I'll start off! When I took this quiz, I scored almost as high as possible, because the questions really did feel like they were describing what we were supposed to believe growing up. The question regarding Satan is up for debate - is it Satan, or is it the inherent sin nature where even newborn babies are born sinful (because that was most definitely the doctrine I was taught to believe, BLECHHH!!)?
I'll go more into depth in a future post about why I consider my faith growing up to be fundamentalist (including the fact that the faith leaders said that: "getting back to the FUNDAMENTALS of faith!" And I grew up in a suburban, well-educated environment. We weren't Quiverfull homesteaders or anything - just pretty average folks. But our belief system allowed no room for error - you had to believe, you had to believe all of it, and you couldn't believe anything else, or your soul would be in mortal peril.
Here's a quote from Richard Rohr. "'Only we have the Spirit.' I was taught this in my church growing up; and then I found out that every religion says the same thing. Isn't that interesting? There's a phrase for this; it's called group narcissism. It has nothing to do with love for God; it isn't a search for truth or love. It's a grasping for control and every group at its less mature stages of development will try to put God in the pocket of its own members-only jacket."
Christine! Yay! I flunked! 24 = 13%!! The only reason I scored that high is that I don’t have perfect trust in science. There was a time when I might have scored 108. :-( I was not raised in the church but was duped as a 30-year old adult. Thankfully, over the years, I felt the fundamentalist straitjacket tightening until I couldn’t stand it any more and had to escape the repression and infantile logic that made religion a house of cards. It took me many years, but I eventually deconstructed my fundamentalism.
In a movie last night, I heard the best debunking conundrum yet: The Bible says God is everywhere and there is nowhere where God is not present (omnipotent and omnipresent). So then God must be in hell!
Problems:
- If God isn’t in hell, God is neither omnipotent nor omnipresent.
- If God is there, it’s not hell (a place wo God).
- If God is there, a God who is love is overseeing eternal torment. Certainly torment is not love.
- If God cannot tolerate sinners, how can God be in hell with sinners?
- If God logically can be neither in hell nor not in hell, then perhaps hell doesn’t Exist.
- If any of the above is true, the Bible cannot be literally true. Said another way, the Bible is false.
Hope you enjoy that bit of “tortured” logic, Christine—pun intended! LOL
Hahaha congrats on "flunking!" I definitely flunk now too - about a score of 16 - and I am finding I don't just consider evangelicalism in my answers but sacred traditions in general, which makes me much more open to them (but I still don't think only one has all the right answers!)
What movie were you watching? Logical problems indeed! I love the twisting and turning trying to make that theology work (I mean if you had to believe in hell... you have to do some logical twists and turns with a loving, omnipotent, omnipresent god).
I do find stories like yours where you entered fundamentalism later in life to be really interesting! There's clearly a draw even for otherwise reasonable adults 😆 provides answers, security, solace... until you realize that, like you said, it's repressive and illogical in many ways, and actually a straitjacket for many many of us!
I have to apologize to no one in particular: I said the Bible is false, and that's overly harsh. I no longer "buy into" the Bible as factual or infallible, but it is a beautiful work describing the spiritual, cultural, and mythological beliefs and experiences of the ancient Jews and early Christians, and I still find many passages spiritually inspiring. Same for the doctrinal statements and the sacred traditions you mentioned.
The movie is "Lou Andreas-Salome," a biography of the first female psychotherapist, trained by Freud, and a friend of the philosopher Nietzsche and the poet Rilke. She was a fascinating, brilliant, strongly independent woman. https://reelgood.com/movie/lou-andreassalome-the-audacity-to-be-free-2016
About how I stumbled into the church at age 30, I was looking for stability, a sense of belonging, and something to "fill the God-shaped hole," which I now understand was a search for unconditional love and emotional support. I found those things--to an extent--plus a worship that was emotionally powerful, in a cult-like small fundamentalist church. In time, I was drawn into the subculture and belief system. After a painful church split, followed by attending many other churches looking for the "right one," culminating in the Catholic church, I eventually deconstructed Christianity and religion generally. I'm now a small "u" universalist, embracing aspects of several faiths in my own uniquely personal spirituality.
I knew what the sentiment behind your statement was, no worries! I think one of the early things we learned in seminary (and I was nerdy so I was reading books about this for fun even before seminary) is that the Bible is not supposed to be read as "factual." There's so many types of writing and the authors' intent was often not to provide an impeccable historical record (contrary to what fundamentalism taught me), but create a narrative supporting certain views and beliefs about a people group!
The movie sounds interesting!! I read the synopsis. May have to give it a watch!
Thanks for sharing a snippet of your history! Dabbling in Catholicism, too! Church splits are hard but I guess it was also your catalyst to be looking for what did feel right...and eventually landed on something that does feel really right. Yay for universalism!
Christine, thanks for clarifying about factual history versus a narrative with a viewpoint. I did not know that but had surmised as much from my Bible reading. Not knowing the seminary terminology, I might call that "implicit bias." I'm guessing an example might be "God" instructing the Israelites to kill all the people and animals of another culture they are invading. The "history" is written with an implicit bias that justifies the action by saying "God made us do it." About the movie, I wouldn't call it a blockbuster, but I found it emotionally and intellectually engaging, and it's a beautiful period piece set in 1880s Europe--Germany and Vienna. It's in German with subtitles. Yes, yay for universalism!! :-)
I'll start off! When I took this quiz, I scored almost as high as possible, because the questions really did feel like they were describing what we were supposed to believe growing up. The question regarding Satan is up for debate - is it Satan, or is it the inherent sin nature where even newborn babies are born sinful (because that was most definitely the doctrine I was taught to believe, BLECHHH!!)?
I'll go more into depth in a future post about why I consider my faith growing up to be fundamentalist (including the fact that the faith leaders said that: "getting back to the FUNDAMENTALS of faith!" And I grew up in a suburban, well-educated environment. We weren't Quiverfull homesteaders or anything - just pretty average folks. But our belief system allowed no room for error - you had to believe, you had to believe all of it, and you couldn't believe anything else, or your soul would be in mortal peril.
Here's a quote from Richard Rohr. "'Only we have the Spirit.' I was taught this in my church growing up; and then I found out that every religion says the same thing. Isn't that interesting? There's a phrase for this; it's called group narcissism. It has nothing to do with love for God; it isn't a search for truth or love. It's a grasping for control and every group at its less mature stages of development will try to put God in the pocket of its own members-only jacket."
Our pastor held a class for new comers explaining how all the other religions were wrong and ours was right. 🤦♀️
I meeean... if the church wasn't the Only Right Place to Be, why bother attending at all???
Richard Rohr coming in with his wisdom!! Thank you for sharing. Very true. Group narcissism as a quest for control for people lacking in maturity.
Christine! Yay! I flunked! 24 = 13%!! The only reason I scored that high is that I don’t have perfect trust in science. There was a time when I might have scored 108. :-( I was not raised in the church but was duped as a 30-year old adult. Thankfully, over the years, I felt the fundamentalist straitjacket tightening until I couldn’t stand it any more and had to escape the repression and infantile logic that made religion a house of cards. It took me many years, but I eventually deconstructed my fundamentalism.
In a movie last night, I heard the best debunking conundrum yet: The Bible says God is everywhere and there is nowhere where God is not present (omnipotent and omnipresent). So then God must be in hell!
Problems:
- If God isn’t in hell, God is neither omnipotent nor omnipresent.
- If God is there, it’s not hell (a place wo God).
- If God is there, a God who is love is overseeing eternal torment. Certainly torment is not love.
- If God cannot tolerate sinners, how can God be in hell with sinners?
- If God logically can be neither in hell nor not in hell, then perhaps hell doesn’t Exist.
- If any of the above is true, the Bible cannot be literally true. Said another way, the Bible is false.
Hope you enjoy that bit of “tortured” logic, Christine—pun intended! LOL
Hahaha congrats on "flunking!" I definitely flunk now too - about a score of 16 - and I am finding I don't just consider evangelicalism in my answers but sacred traditions in general, which makes me much more open to them (but I still don't think only one has all the right answers!)
What movie were you watching? Logical problems indeed! I love the twisting and turning trying to make that theology work (I mean if you had to believe in hell... you have to do some logical twists and turns with a loving, omnipotent, omnipresent god).
I do find stories like yours where you entered fundamentalism later in life to be really interesting! There's clearly a draw even for otherwise reasonable adults 😆 provides answers, security, solace... until you realize that, like you said, it's repressive and illogical in many ways, and actually a straitjacket for many many of us!
Christine, I'm so glad we both flunked. LOL.
I have to apologize to no one in particular: I said the Bible is false, and that's overly harsh. I no longer "buy into" the Bible as factual or infallible, but it is a beautiful work describing the spiritual, cultural, and mythological beliefs and experiences of the ancient Jews and early Christians, and I still find many passages spiritually inspiring. Same for the doctrinal statements and the sacred traditions you mentioned.
The movie is "Lou Andreas-Salome," a biography of the first female psychotherapist, trained by Freud, and a friend of the philosopher Nietzsche and the poet Rilke. She was a fascinating, brilliant, strongly independent woman. https://reelgood.com/movie/lou-andreassalome-the-audacity-to-be-free-2016
About how I stumbled into the church at age 30, I was looking for stability, a sense of belonging, and something to "fill the God-shaped hole," which I now understand was a search for unconditional love and emotional support. I found those things--to an extent--plus a worship that was emotionally powerful, in a cult-like small fundamentalist church. In time, I was drawn into the subculture and belief system. After a painful church split, followed by attending many other churches looking for the "right one," culminating in the Catholic church, I eventually deconstructed Christianity and religion generally. I'm now a small "u" universalist, embracing aspects of several faiths in my own uniquely personal spirituality.
I knew what the sentiment behind your statement was, no worries! I think one of the early things we learned in seminary (and I was nerdy so I was reading books about this for fun even before seminary) is that the Bible is not supposed to be read as "factual." There's so many types of writing and the authors' intent was often not to provide an impeccable historical record (contrary to what fundamentalism taught me), but create a narrative supporting certain views and beliefs about a people group!
The movie sounds interesting!! I read the synopsis. May have to give it a watch!
Thanks for sharing a snippet of your history! Dabbling in Catholicism, too! Church splits are hard but I guess it was also your catalyst to be looking for what did feel right...and eventually landed on something that does feel really right. Yay for universalism!
Christine, thanks for clarifying about factual history versus a narrative with a viewpoint. I did not know that but had surmised as much from my Bible reading. Not knowing the seminary terminology, I might call that "implicit bias." I'm guessing an example might be "God" instructing the Israelites to kill all the people and animals of another culture they are invading. The "history" is written with an implicit bias that justifies the action by saying "God made us do it." About the movie, I wouldn't call it a blockbuster, but I found it emotionally and intellectually engaging, and it's a beautiful period piece set in 1880s Europe--Germany and Vienna. It's in German with subtitles. Yes, yay for universalism!! :-)