We are all aware of the dangers presented to the world by religious fundamentalism when taken to the extreme (its constantly on the nightly news). Closer to home, what do others think of the upsurge in Christianity within Australia through what some call "the happy clappers" (Pentecostals for example). Most view this religious fundamentalism as a benign, if not odd behaviour by those involved. My question is what does it stand for, and what are the dangers if any should it become widespread within our society.

A quote from Bobby Azarian, Ph.D., a US cognitive neuroscientist and science writer published on line in 'Psychology Today'.

"Not only does fundamentalism promote delusional thinking, it also discourages followers from exposing themselves to any different ideas, which acts to protect the delusions that are essential to the ideology."

Of course, Paul, you would not attend yourself to different ideas that challenge your position.

I'm not too sure about attending anything as robust
as the "happy clappers." I think that I'd feel rather
out of place - especially if it got too loud. However
I have to confess I love the rituals associated with
the Catholic church. Christmas is a special time
of the year. Too bad it doesn't continue all year
through. Silent Night can still bring a lump to my
throat. As can so many others.

The most fundamental religion is practised by the Climate Cult.

Dear Paul,

Yes the fascist tendencies of the Religious Right are a natural fit for the LNP.

We elected one of the to be PM. His distain and cruelty toward those impacted by Robodebt fit the mindset well.

While religious observance is falling in this country the nutters are having to go to greater lengths to retain influence. Which is why that are attempting to directly influence them from the inside.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-11-07/religious-right-roadmap-infiltrate-liberal-party/101611840

All religions can have people who go over the top.
The late Airey Neave (murdered by presumably Catholic IRA [although they could have been Protestant] wrote of his wartime experiences as a POW, that the voices singing “Stille Nacht” came clearly from the German Officers’ Mess as Jews were murdered in the adjoining labour camp.

Soldiers sang "Silent Night" during World War I.
German and British troops celebrating Christmas
together during a temporary cessation of WWI hostilities.
This became known as the "Christmas Truce of 1914."

"Of course, Paul, you would not attend yourself to different ideas that challenge your position." Of course I would Jose', a closed mind is as good as an empty mind. Always be prepared to listen and learn.

A little story, and it prompted this thread from me. The wife a practising Christian (Anglican) which I also have some association with her Church, not as a believer but as an agnostic who sees good within that particular church, and has involved himself in its "good works" and to share the load with the wife, she involves herself in everything. The wife has made many friends through her church, the other day she received a phone call from Jan, a friend who at one time was a regular at Church, now not to be seen, Jan wanted a catch up, so we joined her for a coffee at a local cafe. As our conversation unfolded Jan revealed she had joined a Pentecostal Church, she gave her reasons, and the reasons she had abandoned Anglicism. Then I realised this was more that a catch up, Jan was on a mission seeking converts, us. Jan prattled on for two hours about the wonders of her new church and the wrongs of mainstream Christianity. Jan lost me when she said she talks directly to God, and to my amazement she said God was talking back to her directly. Not in her mind as one would expect, but at night when her and God are alone together. She admitted she can't see God, but he is in the room having a conversation with her. Jan hopes that one day God will reveal himself to her, not just spiritually, he has already done that, but physically. Jan sees the wife as a good person, but because of my agnosticism, deep and meaningful prayer is required on her part for the redemption of my soul. Being as I am, I said since I don't pray I will hope that she obtains true happiness in life, whatever course she should follow.

All fundamentalism is bad or at least likely to be bad. Of the various types (eg Muslim fundamentalism, eco-fundamentalism, communism/fascism, Buddhist, Hindu) Christian fundamentalism is the least problematic.

For that reason it is the one that the anti-religious movement attacks most often. After all, attacking Muslim fundamentalism might result in a rather violent reply but one rarely runs that risk when having a go at the Christian variety.

Rather amusingly, over at the net-zero thread I pointed out that the usual suspects, while racing to defend the right of the clerics to speak out in ways they approve, would seek to shut down unapproved religious thought where-ever possible. Plus ça change....

Dear Paul,

«We are all aware of the dangers presented to the world by religious fundamentalism when taken to the extreme (its constantly on the nightly news).»

No, I am not aware of a danger to the world, nor of what you mean by "religious fundamentalism" (the title of this thread speaks of "Christian fundamentalism", not "religious fundamentalism"). I suppose I only listen to the daily news rather than that nightly news (unless you mean the kind of news that comes up at night from the depths of one's mind when lying in bed with the eyes closed).

I believe this world is yet to exist for billions of years to come and even once it no longer will, that is not a danger, just a period of rest as when night comes.

Being a little cheeky there Yuyutsu, if you can't comment on Christian fundamentalism as it presents in Australia that's fine. I think my opening post was to the point, and most on this forum, you being the exception, have an understanding of what the topic is about.

Dear Paul,

So long as you speak of Christian fundamentalism rather than misrepresent it as religious, then indeed there is not much for me to comment about: the only interaction I have with this group of people is when they congest the road near their church, moderately blocking the traffic - this is a nuisance but not a danger, and I could say the same about football goers.

Hi Yuyutsu,

I believe there is a darker side to Christian fundamentalism in Australia. I gave a quote from a US cognitive neuroscientist as to the dangers he seen with this restrictive form of thinking. I didn't want to tell Jan (our friend), that I believed her state of mind was being dangerously distorted by her involvement in fundamental religion.

Paul, did you feel unsafe in the presence of this woman of whom you encountered? Was this worthy of a news report? I do not support some theology of the Pentecostals, but I do not see them as threatening extremists. They have passion for their cause, which affects their values and behaviors. If they threaten violence, then they are not followers of Christ.

There is no "upsurge of Christianity" in Australia. Australia is in a post-Christian phase - anti-Christian in fact. Even those not anti, like Paul 1405 and the Left in general, are not interested. Have a look at the last Census.

If you want to make such wildly ludicrous claims about Christian fundamentalism in Australia or elsewhere, you really should have examples, names, and what damage is being done to society. We are seeing and experiencing the damage being done by the Pagan religion of climate hysteria. What harm are these supposedly fundamentalist Christians doing. I believe that this thread is merely an outlet for the increasing Christophobia of the poster and his few supporters - about 2 or 3.

ttbn,

I never said there was an " "upsurge of Christianity" per se, get it right, what I said was; "upsurge in Christianity within Australia through what some call "the happy clappers" (Pentecostals for example)". Mainstream Christian churches are in decline, with the possible exception of Orthodox Churches. The growing area of Christianity in Australia is some kind of revivalism through Christian fundamentalism.

If you see no dangers fine, that's your opinion. I see it differently, there are somewhat hidden dangers as the quote from Bobby Azarian states. I invite you to comment on that. Not another one of your insipid random attacks on me, if that's all you are capable of, personal random attacks on others, tells me you are just another silly old fart, past his use by date, gone mouldy in the box have you.

Here's an interesting article that just may make some
of us think:

http://indepdentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/religious-fundamentalists-railroad-democracy.15138

Here's the link again:

http://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/religious-fundamentalists-railroad-democracy,15138

Splitting hairs as usual Paul. What you call 'fundamental' Christians are of no danger. They can jump around clapping and looking silly as much as they like. They have no influence.

As for the quote you want me to comment on: that's just by someone who has the same opinion you do. I don't agree with his shite-stirring any more than I agree with yours.

The most dangerous people in Australia are not Christians or any other religionists. Marxists like your Greens, Albanese Labor, and the piss weak Liberals are are the real danger.

I guess we should all be concerned about people in positions
of power who can affect the thinking of others, who can
affect the laws we live by in our society, and the kind of
society we want to live in. We surely don't want people running
the country who have simplistic views (things don't happen by
declaration) and "We know something you don't know," people
who are about excluding, people who are consistently against things
be it LGBTQI, who use politics as a tool - and bang on about
"our rights and freedoms." While ignoring those of others.

People who believe and see conspiracy
theories everywhere and think that everything and everybody
should be under government control. And the list goes on.

Fundamentalism is a very strict literal interpretation of
religious texts or set of beliefs - and we have many in this
country who hold these firm extreme beliefs. We need to be
aware of them to safeguard our democracy.

Dear Foxy,

«We surely don't want people running the country who... X Y Z»

Just as you don't want people running the country who X Y Z, they too don't want people running the country who A B C (or is it L G B?).

Just as it would pain you bitterly to have your life run by their X Y Z, so are they bitterly pained by having their life run by your A B C or someone else's L G B.

I for one, don't want my life to be run by either.
That is not what I was born for!

Nor were Christian fundamentalists born to be run by your civil ideology.
Nor were you born to be run by theirs.

So for God's sake, stop this stupid ruling trip - you have a life to live (and though I believe otherwise, most of OLO members seem to believe that there will be no other), what a waste!

There is no moral justification for the country, actually this whole continent, to be run by anyone, how more so at the expense and suffering of others: just LIVE YOUR LIFE, AND LET OTHERS LIVE TOO.

---

Dear Paul,

«I gave a quote from a US cognitive neuroscientist as to the dangers he seen with this restrictive form of thinking.»

Isn't modern humanistic philosophy also a restrictive form of thinking?
What about the danger of identifying yourself with some limited human body, suffering its inevitable aches and pains and being brainwashed into the misery of believing that once that body dies, you too shall die? That not a danger?

Hi Yuyutsu,

I was talking about the dangers of fundamentalism.
Perhaps the following link may help:

http://livingsafetogether.gov.au/Documents/preventing-violent-extremism-and-radicalisation-in-australia.PDf

Dear Foxy,

Since we live in a world of opposites, every single thing is a danger to something or another - even light is a danger to darkness.

The document you referred me to, is an internal memo of the Australian regime, describing what it perceives as a danger to itself: not a danger to you or me or to Paul, Ttbn or Josephus - a danger to the regime, what they believe could topple them if they fail to be on guard.

That document is presumably about violence (which is obviously unacceptable), but when looking inside, it often speaks in one breath of "violence or illegal behaviour" or uses similar phrases to tie the two together. Well violence is violence and illegal behaviour is illegal behaviour - they are very different things and quite unrelated: their only commonality in this context being that they both scare the regime, they both make it tremble.

«I was talking about the dangers of fundamentalism.»

Indeed you have, but you did not respond to my previous post, so I ask you again:

Do you find it OK for some people to run the lives of others?

I understand that you would hate Christian fundamentalists to run your life by their ideology, but is it fine for you do run their lives with your own?

Hi Foxy and Yuyutsu,

Yuyutsu, you make the mistake of attempting to mitigate one set of behaviour by pointing to another, a common practice by many. Fundamentalism and the actions of government, although both might be a danger they are not interrelated or interdependent. Like the spider and the scorpion, I say to you; "There is a dangerous spider", you say; "But there is also a dangerous scorpion, therefore there is no danger from the spider". Not so, the danger from the spider remains the same, just that there is a new danger in the scorpion.

My point here is Christian fundamentalism, whilst on the surface may look benign, even pleasant and inviting, but does it hold hidden dangers lurking just below the surface?

A few years back a young grand niece living in Western Sydney became involved in 'Hillsong Church', all was rather warm and fuzzy, she was right into it. One could say no wrong about 'Hillsong' it was the savour of the universe. Just as quickly as she had joined she was out, all the niece would tell us was she had, had a couple of bad experiences, not saying exactly what they were, but enough to drive her from the church. I was not surprised.

Dear Paul,

I understand your urgency to return to the trunk of the discussion which you started while Foxy and I have branched out.

Whenever speaking of "danger", one should state what the danger is to, who or what might suffer. In your opening address, you only stated "the world", to which I responded that in my view the world as such is not under any danger.

So perhaps you want to be more specific, expressing who (or what) exactly, in your view, is in danger from Christian fundamentalism.

Meanwhile Foxy picked up the conversation in a direction possibly different from what you originally intended, claiming in effect that Christian fundamentalism could be a danger to her beloved Australian regime.

To which I responded in effect: "Oh yeah, a danger to the Australian regime is, for the common people, not a danger, perhaps even an opportunity".

Now if you think that Christian fundamentalism is ALSO a danger to common people (beyond the petty danger of being late due to road congestion near their churches), then I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing, but just think that you ought to be more specific.

Hi Yuyutsu,

Read the link I gave. It may help this discussion.
It is on topic.

Here it is again for you:

http://livingsafetogether.gov.au/Documents/preventing-extremism-and-radicalisation-in-australia.PDF

"The challenge for Australia is to accept difference while
also promoting social cohesion. A breakdown to social cohesion
can lead to a breakdown in community resilience. This in turn
can lead to a wide range of social problems..."

There's much more on the given link.

The link Foxy gave identifies the threat of extremism with this definition.
"However, it becomes a concern to everybody, including families, communities and law enforcement, if a person begins to advocate or use violence to achieve a political, religious or ideological goal. In Australia only a very small number of people ever have or will ever use violence to promote their cause. Those who do have undergone a process called radicalization.

Radicalisation is a complex process that can occur for people across a diverse range of ethnic, national, political, and religious groups. The process involves a series of decisions which, in certain circumstances, will end in an act of violent extremism."

We must identify what is extremism and what is a person's right to freedom of ideas. Totalitarian states use violence to suppress personal freedoms and those with a socialist bent would like to see their ideas reign supreme.

Some try to identify Scott Morrison as an extremist because of his association with Hillsong, but his right-hand man was a devout Jew.

Australian cults have been identified by authorities over
the years in Australia - ranging from "The Truth Church"
on which 60 Minutes did an expose. To - "The Family,"
"Agape Ministries" "Kenja," and many more. They do exist.

Dear Foxy,

«Read the link I gave. It may help this discussion.
It is on topic.

Here it is again for you:»

What makes you think that I have not read it?
How could I possibly criticise it, as I did, had I not read it?

Nor did I claim that the article was not on topic. It is indeed about the danger which Christian fundamentalism and others pose TO YOUR REGIME and since Paul did not specify in his opening address who/what is presumably in danger (he only mentioned "the world"), I agree that that article, hostile and misleading as it is, is somewhat on topic.

«There's much more on the given link.»

Indeed, much more and much that I do not like, including that promotion of "social cohesion".

---

Thank you Josephus, I liked your last comment.

As for "Hillsong?" I don't know that much about
them - except that they do have an emphasis on
money - and that their leader Brian Houston , a
friend of our previous PM Scott Morrisoan, stepped
down in March 2022 amid allegations of sexual
misconduct.

Hi Yuyutsu,

If you don't like the promotion of social cohesion - than
there's not much more to discuss.

Dear Foxy,

"there's not much more to discuss" in the context of this thread, means that your sole concern regarding Christian fundamentalists is their ability to disrupt the Australian regime's march to enforce on us its idea of social cohesion.

You do not seem to be concerned, like Paul and others, about the potential ability of Christian fundamentalists to also disrupt ordinary people's lives (I don't know whether or not they can, so I await Paul's reply).

- Then have a nice day!

An irrational belief can have devastating consequences, personally and within the wider community, here is an example; "The culprits (attack on Japanese subway with sarin gas) Aum Shinrikyo, were an obscure doomsday religious group who believed the end of the world was coming"

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35975069

Yuyutsu,

I can't take you seriously any more.

Hi Yuyutsu,

Whenever speaking of "danger", one should state what the danger is to, who or what might suffer" Yuyutsu.

This was in the opening post from me;

"Not only does fundamentalism promote delusional thinking, it also discourages followers from exposing themselves to any different ideas, which acts to protect the delusions that are essential to the ideology."

The above is self explanatory. delusional thinking can have destructive consequences both on a personal level, for example self harm, family break ups etc, and in extreme cases for the wider community, I gave the example of what delusional thinking did in Japan.

Dear Paul,

«This was in the opening post from me;»

But the words were of Bobby Azarian, not yours.

Had I been able to discuss this matter directly with Bobby Azarian, then I would start by asking him to define what exactly he meant by "fundamentalism" and "delusional thinking": these terms are not self-explanatory.

Your definitions could obviously vary somewhat from his, so I wouldn't like to be playing Chinese whispers here, I rather relate to your own words alone:

«delusional thinking can have destructive consequences»

Delusional thinking HAS destructive consequences.

In the words of the Bhagavad-Gita:

"While contemplating on the objects of the senses, one develops attachment to them. Attachment leads to desire, and from desire arises anger.
Anger leads to clouding of judgment, which results in bewilderment of memory. When memory is bewildered, the intellect gets destroyed; and when the intellect is destroyed, one is ruined." [BG 2:62-63]

In other words, delusional thinking (=clouding of judgement) is one link in a chain that leads to destruction.

What we still need to establish is the link (if any) between fundamentalism (in general, not just Christian fundamentalism) and delusional thinking.

The OED provides two definitions for fundamentalism:
1) a form of a religion, especially Islam or Protestant Christianity, that upholds belief in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture.
2) strict adherence to the basic principles of any subject or discipline.

- I like the second definition but find several issues with the first, including the blind supposition that Islam and Christianity are religions and that their books are pure scripture: and even if they were, true scripture should be studied carefully with a competent teacher, rather than read as literal prose.

So would you mind using the second definition (otherwise, please state your own definition)?
If so, do you see a relation between adherence to basic principles and delusional thinking?

P.S. those crazies in your Japanese example were neither religious nor strict followers of basic principles - but angry people there were, which led to their clouding of judgement!

Paul,
Far more people read their horiscope and believe it today than read their Bible and follow it. Are they delusional and dangerous?

The run of the mill every day morons listen to what Daniel J. Flynn describes as "intellectual morons" who are so self-obsessed and too 'smart' to worship a God, so they worship themselves- man - and human ideas that will supposedly bring us salvation.

The morons, everyday and the intellectual kind, use phrases like "fundamentalist Christians ", but it is all Christians and Christianity that they hate and fear.

If you are a Greens communist extremist your father is a great ape, and you have evolved into the supreme being. If you are a Christian, you believe the human spirit is descended from God, the supreme being, and we have failed to live as sons of God, in need of confession and forgiveness. If we are merely mortal bodies, we are no more than evolved animals and morality is a human construct.

Hey Josephus,
Believers (by way of the fact that they 'believe')
- Think that only 2 categories of human beings exist.

People like themselves who do believe,
and everyone else who is categorised as athiest or non-believer.

There's actually 3 categories, believers, agnostic, athiest.
3 NOT 2.

From the agnostic point of view, (someone who admits they don't know) both believers and non-believers might both be in the same category.
- Somehow they SOMEHOW BOTH KNOW what the agnostics think is IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW.
From the agnostic point of view, those who claim to know, have a 50/50 chance of having mental problems relating to their belief in supernatural beings
- Than actually knowing what they claim to know.

Point in question there are multiple religions.
They can't all be right at the same time.

Even if one religion just happens to be correct;
That would mean the other religions are wrong.

So there's a solid basis for at least some of the people who are religious to have gotten it wrong
(and being in that mentally challenged category)
Which means that more religious people are likely following a false religion than those who follow the 'true religion' and have it right.

As for me, if I said 'I believed'
- Then that would be 'bearing false witness'
I don't know, and I don't claim to.

Here's an interesting perspective that's worth a read:

http://theosischristian.com/why-is-fundamentalism-dangerous/

Dear Critic,

You seem to jump into conclusions too quickly:

«There's actually 3 categories, believers, agnostic, athiest.
3 NOT 2.»

Many more categories in fact. How for example, people who believe in God when the pilot announces that there's engine-trouble and he's going to attempt an emergency landing; also when their favourite football team win, but do not think about God when dining and sleeping and strictly deny God when visiting the brothel...

At the bottom line, thoughts like "God exists"/"God does not exist", are just... thoughts... mental diarrhea. One does not become religious or irreligious merely for entertaining this thought or the other.

«Point in question there are multiple religions.
They can't all be right at the same time.»

Why not? One religion can be right for some people and another religion for others.
If there is a time when everyone practices the religion which suits them best, then at that time they all are right!

Foxy, I have just read the site you posted, and the claims made by the writer are merely his opinion and his theology is unfounded.

1. He claims the Church was to be built on Peter. No! the text states the Church is built on the confession Peter made of Christ.
2. He calls Genesis mythology without presenting any evidence of the text.

This type of thinking is heresy. Genesis is oral history, and the events are verifiable if understood in the Hebrew text.
3. He claims the gospels were not written by the authors given to them, yet research demonstrates only they would know the personal historical events they record. We have fragments of the writing of the gospel of John dating back to AD 125 - john was only a young man when he followed Jesus in AD 36.
http://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2019/02/15/the-earliest-new-testament-manuscripts/

Hey Yuyutsu,
"If there is a time when everyone practices the religion which suits them best, then at that time they all are right!"

What if you're a Wall St banker and your religion is money and greed?
What if you're a environmentalist and your religion is Climate Change?

Religion... is it not just an expression of ones beliefs, creed, dogma?

'Fundamental'
Doesn't this essentially mean 'written in stone' or 'not open to compromise'?
So they can't all be right, because they don't all agree.
- And they're never going to agree, and this is true from one religion to another let alone the religious v's the rainbows

I think the main attack comes from those whose religion is LGBTIQ+ etc.
- They oppose the Christian groups beliefs.
Or maybe...
They don't just oppose Christians beliefs, but Christian's themselves...
Which makes them just as bad in principle as those they oppose.
- Both intolerant of the other

"We don't like your mob"; "Well we don't like your mob either"
Who even cares...

It's funny you know, if I said I believed in aliens, unicorns, bigfoot or dogman, no-one would even care.

In any case, I do think there are aspects of Christian fundamentalist beliefs which are dangerous.
I think there are aspects of all religions which are dangerous.
But that said, I think there also exists within them aspects of goodness.

Dear Critic,

«What if you're a Wall St banker and your religion is money and greed?
What if you're a environmentalist and your religion is Climate Change?»

I can see, theoretically, how this could be the case for certain individuals. They are likely to come from a very low, depressed, situation, filled with shame, guilt, apathy and grief. For such people perhaps, taking care of themselves by earning money willfully, as well as doing whatever they naively believe to be a service to the community, could well bring them a step closer to God, thus form a segment of their religion. By God's grace they will eventually mature further and come upon their next segment.

I think the same can be said of fundamentalists who interpret scriptures literally - at least they read. One cannot run before they crawl and walk.

«Religion... is it not just an expression of ones beliefs, creed, dogma?»

Nay - that would be far too cheap: imagine telling your bank manager, nay even your grocer, that you sincerely believe in them thus they should give you that much more credit...