Monday, 30 January 2012
-
I Don't Understand: Words Christians Use
"When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative."
-- Martin Luther KingI'm in disagreement with most of my peers. Before I get misquoted, I don't hate any of them, or think poorly of them. One can still disagree, and yet be respectful. In honest dialogue with some of them -- especially concerning issues of life, faith and morality -- I was given much advice. However, some of this advice is littered with words I think don't really mean anything without qualifiers. So here are some words I usually find difficult to understand without clarification.
"Fundamentalist"
I consider myself a Christian fundamentalist, but not in the sense that the press and my friends would understand. In fact, if being fundamentalist mean sticking to the basic principles of Christian belief, then I am. By this definition, I would go further and even argue I am more fundamental than the "fundamentalists" touted in the mass media. After all, I believe in going back to Scripture to live my life.
If one requires more examples of why I am fundamentalist -- but not really -- let me demonstrate:
I believe in biblical inerrancy, and I accept evolutionary theory.
I am a huge fan of the Protestant Reformation, and I look forward to working with the Roman Catholic Church; the only issue I have with their theology is their issue of justification.
"Open-minded"
Another issue I have is the issue is the word "Open-minded". Most of the time it is used to portray one speaker as more enlightened or educated then the other. But of course you have to be closed-minded in some stuff to be open-minded in others. For instance, I am closed-minded about biblical inerrancy, and therefore I am open-minded about miracles that happen today. However, some of my skeptic friends are closed-minded about even the possibility miracles -- for no other odd reason other that they cannot happen -- and therefore closed-minded about the possibility of Christianity.
I suppose one can accuse me of word games, but I disagree. After all, some people would argue for lack of convictions, but in my experience, those who often claim to be "open-minded" tend to be the most intolerant of people with convictions. As the English poet GK Chesterton remarked,
"The people who are the most bigoted are the people who have no convictions at all."
What words have people labelled you with that you agree with in a different way than was intended? What words do Christians use that you find confusing? Can you shed light on words that might be confusing to others outside of the Christian community?
RecommendRelated Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: defensedefumer@xanga
- Name: Liang Reuben
- Location: Singapore
- About Me: Welcome to defensedefumer's Xanga site, feel free to post any comments! But no swearing please!
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 10 Views: 0 11358 Comments: 0 114 View all posts by defensedefumer@xanga
Comments (32)
strangely enough, the most open minded people I've ever met are believers (in some form or another) and the most close minded - hardcore atheists.
In order to be open minded, there is no room for anything to stay in there. No one is truly open minded, the way that those who use closed minded as a cut down mean it. What they *really* mean is open to them stomping all over the things I hold sacred, and telling me how stupid I am, while at the same time being completely closed minded to any and all reasoning that led me to my POV. Ina word, hypocrites.
Open-mindedness is one of those things that no one will ever agree on the dfinition of because everyone likes to think that they are more open-minded than the people around them.
I agree with Nushirox2, open-mindnedness means something different depending on who you talk to. I used to go to a Lutheran university and there was this guy I knew that drove me crazy because I found him to be "close-minded." He refused to even try and understand people who weren't like him and had all his ways of the world set straight. Nothing could change him. I labeled him as "closed-minded," but was I actually the closed-minded one for refusing to deal with him? Who knows? They're such broad terms; some people think open-mindedness deals with being incredibly cultured, others see it as being accepting towards all kinds of people...it's a mess lol.
Yeah, I don't like the fact that fundamentalist has become a bad word that has little do with its meaning. As for open-minded, if someone pulls it out during an argument, all they're saying is that you believe yourself to be correct, which is a no-brainer if you're arguing for your position. They're equally closed-minded, since they believe themselves to be correct enough to argue against what you believe. Calling someone closed-minded is like saying all women are sexist. It's hypocritical, ironically self-referential. Besides, being open to wrong answers is stupid if you already know what's right.
I've always thought the word Sabbath is weird, but that's a whole different matter.Allow me to clarify the connotative meaning of the terms in question, given the context of a typical discussion about life, faith, and morality.
Fundamentalist = One who disagrees with me and is not easily swayed.
Open-minded = One who agrees with me and/or one who is easily swayed.
Cynicism aside...
Personally, I'd rather deal with folks who have critical thinking skills, problem-solving skills, and research skills than someone who is "open-minded" and accepts too many beliefs into their worldview with minimal examination or a "fundamentalist" and can't accept that some of their basic beliefs about the world are incorrect even when the evidence smacks them upside the head.
"After all, some people would argue for lack of convictions, but in my experience, those who often claim to be "open-minded" tend to be the most intolerant of people with convictions."
it's not that we're intolerant. we just cannot understand your motivations. for me, the definition of closed-mindedness is if you cannot accept the fact that you might be wrong about whatever it is you believe. very few Christians, IMHO, are willing to embrace the reality that they have faith in, not complete knowledge of, God.
and, frankly, i think that most Christians' definition of acceptance is total and utter agreement.
@grammarboy@xanga -
"They're equally closed-minded, since they believe themselves to be correct enough to argue against what you believe. "
arguing against something doesn't automatically mean you have an idea of what the right answer might be. i argue against Christianity's absolutist claims all day long, and i'm still agnostic.
"Besides, being open to wrong answers is stupid if you already know what's right."
and that's why you're closed-minded: you can't prove you do know what's right. all you have is your beliefs, which aren't inherently any better than anyone else's. there's no reason to believe that yours are more correct, other than ego and a desire to simply not be wrong. oh, and the circular logic of "the Bible is right because it says it is."
EDIT: sorry, hit tab+enter on accident...
also, your particular statement leaves little room for doubt to exist, which is difficult for people like me who are naturally skeptical of anything and everything. i don't believe anyone IS capable of knowing everything, in religion or otherwise, and that there must always be room to accept new information.
after all, if all the Jews had had your mentality of never being open to what is deemed wrong, Christianity wouldn't exist :)
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - Actually, that's incorrect; Christianity is an extension of Judaism because the Jews have always known that a messiah was coming and quite a bit about where and how. Those who refuse to accept Christ reject not new information but what they already know and accept.
The Bible isn't right because the Bible says so; that would be a useless tautology. Worse yet, such a claim would be a lie, since the Bible is a collective work and thus can't be self-referential as a whole. It's simply right because God says so.My beliefs are, in fact, inherently better than many others because they're founded in truth. In the same way, believing in a heliocentric model of our solar system is inherently better than believing in a geocentric model because the former is founded in truth. It doesn't matter who says it because the facts stand on their own merits. Absolute belief in the heliocentric model makes you closed-minded but rightfully so. My ego has nothing to do with anything because I'm not infallible, and I'd rather believe in something true than something convenient.I'm naturally skeptical, too, but that doesn't keep me from believing the truth when I find it. I assume that your intent in being a skeptic is to winnow out the lies, not to deny all knowledge. I don't know anywhere close to everything, and neither does anyone else, but we can definitely know enough to live by.As for proof that what I know is right, I have plenty. I know that what I know is right. It's not just a guess and not just faith. I can't prove it to you, but that doesn't make it any less true. It's something you have to experience for yourself, a quale. Faith is the place to start, but God doesn't just leave you hanging.The difficulty for you is that the scientific method is the wrong approach in this case. Testing God as a hypothesis is most certainly not tantamount to faith, so you won't get much out of it. You have to start with the conclusion, accept God axiomatically, and not just as fact but as your Lord. At that point, it's all very clear, but you can't know much without plunging blindly into the void.Now, obviously, if it were as simple as that, no one would ever have had any reason to start having faith in the first place. There are a lot of ways that God impacts our lives, even apart from faith, but without the proper context or relationship, all you're likely to get are maybes and feelings. For someone who will doubt all of those that come along, it's hard to get started. Why risk everything on a gamble, eh?As a side note, your systematic disbelief is paradoxical. You're an absolutist in that you believe absolutely that people who have absolutist beliefs are wrong. In which case, you must believe that you are wrong to disbelieve? There, now you've talked yourself into faith. That was easier than I thought. :P
Stupid Google Chrome. Look at that ugly block of text ^^. Anywhere that there's no space between a period and the start of the next sentence, there's supposed to be a paragraph break.
Fundamentalist and open-minded are words used outside the faith to describe Christians not the other way around. You have to understand where these terms were first used to begin with in the people vocabulary.
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - very few Christians, IMHO, are willing to embrace the reality that they have faith in, not complete knowledge of, God.
and, frankly, i think that most Christians' definition of acceptance is total and utter agreement.
Since God is infinite it is impossible to have complete knowledge of him. Thus the need for faith.
Consequently, Christian faith is totally reasonable. Only a completely deluded ego-maniac would claim to have complete knowledge of the infinite Creator.
And what you say is "Christians' definition of acceptance is total and utter agreement" is your own definition, not anything having to do with Christianity.
A sign of open-mindedness is learning what we do not know, not applying our own personal definitions to what we do not know and then judging those things according to our definitions.
Such is cyclone force circular thinking.
The problem is the ever evolving meaning of words.
Think of the word "gay". Now think of the word "gay" circa 1963. Same for the word "queer".
Or how about the word "coon". Used to be short for "racoon", a small furry mammal. Or "cracker". Used to mean something you ate with chili, now a racial slur used against whites.
Go read 1984. Newspeak. What you read about in 1984 is happening right now in the United States. Look around you. Open your eyes.
And today's "intellectuals" sit around and argue over the meaning of "fundamentalism" and "open-minded"....sheesh...
@grammarboy@xanga -
"Actually, that's incorrect; Christianity is an extension of Judaism because the Jews have always known that a messiah was coming and quite a bit about where and how."
true. but Jesus didn't fit the standard profile of a messiah for one main reason: in 1st century Judaism, "messiah" was a political term used to describe the individual who would secure for the Jews their own kingdom. that's why Cyrus of Persia, after allowing the Jews in captivity to return home, was hailed as a messiah as well.
Jesus, obviously, had very little interest in politics or overthrowing Roman control of Judea.
and then you have documents like the Dead Sea Scrolls, which speak of not just one messiah, but four (two kingly, two priestly). so clearly, the original definition of messiah is not as simple as Christians would have it.
"It's simply right because God says so."
and what references do you have for God's opinion, apart from the Bible?
"It doesn't matter who says it because the facts stand on their own merits.""At that point, it's all very clear, but you can't know much without plunging blindly into the void."
you seem to contradict yourself here. if the facts can really stand on their own, there is no need to be "plunging blindly into the void" to find them.
" I assume that your intent in being a skeptic is to winnow out the lies, not to deny all knowledge. "
i don't have an intent. i simply am. my experience so far with religion is that it is more hassle than it's worth. why adhere to a belief that answers none of my questions, and instead only leaves me with more questions? that certainly isn't any form of truth.
besides, God isn't going to show up and live my life for me. so i'd rather focus on my existence than His.
" I can't prove it to you, but that doesn't make it any less true. "
and that's the argument that just about every religion has. so, again, as an outsider: why should i choose Christianity over Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, or even nothing at all?
"It's something you have to experience for yourself, a quale.""You have to start with the conclusion, accept God axiomatically, and not just as fact but as your Lord."
then it's not truth that can stand on its own, if you already have to accept it as truth in order to learn whether or not you're right (that is what it seems like you're arguing, BTW).
i was quite the hardcore Christian as a child for many years, until i realized that my life wasn't any better for it. so i have already taken your advice: i embraced God as Lord... i plunged, and waited... and nothing happened. as you put it, God did leave me hanging. but if He doesn't do that, then the only explanation is that He doesn't exist.
does that make my "truth" more accurate than yours, since as you said, the truth about God is something i have to experience for myself?
" You're an absolutist in that you believe absolutely that people who have absolutist beliefs are wrong."
hardly. Jesus himself said the top two commandments were to love God, and love everyone else. neither of those mean i have to embrace belief in God and declare all other belief systems lies. God apparently loves all human beings, whether or not they're Christian. i don't see why a non-Christian cannot love God in return. and it's pretty easy to love everyone else, assuming you aren't some horribly bitter person.
and i don't think that absolutist belief is central to Christianity, or any other religion that has it. there's nothing in the statement, "Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who died for our sins" that claims absolutism. you can still be right about your beliefs, without being right that your beliefs are the ONLY viable beliefs out there. and i would assume that, as a Christian, you wouldn't suddenly turn your back on God because He isn't nearly as absolutist as you.
@grammarboy@xanga - yeah i use the same browser. it sucks.
i would like to add to the discussion, though, that i have started pondering Orthodox Christianity, since they don't adhere to any doctrine of original sin (a huge deal breaker for me in terms of being any type of Christian). and there's also a unity church in town that looks interesting.
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - What does doctrine have to do with anything? I'm talking about having a relationship with Christ, not professing some list of beliefs. We're bound to be mistaken on those things in one way or another anyway. Also, I can't see why the idea of original sin would be relevant to anything. What about it bothers you?
While being intentionally close-minded on certain things may seem like a form of spiritual strength, it also implies a faith in human wisdom. Put yourself in the shoes of the Pharisees and forget (for a moment) that they were the bad guys. They were considered the ultimate authorities on spiritual law. They believed in God, they knew the old law, they knew how to interpret and teach it, and they were so confident in their own understanding that they closed their minds to any doctrine that fell outside their understanding. They weren't -always- wrong, but the Bible puts an emphasis on the times they -were- wrong.
There is absolutely no reason why any of us cannot be a Pharisee in that way. Many of us grow up in a Christian lifestyle, go to church regularly, read the Bible regularly, etc... but when it all comes down to it, we're receiving our teaching through human sources that have done their best at reading and interpreting the books of the Bible and applying them to our time. What modern protestant Christians believe today is vastly different from the beliefs that were held when the different books of the Bible were written.
Even the canon of the Bible has evolved over time, with human beings trying to decide what books should be in or out of it (which is why different Christian groups have different Bibles). The Bible has also been translated a hundred different ways (you'll find over 40 verses that have been completely omitted from the NIV and other versions that you will find in the KJV), but yet a lot of people treat their old leather-bound NIV (or KJV or whatever version) as if it were the pristine copy of the original scriptures, and we then base modern Christian teachings on these translated versions.
I don't expect to convince anyone of the errancy vs. inerrancy of the Bible (and in my own way, I believe in the inerrancy of the original Scriptures in their messages), but it's just an example of how being close-minded about a topic may accidentally shut you off from a deeper understanding of it.
Sadly, almost everything we experience about our faith will be second-hand, and the story of Adam tells us that even the most perfect human being can be deceived into confidence in his own limited wisdom. We should never be that confident - the smallest of mistakes with our own understanding can have far-reaching consequences.
We're given simple commandments to put God first and foremost in everything. If our heart is following God, then the natural result of that will be fruitful. When we start believing that any human (even your favorite pastor, or even 10,000 pastors all saying the same thing) is incapable of error, they start competing with God. God doesn't explain the world to us, and as such, we will all be wrong in some things, and being wrong is not a problem. It's good to learn about our faith so we can figure out ways to please God more, but never be close-minded to anything outside of that highest of commandments.
The close-minded people are the ones who believe that despite what their own Bible (translated and all) might say, they have enough wisdom to be someone else's judge. This also includes atheists who ridicule anyone who follows a religion. I have friends who are atheists and they are very nice people, but they will quickly ridicule Christians and other groups for their beliefs. Don't be like these people. Stay open to everything and keep your eyes on God.
When I think of the word Fundamentalist it brings to mind a 10 yrs span of my life that I hated with a passion and Praise the Lord I'm out of!
Fully loaded with overly zealous, Calvinistic Extremists who take great joy in sending everyone to He!! that don't believe the way they do. If you weren't a Born Again, Baptized by Immersion, KJV ONLY, "Stepford Wife" and crying every week over some sin that you were in serious battle over then - you must be Backslid and doomed to the church gossip er...prayer list for eternity!
It's no wonder there are so many unbelievers!
One thing I have learned about "Words" Everybody has some and everyone has their own theology.
Grammarboy has it correct. It's about a relationship- a personal one with the Lord. Everything else is just a bunch of Words!
I like to consider myself open minded. I am a pagan/wiccan based atheist (very spiritual.) 90% of my friends/family are Christian and you know what? I support them. In fact, one of my friend's family converted to Christianity and I was there helping them on their journey.
The main word that greatly confuses me in the Christian community is peace. Peace, to me, is tranquility with the only evil being those that are absolutely necessary (for food, protection from being food, and naturally occurring death.) But Christians protest...they tell gays that they don't deserve to live and believe we need to have a war on _____. I don't understand. Don't get me wrong, I do believe there are some evils that are natural (a cat abandons her litter because she cannot care for them/seahorse aborts his offspring for whatever reason) but I don't believe evils should be enforced based on what someone believes. Penguins for example, are peaceful. There are straight and gay penguins and I'm sure every one of them has a different lifestyle or belief but you know what? They get along as a community anyway. A couple steal your egg? That sucks but at least your egg hasn't frozen over and died.
@Reality_Rules@twitter - Actually creationism and evolution can go hand in hand. To evolve you have to come from somewhere right? If we evolved from a monkey, where did the monkey come from? I believe in evolution but it has its holes too. If we came from a bunch of little tiny cells, where did they come from? I took a philosophy class and believe it or not, a LOT of people believe we evolved because God wanted/needed us to. A lot of people believe that plants and animals were put here as prototypes and then evolved into better beings.
@grammarboy@xanga -
Stupid Google Chrome. Look at that ugly block of text
I use Chrome also. If you hit the enter bar 3 times, you will have a space between paragraphs.
@KateeLee1@xanga - Glad to hear you got out of Calvinism.
It's about a relationship- a personal one with the Lord. Everything else is just a bunch of Words!
Amen, and bearing fruit. The thing is though that some people think they have a personal relationship, but live a life of disobedience and sin and bear no fruit in their life.
Open-minded, imo, means 'willing to think about and critically examine all ideas', not 'willing to believe all ideas.' If someone says they're open minded because they believe x, y, and z that's bullshit. Open mindedness isn't a competition over who can believe the most outrageous, least research supported claim, but instead should refer to one's willingness to consider an idea's plausibility.
Believing in ghosts, vampires, and the loch ness monster does not make a person more open minded than someone who only believes in ghosts, or someone who believes none of those things at all. In fact, it is entirely possible for someone to believe in ghosts and be very closed minded about alternative explanations to their personal experiences which they attribute to ghosts.
So open mindedness isn't about what you believe, it's about what you're willing to believe provided sufficient evidence (subjective to some degree) arises.
Anyone with any particular belief set can be closed or open minded about said beliefs. To say otherwise assumes that all people thinking logically and with an open mind should believe the same things, which I think we can all agree is simply not the case
Along those lines, I don't think not believing in biblical inerrancy in anyway means a person must be closed minded about miracles, or that a person who does not believe any miracles have occurred is necessarily closed minded about the idea of a miracle
@jenessa1889@xanga - Thanks for your feedback. I must clarify that I agree that open-minded does not mean believing everything, but willing to examine everything, as you said. But once we accept some form of reality, we already closed our mind to it (as Nietzche said).
For instance, in performing scientific observations of population genetics of mosses across Europe, I closed my mind to the scientific method.
Thanks for clarifying my views. Really appreciate it.
@defensedefumer@xanga - i disagree that accepting one view necessarily means closing your mind to another, as long as you're open to changing that view provided new evidence arises. Like I said, it's not what or that you believe, it's that there are conceivable circumstances under which you'd change it.
we cannot function in this world without choosing to accept some concept of reality, and if that means everyone is closed minded then closed-minded a meaningless word. if a word describes all conceivable people then calling someone that word tells me nothing about how that person is different from other people. your definition of closed minded has to exclude some people or it's meaningless.
I also really fail to see how observing population genetics is a rejection of the scientific method. Observation is the first step in the scientific method
@grammarboy@xanga -
"I'm talking about having a relationship with Christ, not professing some list of beliefs. "
well, if that's all there is to it, i'd be fine with Christianity. but i also don't believe you can have a genuine relationship with an invisible being. relationships are two-way streets. and i value physical presence in my relationships more than anything else.
"What about it bothers you?"
personally, i don't believe that person A should be held responsible for the actions of person B.