Love the sinner, hate the sin

"Love the sinner, hate the sin" has become a slogan for Christians who consider homosexuality to be a sin but at the same time, want to give the impression they are caring and empathetic.  

 

	Post	Commentary
1	Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Unitarian Universalist  on 7 Mar 2015 at 9:13PM This phrase is frequently used to refer to lgbt people by evangelical, fundamentalist, orthodox, "Bible believing" or whatever they wish to call themselves Christians. It is often utilized to "politely" oppose equality for this population (often called "special rights"). I've also heard this statement followed such derogatory terms as "Sodomite". Lastly I know of it being used to justify through love by parents to kick out their children.	Very interesting topic. It does seem a weasly phrase.
2	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by JimC  on 7 Mar 2015 at 9:24PM "I'm done. I can't look my gay brother in the eye anymore and say "I love the sinner but hate the sin." I can't keep drawing circles in the sand. I thought I just needed to try harder. Maybe I needed to focus more on loving the sinner, and less on protesting the sin. But even if I was able to fully live up to that "ideal," I'd still be wrong. I'd still be viewing him as something other, something different. Not human. Not friend. Not Christian. Not brother. Sinner." "And despite all my theological disclaimers about how I'm just as much a sinner too, it's not the same. We don't use that phrase for everybody else. Only them. Only "the gays." That's the only place where we make "sinner" the all-encompassing identity." http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4521519	Here’s a view from a Christian who has decided to stop using the phrase.
3	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by Unitarian Universalist  on 8 Mar 2015 at 7:58AM In my opinion, this guy's testimony "hits the nail on the head"- especially about the condescending nature of this phrase.
4	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A non-conformist Christian  on 8 Mar 2015 at 9:30PM I think what he's saying is that regardless of whether or not homosexuality is a sin (he's not making a stance on that subject for some reason) he's going to choose to love the "person" as themselves and not look at them as a "sinner" at all. We're all "sinners" after all, so why make this distinction with this one group of people.
5	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 8 Mar 2015 at 7:01AM Actually and technically, "sodomy" refers to more than homosexual activity and could easily apply to heterosexual activity--look up the word and you'll see what I mean (I'd post a link but I'm not sure it's permissible given the content). Even more technically--from the content of Genesis--it could refer to forced sexual relations, or rape. That means that when Scripture condemns sodomy, the extent of the first century understanding of the term is somewhat unclear.	Why on earth has the Christian Apologist introduced the word “Sodomy” into the conversation?  This implies the “sin” under discussion  is anal sex. So it seems the basis of the argument is sex. I have always wondered why overtly religious people have such an interest in what other people get up to in private. Perhaps this is just a random, off-topic intervention.
6	Personally--as I've said before--I'm somewhat equivocal regarding my own position on the matter of homosexuality and am not likely to please anyone. I don't know the extent to which volition plays a part in the matter or genetic inheritance. I don't feel I'm in a position to either support or condemn the practice. I believe it is one of those issues that the whole church needs to pray for guidance on and of course perfectly frank discussions on the matter as well. In any case, I know that all Christians are called to live "chaste" lives (obviously not in its total abstinence meaning or we'd become extinct!) and that does seem to call for some restraint on the part of everyone.	Chaste lives? Restraint is a different topic. We were not discussing promiscuity. It does seem to be an off-topic intervention.
7	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by Unitarian Universalist  on 8 Mar 2015 at 7:50AM I'm aware that sodomy includes other sorts of activity. But more recently it has been aimed at homosexuals.
8	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by JimC  on 8 Mar 2015 at 1:22PM I've always thought it weird that religious authorities feel a need to debate and dictate what consenting adults can and can't do behind closed doors, but I think the sodomy objection is part of a wider dogma that any sexual activity is sinful if procreation is not intended.
9	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Pantheist  on 8 Mar 2015 at 2:05PM I wonder why God would have created the act to be pleasurable if it were sinful to do it other than purely for procreation then? Sounds like a case of Un-intelligent Design to me.
10	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 8 Mar 2015 at 8:42PM not true with respect to procreation. Married Christians remain sexually active well past their child bearing years. And there is nothing in the Bible that says sexual activity is sinful if procreation is not the goal. If that were God's plan, a woman would get pregnant easier. Sexual activity is sinful if it's outside of a man-woman marriage relationship. That's the biblical standard for everyone.	An interesting interpretation of “God’s Plan”!  And could it really be easier to get a woman pregnant? I’m not sure that this apparent “Biblical Standard” is the standard for everyone. But let’s assume it is true for this Creationist.
11	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A non-conformist Christian  on 8 Mar 2015 at 8:46PM Does the bible specifically say marriage has to be man/woman? I know people say that, but haven't seen which verse(s) make this clear.
12	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by JimC  on 8 Mar 2015 at 8:58PM The non-conformist Christian makes a good point. What the Bible actually says is one thing. How it's interpreted is something else.
13	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Pantheist  on 8 Mar 2015 at 8:52PM well Jesus wasn't married to a woman according to most Christians, so I'll leave what that may mean to your imagination!	It’s interesting to speculate whether Jesus was gay, or asexual, or heterosexual, or bisexual. Of course we will never know.
14	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 8 Mar 2015 at 9:36PM There are plenty of places in the Bible where it's clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. It doesn't have to say that specifically to understand this. The Bible is completely clear on a lot of things. For example, sexual purity and why it's important. That ties into marriage. As for marriage being between a man and a woman, there are zero verses that say anything about a man and a man or a woman and a woman being in a marriage relationship. But there are plenty of man/woman references: Genesis 2:22-24 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman, ' for she was taken out of man." 24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. Proverbs 5:18-19 18 May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth. 19 A loving doe, a graceful deer-- may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be captivated by her love. Proverbs 12:4 4 A wife of noble character is her husband's crown, but a disgraceful wife is like decay in his bones. Proverbs 18:22 22 He who finds a wife finds what is good and receives favor from the LORD. Ephesians 5:22-33 22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-- 30 for we are members of his body. 31 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." 32 This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. Matthew 19:4-6 4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." There are many more references that can point to man/woman marriage relationships. As for same sex relationships: Romans 1:26–27 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. 1 Corinthians 6:9 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,	I have to say Proverbs 5:18-19 provides a lot of scope for innuendo! The thing is... the Christians who do not consider homosexuality to be a sin quote different verses, or interpret these verses differently.
	Whenever marriage is mentioned in the Bible it is always between a man and a woman. And the Biblical view of marriage is a universal concept for every civilization in the history of the world. Even nature itself argues against homosexuality. Men and women fit together sexually and men and men (or woman to woman) don't.	I’m pretty sure marriage isn’t mentioned in the bible, but that seems irrelevant.  Now... what’s this about nature arguing against homosexuality?  I wonder where that argument comes from.
15	There are plenty of diverse opinions on this. A simple google search (or duckduckgo.com ) will yield plenty of dissenting views.	Very true -    Christians who defend homosexuality will also use the Bible to support their argument. So interpretation is key.
16	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A non-conformist Christian  on 8 Mar 2015 at 9:49PM Those are some good verses, thank you for that, but what about in Luke Chapter 17 when they're talking about the rapture and it says: "I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left." To me this sounds like a homosexual male will be raptured, why would that be if he was living in sin right up until then?	Another example  of how the Bible can be interpreted, in this chase to support a humanist point of view.
17	As far as nature itself arguing against homosexuality, it is true that they don't "fit together sexually" in a conventional way, at the same time isn't it possible that homosexuality is natures way of helping us fight against overpopulation? A way for people to still feel like they are in a loving relationship without any chance of procreation?
18	I don't know what the right answer is to this question, and to be honest I'm actually a bit jaded against homosexuality because of personal issues I've gone through in my past, but I'm trying to see if it is actually a "sin", but even if it is, it's not our place to judge others for their sins, so we should still treat them with love and respect and let God make the judgment when it's time. JMO
19	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 8 Mar 2015 at 10:13PM Other versions have that Luke 17 passage as "two people" But either way, it's a stretch to suggest that this passage would speak in terms of homosexuality. It's speaking of the principle of the rapture. Nothing else.	Interpretation, again.
20	I don't think homosexuality is natures way of dealing with population. Nature isn't a thing at any rate and it's simply used as a metaphor regarding God's design.	Nature isn’t a thing?!  Nature is the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations. That’s definitely a thing!  This does highlight a  Creationist contradiction: Nature is a metaphor for “God’s design” – and all the things in nature are designed by God.
21	Any sex outside a marriage covenant is sinful. And clearly sex between a man and a man (or woman and a woman) is sinful as the Bible clearly articulates. The culture says otherwise but that's not the standard that I go by on this issue. I probably have more questions on this issue than I do answers but at this point I can't see the issue any differently than what I've said here.	“clearly articulates”? If that was true there would be no disagreement among Christians.
22	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by JimC  on 8 Mar 2015 at 9:39PM How can you say "nature itself argues against homosexuality" when homosexuality exists nature?
23	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 8 Mar 2015 at 9:40PM I think that argument is seriously flawed. You know know that men and women have different plumbing right?	Hilarious!
24	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by JimC  on 8 Mar 2015 at 9:43PM LOL But seriously... how can you say that nature itself is against homosexuality, when homosexuality exists in nature?
25	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 8 Mar 2015 at 9:44PM So your saying it's perfectly natural?	Not sure how “perfectly” applies here because nature is not perfect but anyway...
26	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by JimC  on 8 Mar 2015 at 9:47PM Yes of course. It's also "perfectly natural" for a percentage of the population to be infertile, or asexual, or any other biological trait you can mention.
27	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 8 Mar 2015 at 9:59PM so what follows from that?	I don’t think anything follows. What does he mean?
28	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by JimC  on 8 Mar 2015 at 10:01PM I don't know what you mean.
29	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 8 Mar 2015 at 10:16PM You crack me up Columbo. In Kindergarten Cop the little 5 year old boy informs his teacher, "Boys have a penis and girls have a vagina." Unless I missed something, those two go together like hand in glove. All the mechanics of those two "things" work in harmony with each other. And that's the end of it. The way and P and V work together is NOT duplicated in any way like a P and a P or a V and a V. It's so simple that even a kindergarten student gets it.	Oh dear. The Creationist seems to be losing the plot here.   I predict a meltdown. Should I point out that The Creationist is basing his argument on the sexual knowledge of a 5 year old? Better not. It wouldn't go down well. (No pun intended).
30	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by JimC  on 8 Mar 2015 at 10:22PM As I said it is natural for a percentage of the population to be infertile, homosexual, asexual or whatever. I don't see how an aspect of nature can be unnatural. You appear to have a reasonable grasp of the mechanics of human reproduction, but it's not "unnatural" to use your word, if every indiviual in the entire population does not or cannot reproduce. It's just nature.
31	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 8 Mar 2015 at 10:27PM actually you are wrong. When someone is infertile, there is something that is not working properly. The same can be said of asexual or whatever. So you're using the word "natural" incorrectly here.	Actually I'm not wrong!  Is he seriously suggesting that an infertile man or woman is “unnatural”??
32	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by JimC  on 8 Mar 2015 at 10:31PM I'm using the word natural to mean "existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind." Infertility (due to natural causes) and indeed any aspect of biology, including homosexuality, fits that definition. Ironically, several treatments for infertility do not fit that definition.
33	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 8 Mar 2015 at 10:35PM Well than any thing that happens in nature is natural according to you.	I think the Creationist is confusing "immoral" with "unnatural". Things can be natural and moral, or natural and immoral, or unnatural and moral... etc.
34	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by JimC  on 8 Mar 2015 at 10:37PM That's a truism.
35	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 8 Mar 2015 at 10:51PM Except that: Definition of UNNATURAL 1: not being in accordance with nature or consistent with a normal course of events Which means that "natural" is defined as being "in accordance with nature or consistent with a normal course of events"	Interesting use of the dictionary to define an antonym. Well I suppose I can use the same logic (except it’s not logic of course)...
36	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by JimC  on 8 Mar 2015 at 11:04PM Except that unnatural is also defined as "not existing in nature" which means that, using your logic, natural is defined as existing in nature. In any case, I don't see a problem if you consider something to be unnatural and I don't, because the word has different meanings.
37	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 9 Mar 2015 at 1:33AM well if there are different meanings you just flattened your own argument	This is quite a common flawed argument used by apologists and creationists. If someone uses a dictionary to  explain the meaning of the word they are using, they feel it can somehow be negated if the word has two meanings.
38	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Pantheist  on 8 Mar 2015 at 10:27PM homosexuality exists in other animals as well as humans, so it must be natural. There are also the added complication of hermaphrodites (both true & pseudo), X-Y females and animals that change sex ( Sequential hermaphroditism in several marine species)
39	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 8 Mar 2015 at 10:28PM And dogs will hump couches and little lady's legs. hmmmmmm....could it be???	The Creationist really does seem to have gone into a tail spin. What point is he trying to make with the example of a dog in heat having the need to masturbate when there is no female available?
40	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Pantheist  on 8 Mar 2015 at 10:31PM don't be so ridiculous and do some proper research, before you fall off your high horse - you look quite precarious perched up there
41	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 8 Mar 2015 at 10:38PM Homosexuality in animals is a myth. And if you're now going to cite "behaviors" you'd better explain the couch humping and the humping on Aunt Jean's leg while yer at it.	Is the Creationist really unaware of the explanation of why a dog (among other animals) would masturbate?  He also seems totally unaware of the animal behaviour research which shows that homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom. However, I’m not sure if any of this is relevant n the context of “sin”
42	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by JimC  on 8 Mar 2015 at 10:49PM Homosexuality in other species is not a myth because it's been observed - but even if it hadn't - there are many behaviours that are not seen in every species. So it wouldn't matter if homosexuality was unique to humans. But it isn't
43	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 8 Mar 2015 at 10:54PM Something has been observed and then explained but it doesn't mean that the explanations are correct. A male dog with hump another male but a female will also do some humping. And then there's poor Aunt Jean's leg. I wonder if some dogs have legosexuality? After all, it's been observed. I saw a dog hump air molecules once. At least he was humping something and he was all alone so.....	Again... an apparent complete lack of knowledge of why a dog would “hump” – I wonder if this disanalogy of dog masturbation an homosexuality has come from a Creationist website?
44	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by JimC  on 8 Mar 2015 at 11:01PM That's not unique to dogs by the way.	It’s also true of Creationists. LOL. Sorry.
45	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 9 Mar 2015 at 1:39AM then it more supports my point that homosexuality in animals is a myth. And even if it was, what follows from that? That homosexuality in humans is perfectly fine and "normal?" Some animals eat their young. Other animals kill each other either for food or status. This argument "animals do it" is simply weak and silly.	There is a good point hiding in here somewhere... whether something is natural or unnatural is irrelevant. The argument is about morality. So yes, the argument “animals do it” is weak and silly if we are deciding what’s moral. But it’s not silly if we are discussing what’s natural, and  it was the Creationist who introduced the “against nature” justification on line 47 He appears to be retreating from his own argument now. About time too...
46	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 9 Mar 2015 at 6:46AM If one insists on appealing to animal sexual behavior suggesting that somehow it proves homosexuality in humans is normal, the need to do better than "it's been observed." True a male chimp will mount another male chimp but the will also mount a tree stump. It's the sexual instinct that's at work here and not a sexual preference.	Where DOES he get this stuff? LOL
47	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Pantheist  on 9 Mar 2015 at 5:08AM The presence of same-sex sexual behavior was not "officially" observed on a large scale until recent times, possibly due to observer bias caused by social attitudes to same-sex sexual behavior, innocent confusion, or even from a fear of "being ridiculed by their colleagues." Georgetown University biologist Janet Mann states "Scientists who study the topic are often accused of trying to forward an agenda, and their work can come under greater scrutiny than that of their colleagues who study other topics." They also noted "Not every sexual act has a reproductive function ... that's true of humans and non-humans." It appears to be widespread amongst social birds and mammals, particularly the sea mammals and the primates. The true extent of homosexuality in animals is not known. While studies have demonstrated homosexual behavior in a number of species, Petter Bøckman, the scientific advisor of the exhibition Against Nature? in 2007, speculated that the true extent of the phenomenon may be much larger than was then recognized: No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals	A good summary
48	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 9 Mar 2015 at 5:26AM Wikipedia is no "proper research"	Well, that’s true, but only if one takes a Wikipedia article at face value. One should check out the citations, rather than just rely on the article.
49	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 9 Mar 2015 at 6:01AM And then there's this from the NARTH Institute “Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.”	Oh dear. The NARTH institute. Hahahahaha!! he Creationist demolishes his “proper research” argument by using information from the NARTH institute – an organisation that aims to provide “therapy” which will change the sexual orientation of homosexuals an which uses theology to justify its methods. “The American Psychological Association and the Royal College of Psychiatrists expressed concerns that the positions espoused by NARTH are not supported by science and create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish”
50	Antonio Pardo, "Aspectos médicos de la homosexualidad," Nuestro Tiempo, Jul.-Aug. 1995, pp. 82-89; as quoted in Luiz Sérgio Solimeo, “The Animal Homosexuality Myth,” at c/2010/09/the-animal-homosexuality-myth/	This is even funnier. = one can only assume the Creationist googled “animal homosexuality myth” and came up with this
51	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A non-conformist Christian  on 9 Mar 2015 at 6:30AM For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such This is the part I'm referring to, it seems like flawed logic. Of course the majority of individuals in any species are going to be determined to ensure the procreation of the species, that doesn't mean it's impossible for a few members of said species to be "different".	Good point
52	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 9 Mar 2015 at 6:31AM Basically it points out the the sexual instinct behavior in animals may resemble homosexual behavior, but it is simply The animal acting on instincts. The animal is not displaying a sexual preference. They are simply behaving according to their instincts	And what is a “sexual preference” if it is not behaving according to instincts? One could argue that homosexual and heterosexual human beings are behaving according to their instincts.
53	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Pantheist  on 9 Mar 2015 at 7:06AM terrible website, can't find anything on it, the link doesn't go to what you've indicated. Hardly impartial research either...
54	NARTH Institute Position Statements   Right to Treatment The Alliance respects each client's dignity, autonomy and free agency.We believe that clients have the right to claim a gay identity, or to diminish their homosexuality and to develop their heterosexual potential.The right to seek therapy to change one's sexual adaptation should be considered self-evident and inalienable.We call on our fellow mental-health association to stop falsely claiming to have "scientific knowledge" that settles the issue of homosexuality. Instead, our mental-health associations must leave room for diverse understandings of the family, of core human identity, and the meaning and purpose of human sexuality. What a load of dingo's kidneys "diminish their homosexuality and to develop their heterosexual potential" ROFL!	NARTH is certainly a dodgy organisation.
55	Try to look at these references https://web.archive.org/web/20070528115402/http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20718 http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/05/19/homosexuality-common-in-wild-scientists-say/ http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150206-are-there-any-homosexual-animals
56	now, if you can find some "real" evidence that it's fiction - I might listen, otherwise crawl back into your religious homophobic box	Tempers are running high – but that’s a bit harsh!
57	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by Unitarian Universalist  on 9 Mar 2015 at 7:00AM It's a nice intellectual discussion to talk about who is natural & unnatural until one realizes they are talking about someone's loved ones or to real people who are lgbt. No one would choose to be gay & subject themselves to assertions that they are unnatural or worse. And so called reparative therapy is a joke. So, i have to believe it is natural for them to be that way and a loving God would want their loving relationships to be honored & celebrated.	Very good point
58	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 9 Mar 2015 at 7:06AM Adults should be able to have such discussions without worrying that someone's feelings will get hurt. We are after all currently focusing on the animal kingdom. And I have relatives that are gay. I would not discuss this with them unless the asked. But this is a discussion forum. If you choose to read what's here...
59	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by Unitarian Universalist  on 9 Mar 2015 at 7:19AM We can add whatever we want to these discussions. I started this thread so I know what its about, & i choose to address sensitivity issues now.
60	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by JimC  on 9 Mar 2015 at 8:55AM I think this thread clearly demonstrates two things: - scripture is interpreted to suit pre-conceived opinions - ignorance makes a significant contribution to prejudice.  Also, it's not the first time here that a Christian admits to having opinions which they can only share anonymously. I'd be questioning the basis of my beliefs if I was in that situation.
61	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Born Again Christian  on 9 Mar 2015 at 12:37PM This thread demonstrates nothing of the kind, Jim. The Scriptures that A Creationist quoted are clear statements of "one man/one woman" marriage, which is how God created it "from the beginning". There is no interpretation necessary, unless you want to make it fit your preconceived (an ironic description, BTW) idea that homosexuality is "natural". Ignorance has nothing to do with A Creationist's points. His point that at a certain stage in the "discussion", the name calling starts is valid. Why don't you back that statement up with facts, Jim? The Creationist did not say that he would only share his opinions anonymously (neither did I, if that's who you were referencing). He was merely stating that he has compassion for people and that context determines conversation, as it should. Do you have the same discussions at work that you do with your wife in bed? I hope not!	ahhh... if only Scriptures really were "clear statements"  Then they wouldn't need interpretation. I'm not defending name calling - but the ignorance was to do with biology (see lines 39 to 44)
62	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by JimC  on 9 Mar 2015 at 2:33PM Christians who are in favour of <insert moral standpoint here>, and Christians who are against <insert moral standpoint here>, each interpret Scripture to suit their point of view. That is a fact. The ignorance I was referring to relates to biology and animal behaviour rather than theology, specifically the example of canine masturbatory behaviour, which was used to support the idea that homosexuality is a sin.  And as I said, if I held a religious belief that was going to offend my family, or my co-workers, or my wife in bed, I'd seriously ask myself why I held that belief. (I also can't help wondering why the religiose are so fixated with what goes on in other people's beds!) Anyway, I wasn't referring to you regarding religious opinions that may be offensive but I am now curious as to why you thought that. I will skim through what you've said in the past to see what it might have been!
63	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 11 Mar 2015 at 12:41AM Yikes! Got busy for a couple of days and came back to a board with well over 100 new posts! Fascinating discussion--here's my two cents worth that hopefully somewhat clarifies my take on the subject. Scripture is, indeed, straightforward regarding the purpose and role of sex in loving, bonded, faithful heterosexual relationships, from Genesis to the words of Jesus: "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." --Genesis 2:24 I like this passage from the OT for its further clarity regarding God's purpose: "Has not the one God made you? You belong to Him in body and spirit. And what does the one God seek? Godly offspring. So be on your guard, and do not be unfaithful to the wife of your youth." --Malachi 2:15 The words of Jesus: "Pharisees came up to (Jesus) and tested Him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said,‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh.What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” --Matthew 19:3-6	Aaaahh. Here we go again with the Bible interpretations.  All well and good, but the Christians who do not consider homosexuality to be a sin have a different interpretation. Typically they will tell that whatever the Bible says may have been appropriate thousands of years ago, but not today. For example... commandments not to ear mixed fibres, or stoning women to death for adultery and so on.
64	Several other passages support sex as only between a man and a woman and only within marriage. In the continuation of the excerpt from Matthew, Jesus goes on to condemn divorce further, stating that marrying a divorced person or marrying if one is divorced is an act of adultery!	This proves the point that the Bible is not always appropriate. Jesus concerns divorce but most 21st Christians are OK with divorce. So why not apply the same logic to gay marriage?
65	Likewise, sexual practices that are not part of a loving familial context are condemned--whether such practices involve homosexuality, prostitution, bestiality, incest, or other matters referred to as "perversions" and even include lustful intent: "he who looks at another in lust commits adultery." Presumably fetishes and other sexual practices and proclivities which would interfere with loving relationships between a husband and wife could be added as well.	It is a common tactic by the anti-gay community to put homosexuality in the same sentence as bestiality and incest. And notice the assumption that homosexual "sexual practice" is not part of a "loving familial context". The bias and bigotry is clear.
66	Get the picture? Are any of us in a position to throw stones at anyone else when it comes to violating God's perfect plan and perfect will? I'm certainly not!! Singling out homosexuality for condemnation while giving--say--divorce and remarriage or "looking at others in lust" a wink and a nod is not being consistent with what Scripture actually states! Furthermore, as Jesus makes clear, even if one is guilty of sin--as we all are--we are still to treat each other with love, and as the title of the thread states "love the sin and not the sinner!"	Actually I don't get the picture at all. One minute it's wrong to throw stones, the previous minute stones were being thrown by the bucketful!
67	There is also the issue of culpability depending on one's circumstance. Just as one's involuntary attention to the sexual attractiveness of another does not become a matter of sin unless or until one chooses to indulge such, there is the question of whether those with a particular unusual sexual proclivity are born that way or develop that proclivity through choice. One cannot fault another who just isn't genetically disposed to the type of sexual attraction leading to procreation and loving families and expect them to "perform" or "function" in that way. Of course, if one develops such proclivities through personally choosing to indulge such--whatever those proclivities might be--it would be a different matter and involve culpability.	What does "indulge" mean I wonder?  And I see the old chestnut about "choosing" has crept it. I wonder when the Apologist chose to be straight?
68	So the long and the short of it on my take on the matter: yes, homosexuality is outside of God's will if undertaken voluntarily, as are any of the other practices which would interfere with a loving and faithful relationship between a man and a woman and their ability to procreate and raise a loving family--but that's in the abstract. What of those physically unable to either sexually perform or procreate in those circumstances? What of infertility? Spousal abandonment? Forced marriage? Early exposure to incidents which would warp one's ability to form healthy, loving, bonding, procreative heterosexual relationships? There are a host of issues that need addressing from a consistent overall moral perspective in accordance with God's will. That's why I believe it is so important for Christians to come together and seek clarity on all of these issues and how to respond to such consistently through the guidance of God's Holy Spirit!	Long and the short? Rather, the long and the long!!  But interesting to know that homosexuality is OK if it's not voluntary!! I suspect most Christians will eventually realise there's nothing wrong with being gay, in the same way as they used to oppose mixed race marriages.  Having said all that, there is a much easier way of looking at this...
69	Posted by JimC  on 11 Mar 2015 at 12:45AM Alternatively, we can just accept that what consenting adults do in private is none of our business.
70	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 11 Mar 2015 at 1:30AM That would ignore the absolutely vital role that healthy, loving, procreative families need to play in perpetuating any society! One of the glaringly obvious problems faced by those societies which have discarded and/or denigrated valuing such and become too "secularized" is that they no longer reproduce at rates necessary to sustain those societies--and that is true of many societies all over the globe! Undoubtedly it was true of various cultures throughout history that have since disappeared for mysterious reasons unrelated to apparent violence! Undoubtedly it is also true of most societies in Europe and other Western nations and cultures in the present era!	What?! Where on earth did that theory come from! Did ancient cultures disappear because they were too gay?  LOL
71	Even if there are those who cannot form the type of loving, caring, procreative bonds between a man and a woman that lead to ideal environments in which to raise children and afford them the best opportunity to achieve their potential, that is the overall ideal that God calls us to--and given the myriad ways in which we can allow our sex drives to be misdirected and interfere with this vital purpose, Scripture makes strong points in support of focusing our drives toward this purpose. Christians are not (or rather should not be) prudish killjoys as some would portray us to be, but rather fully focused in expressing our drives in the most loving, caring, and constructive way--and these values ought to be given societal support as well!	Once again - I'm baffled why the overtly religious are so obsessed with sex.
72	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by Unitarian Universalist  on 11 Mar 2015 at 6:42AM Jesus said nothing about homosexuality & the Bible does not address loving & commited relationships between people of the same gender. There is a lot more knowledge about such relationships now than there was in Biblical times. It has been my privilege to know gay people who have been together with one partner longer than than heterosexual married couples we know. They have been there to support my wife & I when needed, and we have been there for them. If that is not a part of God's overall plan, I can't imagine what is. I also guess my wife & I don't fit into God's "perfect" plan either according your reading of scripture because for some very good reasons, we decided not to have or raise children.
73	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Pantheist  on 11 Mar 2015 at 8:10AM exactly and there is a certain amount of circumstantial evidence that Jesus himself may have been gay, but that's another topic, IMHO it is far more likely he was married with a family, but the bible also fails to mention that either
74	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by JimC  on 11 Mar 2015 at 8:48AM It's odd that Jesus is used as a role model by some Christians, given his own family situation as described in the Bible (which as you rightly point out may not have been the reality). Perhaps Jesus felt families were irrelevant given His belief in an impending apocalypse. He specifically stated His followers should leave their families behind. And I see the argument that homosexual parents cannot provide an “ideal environment in which to raise children.” has also crept into the thread!  Also, I can't help thinking that if the religiose just accepted that what consenting adults do in private is none of their business, they'd have one less thing to worry about and would no longer have to jump through hermeneutical hoops to rationalise their Biblical interpretations. I thought the argument that secular societies will not be sustained unless they reproduce at a faster rate was quite extraordinary - I wonder where that idea came from? It seems to contradict Christian arguments about abortion rates.
75	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist on 11 Mar 2015 at 3:42PM You are clueless on the matter of "consenting" adults and what they do in private. It's not about what two adults do in private. If it was kept private, who'd know. But the LGBT crowd has brought it out for public witness and they demand political and social acceptance which you know very well. And it's not just about the LGBT. It's LGBTX. They keep coming up with new sexual orientations. In some states, if you're a boy but you claim to identify as a girl, they must, by law, allow you to use the girl's bathroom. A woman was recently kicked out of a fitness club for complaining that a man was in the girl's locker room. When she complained, she was told he identified as a woman and he would be allowed to use the girl's locker room - period. The woman complained to fellow female members and was banned from the facility as a result. So stop with the false narrative about "consenting adults do in private." It's a much bigger picture and people who object to such things have a right to voice those objections.	Actually I know quite a lot about what consenting  adults do in private! It does seem the Creationist is not a fan of the LGBT movement... and relying on proof by anecdote is a bit lame. Oh well.
76	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by JimC  on 11 Mar 2015 at 5:13PM The question remains unanswered - if the private lives of consenting adults is not the sin, then exactly is the sin that is to be hated? How can you hate the sin if you can't define it?
77	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 12 Mar 2015 at 1:28AM I can define it. But you don't even understand the bigger picture. You don't even know the proper question to ask!!! That is because you are confused as to the real issue. BTW, I never gave my opinion on the statement "Love the sinner, hate the sin." I have a lot of thoughts on that but the discussion never really went that way. You introduced the silly notion about the animal kingdom and homosexuality (displaying your ignorance on animal behavior). Your question to me is not in the context of our discussions in the first place!	Classic political dodging... "You don't know the proper question to ask" And how odd that he has a lot of thoughts on the topic but refuses to discuss the topic.
78	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by JimC  on 12 Mar 2015 at 8:50AM It seems to me if you could define it you would have defined it by now. But never mind. Also, I think it's a pity you choose not to comment on the specific topic, when you have lots of thoughts on the topic. You are depriving us of your wisdom which we could perhaps learn from.  p.s. your assertion that I introduced animals into the discussion is factually incorrect.
79	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 13 Mar 2015 at 1:42AM lol I have been sharing some of my thoughts as the topic progressed. For it I was told I was insensitive and homophobic.  It certainty wasn't me introducing the idea that the animal kingdom demonstrates the legitimacy of homosexuality in humans. You at least defended that silly notion.	I don't think he was accused of being homophobic because he shared his thoughts.  And why is he saying I said stuff I didn't say?
80	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by JimC  on 13 Mar 2015 at 12:10PM I did not say that the animal kingdom demonstrates the legitimacy of homosexuality in humans. I said homosexuality in other species is not a myth because it's been observed - but even if it hadn't - there are many behaviours that are not seen in every species so it wouldn't matter if homosexuality was unique to humans.  The natural vs unnatural argument is irrelevant. The homosexuality "sin" argument is a moral argument. A natural thing can be moral or immoral. Similarly, an unnatural thing can be morel or immoral. You can't demonstrate something is moral or immoral on the basis of it being natural or unnatural.
81	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 13 Mar 2015 at 2:47PM Your right you didn't bring it up.  My bad. Your right the "behavior" I has been observed. But behavior and orientation are two different things. The label given the observed behavior is wrong. Dogs hump. It's instinctive. Not an observed homosexual act. A female dog will hump. There's a video making the rounds where a little dog is playing with a toy and the she/he begins to hump it. Over and over. Is there a word ford that? Oh yeah. It's called instinct.	The label given to dogs humping is masturbation. What is he talking about?
82	Morality doesn't exist if there is no God	Hahaha!
83	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by JimC  on 13 Mar 2015 at 3:03PM If the dog's behaviour is sexually driven then the label for the activity you describe is "masturbation". As you say, it's instinctive and instincts play a crucial role in behaviour. Generally, the more complex the animal's neural system, the lesser the role of instinct and the greater the role of the cerebral cortex and social learning. But I really don't see how you can form an argument relevant to the morality of homosexuality based on what dogs do when they are sexually frustrated and I have to say your apparent fixation with canine masturbatory behaviour is, frankly, starting to get a bit disturbing!  As for your morality assertion, it's a fact that morality exists, but it's not a fact that God exists.
84	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 12 Mar 2015 at 1:42AM I've never been called a homophobe (because it's totally untrue but when one can't defend his arguments, name calling will do). If someone wants to stoop that low, then perhaps they need to ignore my posts.   I have no respect for those that call others such things as homophobes or racists or sexists and any other such nonsense. If you don't like a person's position on a matter, don't read what they have to say.	But you were told to crawl into your homophobic box (see line 56)
85	Ultimately, this discussion has nothing to do with the act of homosexuality as an exclusive sin. Because as you well know, it's not exclusive. In fact, the foundational issue has little to do with same-sex sexual relations. It has to do with sexual purity. And the same rules (God's law or demand if you will) apply to me in the same way they apply to the homosexual. I can't engage in any heterosexual act I choose just because I have the desire to do so and was "born that way." I'm under the same expectation to live a life of purity. So ANY act that falls outside of God's standard for sexual purity is in the SAME sin camp. I think you'd agree with that. This is the fact that the secularists fail to understand.	Actually it has everything to do with the act of homosexuality. Unless one wants to evade the subject! Perhaps if we try a simple example, he can answer that...
86	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by JimC  on 12 Mar 2015 at 8:41AM You can't engage in any heterosexual act you choose? That does make sense if it's for reasons of consent, but it would be a pity, in my opinion, if that restriction was imposed on you and your partner by your religion. Anyway, back to the topic at hand (so to speak)... I'm still trying to understand what the sin is that we are supposed to be hating. I think you've made it clear that what consenting adults do in private is not the point, so it would help me if we could explore the concept by means of examples. So... 1) Dave is gay but doesn't tell anyone and lives with his parents. He is celibate. 2) Dave is gay, tells his parents, leaves home, becomes a priest and lives alone with his housekeeper for company. He is celibate. 3) Dave is gay, keeps it a secret from his family, leaves home and lives with another gay man. They are both celibate. 4) Dave is gay, keeps it a secret from his family, leaves home and lives with another gay man. Their relationship is platonic (i.e. affectionate but not sexual). ...I will stop there for now - but I'd be grateful if you could let me know at which point Dave has crossed the Sin line (if at all).
87	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 13 Mar 2015 at 1:37AM You simply don't get it. You know so very little about the Christian faith. I'm actually surprised that you are this confused. Either you are playing dumb to what I mean or you really are that ignorant.   We were on topic.	I don't think it's me that's confused!
88	I already explained that since I never voiced an opinion on the "love the sinner, hate the sin" phrase you can't question me about it as if I had shared my views.	I think it makes sense to ask some about their opinion on a topic when they've contributed to a discussion on the topic.
89	Your question on Dave is silly. I can articulate the biblical principle that underlies it all but I won't chase after your silly questions. Get serious.	In which case, apply the principle to answer the question!
90	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by JimC  on 13 Mar 2015 at 12:20PM Are you able to explain why you can't engage in any heterosexual act you choose? Is it for reasons of consent (which is the right reason in my opinion) or are you and your partner restricted by your religious beliefs? The reason I ask is because I wonder if there is consensus among Christians about which heterosexual acts are sinful and which are not.
91	It's a pity you can't answer the Dave question. I think it's quite straightforward: 1) Dave has not sinned 2) Dave has not sinned 3) Dave has not sinned 4) Dave has not sinned ...agreed?
92	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist  on 13 Mar 2015 at 2:40PM You misunderstand. I can engage in any act my wife and I agree to. I mean I can't go outside the covenant of marriage for it. That would sin against God, my wife, the other, and my own body.	Well that sounds like a reference to adultery - rather than "sex acts"
93	I can answer the dave question. But the question itself misses the point. Purity isn't a set of do's and don'ts	No you can't!
94	Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by JimC  on 13 Mar 2015 at 2:52PM Ah I see... when you said you can't engage in any heterosexual act you choose just because you have the desire to do so and was "born that way", what you meant was you can't commit adultery. I think many people, including me, would agree with that regardless of their sexual orientation, because it's an abuse of trust.  I'm not sure why you avoid the Dave question, but that's your prerogative of course.

What don't we know?

“I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose, which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell. Possibly. It doesn't frighten me.”

― Richard P. Feynman

So... are there things we can never know? Two areas worth exploring are physics and biology, in particular, the stuff the universe is made of, and the stuff we are made of.  

The stuff the universe is made of

98% of the universe is invisible, 4% is made of atoms (and we've only seen half of that).  23% of the universe is dark matter which is invisible or gives out so little light we can't detect it. We know it's there because it pulls on the stars and the galaxies so we see them moving.  But, the major mass component of the universe is dark energy which accounts for 73% of the mass-energy of the universe. Discovered in 1998, it's invisible, it fills all of space and it's speeding up the expansion of the universe. So after 350 years of science we are still only able to study 2% of the universe.

Dark energy is a profound puzzle, and its discovery was unexpected. The standard big bang model says the universe began in a hot dense state about 14 billion years ago and has been expanding and cooling ever since, with galaxies congealing out of this stuff. As galaxies fly apart they should slow down because of gravity – this is an obvious prediction. But in 1998 teams in America discovered that the galaxies are speeding up flying apart faster and faster so empty space seems to be filled with "springy" space stuff that is pushing the galaxies apart. And that's dark energy  If we take quantum theory – the best description of reality we have – which explains why tables are solid and why the sun shines, which has given us lasers, nuclear reactors and computers – when we use quantum theory to calculate the energy of empty space (dark energy) we get a number that is 1 followed by 120 zeros bigger than we observe. The biggest discrepancy between a prediction and an observation in the history of science.

The stuff that we are made of

In biology the biggest question is, why are there so few genes? We have sequenced the entire human genome – we can read the entire DNA of a person in 15 minutes. But now we see there are remarkably few genes. A few decades ago we used to think there were millions of genes needed to make complex life forms. But there's only 24,000 to make a human being and that's less than you need to make a cabbage. It's about the same number of components that you need to make a London bus. So it can be argued that we don't really understand genetics. We are like someone with a whole collection of buckets containing all the components needed to make a bus and we don't know how. For biology in particular, it does seem that the more we know the less we understand.

Dark energy and dark matter can conceivably be solved, especially using equipment like the LHC but that's not true with genetics. It seemed to be clear and simple in the 1920s but we can see now how messy biology is.  

Why does a cabbage have more genes than us? Maybe DNA is not the genetic material or maybe it's only part of it.  DNA used to be called the "stupid molecule" as it was everywhere but didn't seem to do anything. Now DNA is iconic but maybe in the process of heredity, DNA is only be a small part of the process.


Science Is All About uncertainty 

Science requires us to accept that we don't know everything - doubt is the very basis of science. We can define science in one word – pessimism. Scientists assume what they've found is wrong and then test it until they can see it might be right. The commonest phrases scientists use are “I don't know” and "I don't understand."  From there they move on and find something so they know a bit more. The opposite position is to be certain about reality, and that's religion. And that's when you've abandoned all interest and curiosity in life.

Biology has problems with complexity rather than fundamental problems in physics  Emergent properties occur in biology - the brain has neurones and synapses but actually it's much more than that - consciousness etc. emerge from that. So consciousness is hard to understand. To buy the chemicals to make a human being would cost about £25. But with those chemicals you'd never be able to make a human.

Epistemology 

Epistemology is one of the core areas of philosophy. It is concerned with the nature, sources and limits of knowledge. But philosophy is to science as porn is to sex: cheaper, easier and some people prefer it.  Biology seems much more complex than physics - or maybe physics is as complex as biology, but because physicists only look at the easy bits it seems simpler.  

In ancient times people felt they knew more – but that's because there wasn't much they didn't know they didn't know. If you live in a world with three books and you've read them all, you know everything you can know. In the late 19th century many physicists thought everything had been solved - Kelvin said in 1900 that science was pretty much over and that was right on the eve of the quantum revolution, just before Max Planck discovered the quantum, and suddenly we realised everything we knew about physics was wrong. 

"The greater the continent of knowledge, the longer the coastline of the unknown"

And so we keep finding out more things we don't know. But it means we can ask better and more precise questions, and phrase them better, and therefore have more chance of answering them .

Oscar Wilde said "I am no longer young enough to know everything." 

The average 5 year old knows everything – or rather everything they need to know – but finding out you don't know anything is a marvellous moment in our education.

"The greater our knowledge increases the more our ignorance unfolds."
- John F. Kennedy

Taken from The Infinite Monkey Cage on BBC Radio 4. Contributors:

Marcus Chown (science writer, journalist and broadcaster, currently cosmology consultant for New Scientist magazine)

Professor Steve Jones (geneticist and Head of the Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment at University College London)

The fundamentals of fundamentalism

What is a fundamentalist? When I use the word in the context of religion I am referring to people who are dogmatic, strict literalists, who believe in exclusion, claiming that their interpretation of Scripture is the only correct interpretation, that they are right and everyone else is wrong. 

But where does the meaning of this word come from?  Let's start with the dictionary definitions:

1 Fundamentalism

Merriam Webster
1 a: often capitalized :  a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching
1b :  the beliefs of this movement
1c :  adherence to such beliefs
2 :  a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles

dictionary.com
1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.
2. the beliefs held by those in this movement.

OED
1 A form of a religion, especially in Protestant Christianity, that upholds belief in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture  

2 Dogmatic

So we see that fundamentalism requires that opinions on religion to be treated as if they are true and as being the basis for morality. Another word for this is dogmatic:

Merriam Webster 1 : expressing personal opinions or beliefs as if they are certainly correct and cannot be doubted

dictionary.com 1 relating to or of the nature of a dogma or dogmas or any strong set of principles concerning faith, morals, etc., as those laid down by a church; doctrinal

OED 1 Inclined to lay down principles as undeniably true

3 Literalist

We also see that fundamentalism requires a literal interpretation of the Bible. hence a fundamentalist is a literalist. 

4 Religious Exclusivism

We also see that fundamentalists believe in religious exclusivism - they claim that their interpretation of Scripture is the only correct interpretation, that they are right and everyone else is wrong.  For the definition of this concept we can turn to two sources:

Oxford handbook of philosophy of religion

Religious exclusivism is the doctrine or belief that only one particular religion or belief system is true. Linked with a doctrine of salvation, religious exclusivism teaches that only the members of one religion or sect will reach Heaven or any given soteriological aim, while others will be doomed to eternal damnation or exclusion from a paradisiacal afterlife.

Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy...

Someone is a religious exclusivist with respect to a given issue when he or she believes the religious perspective of only one basic theistic system (for instance, only one of the major world religions) or only one of the variants within a basic theistic system (for instance, within Christianity) to be the truth or at least closer to the truth than any other religious perspective on this issue. If a person believes that a given perspective on a religious issue is true, then, regardless of the nature or content of that perspective, he or she is a religious exclusivist. 

5 Further definitions of Fundamentalism

5.1 In the context of culture and psychology
Two useful references are:

- "Fundamentalism and American Culture" by George Marsden, pages 4 and 5 (see below)

- "Authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, quest, and prejudice". By Altemeyer & Hunsberger (International Journal for the Psychology of Religion)

5.2 The Dictionary of Christianity in America 
The Dictionary of Christianity in America by Daniel G. Reid, Robert D. Linder, Bruce L. Shelley and Harry S. Stout explains...

The interpretations given the fundamentalist movement have changed over time, with most older interpretations being based on the concepts of social displacement or cultural lag. Some in the 1930s, including H. Richard Niebuhr, understood the conflict between fundamentalism and modernism to be part of a broader social conflict between the cities and the country.  In this view the fundamentalists were country and small-town dwellers who were reacting against the progressivism of city dwellers. Fundamentalism was seen as a form of anti-intellectualism during the 1950s; in the early 1960s Richard Hofstadter interpreted it in terms of status anxiety.  Beginning in the late 1960s the movement began to be seen as "a bona fide religious, theological and even intellectual movement in its own right."  Instead of interpreting fundamentalism as a simple anti-intellectualism, Paul Carter argued that "fundamentalists were simply intellectual in a way different than their opponents." Moving into the 1970s, Earnest R. Sandeen saw fundamentalism as arising from the confluence of Princeton Theology and millennialism. 

5.3 The Fundamentals
The Fundamentals: A Testimony To The Truth (generally referred to simply as The Fundamentals) is a set of 90 essays published from 1910 to 1915 by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles, edited by A. C. Dixon and later by Reuben Archer Torrey. It was first published as a 12-volume set, and later as a four-volume set retaining all 90 essays. The 90 essays were written by 64 different authors, representing most of the major Protestant Christian denominations. They are widely considered to be the foundation of modern Christian fundamentalism.

The project was initially conceived in 1909 by California businessman Lyman Stewart and his brother Milton. They anonymously provided funds for collecting essays to set out what they believed to be the fundamentals of Christian faith, and for printing and distributing copies of the collected essays. The Fundamentals was sent free to ministers, missionaries, professors of theology, YMCA and YWCA secretaries, Sunday School superintendents, and other Protestant religious workers in every English-speaking country. Over three million volumes (250,000 sets) were sent out.


The volumes defended orthodox Protestant beliefs and attacked higher criticism, liberal theology, Catholicism (also called Romanism by them), socialism, Modernism, atheism, Christian Science, Mormonism, Millennial Dawn, Spiritualism, and evolutionism.

The entire text of all 90 essays can be found here
Volume 1  
Volume 2 
Volume 3 
Volume 4

5.4 From Wikipedia
The term "fundamentalism" has its roots in the Niagara Bible Conference (1878–1897), which defined those tenets it considered fundamental to Christian belief. The term was popularized by the The Fundamentals, a collection of twelve books on five subjects published in 1910  [see 5.3]

5.5 Fundamentalism and Orthodoxy 
Fundamentalism in the context of orthodoxy is explained by Roger E. Olson (Professor of Theology, George W. Truett Theological Seminary, Baylor University).  

"Orthodoxy is belief in the universal doctrines (dogmas) of Christianity rooted in Scripture and commonly held and taught by all the church fathers and Reformers. They are what author Gary Tyra (in Toward a Missional Orthodoxy) calls the “Christological verities.” They include the deity and humanity of Jesus Christ (incarnation of God), Trinity, salvation through Christ and his cross, and salvation by grace alone."

"Fundamentalism is (among other things): adding secondary and even tertiary beliefs to basic Christian orthodoxy as necessary for authentic Christian identity (e.g., premillennialism, biblical inerrancy, young earth creationism), insisting that salvation depends on belief in a long list of doctrines including ones not part of basic Christian orthodoxy, and refusing Christian fellowship with other Christians who are “doctrinally polluted” or “doctrinally impure” because they do not believe everything on the fundamentalists’ long list of essential doctrines."

6 Christian Fundamentalism

To put all of the above into a Christian context, we can turn to George Marsden's "Fundamentalism and American Culture" (page 117) 

In 1910 the Presbyterian General Assembly, in response to some questions raised about the orthodoxy of some graduates of Union Theological seminary, instructed its Committee on Bills and Overtures to prepare a statement for governing future ordinations. The committee reported, and the General Assembly passed the Doctrinal Deliverance of 1910. This Deliverance declared that five doctrines were "necessary and essential" to the Christian faith:  

1. The Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ (John1:1; John20:28; Hebrews1:8-9).
2. The Virgin Birth (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23; Luke 1:27).
3. The Blood Atonement (Acts 20:28; Romans 3:25,5:9; Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 9:12-14).
4. The Bodily Resurrection (Luke 24:36-46;1 Corinthians 15:1-4,15:14-15).
5. The inerrancy of the scriptures themselves (Psalms 12:6-7; Romans 15:4; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20).

The minutes of the General Assembly are available here (starting from page 271)

In the 1920s these became the "famous five points" that were the last rallying position before the spectacular collapse of the conservative party. 

These are the dogmatic points that Christian Fundamentalists use to define the boundaries of their exclusivism.  Christian Fundamentalists claim that those who disagree with any of those five points are not Christians at all.  Fundamentalists will tolerate disagreements within Christianity, as long as there is no disagreement on these five fundamentals, because they are the basis of Salvation.

7 Theological Modernism


7.1 Definitions
In the context of theology, modernism is a reaction, and a challenge, to fundamentalism. Definitions:

Merriam Webster:  
- a tendency in theology to accommodate traditional religious teaching to contemporary thought and especially to devalue supernatural elements

OED: 
- A movement towards modifying traditional beliefs in accordance with modern ideas, especially in the Roman Catholic Church in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

dictionary.com: 
- the movement in Roman Catholic thought that sought to interpret the teachings of the Church in the light of philosophic and scientific conceptions prevalent in the late 19th and early 20th centuries: condemned by Pope Pius X in 1907. 

- the liberal theological tendency in Protestantism in the 20th century.

7.2 The Modern Day View

Wayne Jackson, Biblical Scholar and contributor to The Christian Courier explains...

Modernism repudiates the biblical description of the nature of God. The God of the Old Testament is seen as a hateful deity of vengeance and is rejected. Albrecht Ritschl, for example, repudiated the Bible affirmations regarding Jehovah’s holiness and wrath and viewed the Lord solely as a being of love. This view overlooks the justice of God, failing to recognize that Jehovah will punish the rebel.

Modernism attacks the scriptural account of creation, suggesting that the Mosaic record is simply an ancient “myth” (cf. The Interpreter’s Bible, I.460ff). It denies that man has fallen from his holy estate; rather, it asserts that humanity has actually ascended from a brutish state (via the evolutionary process) to its current status. Lutheran theologian Helmut Thielicke declared that he was not embarrassed to confess that his grandfather was a monkey and his great-grandfather a tadpole.

Modernism adopts a “higher critical” attitude toward the Bible, which ignores the testimony of Scripture itself. For example, it is claimed that Moses did not author the Pentateuch, as both Old and New Testament evidence suggest; rather, supposedly, the first five books of the Bible are but a compilation of documents (e.g., J, E, P, D—the initials signifying Jehovah, Elohim, Priestly, and Deuteronomic—code names for the alleged authors).

Modernism contends that the Bible, as a historical record, is not trustworthy. Advocates of this viewpoint do not hesitate to assert that the Scriptures contain a host of errors of a considerable variety. They believe that the basis of the biblical record is an ancient legendary tradition.

Modernism, therefore, seeks to “de-mythologize” the Scriptures. Anything of a miraculous nature must be explained away as having some natural, though perhaps misunderstood, nature. According to this ideology, for example, Jesus did not walk upon the waves of the Sea of Galilee; instead, he was merely walking in the shallow surf near the coast, and the disciples, from a distance, just thought he was upon the surface of the sea.


Modernism asserts that human conduct cannot be regulated by a “rule book” such as the Bible. Instead, one must individually make his own decisions on ethical issues, letting subjective “love” be the guiding principle in various situations. Joseph Fletcher’s school of situation ethics has peddled this hedonistic ideology.

7.3 The Catholic Definition

The catholic church was - and is - strongly opposed to modernism. The official Catholic position is comprehensively covered in this famous encyclical of Pope Pius X  

7.4 The Anti-Modernist view 

In 1923 J. Gresham Machen wrote what many consider to be the definitive attack on modernism with his book ”Christianity and Liberalism.” His view is made plain in the interaction to the book...  

"In the sphere of religion, in particular, the present time is a time of conflict; the great redemptive religion which has always been known as Christianity is battling against a totally diverse type of religious belief, which is only the more destructive of the Christian faith because it makes use of traditional Christian terminology. This modern non-redemptive religion is called "modernism" or "liberalism."

In the book he refers to modernism as "the enemy within and states that modernism is...

"...the chief modern rival of Christianity. At every point the two movements are in direct opposition. The foundational truths have been surrendered; or worse, the concept of truth has been surrendered to pragmatism so that even affirmations are denials, because they are affirmed as useful and not as true."

7.5 The Pro-Modernist view

For the modernist stand against its fundamentalist critics we turn to Shailer Mathews, Dean of the University of Chicago Divinity School. His Book “The Faith of Modernism” published in 1914, paints a different picture of Modernism to that coming from fundamentalists. This is an extract from "The Faith of Modernism”  - Chapter 2 pages 15 and 16...

WHAT IS MODERNISM?
Modernism is a projection of the Christian movement into modern conditions. It proceeds within the religious limits set by an ongoing Christian group; it distinguishes permanent Christian convictions from their doctrinal expression; it uses these convictions in meeting the actual needs of our modern world. 

The term Modernism itself is somewhat unfortunate. Despite all protestation to the contrary it gives the impression of self-satisfaction, as if only those who hold certain views are intellectually abreast of the times. Yet the terms "Modernism" and "Modernists" have come into such common use that they cannot be avoided. This much, at least, can be said in their favor: they indicate a real tendency in our religious life. This tendency is to be seen when one compares the intellectual habits of Christians as they expound Christianity. Some rely on scientific method; others, on church authority. The former may be said in general to be those indicated when Modernists are mentioned. But strictly speaking, "Modernism" and "Modernist" imply no new theology or organized denominational movement.

The habits of mind and tendencies of thought which the terms have come loosely to represent are to be found in all Christian groups in all parts of the world. Until Modernism is distinguished from fundamentally theological interests, it will be misunderstood. Modernists are not members of a group which prescribes doctrinal views, but Christians who use certain methods of thought are described as Modernists. 

8 "Fundamentalism and American Culture" by George Marsden"
extract from ages 4 and 5.

“Modernism,” President James M Gray of Moody Bible Institute stated flatly, “is a revolt against the God of Christianity.” It is a “foe of good government.”

”The evolutionary hypothesis,” declared William Jennings Bryan in a similarly sweeping statement, “is the only thing that has seriously menaced religion since the birth of Christ; and it menaces... civilisation as well as religion.” Given the seriousness of these threats, the response demanded was clear. In the intellectual battle between true Christianity and the philosophical materialism of modern life, said J. Gresham Machen, “there can be no 'peace without victory'; one side or the other must win.”

During this period of its national prominence in the 1920s, fundamentalism is best defined in terms of these concerns. Briefly, it was militantly anti-modernist Protestant evangelicalism. Fundamentalists were evangelical Christians, close to the traditions of the dominant American revivalist establishment of the nineteenth century, who in the twentieth century militantly opposed both modernism in theology and the cultural changes that modernism endorsed. Militant opposition to modernism was what most clearly set off fundamentalism from a number of closely related traditions, such as evangelicalism, revivalism, pietism, the holiness movements, millenarianism,  Reformed confessionalism, Baptist traditionalism, and other denominational orthodoxies. Fundamentalism was a “movement” in the sense of a tendency or development in Christian thought that gradually took on its own identity as a patchwork coalition of representatives of other movements. Although it developed a distinct life, identity and eventually a subculture of its own, it never existed wholly independently of the older movements from which it grew. Fundamentalism was a loose, diverse, and changing federation of co-belligerents united by their fierce opposition to modernist attempts to bring Christianity into line with modern thought.

Two types of interpretation of fundamentalism have prevailed to date. The most common has been to look on fundamentalism as essentially the extreme and agonzied defense of a dying way of life.  Opponents of fundamentalists proposed such a sociological explanation in the 1920s, and through the next generation fundamentalism was commonly regarded as a manifestation of cultural lag that time and education eventually would eliminate. But as it became apparent in recent decades that fundamentalism and its new evangelical offspring were by no means disappearing from American life, some later interpreters began to take more seriously the internal history of fundamentalism and its relation to other traditions.

By far the most important manifestation of this shift was the interpretation of Ernest Sandeen, presented in its most complete form in 1970. Rejecting social explanations of fundamentalism, Sandeen found its roots in genuine doctrinal traditions. Basically according to Sandeen, fundamentalism was the outgrowth of the "Millenarian Movement" that developed in late nineteenth-century America,  especially through Bible institutes and conferences concerning the interpretation of Biblical prophecies. The movement's millenarian teachings, appearing in their most common form as “dispensational premillennialism” divided all of history into distinct eras or dispensations. The final dispensation would be the “millennium” or one-thousand-year personal reign of Christ on earth. According to Sandeen, these Bible teachers acquired from conservative Presbyterians at Princeton Theological Seminary the newly defined dogma that the bible was “inerrant” in every detail. Millenarianism, however, was primary. This tradition, rather than events of the 1920s, Sandeen argues, is crucial in understanding fundamentalism. 

Buy the book here

8.1 Inerrancy and Neo-Orthodoxy

The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals provides a comprehensive overview of the inerrancy debate that was such a significant part of the evolution of fundamentalism here  in their article "A Layman's Historical Guide to the Inerrancy Debate" 

For much of Christian history, the view of the inspiration and authority of the Bible outlined above held firm, and it was almost unheard of for Christians to criticize and reject the content of Scripture as erroneous.  The position of the greatest of the Western church fathers, Augustine of Hippo, is instructive here.  In his "Reply to Faustus the Manichaean" (XI.5), St. Augustine wrote: "If we are perplexed by an apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, The author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood."  
              
But with the Enlightenment this consensus began to erode.  This was the "Age of Reason" (c. 1650-1800), and while many good and useful things happened during this time such as the rise of modern science, there was also a corrosively anti-religious aspect to the Enlightenment.  This anti-religious impulse flowed from the Enlightenment's view of human reason as adequate and autonomous.  Human reason, it was thought, is up to the task of discovering truth, and it answers to no higher authority.  For obvious reasons, this Enlightenment view of reason came into conflict with the historic Christian view of the Scriptures as without error.  The Bible was derided as a "paper Pope" and viewed simply as a human document like other human documents.  Moreover, the biblical narratives with their affirmations of miraculous events such as the Exodus from Egypt, the Incarnation, the bodily resurrection of Christ, and so forth were viewed as irrational and incompatible with the naturalistic worldview of the Enlightenment.  
              
The influence of this Enlightenment rationalism gave rise to the Protestant liberalism of the nineteenth and early twentieth century.  Here the tendency was to use traditional pious Christian language but to reinterpret it along the lines of Enlightenment naturalism.  Thus the miracles of Jesus were dismissed or explained away.  No longer seen as the incarnate Son of God, Jesus was viewed simply as a really good human being who serves as a wonderful example for us.  The human condition was also viewed in much more optimistic terms as these liberals spoke of the innate perfectibility of humanity.  Needless to say, the inerrancy of the Bible was emphatically rejected as well.  
              
In America this liberal impulse came to be known as "Modernism," and this wholesale rejection of historic Christian truth spawned a reaction in the form "fundamentalism."  The "Fundamentalists," as they were called, sought to identify and defend essential Christian beliefs.  The five so-called "Fundamentals" were the deity and Virgin Birth of Christ, the reality of biblical miracles, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the substitutionary atonement, and the inerrancy of the Bible.  In the northern Presbyterian Church this fundamentalist effort in turn provoked the modernist "Auburn Affirmation" (1924), a document signed by over a thousand Presbyterians which called for tolerance and held that the five fundamentals were merely "theories" that should not be viewed as essential Christian beliefs.  This Auburn Affirmation was particularly pointed in its rejection of inerrancy ("The doctrine of inerrancy, intended to enhance the authority of the Scriptures, in fact impairs their supreme authority for faith and life, and weakens the testimony of the church to the power of God unto salvation through Jesus Christ.").  But by 1930 or so, many of the northern Protestant denominations had either been taken over wholesale by modernism or had decided to tolerate a wide range of views. For over a century, Princeton Theological Seminary had been the bastion of Old School Presbyterian orthodoxy and its faculty members the champions of the church's doctrine of the inerrant word. In 1929, two signers of the Auburn Affirmation were placed on the reorganized Board of Trustees of Princeton Seminary. In response, the renowned New Testament professor J. Gresham Machen and Robert Dick Wilson, one of the leading Old Testament scholars in America, resigned from Princeton Seminary and along with others such as Cornelius Van Til and John Murray became the founding faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary, a seminary established to continue the Old Princeton theology and to defend the absolute authority of God's Word. 
              
Of course, not all fundamentalists were as careful and scholarly as these Old Princetonians.  We may readily admit that some fundamentalists, in their zeal to defend the divine authority of the Bible and because of the influence of Dispensational premillennialism, adopted an overly literalistic approach to Scripture that failed to properly distinguish between the divine authority of the Bible and our human interpretations of it.  Moreover, some of them also tended to emphasize the divine authorship of the Bible at the expense of the human, and thus they failed to do proper justice to the human dimension of Scripture.  
              
Another response to liberalism or modernism was Neo-orthodoxy.  In the wake of the First World War many found the optimism of the older liberalism, with its notions of human perfectibility, to be hopelessly naïve.  They also found that classic Christian themes of radical human sinfulness and divine grace resonated powerfully after the horrors of war, and so there was a return to the classical Christian tradition by theologians such as Karl Barth (1886-1968) and Emil Brunner (1889-1966) in Europe, and many such as Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971), H. Richard Niebuhr (1894-1962), and John H. Leith (1919-2002) in the United States.

To be sure, the Neo-orthodox movement was diverse, and some have more recently suggested (wrongly, I think) that there was really no such thing as "Neo-orthodoxy."  One thing that the Neo-orthodox theologians did have in common was a rejection of inerrancy.  For example, for Karl Barth the only divine revelation, strictly speaking, is the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, and the Bible is but a fallible human "witness to revelation" which "becomes" the Word of God as the Holy Spirit uses it to illumine hearts and minds.  A complication we face with these Neo-orthodox thinkers is their dialectical method--the answer to nearly every theological question is an equivocal "yes" and "no."  Thus, Barth could speak highly of the Bible as "inspired" and as in some sense "word of God" even prior to our reception of it, but he also insisted that the Bible was full of contradictions and was fallible even with respect to matters of "religion and theology." 

8.2 The Princeton/Westminster Split & Inerrancy

The Princeton Theology was a tradition of conservative, Christian, Reformed and Presbyterian theology at Princeton Theological Seminary lasting from the founding of that institution in 1812 until the 1920s. The influence of modernism at the school saw Princeton theologians leave to found Westminster Theological Seminary.

A thorough overview of the Princeton/Westminster split and the doctrine of inerrancy can be found in the writings of biblical scholar Moises Silva, which can be found here. A good overview of the Westminster Confession of Faith can be found here. 


9 Contemporary Fundamentalism

9.1 Curtis Hutson Curtis Hutson (July 10, 1934 – March 5, 1995) was an Independent Fundamental Baptist pastor and editor of The Sword of the Lord (1980-1995). This cover page lists his Fundamentals of the Faith... 

9.2 Rick Warren
According to Rick Warren (who, by the way, asserts he is not a fundamentalist), the origin of the word "fundamentalism" comes from the 20th century document called the Five Fundamentals of the Faith. However, I can't find any record  of any such document. I assume he is referring to The Fundamentals: A Testimony To The Truth which is described in section 5.3 above and in terms of "five fundamentals" I assume he is referring to what I've described in section 6 above.  Several Christian commentators assert Rick Warren is ignorant on the topic of fundamentalism.  

9.3 The Fundamental Evangelistic Association
Since its inception in 1928 when it was found by Pastor M.H. Reynolds, the FEA has promoted and supported the concept of Christian fundamentalism in the modern world.  They explain that...

One of the difficult tasks fundamentalists face today it the need to continually warn people in a time when warnings are not popular. It is difficult to be a fundamentalist because you must endure many hardships. We who are fundamentalists who are seeking to obey the Lord strive for an incorruptible crown. We need to remind ourselves of that. That battle is tough. Don’t think it isn’t. The battle will become tougher. Don’t think it won’t.

They also provide a list of the bitter enemies of biblical fundamentalism...

• Self
• The World
• Satan
• False doctrine
• Humanistic psychology
• Complacency
• Pragmatism

...and rather than the usual five fundamentals, they list 15  

I. The Inspiration of the Bible
II. The Trinity
III. The Deity and Virgin Birth of Christ
IV. The Blood Atonement
V. The Resurrection
VI. The Second Coming
VII. The Personality of Satan
VIII. Heaven and Hell
IX. Creation and Man's Fall
X. Justification by Faith
XI. Eternal Security
XII. The Holy Spirit and Body of Christ
XIII. Separation
XIV. The Local Church and Its Mission
XV. Good Works

------------------
Additional References
http://www.desiringgod.org/biographies/j-gresham-machens-response-to-modernism
http://www.reformed.org/books/chr_and_lib/

Is belief a choice?

  
There's an interesting connection between free-will with the nature of belief, and this is often at the root of key differences of opinion I have with Christian (and Muslim) Apologists.  For example, the idea that free will is an illusion threatens the belief in God, from an Apologist point of view. I don't think it does but anyway... why is the nature of free will and belief such a touchy subject for Apologists?  Would it help if Apologists understood the processes by which humans come to believe what they believe?

Apologists who insist that belief is a choice are taking a philosophical view known as Voluntarism. According to the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy...

"Voluntarism is any philosophical view that makes our ability to control the phenomena in question an essential part of the correct understanding of those phenomena. Doxastic voluntarism is the doctrine that we have extensive control over what we believe; we choose what to believe. A special case of doxastic voluntarism is theological voluntarism, which implies that religious belief requires a substantial element of choice; the evidence alone cannot decide the issue.  This is a view closely associated with Pascal, Kierkegaard, and James."

In other words, we can control what we believe much in the way that we control our actions. Apologists adopt this argument because disbelief is considered sinful, and this is only possible if we can be held morally responsible for our beliefs. The fundamentalists who tell me I will burn in a lake of fire have no credible argument if I can't be held accountable for my opinion that the existence of their god is unlikely. 

Related to this is the "paradox of grace" which Donald Baillie, Professor of Systematic Theology at the University of St. Andrews describes:

"Its essence lies in the conviction which a Christian man possesses, that every good thing in him, every good thing he does, is somehow not wrought by himself but by God. This is a highly paradoxical conviction, for in ascribing all to God it does not abrogate human personality nor disclaim personal responsibility."  

Or as Paul wrote:

"By God’s grace I am what I am, and his grace to me has not proved vain; in my labours I have outdone them all - not I, indeed, but the grace of God working with me." (1 Corinthians 15:10)

So the Apologist will argue that a Christian has a responsibility to believe what is uncertain - or even what is impossible. But the power to do this comes from God.  Kierkegaard suggested that belief in Christian doctrine was in itself a virtue, precisely because it is impossible for that doctrine to be true.  Fundamentalists tell me I have chosen to be an atheist and I will suffer for this for eternity, unless I choose to believe in their religion (choose Jesus, or choose Allah or Mohammed or whatever). And that choice will save me. 

In the other corner we have Involuntarism which argues that we cannot choose to believe, because belief is not an action.  When we make a choice,  that choice is not a choice until the action is taken. But when we believe something, that's it. There is no action. 

When I present my views to religious Apologists I explain that I consider the existence of their particular god unlikely because of the weakness of the evidence and the lack of verification.  They will often insist that my view is a "choice".   But the fact is that, by default, I don't know if gods exist, and my belief in anything can only come from what I know and the evidence I've seen.  I cannot choose to believe in the existence of gods in exactly the same way that I cannot choose to believe in elves or goblins.  I need evidence and verification to believe something, and that's what causes belief, not "choice."  If there is a desk in an office, I don't "choose" to believe the desk is there.  My belief is the logical result of what I know. 

So a belief is not an action - but actions lead to beliefs. These actions could include talking to people, reading books, watching TV, researching, attending lectures... any number of ways that human beings acquire information. But belief is also influenced by how we process the information, how credulous or sceptical we are, our state of mind, and other factors. For example, people who are deluded will believe something is true even when strong evidence is presented that demonstrates it can't be true. Sometimes people will come to believe something because that belief fulfils a need or brings comfort.  From my personal point of view, I am unable to use faith as the basis of belief, hence I cannot believe anything that has not been verified. 

Another charge I receive from Apologists and Fundamentalists is that I chose atheism as a way to avoid taking moral responsibility, or so I can live a life of greed and selfishness. The fact is I had no choice what I believed, and I just can't "choose" to start believing in gods. Compelling evidence would result in me believing in a god or gods, and I always have the option to pretend to believe - to act as if I believe.  Perhaps some Christians and Muslims do just that.