# Christianity and quackery



## Pergamum (Sep 10, 2008)

This might be a controversial thread.


Help me out with an observation. 

Often I have found that the more conservative a Christian group is (or more fringe too) the more they seem open to beliefs that are viewed in the wider society as “quackery.” 

For instance, I have a conservative, gov’t-mistrusting-friend who believes that the lunar landing is a hoax. In eating with unbeleivers he often parades out his silly beleifs and the potnetial church goer often gets that "wierded-out" look in his eyes - I believe that his willingness to believe and divulge in his odds beliefs to others weaker in the faith (or not yet in the faith) helps to lessen his credibility on supernatural-but-true beleifs, aka, Christianity.

Also,
I have known many home-schooling fmailies that refuse to get health-insurance, or immunizations and try not to get social security cards. 

I have folks who swear that aspartame is really poison (the same stuff used to embalm bodies).

I know whole churches that have memberships in the John Birch society - a group that is trying to fight the evil Illuminati and the “Build-a’Burgers” that secret kabal that is secretly running the world.


MY QUESTION: Are Christians prone to quackery?Or, MORE, prone than others? 

Do many believe in Christianity, not because they have true strong faith but because they are merely more susceptible to believe anything anyhow (i.e. more gullible...the walls of beleif are low enough for Christinaity to get in, but also a load of other beliefs as well). 

Or, are they right? Does rightful mistust of gov’t open us up to “see the truth” in the lies our wider society feeds us? 



P.S. I know, I know, I fully expect folks to begin posting their friend-of-friend-of-a-friend stories of dozens of people who died from drinking diet cokes or getting their boosters.....and why DOES that flag wave when the moon has no wind?






NOTE: The "Christian cults" often have strange dietary laws, like the Adventists...and Corn Flakes also have a strange history as well I hear.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Sep 10, 2008)

Kooks tend to be religious extremists. There are plenty of Kooks to go around. Christianity has its share.


----------



## SRoper (Sep 10, 2008)

It could be that Christianity attracts the weak (which would include the intellectually weak) because the strong don't think they need a savior. There certainly is a lot of belief in quackery among Christians (even on the Puritanboard), but I'm not really sure it is more prevalent than in society as a whole.


----------



## Kim G (Sep 10, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Often I have found that the more conservative a Christian group is (or more fringe too) the more they seem open to beliefs that are viewed in the wider society as “quackery.”


I grew up in an extremely conservative Christian group and we didn't believe any "quackery" like the stuff you mentioned. I would say those who are far removed from mainstream (the fringe) are more susceptible.



> MY QUESTION: Are Christians prone to quackery?Or, MORE, prone than others?


My guess is that "spiritual" or "religious" people are more prone to quackery because of their belief in something that they cannot see except through "faith." Wouldn't you say that those who you work with who are not Christians, but are still "spiritualists", are full of superstitions and quackery?

A few other thoughts:
1) Many of the fringe groups that call themselves Christians but hold to extreme views of the government, TVs, women's dress, moon landings, etc., may not be Christians in the first place.

2) For those in fringe groups who are Christians, many of them have grown up being basically brainwashed into their group's culture. If the "man of God" tells them that Jesus is Lord, they believe him. So when the "man of God" rants about government conspiracies, they will believe him then, too.

3) Some people just seem drawn to conspiracies. I think being the underdog who "knows something" of which the rest of the world is ignorant, they may enjoy the pride that comes with their "knowledge." My grandpa is like that. He knows what he knows, and no one can convince him otherwise. He is RIGHT. End of story.

Just a few thoughts, whatever they're worth.


----------



## BobVigneault (Sep 10, 2008)

Let's not discuss this here, THEY are listening.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 10, 2008)

Don't worry Bawb - I'm wearing my tin foil hat and I pulled out all my fillings due to the secret Commie radio transmissions through them....


----------



## Archlute (Sep 10, 2008)

The more that a person/family/church loses sight of the grace of God in Christ, and, conversely, the more that they occupy themselves with peripheral issues, the more that they will come out the less for it in the Christian life.

I believe that the writer to the Hebrews, although concerned in particular with ceremony vs. the sufficiency of Christ when this was written, nevertheless has much to say to these individuals today when he writes:

"Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teaching, for it is good for our hearts to be strengthened by grace..."


----------



## Mushroom (Sep 10, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Don't worry Bawb - I'm wearing my tin foil hat and I pulled out all my fillings due to the secret Commie radio transmissions through them....


Smart move, brother. And be sure you're wearing rubber-soled shoes so they can't send you subliminal messages through the earth's electrical field. Oh, and watch out for those jet contrails.

Funny though, the most ate-up conspiracy theorist I know is an unbeliever. I have a lot of fun talking about how the US military is in cahoots with alien invaders and so on with him.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 10, 2008)

Brad said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Don't worry Bawb - I'm wearing my tin foil hat and I pulled out all my fillings due to the secret Commie radio transmissions through them....
> ...



You mean Chemtrails!


----------



## Theogenes (Sep 10, 2008)

I saw a card that said "Don't worry, you're not paranoid, they really are out to get you!


----------



## Solus Christus (Sep 10, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> P.S. I know, I know, I fully expect folks to begin posting their friend-of-friend-of-a-friend stories of dozens of people who died from drinking diet cokes or getting their boosters.....*and why DOES that flag wave when the moon has no wind?*



Simple answer: The pole is merely swinging like a pendulum since the astronaut touched it.

Detailed info, and other alleged problems with lunar landing.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Sep 10, 2008)

I'm aware that the guys from "MythBusters" are for the most part atheists but they did a really good job busting alot of the "faked moon landing" myths.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 10, 2008)

*Not a Defense of Quackery, Not a Condemnation*

I think we are safe to acknowledge that some Christians are gullible, but it bears recollection that Jesus said we ought to be like children in many things. He also warned us that we ought to be wise as serpents regarding certain things the world promotes; why? because in these things they are "in their element" and we are out of ours.

Paul said that as "lovers" we should hope and believe all things. This is a double-edged sword, is it not? We want to think the best of people, but at the same time we know that the natural bent of the unsaved is hatred toward us, as Christians. Peter said, "they think it strange [subversive?] that you do not plunge with them into the same flood of dissipation."

Why are we susceptible to "conspiracy theories"? Christians with a black/white world view (or who acknowledge that this division exists, instead of saying that ALL is gray) can be persuaded that an "angel of light" really is the prince of darkness. Who isn't able or willing to believe this? People who do not take the Bible seriously.

Then there is Ps.2 where conspiracy _reality, _not theory, is laid bare. And answer me this: was there, or wasn't there, a real conspiracy to execute Jesus of Nazareth? A biblical argument can be made that Christians should be skeptics--both of the mush they are fed by the worldly powers, and of the conspiracy theorists.

Not everything that is "mainstream" is the best idea. In fact, the more conventional the wisdom, the more it ought NOT be uncritically accepted by us, not least for which reason: that unscrupulous people will frequently use 90% of a good thing (or adiaphora) to sneak through 10% of something ill. Take for example the smuggler; he imports 10,000 widgets in a huge container, betting that the likelihood of his illegal gizmo getting in, hidden in plain sight almost among all the other stuff, is a lock.

What does false religion do? It seldom (at first anyway) comes in selling totally alien ideas. No, it packages itself as the key to unlock what you already know, but has been obscured by some fundamental error or lie told you. They are frequently 90% truth, and 10% lie.

I ask anyone (not just Pergy) how much literature have you read on the pros and cons of immunizations? A lot? A little? None? Why would you make a choice either way on very little info?

But, what if the little info is based on a highly trusted source?

"But everyone is doing it!" Really? How did something new get to be so widespread? Was it all about disinterested altruism?

Cui bono?

How much mercury is bad for you? What about the govt.'s admission this year of certain vaccination's causing harm? What if you knew a person who's child developed autism right after his vaccinations? What if he never improved? What if he finally got to tie his own shoes at age 15?

Or better, what if he took chelation (expensive! not covered by insurance!) treatments; and what if after being autistic and unresponsive for a year or more, it was like that child came back from the dead? What if another child showed little or no improvement from the same sort of treatment?

How many people get shots (2, 3, 5, 10) for their kids, because a doctor tells them to, or the school paperwork told them to, or because they got shots (fewer, I bet!) when they were kids?

Shouldn't you be interested in 1) any risk factors for vaccinations, generally, or in your family history, or the new genetic combination for your children? 2) an actual discussion of the proposed benefits? 3) what the Officials will and won't do for your child ahead of time, should something go wrong? 4) alternative treatments?

Why are people who ask these kinds of questions the KOOKS? Is it MORE or LESS kooky to take _whatever_ some stranger gives you "for your own good." What is the basis or the rationale for believing him? He has been vetted by some council? He has a degree from an AMA approved program? Why are people who want more than the "pat" answers the odd ducks?

Why are people who come to the "wrong" conclusions (that is, not to follow the same course of action as the incurious "sheeple") looked down at, no matter what factors led them to that decision? Most people don't want to know what brought others to their conclusions, sometimes fearing they may be "led astray" by the pied pipers that led those folks into "homeschooling" or whatever.

And here's my last point: one thing that's wrong with our culture is that everything is mass--mass education, mass medication, mass entertainment, mass marketing, mass politics, mass etc. And no one seems to question whether this mass-movement is a good idea. What perfectly acceptable (and maybe for you and your family, far more ideal) courses of action are being cut off by the snake-oil salesmen who are labeling everybody else as the "snake-oil salesmen"?

Well, "one-size" isn't right in ANYTHING cultural, except for RELIGION. "There is another king, namely Jesus," one law for his church. And human efforts at mass-unity are a Tower of Babel. And after that, watch out for the manipulators who like to "ride herd" on the herd.


----------



## jwithnell (Sep 10, 2008)

I have to say, I wondered too about those who seem so easily led. I know one dear Christian lady, who is really very bright and usually right-on theologically, who will start many medical conversations with phrases like: "they don't want you to know this but ..." fill in the blank with something regarding grapefruit peel to cure all cancers, etc., etc. She's the same way about any "exclusive" claim regarding cosmetic creams etc. (Doctors would never tell you about this!)


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 10, 2008)

I know this would come to immunizations. 

MY wife and I have read WIDELY on this - we are nurses and my wife specializes in public health. We think it is a sin to refuse some of these vaccinations just as it would be to not wear a safety belt if your car is equipped with one (ours are not here).

Yes, I am all for getting as much good info out there as possible about the risks and benefits of immunizations. I think that the peer-reviewed double blind studies will show that the beneifts outweigh the risk.


----------



## DMcFadden (Sep 10, 2008)

Bruce captured my concern. I have a daughter-in-law who refuses to immunize my grandsons. At first, we thought it fit into the category Pergy described. A little more talking, however, and I learned that their nursery at church (not a huge congregation) has three autistic kids in it, all who went autistic soon after their immunizations. Coincidence? Who knows? But, I can see where the internet has fed both nutty conspiracy theories and bad medical research as well as some out of the mainstream information that may turn out to be true.

13 years ago people were swearing by the efficacy of fen-phen as a diet aid combination. Books were written by docs hailing the two drugs as a miracle that would melt the weight off a great white "whale" like some of us can become. The PDA spoke in measured scientific terms, but vouched for the efficacy of each drug. TV specials hyped the fad of phen-fen until someone found that the Belgium research uncovered a nasty little problem with primary pulomary hypertension, of which it is said: "There is currently no known cure for PPH / PAH. However, recent advances in treatments for the disease have enabled patients to live longer and more comfortably."

If we were talking about this issue 13 years ago, carping about phen-fen would be classified with quackery. The critics were going up against medical research, the venerable PDA, and lots of docs who swore to its efficacy, reliablity, and safety. Now several tort lawyers are making a mint suing. There were more than 11,000 phen-fen lawsuits settled by American Home Products, costing the company $4.83 billion. The phen fen lawsuits settlements were considered the largest products liability settlement of all time. 

Sooooo? I don't know, Pergy. Gullible Christians, people who have been burned by the hostility of the mainstream media, those who hold to minority views are often easy prey for non-mainstream sources of information.

Today I was reviewing the latest _Newsweek _coverage of Sarah Palin. Article after article trashed her as a "pro-life extremist," "creationist" nut, and all-around "tongue-talking" dangerous person who would single-handedly destroy our 232 year old experiment in democracy. Chew on that long enough and you might fall under the sway of some conspiracy theory with a few chemical formulas or hyper-educated defenders.


----------



## DMcFadden (Sep 10, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> *I know this would come to immunizations*.
> 
> MY wife and I have read WIDELY on this - we are nurses and my wife specializes in public health. We think it is a sin to refuse some of these vaccinations just as it would be to not wear a safety belt if your car is equipped with one (ours are not here).
> 
> Yes, I am all for getting as much good info out there as possible about the risks and benefits of immunizations. I think that the peer-reviewed double blind studies will show that the beneifts outweigh the risk.



1. Well, yes, you brought it up as the example. Better to stick to moon landings and the Kennedy assassination. 

2. I happen to agree with you on the immunizations and the only reason I'm not fuming at my daughter-in-law is that in America, since enough people play by the mandatory immunization rules, my grandkids are relatively safe statistically. In the third world, we would not have such luxury. Even IF they are dangerous, they are not as dangerous as the consequences of not immunizing. I am a Rotarian and we are still laboring to erradicate polio, having made it a fund raising goal for years. Yes, Jonathan Edwards died of the side effects of a live virus immunization (the only thing available at the time). It was still better to risk death from the immunization than to consign legions more to death.

3. But, Pergy, feel the force of my phen-fen example. The nurses, doctors, and researchers who conducted the double-blind studies swore about the relative safety of phen-fen too during the early to mid 90s. It was not until people started dying from PPH that the New England Journal of Medicine published their August 1996 piece alleging that people who took phen-fen for 3 months or longer were 23x more likely to get PPH.

I loathe conspiracy theories and roll my eyes at some of the political points of view expressed here on the PB. But, there is that wonderful dialogue in "Men in Black" between Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones:



> Edwards: Why the big secret? People are smart. They can handle it.
> Kay: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.


----------



## CatechumenPatrick (Sep 10, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> MY QUESTION: Are Christians prone to quackery?Or, MORE, prone than others?



I would say yes, and I would attribute this to 1) a incredulity, even hostility, toward anything intellectual (i.e., a failure to love God with their minds and know the Lord and his Word), which leads to, 2) a lack of rationality, 3) lack of logical thinking (formally and informally speaking). I find that these same Christians (and many times myself ) rarely have arguments, or arguments that are not subjective or fallacious, for many of their beliefs (especially their outrageous ones).


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 10, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > *I know this would come to immunizations*.
> ...



I think your response is very reasoned. I especially agree with your point 2 - only living in the US would not make the refusal of some of these vaccinations very neglectful. But the States are much safer and so the risk-benefit ratio must be re-examined.

I also agree that refusing immunizations is not as extreme as disbelieving in the lunar landing. It is all on a continuum, however, and many, many Christians I know have some sort of diet or strange medical quirk they want to share with me. It happens enough to get my attention and cause me to post about it here - I am sure some of you have noticed this too, and so I was wondering why.


----------



## Nate (Sep 10, 2008)

If anyone is interested in taking the time to read up on immunization research, I've attached a short commentary highlighting recent research on this subject. If you would like the actual research articles discussed in this commentary, feel free to email me, and I will send them to you (they are too large to attach). [email protected]


----------



## py3ak (Sep 10, 2008)

Bruce and Dennis made excellent points on this thread. Before we define "kook" I think we should remember how insane it must have seemed to political analysts for Isaiah to predict the advent of Assyria as a superpower --and the perhaps greater insanity of nonetheless pronouncing judgment on Babylon first.

Believing that this moment in time has all knowledge is a great way, not to become a kook, but to functionally become an idiot.

Words like "mainstream", "conventional", etc., need to be used descriptively, and not as terms of abuse or praise. If something mainstream is good, then that's excellent because many people are using it. If something mainstream is bad, it's even worse than otherwise, because it is doing a lot of damage.

Until the postmillenialist hope begins to be more obviously realized, those who actually hold to the Reformed faith will never be mainstream on the most fundamental articles of their personal beliefs. Why is it at all unusual for them to distrust the mainstream on minor articles?


----------



## Archlute (Sep 10, 2008)

py3ak said:


> Bruce and Dennis made excellent points on this thread. Before we define "kook" I think we should remember how insane it must have seemed to political analysts for Isaiah to predict the advent of Assyria as a superpower --and the perhaps greater insanity of nonetheless pronouncing judgment on Babylon first.
> 
> Believing that this moment in time has all knowledge is a great way, not to become a kook, but to functional become an idiot.
> 
> ...



Big difference - Isaiah was an inspired prophet of the Most High who was commissioned through a face to face encounter to address a theocracy of His own people with divinely granted authority and insight. As far as I know, none of these people come anywhere close to fitting that bill.


----------



## Webservant (Sep 10, 2008)

Greetings - I am new here, so first: hello. 

I have thought this before, too, and I have come to the conclusion that I don't know enough people out in secular society to say that Christianity has cornered the market on cranks. 

We could make a correlation that, since many of the people I talk to have kooky ideas, and since many of them are Christians, than most Christians have kooky ideas. I am not sure this would be a valid correlation.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Sep 10, 2008)

Whenever science is pitted against conscience, as in creation/evolution, mandatory vaccinations/parental rights to decide, wine is good for you/wine is bad for you, I often think of the humble egg. For years, it was said that we should avoid eggs. According to studies and the conventional wisdom of health experts, eggs were deemed bad for you because of their cholesterol content. The pendulum has swung the other way now, and one may enjoy eggs in moderation without the disdain of society around you. The pendulum swings so much when it comes to scientific studies which approve/disapprove of things adiaphora that it reminds me of how Thomas Cartwright once described responsive readings in ecclesiastical liturgies: 'the tossing to and fro of tennis balls'. May God, who alone is Lord of the conscience (WCF 20.2) deliver us from what J.G. Machen once called 'the tyranny of experts'.

Guess what? Eggs are good for you again
AskMen.com - eggs
Links and Downloads Manager - General Links - Mountains and Why We Love Them -- J.G. Machen - The PuritanBoard


----------



## DMcFadden (Sep 10, 2008)

Pergy,

Yes, your observation, albeit anecdotal, rings true to me. 

However, determining cause and effect is much trickier.

* The Bible is literally the Word of God
* Jesus was 100% human (no problemo) AND 100% God
* God hears prayer
* Jesus rose physically from the grave after being dead for a weekend
* God created the world and everything in it in 6 24 hr. days
* Sen. McCain is the better of the two presidential candidates
* Gov. Palin is a pro-life heroine
* Our food is poisoned with chemicals and unless you eat this new macrobiotic diet, you are killing yourself

OK, in that admittedly selective list, I compiled 7 declarative sentences. A member of a liberal elite might think that all of the list is nutso (unless they were a granola liberal into "natural" medicine). Some conservative Christians would affirm all of them as true; many would agree with all but the last one, evangelical Dems would drop the two Republican items; etc.

Since orthodox Christianity is, by definition, foolishness to the world, we start the race at a disadvantage. We ALL hold to whacky, marginal, supersitious notions (according to the standards of this world). Again, note the tone of voice used for Palin in this week's _Newsweek_. The writers find it incomprehensible that she might believe that the Bible is true, that Christ is coming again, or that God might have chosen to create in a week.

So, if we are crazy by definition, how many additional quirks does it take to push us over the edge? We are over the edge already.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 10, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> Pergy,
> 
> Yes, your observation, albeit anecdotal, rings true to me.
> 
> ...




Good points! 

And this is one reason that I wrote this OP...if we are already so weird, than additional nutcase-sounding theories on aspartame hurts our witness. 

My friend is so eccentric that people could think that imbibing his toxin of Christianity could muddy the ol' brain cells for them as well. He mixes so many questionable beleifs into his discussions of Christianity that it denigrates the credibility of his faith (bad company).

Many Christians parade these "not mainstream" somewhat visibly and they often speak with an air of authority that is not warranted. The unsaved relative who hears them speak with conviction on Christ one minute and the evils of immunization on another is likely to think less of Christ.


Another anecdote: I had an unsaved family member eating with me and another odd duck Christian. This odd duck was a Christian who believed that apsartame was poison and that the gov't was putting steroids in our drinking water and none of their kids were immunized and did not "believe in" health or life insurance. Any talk of the glory of Christ was overshadowed by my family member thinking to themself "This guy is a weirdo."

So, whether or not these beleifs are true, I find myself wondering just how visible should these minor beliefs should be in our walk and especially in our conversations around non-believers?


----------



## Nate (Sep 10, 2008)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> The pendulum swings so much when it comes to scientific studies which approve/disapprove of things adiaphora



Your overall point is good, but, wrt the statement above, you should probably disregard (or at least seriously question) any scientific study that would approve/disapprove of things adiaphora as part of its conclusion. As a general rule, no study can be conclusive enough to offer approval or disapproval of these things -- what often happens is the media takes something that the scientists say their data MIGHT support, and run with it as a proven fact.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Sep 10, 2008)

Webservant said:


> Greetings - I am new here, so first: hello.
> 
> I have thought this before, too, and I have come to the conclusion that I don't know enough people out in secular society to say that Christianity has cornered the market on cranks.
> 
> We could make a correlation that, since many of the people I talk to have kooky ideas, and since many of them are Christians, than most Christians have kooky ideas. I am not sure this would be a valid correlation.



 to the Puritan Board!


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Sep 10, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Don't worry Bawb - I'm wearing my tin foil hat and I pulled out all my fillings due to the secret Commie radio transmissions through them....




Just don't drink the kool-aid!


----------



## py3ak (Sep 10, 2008)

Archlute said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > Bruce and Dennis made excellent points on this thread. Before we define "kook" I think we should remember how insane it must have seemed to political analysts for Isaiah to predict the advent of Assyria as a superpower --and the perhaps greater insanity of nonetheless pronouncing judgment on Babylon first.
> ...



But Adam, that reinforces my point. God's truth delivered through an inspired messenger seemed absurd. That establishes the point that in God's world, strangeness or non-mainstreamness is _no_ indicator of falsity. 

Pergamum, I think there are two points to make, one in agreement with you and one in disagreement. Agreeing with you, Christians should not be known for secondary views primarily. If it is more obvious to the world that I love classical music than that I love Christ, something is wrong with me; if they can see my political opinions but can't figure out my religious convictions, I have failed miserably. Possibly disagreeing with you, I don't think Christians should pretend or try to seem as mainstream and normal as possible: we are not intellectually respectable, because the word of the Cross is to them that perish foolishness, and until God opens their eyes it will never be anything but. And when we try to be respectable in that way, I believe it tends to set up the fear of a man as a standard for our behaviour, and leads us into the temptation of compromising our core beliefs for the sake of cultural acceptance. As the Puritan could answer the man who objected to his precision with a reference to God being precise, so we can answer those who think we are on the edge by pointing out that the Gospel is the most radical thing ever said or done. 
I just reread _Mere Christianity_,and you know not even an Oxford don with a fruity voice can make the Christian doctrine that God makes us new men sound reasonable.


----------



## Mushroom (Sep 10, 2008)

I know a few christians, whom I love dearly, that hold to 'quacky' ideas about diet and so forth. Most I consider brethren with weaker consciences, so I respect their positions while quietly disagreeing. Sometimes I wonder if they have a point. But I don't ever think that they are compromising their witness with their quirks. They are of the covenant family of God. Pagans will neither be less or more affected by their witness because they won't 'eat meat sacrificed to idols'. Some of them are more open about their faith than some of us less quacky christians, to our shame. But an unbeliever is an unbeliever not because of how much better or worse a witness the christians he comes into contact with are, he is an unbeliever because he has not been regenerated by the Holy Spirit. If and when that happens, he will be given faith, and God may use thoroughly orthodox christians to do that, or He may use quacks, even heretics, to do so. Paul said that he rejoiced that Christ was preached even by those who preached out of contention, trying to do him harm.

The reason christians should be concerned with their witness is that it is one avenue whereby they may glorify their Redeemer, not because it may hinder an unbeliever from coming to faith.


----------



## kalawine (Sep 10, 2008)

Webservant said:


> Greetings - I am new here, so first: hello.
> 
> I have thought this before, too, and I have come to the conclusion that I don't know enough people out in secular society to say that Christianity has cornered the market on cranks.
> 
> We could make a correlation that, since many of the people I talk to have kooky ideas, and since many of them are Christians, than most Christians have kooky ideas. I am not sure this would be a valid correlation.



With all the good posts I'm reading on this thread I think I'll keep quiet on this one. However, I do wish to  you to the PB.


----------



## Webservant (Sep 10, 2008)

kalawine said:


> Webservant said:
> 
> 
> > Greetings - I am new here, so first: hello.
> ...


Thank you for the welcome - and by all means, brother, fire away if you disagree.


----------



## Archlute (Sep 10, 2008)

py3ak said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> > py3ak said:
> ...



I don't see how it reinforces anything except the difference between the canonical prophets, and that of everybody else. 

In the case of "average" men, I would say that strangeness or actions/thoughts outside of the mainstream certainly are no more proof of truthfulness than falsehood, and would go even further by saying that within Christian circles odd or sectarian behaviors and opinions should be at the very least an indication of that of which I spoke in my initial post, namely, that these people are in need of a greater focus upon the grace of the Christian life than upon strange stuff (a la Hebrews 13:9).

So, yes, from a pastoral perspective, although always attempting to give a fair hearing to the "odd-duck", I am also looking out for the area(s) within such a person's life where they are being drawn away from the centralities of the faith (or possibly, have never been taught them at all), and are instead feeding themselves on issues that are opposed to the stabilizing work of the Gospel in their own thoughts and life. I haven't seen the trait of "quackery" listed in the epistles as being a fruit of the spirit, nor a qualification for those who lead the body of Christ, and therefore believe those traits to be indicative of at least personal instability, if not raising some incredulity regarding their interests. Unstable people are not known for doing good research, nor for their ability to separate fact from fantasy.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 10, 2008)

I could give you a laundry list of "contrarian" ideas I've absorbed over the years, but I don't go around "evangelizing" people with them. I (usually) don't insist that other people hear what I believe, or that I think they ought to agree with me, on issues not defined by Scripture. I'm more afraid that people will NOT listen to me on the ONE important thing, the gospel, because of those things. I try not to even tell people that we homeschool, although that subject is becoming more commonplace today.

The real problem is with folks who are now shills for whatever "new orthoducky" they've bought into. In other words, they've just changed "sides" but not their fundamental idea that "*if you don't agree with me, then something is wrong with you*." That's what they thought when their kids were in public school, and they think EXACTLY THE SAME WAY now that their kids are homeschooled. Either way, they're insecure and they need a constant stream of converts to assure them they're part of the right group this time.

This is entirely different from, for example, taking and defending an unpopular stand. In that case, someone has accused you of being "kooky" for your views that you weren't proselytizing for. So you hit 'im between the eyes with the logic of your position, or you can be nice about it--either way you don't care whether he gets "converted" or not. It isn't going to change your mind that he doesn't like your ideas.

_Liberty of conscience, baby._ That's the Christian's heritage, and I'm not sacrificing that on anybody's altar of political correctness.

Someone on the P-B the other day said that our secular government was the most biblical *form* of state-polity on the planet. I don't mind someone thinking that this democracy is great and all, but please don't bind my conscience (or try to) by suggesting that idea is biblically normative, which furthermore implies that _dissent_ must run a double-gauntlet in order to be fully justified.See,"the most biblical form" of govt. gets the benefit of the doubt regarding its policies. This follows from the idea that that it surely must be almost impossible for "the most biblical form" of govt." to be significantly subverted; and hence the policies are always regarded as essentially proper, even if the methods employed aren't always the best, or are sometimes even sinful of themselves. Under this supposition, the "bad guys" have to expend unbelievable effort just to take the ship off course and maintain it that way, or else it naturally reverts to the "biblical mean."​What does a statement like that mean, anyway? That God gave Israel a "less biblical form" of government in the person of King David?

What if I went around declaring that "monarchies" are the "most biblical form" of govt. Wouldn't it be fair to say that based on the actual biblical examples of the theocracy in its ideal presentation (God, David, Christ), I would have a point?

I'm not really defending this point. I'm just pointing out that the "contrarian" view to the received wisdom--that this secular democracy is the "most biblical form" of govt.--has a pretty good "biblical argument" in its favor. But the fact is *there's no such thing as THE biblical form of state-polity*. So, its not "kooky" to deplore our democracy, or pine for the Old Republic, or condemn the empire, or wish we had a king, or all the above, or none of them and something else.

It simply the mark of an independent mind. And that, my friends, is what liberty of conscience--and being a Scotsman--once was all about.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 11, 2008)

py3ak said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> > py3ak said:
> ...



Ruben, I think you just summed up perfectly what it is that irks me about it when I start hearing about aspartame, immunizations and the Illuminati!

_Agreeing with you, Christians should not be known for secondary views primarily. If it is more obvious to the world that I love classical music than that I love Christ, something is wrong with me; if they can see my political opinions but can't figure out my religious convictions, I have failed miserably. _


I think that sentence answers most of my thoughts.

By the way, I would never advocate that we appear as "mainstream as possible" - I too certainly appear very strange to many people. I wouldn't just try to "fit in" - but I would certainly keep my conspiracy theories to myself.


----------



## Christusregnat (Sep 11, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Often I have found that the more conservative a Christian group is (or more fringe too) the more they seem open to beliefs that are viewed in the wider society as “quackery.”




Quackery such as:

1. There is no God

2. The universe contains no marks of design, order or beauty

3. Everyone must fall in line

4. Marriage is the first form of slavery

5. The world is subject to man-made global warming, and the earth will soon be flooded by Al-Gore sized flooding

6. If the government approves of or encourages something, it must be okay

7. If you have a degree from a state sponsored or funded institution, you must know what you're talking about (e.g. "I'm a doctor, do what I say")

8. The world is overpopulated

9. The Fed is a great idea; look at how good they are at making money and bailing out failing systems

10. Separation of church and state

11. We're running out of oil resources in the world

12. Muslim nations can be reasoned with

13. Legislation changes people

14. Public education will one day create a perfect world

Frankly, it is rather short-sighted, and jejune to think that Christians are the main proponents of quackery. In fact, the use of the term "quackery" to describe the positions you did poisons the well, another "quack's" abuse of logic.

Mass quackery is just using the big lie technique, and is often successful with people who are unable to utilize critical thinking skills.

Cheers,


----------



## Grymir (Sep 11, 2008)

All this and nobody brought up Y2K?


----------



## py3ak (Sep 11, 2008)

Archlute said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > Archlute said:
> ...



Adam, there's quite a large divide between "the centralities of the faith" and "the mainstream". With the exception of the existence of a God, I think that every centrality of the Reformed faith is radically different from "the mainstream". What you should be cautious of in your people is not areas where they are different from the world, but where they depart from the word of God. If stability is a result of the work of the Gospel, then you ought to conclude that the mainstream is wildly unstable, because at the moment the Gospel is preached little and oft-times very ill.

I don't at all object if you want to minimize the ability of everyone not dominated by the Gospel to distinguish fact from fantasy -but I think it a point as plain as can be that in that case you are going to have to doubt the mainstream every bit as much as the side currents. What you actually seem to be saying is that people well-influenced by the Gospel will be seen as quite normal by the generality of the people around whom they live (though I assume you would make an exception for such odd beliefs as the Resurrection). I have pointed out that this is nonsense.

Who defines odd? I daresay we are both feeling that certainly hope it is not our interlocutor on this thread.

Finally, I don't how to make it more clear, but here goes. Since God's inspired truth seemed odd, counterintuitive, irrational, perhaps even insane, and yet was nonetheless (by definition) true, as was demonstrated in the historical sequel, therefore we cannot conclude that _seeming odd_ means that something is either false or pernicious. In other words, "odd" should be a term of description, not a term of opprobrium. "Strange" does not equal "wrong", and we know that because the deepest and truest "right", words from God's own mind, can be "strange".


----------



## ChristianHedonist (Sep 11, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> I know this would come to immunizations.
> 
> MY wife and I have read WIDELY on this - we are nurses and my wife specializes in public health. We think it is a sin to refuse some of these vaccinations just as it would be to not wear a safety belt if your car is equipped with one (ours are not here).
> 
> Yes, I am all for getting as much good info out there as possible about the risks and benefits of immunizations. I think that the peer-reviewed double blind studies will show that the beneifts outweigh the risk.



My older brother is severely autistic, due to a vaccination he received.


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Sep 11, 2008)

I think we also should be careful when talking about this to distinguish between different types of quackery. Two examples that show the different “types” (ok so one is quackery, one is not):

Back in 2003 the US prepared for war with Iraq. George Bush tried to convince everyone that Saddam Hussein had WMD and posed a risk to humanity. On the most part there appeared to be a lot of support for this belief (I will not do an analysis here so I don’t want this debated further). There were also some media outlets/programs/elements of popular culture that made fun of this idea. In places like New Zealand the idea was more mocked because we are anti-American, not because we had any evidence to the contrary. I remember a Christian friend who was politically illiterate (who didn’t even know our own leader of the opposition when she saw him) who one day made a comment about how Bush was an idiot and of _course_ there are no WMD. Even _she_ knew this. It was _so_ obvious. Everyone who supported the idea of there being WMD _must[I/] then, by implication, be a quack. Who was the real quack? Actually she couldn’t support this belief. She had heard some mention of it, seen the guys face on TV once or twice and was just being “cool”. Now it turns out she was right but I would still call her a quack.

In the second case you could imagine an intelligence analyst going over information coming in and seeing a discrepancy in reports etc… They come to believe that Iraq or some third party agents are feeding them false information, coxing them to invade, while feeding the UN other intelligence which makes the UN do nothing; hence splitting the international community. Sounds like a conspiracy? But all the data is going this way and the analyst goes over all of it again and again and comes to this conclusion. Essentially it is the same conclusion reached by the girl in the first story, but I would not call it quackery, even if it was at the same time.

Same as the case that not everyone says “the government is bugging my house and listening into my phone calls” is a quack. They might have thought through this rationally and found evidence. On the other hand they might just be idiots._


----------



## R Harris (Sep 11, 2008)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I'm just pointing out that the "contrarian" view to the received wisdom--that this secular democracy is the "most biblical form" of govt.--has a pretty good "biblical argument" in its favor. But the fact is *there's no such thing as THE biblical form of state-polity*. So, its not "kooky" to deplore our democracy, or pine for the Old Republic, or condemn the empire, or wish we had a king, or all the above, or none of them and something else.
> 
> It simply the mark of an independent mind. And that, my friends, is what liberty of conscience--and being a Scotsman--once was all about.



This is true. In fact, I sometimes feel that if you could find a good Hezekiah as king, I would take that any day over what we have.

Regarding theological issues, of course arminians and dispensationalists mostly tend to think we are kooks. I'll never forget when I first became a five-pointer in college. All of the Campus Crusaders looked at me like I had just arrived from Mars.

Three weeks before he died, Jerry Falwell called anyone holding to Calvinism a heretic. Was he right? Are we all kooks?

I find such childish name-calling very annoying and disturbing.


----------

