even better. The moderate/liberal Christians, Muslims, etc. not only take a hypocritical stance in this ("Yes, the bible goes against homosexuality but...[hypocrisy]") but they are many and tend to support the fanatics (Tom DeLay, Ayatollah Khomeini, Pat Robertson etc). If all these half-believers actually had the choice to become fanatics or reject the faith completely I would respect it. Don't forget that following your religion totally is not the same as the bigotry, intolerance and judgementalism often associated with extremists.

I'm inclined to agree with you… however, I don't agree if lives are involved. If something has a very real infringement on other peoples' lives/life, then that's a different matter - like murder, for instance.
Exactly detestability for me is not a valid reason to make it illegal … only when others rights are infringed by allowing someone to continue with an action should we start restricting their freedoms

Before I continue, I state that I am not religious, especially not Christian. I coild be described as a Nihilist, I suppose.

I don't mind fanatics. I don't mind extremists. They simply stand for what they are, whether Christians, Muslims, Jews, Socialists, Fascists, etc. They take their writings and religious codexes seriously without interference from other beliefs. And they are very few, whic is even better. The moderate/liberal Christians, Muslims, etc. not only take a hypocritical stance in this ("Yes, the bible goes against homosexuality but...[hypocrisy]") but they are many and tend to support the fanatics (Tom DeLay, Ayatollah Khomeini, Pat Robertson etc). If all these half-believers actually had the choice to become fanatics or reject the faith completely I would respect it.

One in every crowd.

Now read what I said again please, because after the intentionally confrontational opener comes my opinion, that one's classification of oneself as not fundamentalist simply because one believes the tenets of fundamentalism but does not act upon them is moral hipocracy.
You're the one who isn't reading. He explicited stated that he was a fundamentalist.

And your confrontational manner continued as you accused him of "playing semantics", among other things. Again, you accuse him of the very same thing you're doing.

Now you accuse me of being an extremist... makes me wonder really.
I doubt you're really wondering about anything. You're clearly just trolling for a fight and I bit. My fault, really, for assuming you were actually interested in the topic you were discussing. If you want to continue along these lines, you can telegram me.

Getting back to the main point...do you still find it difficult to imagine that a person can have a set of beliefs which they also believe does not require legislation?

You're the one who isn't reading. He explicited stated that he was a fundamentalist.


And in general it is mainstream Fundamentalist dogma to say that being Gay is a sin against both God and the Community. Undelia later clarified his opinion to say that he doesn't hold this view as correct, I thought he was playing semantics when in fact he had not fully explained himself to me.


Again, you accuse him of the very same thing you're doing.

Fight fire with fire?


I doubt you're really wondering about anything. You're clearly just trolling for a fight and I bit. My fault, really, for assuming you were actually interested in the topic you were discussing. If you want to continue along these lines, you can telegram me.

Please quit with the repeated insults they're not going to help the debate. I used a single mild insult for a semi-comedic effect wheras you have consistantly belittled my intelligence, my intent and my honesty in every one of the five posts you've made on this board.


Getting back to the main point...do you still find it difficult to imagine that a person can have a set of beliefs which they also believe does not require legislation?

If their belief is, like the mainstream Fundamentalist strictures, that God's law should be man's law, then it is either moral hypocracy or disengenous self-labelling to proclaim oneself as a Fundamentalist and yet not agree with carrying out Fundamentalist aims.

Once again I restate for your benefit, since Undelia clarified his position as regards the majority view amongst Fundamentalists that Gay Marriage should be legislated against, I don't have a problem with his views and in fact applaud his seemingly enlightened stance as regards what can be a tricky moral dilemma.

Seriously, do I have to keep repeating myself too?

However it is a fact that fundamentalists (Of all flavours) are the fastest growing faith groups in the world today. I am unsure as to whether this has always been the case.

Although I don't actually think that your statement is entirely true, I would like to venture a possible reason:

Over the past 50 years or so the world has become a very complex place. Nowadays political and economic decisions taken in one country are felt all over the world. At the same time the individual person has become enfeebled - his power to affect his own life/circumstances are in fact very low. Instead of two blocks (the good ones and the evil communists) there are suddenly lots of blocks and individual countries that somehow don't fit into a simple "Good/Bad" scheme. All in all, suddenly there's not white and balck anymore, but only shades of grey.

People dont like shades of grey. Most people can't handle shades. They want clear cut answers, rules and guidelines that tell them what is right and wrong. Something that relieves them of making their own decisions based on information that is at the same time overtaxing, not conclusive and threatening.

People are afraid. They fear what they don't know or understand. They feel threatened by ways of life differing from their own. They want to hear that what they believe in is right and that there are answers to these threats.

If you find yourself in a world of grey, full of doubts and have to make all your decisions yourself, after trying to evaluate the situation as well as possible, you have to be quite strong, because there's no excuse for anything, you have to control your own life. If you decide to follow rules to the letter, the weight of responsibility is lifted from you. You fit in, your world makes sense and your foes are clearly defined.

Since most secular societies don't provide such strict rules anymore, people have to turn to religion as their guidelines. And even then only fundamentalism ensures really strict rules.

Thus the rise of fundamentalism.

Undelia later clarified his opinion to say that he doesn't hold this view as correct, I thought he was playing semantics when in fact he had not fully explained himself to me.
He didn't clarify it "later", he said it in his very first post. My objection to your entire line of posts was that you refused to take him at his word and decided to put words in his mouth and then argue with yourself.

I used a single mild insult...
I suggest you re-read your posts in this thread.

He didn't clarify it "later", he said it in his very first post. My objection to your entire line of posts was that you refused to take him at his word and decided to put words in his mouth and then argue with yourself.
I suggest you re-read your posts in this thread.

You are deliberately misreading me now, I've said that I misunderstood Undelia at first due to his atypical use of the word Fundamentalist and if fact later came to agree with him in part, yet you repeatedly insist that I deliberately set out to have a fight with him. I fear it is not me who is spoiling for a fight.

I'm not going to re-read my posts, as I've stated, if you have specifc complaints with my debating style then please raise them, instead of (again repeatedly and without diversion) vague insults.

Yes, I came in here with a confrontational debating style, but mine had a purpose beyond mere spoiling for a fight.

I have yet to see you add anything constructive (Rather than deconstructive) to this debate...

Although I don't actually think that your statement is entirely true, I would like to venture a possible reason:

Over the past 50 years or so the world has become a very complex place. Nowadays political and economic decisions taken in one country are felt all over the world. At the same time the individual person has become enfeebled - his power to affect his own life/circumstances are in fact very low. Instead of two blocks (the good ones and the evil communists) there are suddenly lots of blocks and individual countries that somehow don't fit into a simple "Good/Bad" scheme. All in all, suddenly there's not white and balck anymore, but only shades of grey.

People dont like shades of grey. Most people can't handle shades. They want clear cut answers, rules and guidelines that tell them what is right and wrong. Something that relieves them of making their own decisions based on information that is at the same time overtaxing, not conclusive and threatening.

People are afraid. They fear what they don't know or understand. They feel threatened by ways of life differing from their own. They want to hear that what they believe in is right and that there are answers to these threats.

If you find yourself in a world of grey, full of doubts and have to make all your decisions yourself, after trying to evaluate the situation as well as possible, you have to be quite strong, because there's no excuse for anything, you have to control your own life. If you decide to follow rules to the letter, the weight of responsibility is lifted from you. You fit in, your world makes sense and your foes are clearly defined.

Since most secular societies don't provide such strict rules anymore, people have to turn to religion as their guidelines. And even then only fundamentalism ensures really strict rules.

Thus the rise of fundamentalism.


*applauds