Ep. 99: Do Christian moderates enable fundamentalism?

[Emery]

Endeavoring to offend moderate and fundamentalist Christians alike, Emery (inspired by Jambijuce and Sam Harris) challenges Scott on his moderate views.

[ScottBarger]

Just remember...everything in moderation. Even your moderation should be in moderation.

[Dr Mundo]

Half way through the podcast, and so far its been one of my favs. Emery I really admire the way you present yourself and If I could I'd buy you a drink sir. Keep up the good work.

And Scott I used to have mixed feelings about you for a while. I really like how you are so level headed and I do respect your perspective on how you see Christianity, its so much less inhuman than traditional fundamentalist. Still though, I lost a lot of admiration from you when Emery asked you the question about what you would do if God had ordered your army to kill the Amalekite women and children. I was hoping it would be easy for you to just say you wouldn't do it, But your hesitation to want to give a direct answer I found a bit lugubrious. At any rate, Scott I hope you and Emery make lots more podcasts together Its really interesting to hear both of you guys discuss these issues.

[Emery]

Hey thanks for the kind words Dr. Mundo. That folks listen and appreciate the show flatters us more than you know.

[mitchellmckain]

Do Christian moderates enable fundamentalism?

No.

Just the opposite. They take the wind right out of their sails, by showing that you can follow Christ without being a total irrational uncompromising berzerker.

Do atheist extremists enable fundamentalism?

Yes.

In fact atheist extremists (we can call them anti-theists) created fundamentalism.

It is all about the phenomenon of reactionaryism. Extremists reactionaires go overboard in reacting to one thing and thus create the conditions under which other people go overboard in the opposite direction reacting against them as well. The fact is, that fundamalism is a reaction to the the attempt to turn theory of evolution into a theory of everything and thus into a kind of religion or philosophy of life, also known as social darwinism.

[ScottBarger]

Dr. M.

To my shame, I don't remember talking about Amalekites during this episode. But I'll write a short response to that issue.

The "Amalekite Incident" is a tricky question because it is almost impossible to answer with certainty. I mean, how do we know how we would respond if God himself directly told us to do something? I can't imagine that there is a person on earth who could, by sheer strength of character, compel me to do something so heinous. But we aren't talking about just another person, we are talking about God...and that's a whole different story. After all, if there is a God who is so powerful and fierce and awesome that people faint from fear in his presence (as the OT describes), then who's to say how I would respond?

Of course there is the issue of God's goodness, which is the real question, isn't it? A great God can command evil things but a good God cannot. This leaves us with three basic conclusions regarding the Amalekites:

1) God is not good
2) The deed is not evil
3) The event didn't happen the way it is described in the text.

Many Christians choose some version of option 2. You and I would choose versions of option 3.

[Dr Mundo]

Dr. M.

To my shame, I don't remember talking about Amalekites during this episode.

I didn't clarify, and I suppose I should have. I will look it up but it was at least 10 podcasts ago.

The "Amalekite Incident" is a tricky question because it is almost impossible to answer with certainty. I mean, how do we know how we would respond if God himself directly told us to do something?

I don't know how I would act under all circumstances in the future. I cannot tell the future so I can only tell you how I would like to act, and that is what I am more interested in hearing than exactly what actions you would take because I understand that you cannot tell the future either.

I can't imagine that there is a person on earth who could, by sheer strength of character, compel me to do something so heinous.

Yeah that is good to hear. In other words your compassion and empathy for others is going to over rule the command of an other to do something heinous. And I think that is admirable.

But we aren't talking about just another person, we are talking about God...and that's a whole different story.

Its not a different story to me, and i think its sad that you would compromise your compassion and empathy if a being with sufficient power commanded you to compromise those things.

After all, if there is a God who is so powerful and fierce and awesome that people faint from fear in his presence (as the OT describes), then who's to say how I would respond?

You are? you can tell me, or emery in this case How you would like to act given those conditions. I don't care who tells me to do something so immoral and heinous. If its God or if its a 10 year old, I will not kill a family based on their dislike for a certain religion or deity. I think part of being a good person is doing what you feel is the right thing regardless of some all powerful fear inducing monster at your back commanding you to do something terrible. And if this God so chooses to punish me for not obeying such an immoral command, I think that would say much more negative things about the character of God than that of my own.

Of course there is the issue of God's goodness, which is the real question, isn't it? A great God can command evil things but a good God cannot. This leaves us with three basic conclusions regarding the Amalekites:

1) God is not good
2) The deed is not evil
3) The event didn't happen the way it is described in the text.

Many Christians choose some version of option 2. You and I would choose versions of option 3.

I would also chose option 3, yes. And I know this is completely unrelated to this podcast so I don't know how far you want to go with this. Its just I will probably always remember how disappointed I was in hearing you speak the way you did during that podcast. I thought as Emery asked what you would do, that based on your past responses to other questions that I was going to hear you answer it fairly easily. I will tell you this Scott, even if God was threatening me with Hell (which I understand you don't really believe in but pretend for a minute) if I didn't murder the women and children in that tribe, I would like to think that I would say no. Easy answer, I don't want to do that and not even the threat of Hell would force me to do it. Now because the root of this example is me disobeying a direct command from God. Do you think I am in anyway/shape/form wrong for going against the will of God? In other words, Do you care more about doing whats right, or doing what is pleasing to God. (for the record I know you probably think those two will always mix, so its easy but Given a situation in where you had to chose one over the other, what is more important?)

[Dr Mundo]

Do you care more about doing whats right, or doing what is pleasing to God. (for the record I know you probably think those two will always mix, so its easy but Given a situation in where you had to chose one over the other, what is more important?)

I think I may have found a way to tie this into the Podcast discussion. Based on how you answer the question. Lest just assume you say Doing the right thing is more important than doing the will of God. If you look at your response and use that as a filter for how you look at the bible, You can see that it is Okay to disobey a certain command from God when It doesn't line up with our values and our morals. Now instead of having to twist the interpretations to match up with what You think God means. You can take the bible and say its okay for it to be taken literal, we just don't have to follow certain immoral teachings because we are better than that. I feel what you have done is taken what you would rather the word of God mean, and then try to make your interpretation match up with those things.

BTW the end of faith seems like a good read, has anyone finished the book and would you recommend it?

[bebop88]

This might be my favorite episode so far. Congrats Emery on Twins! You guys should get Stryper to show up for episode 100, or maybe do a montage of the last 99 episodes. Thank you, guys.

[mitchellmckain]

Dr. M.

To my shame, I don't remember talking about Amalekites during this episode. But I'll write a short response to that issue.

The "Amalekite Incident" is a tricky question because it is almost impossible to answer with certainty. I mean, how do we know how we would respond if God himself directly told us to do something? I can't imagine that there is a person on earth who could, by sheer strength of character, compel me to do something so heinous. But we aren't talking about just another person, we are talking about God...and that's a whole different story. After all, if there is a God who is so powerful and fierce and awesome that people faint from fear in his presence (as the OT describes), then who's to say how I would respond?

Of course there is the issue of God's goodness, which is the real question, isn't it? A great God can command evil things but a good God cannot. This leaves us with three basic conclusions regarding the Amalekites:

1) God is not good
2) The deed is not evil
3) The event didn't happen the way it is described in the text.

Many Christians choose some version of option 2. You and I would choose versions of option 3.

It does not seem likely to me that it really is a choice betwee these three things but rather that all of them are true in some way.

God probably isn't really "good" according to standards by which we judge human behavior. That is not to say that our standards are completely irrelevant but that taking into account circumstances and responsibilities that are so far removed for our own, we can see how they might not be completely the same either. This leads right into the second because it means that the deed is not evil by standards that should apply to someone in His circumstances and with His responsibilities. And this leads right into the third because it means that the story does not tell all that would be required to judge properly. It does not even come close to presenting the kind of physical evidence and detail that would be required in a human court of law for a conviction let lone explaining God's reasons for His role in it. We only have what the writers knew and only what they saw as the relevant facts according to their own perspective on things.

[Keep The Reason]

@ DM:

BTW the end of faith seems like a good read, has anyone finished the book and would you recommend it?

I have read it and it's extraordinarily good, as is his most recent, "The Moral Landscape". Check out his lectures at TED Talks as well-- great stuff.*

Here's a link to his Moral Landscape lecture

Harris is a very personable man, easy to talk to, but quite aware of his being a target. When I went to his Moral Landscape lecture at Cal Tech last spring, he came accompanied by some very large bodyguards. While chatting with him briefly after the lecture, I asked if the reason for the hulking body guards was because he was concerned about any atheists attacking him. He laughed, and "No, it's not atheists who have issued any threats," was all he'd say.


* For those theists who misinterpret respect for a mere mortal's positions from we non-theists: No, he's not worshiped, he's simply a man with the courage to lay out his arguments openly and fairly.

[Dr Mundo]

@ DM:

BTW the end of faith seems like a good read, has anyone finished the book and would you recommend it?

I have read it and it's extraordinarily good, as is his most recent, "The Moral Landscape". Check out his lectures at TED Talks as well-- great stuff.*

Here's a link to his Moral Landscape lecture

Harris is a very personable man, easy to talk to, but quite aware of his being a target. When I went to his Moral Landscape lecture at Cal Tech last spring, he came accompanied by some very large bodyguards. While chatting with him briefly after the lecture, I asked if the reason for the hulking body guards was because he was concerned about any atheists attacking him. He laughed, and "No, it's not atheists who have issued any threats," was all he'd say.


* For those theists who misinterpret respect for a mere mortal's positions from we non-theists: No, he's not worshiped, he's simply a man with the courage to lay out his arguments openly and fairly.

thanks KTR for that link, going to check it out now.

[Banana Man]

I have to say I've enjoyed the last two podcasts far more then any others I've listened to. I've not listened to them all yet but I'm working on it.

I'm one of the former Christians that really fells I was damaged as a child by the image of God my loving Mother subjected me to. I remember the great joy and relief I felt when I first began to understand there was no hell or vengeful god to send me there. No god was constantly watching and judging me, no thought police keeping track of how many times I had committed adultery with women I'd never even spoken to.

I think I've already been to the real hell. It was the constant fear and self loathing I felt when no matter how hard I prayed and begged god for help I still sinned. I sometimes wonder that I never did physical harm to myself when reading versus like Matthew 5:29 (If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.) or Matthew 18:9 (And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell) I never understood how just one eye could be causing me to sin, both my eyes seemed to look upon attractive women with lust.

I still have chronic insomnia and have to drug myself just to get a nights sleep even though I long since stop fearing Christ would return, take my family and leave a sinner like me.

Anyway enough of my rant and my thanks to both Emery and Scott for a couple very interesting podcasts.

[jeffcia]

Scott, I think Emory went really easy on you, but what allows you to simply throw out parts of the Bible? I know, I know - all the Christians do it, but what in the Bible justifies being more like us (secular). I could say reasonable

You are right that many do throw out parts, but that is NOT Christian. The Christian Bible is very clear, and if you start throwing out parts, the fundamentalists will simply say that you are not a very strict Christian. This whole "be gentle" thing is not a Christian virtue. Burn the witches, stone unruly children and those that talk about gods you are not familiar with, etc. Why can't you admit that the Christian Bible and therefore Christianity itself is not very moral? When did Jesus say that he was throwing out the old rules? Oh wait - he didnt He came not in peace but with a sword, remember? He never said that homosexuality is OK, nor did he condemn slavery, marital rape, burning witches, etc.

You are, like most "Christians", much more of a humanist, so when is it time to denounce the Bible and Christianity? You don't simply get to pick and choose just because many others do, especially those who are not theologians.

[jeffcia]

Congratulations, Daddy!!