Cognitive Dissonance

To be a fundamentalist one must master the art of ignoring the illogical and absurd. Consider these bits of doublethink

We believe that Calvinism is a hindrance to evangelism…we also believe the Spurgeon and Edwards were the instruments great revivals.

We believe that praying written prayers is vain repetition…we also believe that praying the exact same words over breakfast every morning is a necessary and meaningful experience.

We believe that since canon of Scripture is closed, the Holy Spirit no longer gives direct revelation to people…we also believe that the Holy Spirit gives traffic directions and investment advice.

We believe that the Scriptures are the sole authority for our faith and practice…we also believe that Christian standards of dress and music somehow were all discovered centuries after the Scriptures were finished and include things not addressed therein.

We believe that every man has soul liberty and that every believer is a priest…we also believe that the pastor has complete authority to override that liberty any time he sees fit.

We believe that liberals have purposely corrupted our public school systems and lowered our education standards for their own political ends….we also believe that these semi-illiterate students are perfectly capable of understanding a four-hundred year old translation of the Scriptures.

We believe that the reason our church isn’t growing quickly is that the world is getting worse and worse as the end times approach and men’s hearts wax cold…we also believe that our soul winning program has broken records every year for the last 20 years.

We believe that good will always overcome evil…we believe that evil will always overcome good.

Feel free to add your own examples below…

384 thoughts on “Cognitive Dissonance”

  1. Fundies believe the Jews are god’s special people and that they must love them by encouraging all the world’s Jews to move to Israel , where it will be easier for the anti-Christ to kill them.

      1. Just study the “End Times”, “Left Behind” belief systems of people like John Hagee and Tim LaHaye. Their god has some nasty plans for the Jews and the State of Israel. And then their god sends most of the Jews to hell after the tribulation period. Hagee even claims the Holocaust was part of their god’s divine plan to get the world’s Jews to move Middle East and create the modern Jewish state.

        1. I was watching a John Hagee show (actually just flipping through the channels but had to stop, like rubber necking at a train wreck, you just have to watch) and it wasn’t one of his sermons. He was sitting with a guy who was selling is “new” diet plan. And there was John Hagee discussing very seriously the ills of society because of obesity and how all of us watching should buy this new diet. 😯
          Really John? You are as wide as you are tall. You haven’t meant an all-you-can-eat buffet that can satisfy you.
          And what;s up with the son’s eyebrow? That is creepy.
          Anyhow, Hagee does have a fetish for the Jews and end-times stuff (as weel as a fetish for fried chicken)

    1. More like,

      The Jews are God’s Chosen People, until one of your Jewish neighbors says something very disagreeable, then they become just a White Liberal with a German surname.

  2. I still don’t know what you are “correcting” me about. Fundies don’t believe in the tenets of the Nicene Creed? That’s news to me; even though they may never call it that, all of them I know firmly believe in “One God the Father…etc.” They don’t believe the church became apostate? Another revelation that you should share with a whole lot of Fundies. They don’t believe the Church failed or that Jesus said it wouldn’t?

    Your correction is unclear. Please clarify and specify without further shots at the Catholic Church, if possible.

    1. Fundies don’t believe in apostolic succession, but some of them will trace their blood drops back to the Waldensians, Albigensians, Petrobrusians, the (GASP!) Cathari ➡ all the way to John the IFB. 😐

        1. Noone hates you. This is one of our main issues with fundamentalists. They like to think they are hated by everyone else because it validates their way of thinking – Jesus was hated, John the Baptist was hated, Paul was hated – I am hated, I must be like them! – when in reality, people distance themselves from fundamentalism because of the self righteous attitude that they are right and everyone hates them.

          People are going to hate the truth regardless of what brand you are. You don’t need to do anything extra to make them hate you (like burn bibles, preach offensively on purpose, call names, and a plethora of other things that I used to do as a fundy – like if I saw some muslims walking by in parramatta Australia, I would purposely change my preaching to “there is no salvation in Allah the prophet of death blah blah blah”, just to offend, so I could claim persecution and have a war story). Many fundies don’t do that I realise, but there are many more that do.

    2. You’re confusing her with the fact!
      Clarity is not her strong point Cordova–soon enough she will insult and dismiss you with a very judgemental and self righteous air.


    1. I’m curious what the evening and morning meant the day there was only light and darkness, no earth, sun, etc? Who was it recording how long precisely between events making sure God didn’t create something 23 hours later or 25? Oh, and also curious who told you Genesis was a scientific treatise?

    1. Confessing your sins to a priest is an evil catholic babylonian pagan egyptian occult practice. Confessing your sins to a pastor is required for you to be restored to fellowship with God and church.

    2. Haaaaaayy-men!

      My fundy pastor claimed he sometimes sought counsel with other fundy pastors…but he will always be untouchable in his kingdom….I mean church.

  3. We ignore verses like “Praise Him with the dance” by saying “Culture changes”; we hold up our 1950s traditions (women in skirts, men in suits, piano/organ music, etc.) by pretending that American culture HASN’T changed.

    1. As far as I can tell, everybody in the Bible danced. It never made much sense to me that some Protestants treat dancing as if it were prohibited. (Yes, I know why they feel that way, but they are getting it from the Bible.)

  4. Women wearing anything above the knee = bad.
    Men wearing anything above the knee = bad.

    Bigger-than-life murals of men wearing a WHOLE lot less than shorts on the wall of a chapel = good.

    1. So true! I know of women who decided to wear a head-covering to show their submission – even though their husbands didn’t want them to do it! 😯 (Not IFB, BTW, but extremely legalistic.)

      1. I know a lot of anabaptists/mennonite do that. The Open brethren assemblies don’t. Ladies wear head coverings to church, but more of them are just leaving them at home (they all take off their hats as soon as the doors open to outside lol). Exclusive brethren, which are all over the place where I am, are very big on head coverings everywhere. Plus they drink like sailors.

      1. Not on any planet I’ve seen. More like: we give lip-service to honoring women, but don’t try to speak in church, offer an opinion, or do anything other than work like a dog on every fellowship or fund-raising occasion. Any failure on your part will bring your [iffy at best] sanctification into question.

    1. We believe in feeding the hungry . . . but every other organization running soup kitchens, etc. are compromisers that we can’t work with, so we’ll just have a few cans of food in our church basement to hand out when someone comes by and feel that we’ve covered our bases.

    2. Yup. I’ve actually talked to some “Christians” who were seriously planning to shoot anybody who tried to share their fallout shelter or emergency rations. That’s trusting in God, eh?

  5. ” Religion convinced the world that there’s an invisible man in the sky who watches everything you do. And there’s 10 things he doesn’t want you to do or else you’ll to to a burning place with a lake of fire until the end of eternity. But he loves you! …And he needs money! He’s all powerful, but he can’t handle money! [George Carlin, fromalbum “You Are All Diseased” (it can also be found in the book “Napalm and Silly Putty”.]

      1. George Carlin’s comments *should* turn your stomach, but perhaps for a different reason than you think.

        His words are an accurate description of the kind of God that Christians have presented to the world. That is what turns my stomach about them. He’s just being honest.

  6. We believe that large amounts of debt are a sign of bad stewardship…We also believe young people should go to our non-accredited Fundy U. for four times the price of the accredited State college (because then God will provide $$ to pay off their loans).

    1. One of the many reasons my daughter is going to the local technical college as opposed to the local “Independent, Fundamentalist” college (whose initials are BJU). She gets full tuition paid at the technical college, and gets down to the nitty gritty of her major.

  7. Interesting about school prayer. We demand that teachers be allowed to lead out kids in prayer, because we are a Christian nation. Fundies really tie it in to the moral fabric/degredation of our society (Why, things went downhill when they outlawed prayer in school). It’s great for a rallying cry, but what if your public school kid’s teacher is a Weslyan? Or Methodist? Catholic? Mormon? Jehovah’s Witness? We cast Billy Graham to the ash heap over much less, but how often have we heard the prayer in school thing from the pulpit? If fundies were to win that fight, and school led and sanctioned prayer were once more allowed, we will be faced with those issues. Wanna make a fundy uncomfortable? Just remind them that a school prayer victory applies to Muslims as much as to Christians.

    1. Yep, if teachers are allowed to teach prayers and lead kids in prayer, that will include teachers who are Catholic, Mormon, Buddhist, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Hindu, NeoPagan, Druid, Jeddi, etc.

      How do you like them apples?

  8. We believe that “whosoever will, may come,” unless you’re a minority who arrives on one of our busses…then you must remain in “bus church.” “Big Church” is only for those who have attained a certain spiritual platitude (we’ll tell you what it is later…we change it daily).

  9. We are not protestant… but, we will protest against the false teachings of the Catholic Church.

    We are not protestant heretics… but, we will align ourselves with any heretic before 1500 who is named in the trail of blood

  10. We believe that God is not a respecter of persons….but if you have a lot of money or are powerful you can get away with practically anything where the preacher is concerned! 😐

  11. GASP! This is so judgmental. I mean, they may not have gotten the doctrines of the Trinity and salvation right, but they did practice believer’s baptism by immersion. What else can you ask for in those Dark Ages? 😡

  12. Jesus loves the little children.
    All the little Children of the world…
    Red and Yellow black and White
    they are precious in his sight
    Jesus loves the little children of the world.

    Pastor sep’rates the *little children.
    All the children of the world.
    Red and yellow black and white.
    All are sep’rate cuz it’s right.
    Pastor sep’rates the *little children of the world.

    *includes single and married people of all ages and backgrounds

  13. We believe in salvation by grace and grace alone…..but if you don’t follow ‘the rules’ then you can’t possibly be saved.

    We believe in feeding the poor, ending abortion, etc….but we will vote against social programs that feed the poor and may help a woman decide not to abort.

    1. Three thumbs up.
      Wait, do I have three thumbs?
      Two thumbs and two big toes up.
      Anyway, this is the one that keeps me from being in fellowship with most people who advocate a “pro-life” agenda.

    1. The case for wine referring to both alcoholic and non alcoholic rests on a verse from Isaiah which says “The new wine is in the cluster” – if it is in the cluster, it means it is still on the tree, and cannot be yet fermented. If it is squeezed directly from the cluster into a cup, it is (in the particular verse, which I can’t remember the reference) called new wine. Jesus made the difference between new wine and old wine. You don’t put the new wine into old wineskins, because when it ferments, the old wineskins which have already stretched from the first lot of wine in them having fermented, would stretch more, and burst. I don’t think it has anything to do with knowing hebrew or greek.

      1. There is a distinction made, however, without the modern prosseses to prevent fermentation one could get drunk off ‘new wine’ – as was assumed in Acts 2:13.

        It’s intresting

        1. Yeah, I don’t really know a lot about it, but I know that wine can be both non alc and alcoholic. But I don’t care much anymore to be honest. We use fermented wine at church, and I hate it (taste, plus the fact that I think the representation of Christ’s blood should not be fermented, since fermentation and leaven were a sign of sin, and His blood is perfect), but I am in no danger of becoming an alcoholic, also, it’s kind of neccesary, since we all share the same [gross] cup. Lucky I get it first or second, because the slobbers are too much for me to bear.

    2. I don’t believe that all the references to “wine” in the Bible meant fresh-squeezed grape juice, but I was glad my church used (unfermented) grape juice for Communion on the day that visitor told me that he wouldn’t take communion with us because he was a recovering alcoholic and needed to stay away from wine. After I explained to him that what was in the cup was non-alcoholic, he did share communion with us, and came back to worship with us many more times.

  14. We believe drinking wine is a sin…unless you’re the second president of a university that carries your daddy’s name…then it’s ok…so much so…that it gave you cirrhosis of the liver and killed you…

  15. We believe that every man has sin in is life….we also believe that you shouldn’t speak against a pastor and his faults because he’s the man of God.

    We believe in singing the old-fashioned hymns of the faith….we also believe in abstaining from the contemporary music unless we can take out the ‘beat’ and the ‘sensual’ singing then we can sing it too.

    We believe in individual soul liberty…we also believe that you should obey and have the same standards as your Pastor because if you don’t, you are a backslider/not right with God/not wise/etc because he is much more spiritually mature than you are…and he’s the man of God.

    We believe that man is free to exercise his liberty….we also believe that your exercising your liberty will lead you into bondage.

    We believe that you need to develop wisdom and discernment…we also believe that you should learn to sense the leading of the Holy Spirit, which supersedes everything else, including the wisdom you’ve gathered. If God tells you to do something, you should do it, right?

  16. I believe the appropriate fundy way to refer to these illogical statements is not a ‘dubblethink’ but a ‘paradox’. This is a highly spiritual word that acquits an argument of the necessity for logical consistency.


  17. Criticizing criticism…..while criticizing.

    Mocking those who wear suits and skirts as a standard (Like they do at court and business and other modern functions) to church….and making causal attire a standard at theirs.

    Making fun of older music and those who only listen to older music….while only listening to new music with the same superior attitude.

    Using the arguement that the Hebrew and Greek back up your interpretation that “wine” includes Budweiser and Vodka……and laughing at those who inist that the word “baptize” means “to baptize” and not sprinkle.

    Believing it is silly to quote Scofield, Hyles or or Billy Sunday….and backing it up by quoting Calvin, Luther and Piper. And MacArthur and Spurgeon. And then Spurgeon again. ANd then Zwingli. And then Piper again.

    Mocking those who attend worship services with their family……..while staying at home in front of your PC in your pajamas and feeling much more spiritual.

    Ridiculing the KJV… while idolizing those who used it before and after the Great Awakening etc.

    Rejecting the free offer of Grace….and giving away free cofee at the flea market.

    This is fun!

    1. suits – who cares?

      music – who cares?

      baptism means immerse, and it’s not always by water. I was saved by baptism into Christ by the Holy Spirit and there was not a drop of water near me 🙂 But you knew that. I was baptized into Christ’s death without water (Galatians 2:20 and that other verse that I can’t remember right now).

      I like the quoting one. It frustrates me when anyone quotes a man to prove a doctrine. The Calvinists I know do it all the time. Quote the Westminster confession or Baptist Confession or something as though it were scripture. They could make the same argument from scripture. Personally, I don’t really care so much about calvinism/everythingelseism anymore.

      I don’t know who mocked anyone that went to church with their family???

      I also don’t get the hatred for the KJV. I use it. I believe it is inspired (yeah, I’m more fundy than most on the KJV lol), but I really don’t care anymore if you use an NIV, or whether you are KJ preferred or whatever – the debate is fruitless in my experience.

        1. John, while in some regards you’re right, I think you’re missing the point. The site is called Stuff *Fundies* Like for a reason. It’s not the place to call others out, most of whom come from an IFB background and aren’t bitter, they’re just venting the pain they’re recovering from. You’re not helping your case by projecting on the commenters with whom you disagree. Just so you know, I’m not attacking you like others on here have. I’m just saying, it doesn’t add to the discussion.

        2. Melody – John has been told numerous times of the “mission statement” of SFL. He is either just ignorant of the purpose of SFL or he gets it in which case he is just posting comments to rile up the readers. That would make him a troll.

          From Wikipedia:
          “a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community”

        3. Melody,

          Obviously it whenever I post it generates plenty of responses!

          Nobody ever comments when I agree!

          My goal is to keep the discussions balanced when I can…I know its a losing battle as far as numbers go, but I hope to point out the hypocrisy and the fundies here who are just on the other side of thr aisle and just as guily.

          IF I can make one person stop and say “Whoah–we are as they” then mission accomplished.

          I laugh often here, and “get it” —but hope to edify and not just tear down.

        4. Scorpio,

          Actually your post is the first. I don’t recall any others ever. If so, find them and let me know.

          Also, as stated above, I think I have kept by it and have been “trolled” here more than once by others.

        5. Scorpio,

          Ummmm…there’s absolutley no mention whatsoever of a SFL “Mission Statement” there, so unless ypu psoted the wrong link, you’d best keep looking. I’ll wait.

        6. John – It took a while to find it but this is the comment I was referencing when I said you have been told.

          An analogy – you show up at a AA meeting with a 12-pack of beer describing how cold and delicious it is and when everyone tells you to leave you get indignant and claim “but it does taste good, and I don’t care if you have a problem with it”.

        7. Scorpio,

          Ummmm…there’s absolutley no mention whatsoever of a SFL “Mission Statement” there either.

          Twice you have tried. Keep looking?

        8. Gosh, really John? You know exactly what they’re talking about….

          Duh it doesn’t have MISSION STATEMENT in big bold capital letters but it’s very obvious from the quote what it is.

          Or do you need it spelled out again like Melody posted?

    2. Straw man! You’re needed for a cleanup on aisle one!

      – Men and women in court do not think their manner of dress makes God like them more. But to most fundies manner of dress is not merely tradition or fashion but a requirement for sanctification. By the way, I wear a suit to church. I’m really a pretty old-fashioned guy.

      – I listen to old music. But I don’t condemn those who like good music that’s new. I also think that bad music is bad no matter what era it comes from.

      – I think baptism means immersion but it’s not worth dividing the body over. The substance is more important than the symbol.

      – I don’t drink so I have no personal reason to wish the Bible to condone it. But the Bible obviously speaks of alcohol consumption favorably.

      – Who mocks going to church? Now you’re just hallucinating points to respond to.

      – I still read my KJV often. All my memorized verses come from its pages. But I do check the ESV sometimes for clarity and to make sure I’m not tripping over old usage of words.

      The difference between your “judging” and mine is that I don’t think your things are inherently wrong. It is rather the belief that those things make you somehow holier than the rest of the population that I take issue with.

      I don’t expect you to understand. But I thought I’d give it a shot anyway.

      1. Darrell,

        Do you use a straw broom to clean up a straw man?

        I don’t think you guilty of the things I mentioned….not all non-fundies are. You always seem balanced. (I know, I know…)

        Jsut like not all fundies are guilty of what many here claim. Many are just as vocal against the things they are here labelled as.

        As for your remarks,, I appreciate your civility and ability to discuss without insulting or belittling.

        -Dress is entirely a preference and not a sign or necessary spirituality. I prefer a woman wear pants than an immodest dress/skirt. To Church. And sing in them for all I care. But here’s nothing wrong with having as high a dress standard at Chruch for those in a position than they do down at the job.

        -I agree wholeheartedly about music

        -The substance is lost without the symbol–the argument is way to clear throughout the NT that it is all about the death, burial and resurrection and new life in Christ. No way sprinkling or pouring makes any sense at all. Its what got me out of Presyterianism.

        -No it does’nt. Not when it is for recreational use. Wine is like the word “drink” is today–it’s all dependent on the use. Proverbs isnt the only place that alcoholic drinking is forbidden and disdained. Nyquil is okay though, as it is medicinal.

        -Oh it has been done by a few heare who no longer go oradvocate “home Church”. Not you, and not many–but a few. Also, i wasn’t limiting my remarks to this forum but anti’s everywhere.

        -No problem witht hat. I think that the KJV is superior mostly duie to so much dynamic equivallancey etc. messing up most modern versions. I refer to the NASB and others at times for insigth, but save for a few places where the English is antiquitated, the KJV gets it right.

        I do understand Darrell, but so many here don’t-and mirror what they attack without realizing it–even your post aimed at me personally as being judgemental, when in fact we agree on far, far more than we disagree. On these points, it looks like only 2 out of 8.

        Again, I appreciate your civility and giving me the chance.

        I do not think music or modesty are fundamentals of the faith.

        I think Schaap, Hyles and others are a sad joke.

        I agree on many of the PCC and BJU posts-I attended PCC and my wife attended BOTH. (Bless her heart)

        This is a great site when it doesnt go to far, which it usually doesn’t–but the comments often do and end up attacking not fundamentals, but the fundamentals of the faith–and not juswt the five from the 20’s.

        Still wondering about how to clean up a straw man….. 😉

        1. “Many are just as vocal against the things they are here labelled as.”

          If this statement was true than one of these two things must also be true. A) Fundamentalism would be dying as a branch of Christianity. B)If it is not dying as a branch of Christianity than those who are “just as vocal” are simply talking and not acting out what they say they believe and are therefore hypocritical.

        2. @John, I don’t agree with everyone who posts on here – far from it – but many of us have spent YEARS listening to fathers, pastors, and evangelists brow-beat us, yelling about how their version of truth is the only one and anyone who disagrees is stupid and sinful and probably hopelessly bound for hell. And, no, the yelling wasn’t about whether Jesus was God or not; it was over things like listening to Steve Green or reading “The Five Love Languages”, absolutely trivial things in which Christians should be allowed liberty.

          After literally YEARS of this, in church every time the doors were open, in Christian school, in Christian college, at Christian camp, or even in our homes with our fathers, we are finally able here on SFL to say, “We don’t agree” without being yelled at until we start crying. (OK, I won’t speak for anyone else on this board, but my father’s screaming always made cry.) So it’s frustrating to have someone come on here criticizing us for finally speaking out.

          (I personally have less of a problem when you respond specifically to an individual’s post, which I have seen you do, but in the list you posted above, you’re just aiming widely. For example, you claim that we’re making fun on the KJV. Well, if you see someone do so, reply to his specific comment. But don’t just post a general accusation because a lot of us value and respect the KJV; we just resent being told we’re not saved if we weren’t saved from the KJV. It’s ridiculous preaching like that that’s drawn most of us to post here.)

        3. I think pastor’s wife summed it up well. This site is a lot of things, certainly, but one of those things is as a refuge and, heck, a support group for those who have been grievously wounded by establishment fundamentalism. A lot of us here are still sorting through the debris left behind by fundamentalist “ministry” and trying to figure out what, if anything, is left. Some are merely amused by the idiocy peddled in the name of God, some are mad about the abuse, some are beaten down, some are just disillusioned. I’d group myself with the utterly and completely disillusioned.

          The shoot-the-wounded schtick may be good for a laugh and fundy points here and there, but you simply have no idea… 🙁

        4. @Pastors wife

          To merely speak out on or against the things you mention is one thing (and I think it’s a GOOD thing, which is why I keep coming back.)and what often goes on in the comments is another.

          I have been there sister–had a pastor yell at me and make all kings of stupid dictaor claims etc. and got out while the getting was good, but throwing out the baby with the bathwater is not the answer. And it hurts the baby.

          As for the “wide open” post, I do try to specifically answer , which is sometimes hard or near impossible to do with the format, but this particluar post was as all the other comments and intented to make a point that such “dissonance” (Paradox is more accurate) is common on both sides of the aisle and not just a problem for fundies.

          You have always been logical and polite in you rpsots and I appreciate that. As far as I can tell, you are not representative of the ones I speak of /to.

        1. Just in case I’m the only one who actually read the Wiki article Darrell initially linked to in the post “cognitive dissonance is the opposite of doublethink”. According to the article, doublethink is when you believe two mutually exclusive things and you have absolutely no trouble with it. Cognitive dissonance is when you believe two mutually exclusive things and you do get glimmers of “there’s something wrong here”.

          Not that it matters too much…

        2. You’re right, Liz. Although I often think of them as synonyms, they’re really opposite ends of the spectrum.

        3. Good correction, I was unfamiliar with doublethink. If I understand you correctly, it is when you *should* have cognitive dissonance,and either just deny there’s a problem, ignore it, hope it goes away, or are so inattentive as to not even notice.

    3. I think it’s really disappointing you choose to invade a space like this John. I love that here crazy is just called for what it is – and while most of the time you are a clear example of what we all left, it’s just dead set annoying after a while.

      Having said all that…. Don’t feed the troll!!!!!

      1. Exactly, Kiana. Whether or not we agree with him, we just add fuel to the fire by fighting back. Don’t take the bait (so to speak). This site was much more enjoyable before all the drama and arguing.

        1. You know Melody you are so right, “This site was much more enjoyable before all the drama and arguing.”

          george and I are going to take a hiatus for a while. I enjoyed trading wit and insight with many here but recently it has become wearisome. (no reflection in Darrell, because his insight and talent are without equal in shining light on fundie absurdities.) Maybe it’s time for me to move on, idk. Real life is taking its toll right now so cyber-life will have to take a back seat. Maybe I’ll see you all in the “fundie papers.” (only the older ones will probably get that relic of a cultural reference) 😯

        2. @That’s too bad. I’ll miss the both of you commenting here. Here a parting gift. If I rember in one of the comments section I think you mentioned growing out your beard and your hair.
          I could never find what post, but if you really want to grow out your beard you gotta copete with this(the parting gift(a photo)):

        3. @RobM
          OOps That post was for George and Don. It had Don’s name at first,but I accidentally erased it and did notice until I posted it and you replied sorry for the mess up. Not that I want commenter numbers to go down on here.

      2. Is this then an example of that? 😛
        Or cognitive dissonance?

        BTW…I am here to receive, not just dish out. I am “one of you” though everyone immediatly assumes I am not and attacks me…..just like fundies do.

    4. John, it’s *venting*…apparently you were never injured by the absurdity of Chrisitian fundamentalism and its almost cult like grip on the human soul. I personally don’t believe anyone is “making fun” of anyone who wears a suit to church or old fashion music, etc. BUT, what I DO see is people kicking back at the notion of the absurd requirement that “IF YOU DON’T ____________________, you’re: not right with God, not saved, have a rebellious spirit, and other such nonsense. In your own way, you are trying to squelch dissent….if this bothers you so much, leave. If you can live with it…play nice. These people aren’t rebelling against God, they are sick and tired of being lorded over and having it called “Christianity”. I mean really, get kicked enough, you will lash out and sometimes it takes a while to get over it. Darrell’s observations give me a good belly laugh and helps me look beyond the absurdity of the doctrines of men that I was compelled to follow in the name of Christ.

      In closing, I suppose what I am trying to say is back off and let the people vent and let God worry about what they *appear* to be doing or not doing. 😛

    5. Hoo boy. John, you just don’t get it.

      Dress and music: Who cares? I actually like the older music myself, and I’d probably wear skirts and dresses more often if I didn’t have to wear certain shoes to keep a foot problem in check. But then again, Fundamentalists do value looking right over actually doing the right thing. I’ll never forget when Miss Barker almost refused to allow me to wear sneakers to chapel while I was on crutches my frosh year. I guess she would have preferred I wear heels and risk greater injury. Fortunately, common sense prevailed… but it took a fight.

      Your “wine” argument is one I’ve never heard. Fact is, who cares if you drink or not, as long as you don’t do it to excess. Scripture consistently condemns drunkenness, but is not so uniformly harsh on just drinking.

      Baptism? Another argument which doesn’t hold up. You have people here who do immersion, sprinkling, and pouring, and we don’t give one another grief over it.

      Your quotes crack me up, though. I do believe certain modern preachers are outrageously overrated, and I am not crazy about hearing their quotes either.

      I don’t know any Christian who would mock others for going to church with their families. Maybe you think we do, but we don’t.

      Ridiculing the KJV? Nope, still very much a part of my large Bible collection, and I’m sure others would say the same. I can count at least five KJVs at home, and four were mine before I got married.

      Rejecting grace? Far from it. If anything, Fundamentalists reject grace, at least for everyone they consider unworthy of it. If you’re not from a perfect two-parent Christian home, there’s not enough grace for you. If you are female, there is not enough grace for you. If you have been through abuse, there is not enough grace for you. Etc.

      Pointing out absurdities in culture is only fun when you actually get the issues right.

      1. LMcC

        Read the further comments for explanation that i was using parody to point out hypocrisy and I agree with many of your psoitions


        “who cares if you drink or not, as long as you don’t do it to excess. Scripture consistently condemns drunkenness, but is not so uniformly harsh on just drinking.”

        Actually it is.

        “Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder. Thine eyes shall behold strange women, and thine heart shall utter perverse things. Yea, thou shalt be as he that lieth upon the top of a mast. They have stricken me, shalt thou say, and I was not sick; they have beaten me, and I felt it not: when shall I awake? I will seek it yet again” (Prov. 23:31-35).
        Alcohol is the #1 drug in America. There are more deaths attributed to alcohol than experienced in all our nation’s wars combined.
        “Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.” (Prov. 20:1)

        Baptism is dealth with a little further down in comments with Bassenco.

        “Another argument which doesn’t hold up.
        You have people here who do immersion, sprinkling, and pouring, and we don’t give one another grief over it.”

        I’m not giving grief or even arguing, but it is an important subject.

        Hope your Tuesday is good so far!

        1. Yeah, isn’t that an awesome set of verses to use against moderates? 🙂 Too bad it doesn’t work in the whole context of Scripture. The wedding at Cana describes wine properties that are inconsistent with Welch’s brand, and Song of Solomon 1:2 compares wine and love favorably. Paul also recommends wine for timothy’s illness in the pastoral epistles.

          If the Bible were consistently anti-drinking and not just anti-irresponsibility, Jesus would have just purified the water or created some other drink which would not have had certain properties. If the Bible were consistently anti-drinking, SOS 1:2 would make as much sense as if it were read “for thy love is better than a dead skunk on the road” or something suitably nasty. It’d really be an insult to the lover, but it clearly is not in context. Alcohol also had use for relieving Timothy’s stomach ailment (which Welch’s does not have… tried it, doesn’t work).

          So… yeah, if you want to treat responsible light and moderate drinkers as a bunch of worthless drunks, we can’t stop you. That said, we also know Scripture doesn’t quite back you up as neatly as you think in your finger-pointing.

        2. RE: Alcohol

          These verses sound like addiction. When shall I awake? I will seek it yet again.

          But Paul recommends Timothy drink wine for health issues, and as far as I can remember it is not mentioned negatively in the Bible even in the law books in the OT (except in regards to the Nazarite vow). You’d think if God had a problem with it he’d have mentioned it there: he sure brought up everything else!

          But yes, it can be a problem and is controversial and I really don’t have a problem if a person decides it’s not the best idea. My brother doesn’t drink. I just have a problem when they condemn it from the pulpit like it’s the horrid sin!

        3. Easterlily: No worries 🙂

          The addiction point is a good one. Normal drinkers don’t act like that.

          My attitude toward alcohol is simply this: If you know you have an addiction, do what it takes to overcome it and don’t allow yourself to get pulled back in. If you know someone who has an addiction, do what you need to do to keep the stumbling blocks out of their way. If you do not have an addiction and are not in the company of someone battling addiction, then just use common sense. Is it really that tough?

          Of course, I get my laughs out of the hard-nosed anti-drinkers who then turn around and order stuff cooked in alcohol. Japanese restaurants especially, with all that sake and mirin in their cooking. Hey, if you’re going to bash someone who likes a glass with dinner, maybe you don’t need to eat stuff cooked with it. Even if the alcohol mostly cooks out, there’s still wine on that teriyaki beef.

        4. Lmcc

          Again a simple misunderstanding of the word “Wine”. Just like the modern usage of the word “drink” , it clearly depends on context….Pepsi or Vodka. Grape Juice or Chardonay.

          “Fruit of the vine” is used EVERY time in context of the Lord’s Supper and as to the wedding in Cana, Jesus wasn’t a bartender. –the guests were already “well drunken” and by defintiion, Jesus would have endorsed drunkeness then, and broken the commandments quoted above (among others).

          A study of fermentation and wine in OT society is very revealing.

          “Wine” is a generic term just like “drink” in OT in NT it is always non-alcoholic “oy-nos”

          Their lack of refrigeration did not require fermentation!
          Romans preserved grape juice all year without fermentation!
          Yeast and other leavens must be added to make Beer etc.

          1955 Funk and Wagnall’s New “Standard” Dictionary of the English Language defines wine as follows: “1. The fermented juice of the grape: in loose language the juice of the grape whether fermented or not.” Forty-six years ago loose language allowed that it may or may not be fermented.

          As for “alcoholism is a disease”, if so then it’s the only disease that requires a license to propagate and the only disease that is bottled and sold and spread by advertising.

          BTW I always find it interesting also how so many use illogical arguments based on this to approve beer and vodka etc. which certainly has nothing to do with grapes.
          (Not that you have, I just find it interesting)

        5. @John- the kjv says “when men have well drunk.” it doesn’t say “well drunken.” the esv and nasb say “when men [nas people] have drunk freely.” Jesus provided the best (tasting) wine after people had already consumed quite a lot. “well drunk” does not mean that the people were inebriated.

          could some people at the feast have gotten drunk? absolutely. did Jesus ever condone drunkenness? absolutely not. during the feeding of the 5,000, some people may have eaten too much (gluttony). did Jesus ever condone gluttony? no. the point is that we sometimes abuse God’s good gifts to us. God does not condone abuse, but he does provide the substances being abused. who gave us marijuana, tobacco, peyote, psiloscybin mushrooms (aka magic mushrooms), areca nut (aka betel nut)etc on earth?

          btw…who put that tree in the garden?

        6. I’ve been staying out of the troll-baiting, but I’m now *sigh* moved to say something. Those who read Proverbs 23 will note that the passage partially quoted warns against the perils of drunkenness, not alcohol use per se. The description of activity and aftereffects will be familiar to anyone who’s had to deal with drunks, especially habitual drunks; those who are in the military probably have had more than their fair share of this. This is not a condemnation of alcohol consumption, but a warning against letting the strong drink control you.
          It’s also really bad form (at best) in debate to mix your argument framework – shifting from the Scriptural argument to flung statistics about health effects doesn’t convince. I can see a fruitful discussion about the question of partaking in a culture where the idolization of drunkenness has reached such proportion, but this isn’t the way to get such a discussion started. BTW, I suspect that caffeine is the USA’s #1 drug, but I haven’t the patience to dig through the statistical abstracts to try to determine this.
          Baptism is a different question altogether. Since the mikveh tradition was a threefold self-immersion in a public setting — at least two witnesses — for ritual cleansing; the text of the Gospel implies that John’s baptism of Jesus was in fact a mikveh. OTOH, archaeology shows that New Testament baptismals were of various foms, and many were pools which they proselyet stood in while water was poured over him. The Greek baptizo doesn’t help at all; in both Koine and Classical it refers to both dipping and pouring. My take on this is therefore that baptism is a symbolic act, just as in the Tenakh, and the form of the symbol isn’t important.

          John, a “straw man” is using a ridiculous or hyperbolic example to refute an opponents position in debate.

          If you’re going to use parody comediacally, you’re going to have to get better at it. I didn’t get that it was parody either.

    6. There is a difference: the majority of us here are not professing that our way is the only way. It is obvious from the wide varieties of churches we’re in now!

      Fundies think “our way is the only way.” I’ve grown up in two fundy churches: both said the same thing. That’s why it’s so infuriating.

      Their standards and convictions are many times man-made, and yet they are declared as Bible truth. They can believe what they like: just don’t stuff it down everyone’s throats like it’s Bible.

    1. I see your point, but you don’t dye without dipping…you don’t sprinkle to dye, you immerse. They are synonomous, then and now.

      (Romans 6:4) Therefore we are BURIED with him by baptism into death: that LIKE AS Christ was RAISED UP from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

      (1Pe 3:21) The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

      (Act 8:36) And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

      I’m sure he had a canten in the desert, they could’ve/would’e used that if sprinkling was okay

      1. “I see your point, but you don’t dye without dipping…you don’t sprinkle to dye, you immerse. ”

        Someone has never tie-dyed. One can get some wild effects using a combination of methods: dipping parts, sprinkling, pouring…

        Hm, OK, I actually did learn something in Scouting.

        1. Atually, I love to tie dye!

          Tie dying is keeping parts FROM being dyed, while other parts are.
          The entire cloth is not dyed, so this proves my point.

        2. Actually, it proves nothing. Not all tie-dye involves leaving parts without dye, and not all coloring methods that involve leaving areas undyed are tie-dye. Even when a dyeing method does involve leaving parts undyed, those parts are as much a part of the overall design as the dyed parts.

      2. John, to apply a dye, you can dunk, dip, sprinkle, paint, brush through, spatter, stencil, stamp, roller it on, etc. Not everything that is dyed is immersed. Again, the Bible talks about “baptizing” hands, utensils, even couches. These were items made clean by pouring, even scrubbing, not necessarily immersing. Certainly, couches were not immersed.

        1. We did baptize a couch by immersion once at a party when I was a teenager, but that was different I guess

          Modern usages of the word don’t change the fact, and die-ing is the point of the picture/symbol,
          as in in placed in a tomb.

        2. No it isn’t. Initiation and change are what baptism indicates (hence the phrase: “baptism by fire”; ie, an initiation by fire). The New Testament talks about the Jews being “baptized unto Moses in the cloud, and in the sea”. But the sea never touched them. It wasn’t that they were immersed or raised up from the depths, but that they passed through an initiatory process.

      1. The root Greek word for ‘baptize’ is ‘bapto’.

        a primary verb; to whelm, i.e. cover wholly with a fluid; in the New Testament only in a qualified or special sense, i.e. (literally) to moisten (a part of one’s person), or (by implication) to stain (as with dye):

        baptizw baptizo bap-tid’-zo

        1. to immerse, submerge;

        2. to make whelmed (i.e. fully wet);

        Baptism is a SYMBOL of Jesus’ Death, BURIAL, and Resurrection.
        If a person is not totally submerged in the water then it is not an accurate picture of Jesus’ burial, and is useless as a symbol.

        Matthew 3:16 (“And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water:”

        We are to FOLLOW HIM in believers baptism, not a Roman custom from the 3rd century.

        1. Where are you getting that definition?

          The word shares the same root as is used for indigo, Baptisia. And the reason indigo has that ancient root word is because it is the oldest plant used for dying ceremonial garments. Indigo is closely associated with ancient royal clothiers who patterned, dipped, dyed, rolled clothing with dye made from the indigo plant.

          And you’re dodging the question. The Bible talks about baptizing couches. So you really believe that couches were immersed?

        2. Different sources, Thayers mostly and Strongs (Cause they were easy to access and prove that the definitions are universal)

          No Dodge, (I prefer a Chevy ) your couch reference likley refers to sanctification and seperation and the couch was soaked….whether it was dropped into a pool, I know not. What is your reference BTW? (Verse)

          Either way, the NT also uses the sanctification analogy—

          just as if refers to Israel’s baptism by the Red Sea and they walked through it without getting wet. Still has no relation to the defintion of the word or the fact that all baptisms in the NT including Jesus, were without a doubt, no question, no debate -by Luther, Calvin or Wesley, abso-poso-lutly by immersion.

          This, you dodge.

          You insist that wine is alcoholic as often as it is used differently, and appeal to Hebrew/Greek definition–and yet play the other side with baptism and say the opposite? 😯


        3. I should have said that the word for “buried” (not baptizo) means “funeralizing”.. in fact, Jesus Christ was not buried in the ground, but inside a sepulchre. There is no physical analogy between a going 6 feet under and baptism.

        4. Yes, but the idea is clearly to “surround with”–be immersed in. “In” the ground or “in” a tomb makes no difference.

        5. The definition of immersion is only universal to Baptists. The word, provably, comes from the same word used for indigo, which was one of the first plants to be used for dying.

          The evidence of the fact that the original word has to do with being marked by an initiation or changed by an initiation is found in the ancient sources where, indeed, people were considered “baptized” by the fact that the sea did NOT immerse them rather than that it did.

          The word at its root does not have anything to do with being buried.

  18. Genesis and the world’s creation took place in a LITERAL 6 days, don;t you doubt it, sinner!

    When Jesus said his followers would see his return in their lifetime what he REALLY meant was…..blah blah blah blah. Yeah, you get it.

  19. Believing it is silly to quote Scofield, Hyles or or Billy Sunday….

    Silly to quote Hyles? Stupid maybe, but not silly. The man was a heretic and I don’t use that term lightly. He was an empire builder and a home wrecker. The atrocities committed on his watch and many in the name of God are well documented and reflects poorly on the person and work of Jesus Christ.

    Silly to Quote Billy Sunday. Yep, now that is silly. Billy was another empire builder and he did it by preaching the social gospel of Temperance. Read Billy Sunday’s sermons, listen to the audio that has been archived and you will be hard pressed to find much scripture in Billy’s sermons. And even less Scripture that is used in context. Billy believed sin was an external to be physically fought against. He believed that you could legislate morality and in his ministry you will find the beginnings of the “Moral Majority” and the “Religious Right.” In the end Billy’s crusade against “Demon Alcohol” gave the underworld and mobsters a political-social-financial boost they could not have planned better themselves. The 18th Amendment solidified the underworld’s hold on American Society. The Temperance movement gave the mobsters a gift greater than they had ever dreamed of. The beginiings of the temperance movement can be traced back to Charles Finney as well. So yeah quoting BS is silly.

    1. @ Don,

      I agree–that’s the point!

      It’s silly to do so on either side….and even sillier to criticize the other guys for doing it when it is so widespread on both sides of the aisle,

      It’s hypocritical. Those “other guys” (Calvin, Luther etc.) had/have some oh so sizeable skeletons in their closets too.

      Your comment son the 18th Amendment are ill informed, but that’s another story…..

      1. my comment “are” ill informed??
        I certainly hope you have at least studied enough real American history to know that the 18th Amendment was one of the greatest social, economic and moral failures in American History.

        but alas I toss the troll a bone on my way out the door 😕

        1. Very ill informed, as you have allowed revisionist history to cloud the facts.

          Look up statistics and see.

          The 18th amendemnt was a tremendous success for the short time it was allowed to fllurish , and every so called argument against it also works for the legalization of marijuana etc. going on today.

          Satanic and idiotic.

        2. As a history major, I can say that prohibition was a very bad decision. For one thing, it didn’t stop anyone who really wanted alcohol from aquiring it. It just made it more dangerous and criminal. Just like the drug wars now.

          I am not promoting drug usage or drunkeness. I’m just stating that when a government makes things illegal, it doesn’t make people stop, it just makes them criminals.

          Also, I find it odd that the same people who want to outlaw alcohol would fight to the death to keep their guns. THAT is a cognitive dissonance.

        3. Jessica,

          I don’t know where you major in History but to copare the 2nd amendemnt to the 18th, and say that it is dissonance, is itself cognitive dissonance.

          I agree with the criminal part, but that is the point and purpose of goverment, to protect.

          Guns protect people…look at the stats, not the ones taught by liberals, but the actual stats—just like the 18th amendment stats.

        4. Apathetic

          What’s you point?
          Sins effect on creation causes poison mushrooms to come forth, does that mena we should eat them to get high and maybe die??

        5. @John,

          I actually support the 2nd Amendment and agree that all American citizens should be allowed to purchase whatever fire arm they want. It has been proven that countries that have more restrictive firearms have a higher number crimes. So, yes, I agree with you about that.

          I was pointing out that fundies will usually want alcohol prohibited because of the problems that it causes in society (and my father is/was an alcoholic so I know the problem is causes) but they will fight to the death to prevent the prohibition of guns (which do cause problems in society because humankind is evil)

          They want to prohibt one thing because of the dangers but support the usage of another thing because of the dangers.

          AND…you don’t have to do intense research to see the increase of moonshiners, gangsters, speakeasys, etc. Its kinda common knowledge. But I would be interested in reading your stats.

        6. Duh, I meant this:

          They want to prohibt one thing because of the dangers but support the usage of another thing despite the dangers.

        7. @Jessica

          Almost apples and oranges, guns safety as you stated, CAUSE safety and have POSITIVE influence, wherein beverage alcohol does not. Not to mention the “weighing” principle–benefits over dangers.

          One deserves support, the other prohibition.

          Statistics wise, scholars who stopped watching “The Untouchables” long enough to look at what really happened during Prohibition.found that, nationwide, there was no violent crime wave. Per-capita alcohol consumption decreased by nearly two-thirds.

          If prohibition failed—so why are drugs still illegal? During Prohibition statistics say Alcohol consumption was reduced by almost 70%.

          THere are many sources on the net–a quick search brought forth these very non fundy sources

          Sadly, it did cause the creation of NASCAR though 🙂

  20. Children under a given age are going to be raptured up automatically because God considers them innocent. However, as long as the children are here, we should hit them in the name of love and force them to adhere to standards of obedience that adults encounter only in prisons and conscript armies,* because otherwise they will all turn into Hellbound sinners.

    Oh, and the area covered by the underwear is absolutely not to be seen or touched because it might lead to sex, or possibly dancing. Except when it belongs to a child and is being struck by an adult.

    *First time, every time, and with a smile on your face or I will keep tormenting you until you can fake a happy heart!

  21. And also: We should listen to the promptings of the Holy Spirit, but if you keep hearing “something” telling you that leaving your baby to scream in his crib isn’t teaching him anything but despair, you are listening to the promptings of the flesh. If the Holy Spirit prompts you toward mercy, charity, patience, and kindness, but the authority figures in your life are agin ’em–well, the Holy Spirit is just wrong.

  22. We think that too much study of the original languages and theology makes you a proud intellectual Rome lover, but we certainly take our “Textus Receptus” and “oinos” very seriously.

    1. Oh, more words “yayin”, “shekar”, “Masoretic Text” and “Albigeneses” and “Donatist”.

      But ain’t the Albis gnostics and the Donatists part of the Catholic Church?

  23. To go back to the dressing up thing, I recently read a survey that fewer than 25% of American men even OWN a suit (let alone one that fits). . .It’s just not the business standard anymore. Of course, in different parts of the country things may vary due to the culture. But I live in the Northeast, and my husband’s PROFESSIONAL office has no dress code for work. He wears jeans most days. The whole “dressing up for church thing” is irrelevant in 2010 no matter how you look at it. Thinking that dressing up “pleases the Lord” makes it even worse. JMHO.

    1. I like dressing up for church. I think men look sharp in suits too. However, I am willing to lay my preferences aside for the sake of the Gospel. In the interest of being all things to all men, and recognizing that our culture has become very casual, I will not hold “wearing suits to church” as a standard.

      (I just came across a “Sword of the Lord” from September 17, 2010 in which Dr. Shelton Smith writes an article called “Judges Require Dress Code in Courtroom” in which writes, “Dear friend, if you are serious about your faith, if you value your testimony, and if you want to make an impact for Christ, why on earth would you continue to clamor and resist cleaning up your act? Do you not want to be a strong Christian? Are you not concerned about how you are perceived? Are you not willing to do whatever you can do to be at your best for Christ?” Sigh. The assumption here that anyone who doesn’t dress in a suit for church is not serious about his faith is so sad.)

    2. It is very regional nowadays.
      Back int he 20’s men put on a suit to go to town and owre a fedora–int he deep south in the summertime!

      Nowadays I think it’s proper for a pastor, just as it still is for politicans, lawyers, businessmen at any important meeting (still in most places -at least a tie) etc. but that’s about it.

      I dont know of nay Church that requires it for membership, but there probrbably are some out there somewhere.

  24. We believe in the Kingdom of God and in His power and authority over all things . . . we also believe that America and her sovereignty are necessary and needed to help God fulfill His plan.

        1. I didn’t mean it personally for you Eric. Sorry. I just get exorcised over the “God needs your help” idea.

  25. We believe Proverbs 23:20 clearly prohibits the drinking of wine (or your favorite alcoholic beverage)….we just choose to ignore the second part of that verse that also condemns gluttony as we pig out every Sunday afternoon at the local BBQ joint.

  26. When fundies knock on your door to witness, you must to be civil and listen to them. When false witnesses knock on a fundie door, the fundie is allow to slam the door in the false witnesses’ face.

  27. Here’s one.

    “The culture is corrupt and destroying America!”

    why doesn’t God condemn polygamy in the Old Testament?

    “well, that was the culture in that time, and God let them do it because it was the culture they lived in.”

    1. I was trying to quote a previous post in the above response. The copied part did not come through. (It was also buried too far down in the thread to reply to the prior post.)

      “Inquiring minds want to know, who created marijuana? Was it God?”

        1. Mark,

          You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the word “evil” my friend–it means destruction, not always moral evil.
          Like the word ‘hate” we today use the word only one way, but that is not it’s only usage or definition.
          God is not the author of evil.

  28. Don’t get me started on Fundy attitudes about women:

    Women are inherently deceived and deceivers. Therefore, they cannot teach men. Instead, we will assign them to teach impressionable children who have neither the education nor the logic background to defend themselves against deception.


    Women are more spiritual than men. Therefore, we will not allow them any place in church leadership or even church business issues because they don’t need to be corrupted.

    So somehow, depending on the church or sometimes even the time of day, we’re both spiritual and wicked. Let’s just take our tithes elsewhere. 🙄

    1. Sadly so true. I’m trying to learn that God really does love me; He delights in me, He rejoices over me. (Then comes that insidious thought: “He’s REALLY annoyed with you, you pathetic failure. You disappoint Him over and over; how could YOU ever bring Him joy?”) It’s hard to rest in His love, knowing that His anger was poured out on Christ. When I take all those accusations and realize that any anger at my sin was directed toward JESUS on the cross, how my heart is filled with such love for Him!!!!!

  29. Your wife’s inability to control her desire to wear pants is clearly the result of her adulterous heart and wanting to rule over her husband, but the preacher’s 60 inch waistline is the result of an unfortunate thyroid imbalance, aka his “thorn in the flesh”.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.