Amazing.

I trust you feel even more satisfied that you’ve accomplished what I described, in my post #26 here, as your second apparent purpose.

Let’s give this thread back to those who want to discuss the original post. As I’ve already conceded, I don’t think I’ll be able to convince you that it makes sense say that Christian fundamentalists are relatively sectarian. I’m not even going to try.

I could have answered in the first place based on my knowledge of sectarianism, but I would have stood a fair chance of missing your point. Sectarianism, as your own dictionary definition shows, does not mean just one thing. I could have answered based on my knowledge of fundamentalism, but guess what? You didn’t bring that up until just now; and fundamentalism is deucedly difficult to define anyway, so we would have had to work on that before we could have made progress. But you didn’t want to make progress.

You wanted to play games and avoid answering. I point to comments #14, #16, and #21 in evidence of that, and also #20 where you ignored the bulk of what I had said to you in #16.

You also wanted to make yourself appear superior. I point to your comments #20 and #25 in evidence of that, with my response #21 in further support. Apparently that was important to you. Are you satisfied you’ve accomplished that now?

Francis Beckwith spoke aptly (#19 here).

I wish you luck with your “slightly smaller audience.”

Your difficulty, as I understand it, is that you don’t understand what it would mean to say that a set of beliefs, attitudes and politics is relatively sectarian.

I personally am of the view that there are more interesting things to do than to try to convince an evangelical that it makes sense to say that fundamentalist Christians are relatively sectarian. So, let me just say this: my comments are addressed only to those who share this understanding. I accept that my audience will be slightly smaller.

Our last two comments were probably cross-posted. By now you know that if you’re intending to continue this as a game, I’m not participating. You can feel free to answer the question I asked, or not; it’s entirely up to you.

“But please, as a proof of your sincere effort to understand,…go through this little exercise first and tell me what you discover.”

That little exercise was stated here:

I wonder if you know of any Christians, who believe in the resurrection, but yet would not report witnessing in their lives an “ever-increasing gulf” between themselves and those who do not believe in the resurrection. If you do know of any such Christians (I’d be surprised if you didn’t), try considering their beliefs, attitudes and politics. You’ll probably find a wide diversity here. But then try comparing that diversity to the range of beliefs, attitudes and politics of “Bible-belt Christians” who support the Creation Museum, or who are currently protesting the building of Mosques in the United States, or who cannot see any merits in the arguments for same-sex marriage, etc. Then, if you still can’t understand what would be meant by comparatively sectarian beliefs, values, and politics which create a gap between those who believe in the resurrection and those who do not, let me know.

I’ve just re-read some of this thread. You made a statement that I asked you to clarify. I thought it was a fair question. You responded by initiating a cat-and-mouse game of hints and sarcasm. I played along. I regret that I did, and I don’t like that in myself. I’m exiting the game.

If you want to answer my question, fine. If not, then feel free to leave your statement in its current condition, which to my mind is lacking in content. If you don’t feel a need to respond to a request for clarification, who are we to argue?

I do know some English vocabulary (a word or two), I even knew that the definition of “sectarian” includes “narrow.” You quoted it yourself. So in view of the fact that “sectarian” often implies “narrow,” and that you contrasted it to diversity, I find it odd that you found it odd that I thought that was what you meant.

I have argued that it’s hard to identify one group as more partisan than another, or more narrow-minded.

I knew that sectarian could also mean factional. I have argued in my previously linked page that factionalism is not just something of which Christians can be accused.

I knew that sectarian could even mean bigoted. I remind you that I have observed what appears to be stereotyping in your comments here.

Note that I asked what you meant by “increasingly sectarian beliefs, values and politics [and] behaviors.” You still haven’t told us. Why so chary?

Whenever someone uses a word I don’t understand, I usually first consult a dictionary. I recommend this practice. Here’s how the Free Dictionary defines “sectarian”:

1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a sect.
2. Adhering or confined to the dogmatic limits of a sect or denomination; partisan.
3. Narrow-minded; parochial.
n.
1. A member of a sect.
2. One characterized by bigoted adherence to a factional viewpoint.

Here’s how it defines “sect”:

1. A group of people forming a distinct unit within a larger group by virtue of certain refinements or distinctions of belief or practice.
2. A religious body, especially one that has separated from a larger denomination.
3. A faction united by common interests or beliefs.

As you can see, it’s odd to assume that, by “sectarian” someone simply means “narrow”.

Or is it better for me not to have any beliefs on same-sex “marriage”? One way to avoid having narrow beliefs is by avoiding beliefs altogether.

What about behaviors? Maybe I should try to have more behaviors; that would be broader. Or on the other hand, maybe by just reducing my behaviors, I could have fewer narrow behaviors. Or should I broaden my behaviors by acting one day as if I believe one thing, and the next day as if I believe the opposite? That would kill two birds with one stone: it would broaden both my behaviors and my beliefs.

But then I wonder, do the same rules apply to people who don’t believe in the Resurrection; or people who believe in same-sex “marriage”? Are they too expected to believe contradictions, so that they won’t be guilty of narrowly believing only what they believe? Or should they have fewer beliefs, so that they might have fewer narrow ones? Should they have less narrow behaviors? It’s awfully narrow of them, isn’t it, to donate money only to groups that oppose Proposition 8. Maybe some days they should give to the Catholic League.

What I’m trying to say, C. Ehrlich, is this: to evaluate another’s beliefs or behaviors as more or less narrow is very hard to do successfully. I still think that was what you were driving at. I’m still open to your explaining otherwise to me; in fact, your explanation (whatever it may be) is what I’ve been asking for.

Then be sure to complete this exercise too:

“then try comparing that diversity to the range of beliefs, attitudes and politics of “Liberal or Emerger Christians” who support neo-Darwinian Evolution and are vehemently against Creationism, or who are currently supporting the building of a Mosque at Ground Zero in the United States, or who ardently make support the arguments for same-sex marriage, etc”

Might as well do a full range of comparisons, eh?

Yes, I do know of some such Christians. Take, for example, a Christian who does not think too highly of the Creation Museum (from a distance, that is; he hasn’t been there), and who does not consider the Ground Zero mosque a cut-and-dried issue; someone whose roots are not in the Bible Belt, who doesn’t agree that homosexuality is generally a choice the person can opt out of. This is someone I know well.

I also know young-earth creationists who don’t oppose the Ground Zero mosque, who actually welcome Muslims and encourage others to demonstrate the same love to them.

I’ve heard of people who generally protest mosques in the U.S., but I’ve never met any such extremists. (The Ground Zero mosque is a special case, for obvious reasons.)

Now, when someone says to me consider the wide diversity here, and compare that to the range of beliefs there, I conclude that what they’re driving at is that the range of beliefs there is pretty narrow. Thus what I think you’re saying is that “sectarian” = “narrow.” But then I find that those who insist on same-sex “marriage” have a pretty narrow set of beliefs, too; so for your sake I certainly hope you’re not trying to tell us that “sectarian” = “narrow” = “a description that only fits certain conservative Christians.” It would be terribly hard for you to sustain that position.

Meanwhile, to view Christians as having a narrow range of beliefs is both inaccurate and stereotyped. If you hadn’t guessed it, I am the Christian I was describing in the first paragraph.

So then, what do you mean by “increasingly sectarian beliefs, values and politics [and] behaviors?” Do you mean narrow? Are you referring to some supposed stereotypical Christian who toes the supposed line on every supposed cultural issue without thinking about it? Or are you referring to beliefs and behaviors that others find disagreeable? That’s a pot-kettle issue, for sure.

So far you’ve left us to guess what you mean by these “increasingly sectarian beliefs, values and politics [and] behaviors.” So far you haven’t told us; and so far it’s a phrase that only sounds as if it means something.

Are you saying this like it is a bad thing?