Fundie Rebuttal

28 October 2012

Synopsis

This paper presents arguments against the fundie definitions as posted on the Urban Dictionary website.


Offending Website

Urban Dictionary: Fundie, http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fundie

Postings numbered 1–12, by various contributors, 2001–2008.

Introduction

Somehow during a web search I landed on the Urban Dictionary’s Fundie definition page. I had never heard of the term before, so naturally I was interested in what was posted. The intentionally derogatory term fundie is an abbreviation of the word fundamentalist. The term fundamentalist is commonly used to label conservative Christians who have strong convictions based on the Bible, church teachings and/or other sources. Similarly, the term is applied to conservative adherents of Islam who want a revival of Islamic values and laws.

A general definition of a fundamentalist could go something like this: “any person who adheres to the fundamentals of a particular teaching or belief system.” So, according to my general definition, anyone who has strong convictions about something, religious or otherwise, can be a fundamentalist. Of course, the problem isn’t about having strong convictions; it’s about the source of those strong convictions. Proggies (an abbreviation for progressives) on the other hand, have strong convictions about their own radical agenda, but no one would call them fundamentalists, even though they hold to the fundamentals of their belief system, namely the teachings of the deities in the atheistic trinity: Darwin, Marx, and Lenin. But I’m getting ahead of myself.

In Christian circles, the term fundamentalist is usually used to describe someone who holds to a legalistic interpretation of the Bible. These include the famous dos and don’ts which are mostly don’ts, for example: don’t drink, don’t dance, don’t watch movies, don’t listen to non-Christian music, etc. These beliefs are not Biblical, but were derived from traditions and denominational biases which were inculcated by legalistic preachers and nurtured by local church leaders who hold to the same beliefs. I would also include followers of the King James Only Movement as being legalistic, to some degree. In the context of the Urban Dictionary, the term fundamentalist has frequently been used to label annoying or toxic Christians. There is a time and a place for everything—including effective witnessing. I believe all Christians need to be ready to discuss their beliefs with anyone whenever opportunities present themselves.

Strangely, I have to admit that I agree with a few of the contributor’s arguments, but overall, the page is hardly more than a collection of rants full of clichés, misinformation, bias, intolerance, racism, racialism, and ignorance. For example, many of the contributors criticize fundies as being intolerant and close-minded. Well, consider the list of terms and phrases used to describe religious fundamentalists by the very tolerant, open-minded anti-fundie contributors:

  • “Jesus Freak”
  • “Fundie idjit”
  • “Homo Phobius”
  • “subspecies of humanity”
  • “incapable of logical thought”
  • “underdeveloped and hate flooded brains”
  • “schizophrenic”
  • “sheeple”

Based on the list I just presented, would you say that the contributors using these terms and phrases sound tolerant, open-minded, scientific, or learned to you? I didn’t think so.

Counterpoints

Gricer, Posting 1, August 16, 2003

This contributor’s item 2 definition I would consider reasonable: “Often a sola scriptura non-denominational born-again Christian.” There are a lot of theological terms in that definition. Sola scriptura is the doctrine that the Scriptures alone are the only authoritative source for matters of faith and Christian practice. This doctrine particularly offends the Catholic Church and apostate protestant denominations because it conflicts with many of their beliefs and practices which are largely based on the “traditions of men.”

While the contributor’s item 2 definition has some credibility, items 3 and 4 are all downhill from there. How would this contributor know if someone was spouting “half-understood scripture [sic]” or not? Has the contributor ever done any independent Bible research of his own concerning the Scripture verses being quoted to him? Or could it be that this contributor is just regurgitating what he was told by his proggie college professors or irreligious friends about the Bible without having read it for himself. On the other hand, it’s easy just to say someone else doesn’t know what they are talking about if what they are saying disagrees with what you believe or think to be true.

The item 4 definition implying that fundie is a “general term for any teenage/preteen ‘pop’ Christian” is obviously an accusation that fundies are mostly young, immature, and worldly. Are you kidding me? This definition is ridiculous and could only be taken seriously by those that have had limited interactions with real Christians or those with an axe to grind.

“Fundy Bunch!” Image

I wonder what criteria the author used in choosing the personalities for the “Fundy Bunch!” image. The author definitely doesn’t like the Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN) because many of the fundie bunch members are seen on TBN, Jan Crouch for example. Interestingly, former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft is included in the bunch—a G. W. Bush appointee no less. After all, we all know that the U.S. Constitution bars Christians from trying to spread their holier-than-thou beliefs on everyone else, you know, the separation of the church from the state. What’s most interesting about the image is who is missing: Billy Graham, Joel Osteen, Charles Stanley, John Hagee, Joyce Meyer, and Hal Lindsey. I would have thought John Hagee and Joyce Meyer as better choices than some of the others included in the image. Also conspicuous in their absence are any black preachers such as Creflo Dollar, T. D. Jakes, and Eddie Long.

Davis 51, Posting 2, May 11, 2005

This is the first posting that mixes politics and religion—a volatile combination. But this mixing of politics and religion is not without precedent since religion was described as “…the opium of the people” by Marx, a deity in the atheistic trinity. Marx believed religion to be the creation of the capitalistic state and society. So, it follows that the struggle against capitalism is also a struggle against religion, specifically the Christian religion. This view is also elaborated on, ad nauseam, in the book Communism and Christianism Analyzed and Contrasted from the Marxian and Darwinian Points of View by William Montgomery Brown.

This contributor describes a fundie as a: “…heavily right-winged christian [sic], who tries to force his religion and ideas down other people’s throats.” I wholeheartedly agree! Jesus was always trying to force his teachings down other’s throats especially with the command: “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” Imagine how much worse the world would be if everyone obeyed that command.

I don’t think the reference to Christians being the oppressors of the poor downtrodden and misunderstood liberal activists deserves comment. If you want to know who the victims really are in this struggle, check out the book Guilty by Ann Coulter, if you dare.

The Davis51 contributor thought fundies wouldn’t be reading the postings on the Urban Dictionary website…well, wrong again.

jazzriff, Posting 3, October 11, 2005

Mr. jazzriff is the author of many of the highly tolerant fundie terms and phrases I mentioned earlier. This guy made so many racist and bigoted statements I hardly know where to begin. He could be the poster child for anti-Christian sentiment in this country (U.S.). After all, he is only following the teachings of one of the major prophets of the Left, namely Saul Alinsky who said: “Ridicule is man’s most perfect weapon.” It’s even more effective when you have celebrities and the mainstream news media approving of and even encouraging such behavior.

The jazzriff posting hits on the second most important issue in the liberal agenda which is homosexuality as evidenced by his use of the phrase: “Homo Phobius” to describe Christians who oppose legalizing same sex marriage. So it all goes back to the same old shtick that when a fundie opposes a proggie position, the fundie is a bigot and a racist but the proggie is the voice of reason and tolerance. No room for disagreement or old fashioned morality in the New World Order.

Our contributor has stated: “…the Christian fundie worships the Bible.” Not true. Christian fundies worship its author, God.

I’d like to devote the rest of my comments on this posting to one of the items in his list of people fundies consider to be inferior:

-liberals (in the sense of “Democrats” as well as the sense of people who think independently, and/or support any less strict form of government than theocratic fascism, and/or in any way support the concepts of peace, love, or tolerance, as espoused by the Christian fundie’s supposed idol, Jesus Christ.)

Notice how readily and proudly he associates liberals, as well as himself, with Democrats. This is not completely accurate because there are some liberals in the Republican Party—we call them RINOs (Republicans in Name Only). On the other side, what about the Blue Dog Democrats who are fiscally, if not socially, conservative? More often than not, the term conservative Democrat is an oxymoron.

When a liberal says that he or she thinks independently what they really mean to say is that they automatically oppose anything a conservative says, regardless of the facts.

On the subject of Democrats, consider the following excerpts from a certain political party platform:

All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.

…The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all.

We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.

We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest…

The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole education program…We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.

The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

Many of these platform positions could be taken right out of the Democratic Party platform today, with some minor rewording. They are in fact taken from the NSDAP Party Program proclaimed in 1920 by Adolf Hitler. It’s a good thing Hitler was a flaming conservative otherwise there would be a lot of unhappy liberals out there. To his [Hitler’s] credit, the platform did provide for freedom of religion—as long as the religious denomination didn’t endanger or oppose the State. One such example being the German Pastor and Theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer who vigorously opposed the Nazi regime and its leaders and who was eventually hanged two weeks before the end of WWII. Hitler was an advocate of “positive Christianity” which he believed would combat the influence of the “Jewish-materialistic spirit” that was, as he believed, pervading Germany at the time. I guess no one had the guts to tell him that Christianity is of Jewish origin. However, because Christianity was hijacked by the West, the image of an Aryan Jesus could be very appealing to the Nazis—as with many people today. It’s interesting to note that the Nazis were racialists in their views of the Germanic race and racists when it came to the Jews. Can anyone see the corollary with many racial policies in some countries today? How is any of this different from the U.S. today where Christians are marginalized and ridiculed from every direction?

Bad Grammar Must Die, Posting 4, April 2, 2003

This is another posting that mixes religion and politics—a common theme that runs through these postings. I believe it’s evident that the social/moral ideas the contributor is referring to is primarily the abortion issue. Since, Christians vote their conscience, why wouldn’t they associate themselves politically with the [right-wing] Republican Party? The majority of Republicans are pro-life which means they are in agreement with the medical and scientific community who unanimously agree that life begins at conception. So, the question isn’t when does human life begin, but when do human rights begin. So, given that a fetus is a human being, abortion is rightly called murder. If a fetus isn’t a human being then what is it? If not a human being, then why do expectant mothers place themselves under the care of an obstetrician and not some other medical specialist? Are expectant mothers only concerned about their own health? These questions sound ridiculous, don’t they? Yet, liberals want to throw the evidence out the window and offer the argument that life begins at birth—as opium for their consciences. The bottom line is that liberals believe everything is relative and don’t want any constraints on their behavior as the Bible says: “…everyone did what was right in their own eyes.”

Lastly, the only objective open-minded discussions that you can possibly have with atheistic liberals would be to agree with them.

The Grammar Nazi, Posting 5, October 28, 2001

If a fundie who supposedly is completely in-line with church dogma and is accused of not thinking for him or herself, then the same accusation can be made of a scientist, professor, politician or anyone else who is completely in-line with Darwinism and Marxism.

cpm1121, Posting 6, December 06, 2008

It’s interesting that fundies are criticized for their literal interpretation of the Scriptures. On the other hand, atheists, liberals, and the like have no problem interpreting Scripture literally to serve their own purpose. For example, the phrase used in multiple Bible verses: “four corners of the earth” has been used to discredit the Bible as being unscientific instead of being interpreted as an obvious metaphor.

The Bible is the living Word of God, but it isn’t a living document.

By the way, there’s no need to worry about me asking if you [cmp1121] are saved or not because I already know the answer. Besides, what more could I say that would convince you?

hash14ultimate, Posting 7, September 27, 2005

This posting doesn’t deserve an acknowledgement only to say that this contributor seems proud of his or (her?) demonic rant.

Napoleon the Clown, Posting 8, July 05, 2006

Contrary to what your fundie acquaintances may say or believe, no person, Christian or otherwise, is perfect in the sense of being without weaknesses or failures. The Biblical standard is impossible to achieve that’s why the Bible says that you must be saved…

Exetafus (Culled From the Grave), Posting 9, July 30, 2005

Wow! Fundies are pejorative, “as entries at this site show.” The only thing the entries on this Urban Dictionary site have demonstrated is that the contributors are pejorative.

Your conscience should tell you what you need to be saved from.

*The Boss*, Posting 10, July 30, 2005

“*The Boss*” well that’s original. How is it that you say fundies “persecute others?” If a fundie disagrees with someone else’s religious beliefs they are persecuting them? Don’t give me that name calling thing, this site is infused with name calling.

I believe in a literal six, not seven, day creation—remember it says on the seventh day God rested. If God is omnipotent then I believe He can do anything. He wouldn’t need six days or even six seconds to perform the creative acts recorded in Genesis. Then what should we make of the verses that say God resting on the seventh day from all His labors? Does God need to rest? Are there other verses in the Bible that say that God needs to rest? In Isaiah the following verse states the opposite:

The Everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth Does not become weary or tired.

The verse explicitly says that “the Creator of the ends of the earth” doesn’t get tired or need to rest. So, the fact that Genesis says that God rested on the seventh day doesn’t mean that God needed to rest but that He chose to rest.

Liberals like to cast Jesus as a 60’s long-haired, hippie, anti-establishment pacifist. If this is your image of Jesus then maybe you need to consider the following verses from Revelation:

And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war.

And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses. From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron…

TPSY, Posting 11, December 09, 2006

This posting is a continuation of the creation criticisms raised by “*The Boss*” in Posting 10. When I read Genesis 1:1-5 it says that God created light, it doesn’t say anything about the Sun and Moon, as implied in Genesis 1:14-19. Whether or not the days in Genesis 1 are literal 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 second days is the subject of much debate. I refer the reader to the IBRI website for in-depth information on the interface between the Bible and science. As I said in my response to Posting 10, God isn’t bound by any natural or supernatural constraints.

Zatak, Posting 12, April 13, 2009

If I had to guess, I’d say that Zatak’s amorous advances have been rejected by more than a few fundie females. Am I right? Got that axe ground down enough yet? I like the phrase “Funder Storm with a chance of pain,” very clever.

Is the Theory of Evolution a theory or a fact? Using some “Clintonesque” reasoning you could say it is both. In my opinion, it is neither. I believe evolutionary theory has been and continues to be an attempt to disprove God exists. Proponents of evolution point to mutated virus strains as examples of natural selection. But a mutated virus is still a virus and every year a flu shot is still called a flu shot.

Summary

I have no doubt that there are some conservative Christians, referred to as fundies, who exhibit some of the behaviors mentioned in these postings on the Urban Dictionary. I submit that you can’t generalize the whole from a small sample—that’s what racists do. On the other hand, these anti-Christian contributors need to step back and do their homework on what the Bible says and doesn’t say. Both sides need to learn how to listen to opposing viewpoints without being rude, opinionated and judgmental. Finally, no one can convince anyone else to accept the Christian faith by using strong persuasion, clever arguments or any other humanistic approach. But that is a subject for another discussion.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 Gerard Sczepura

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *