On Fundamentalism in Islam and Christianity

Worldwide religious fundamentalism is on the rise and threatening world peace. Witness the Oct, 31, 2010 attack on a Catholic Church in Baghdad killing 58 Christians by Muslim militants. Religious extremism is born out of a fundamentalist understanding of the Islamic faith according to the, author of 'Why I Am not Muslim' (1995). Written under the pseudonym, Ibn Warraq, the author speaks as someone from a Muslim family with a deep understanding of the Koran, the Hadith and Sharia.

Warraq shows that the Koran evolved over several centuries (just like the Christian Bible), and is filled with contradictions, absurdities and incomplete thoughts (again, just like the Bible). As for Islamic tradition and practice, Warraq shows how Muhammad simply incorporated a number of elements from Arabia's Pagan history into his 'new' religion.

Perhaps the most important thing demonstrated by Ibn Warraq is that Islam is fundamentalist by nature, and not by some peculiar and aberrant recent development. All Muslims, not just the fanatics, believe that every word of the Quran is quite literally the word of God.

But Warraq's best work is done in showing exactly how dangerous Islam really is. Beginning with Muhammad, violence, intolerance and human rights abuses have been part and parcel of Islam to this very day. This cannot be ascribed to isolated Fundamentalists, but is built into the very core of the religion. Islam is Fundamentalism - it cannot be otherwise.

Islam was never a religion of tolerance and it is not tolerant by nature. Despite the way the apologists would like to depict it, Islam was spread by the sword and has been maintained by the sword throughout its history.

There is no way that Islam can reform itself and remain Islam, no way can it ever be made compatible with pluralism, free speech, critical thought and democracy. Anyone convinced they already possess the truth have no need for such things.

Islam succeeded through aggression and intimidation. The early Islamic conquests, for example, were extremely aggressive:

"Islam, in particular political Islam, has totally failed to cope with the modern world and all its attendant problems-social, economic, and philosophical." Nor does the author hold out hope for improvement. Take the matter of protecting individuals from the state: "The major obstacle in Islam to any move toward international human rights is God, or to put it more precisely . . the reverence for the sources, the Koran and the Sunna ."

Ibn Warraq's assessment of Islam is exceptionally severe: the religion is based on deception; it succeeded through aggression and intimidation; it holds back progress; and it is a "form of totalitarianism." Surveying nearly fourteen centuries of history, he concludes, "the effects of the teachings of the Koran have been a disaster for human reason and social, intellectual, and moral progress."

The apologists of Islam dishonestly tried to play down the terrorism and barbarism of the group they themselves insisted on calling "Islamic fundamentalists" by insisting that these latter had nothing in common with the real Islam - "the real Islam is peaceful" they claimed, "the real Islam respects human rights, the real Islam treats women as equals, etc."

When he imposed the death sentence on Rushdie, Khomeini was but following a precedent set by Muhammad, the founder of Islam, himself, who was not above getting his revenge or settling disputes by political assassinations.

Jihad as Warraq shows, is clearly enjoined by Islamic Law, and there are numerous passages in the Koran which exhort the faithful to kill the non-believers or non-Muslims. Warraq also explodes the myth of Islamic tolerance - Islam conquered by the sword, and in the process destroyed Eastern Christianity and the ancient Persian culture, looting and burning churches and fire temples; devastated India and plundered literally thousands of Hindu temples.

The sorry plight of women in the Islamic world is also shown by Warraq to be a consequence, a logical consequence of the misogynous principles scattered throughout the Koran, the Hadith and the Sharia: a woman is seen as inferior in every way, both morally and intellectually; she can only inherit half the amount that a man does, her testimony in the court of law is worth half that of a man; she cannot marry a non-Muslim, she cannot divorce her husband, certain professions are forbidden to her, and so on.

Warraq underlines the totalitarian nature of Islam, showing why it is incompatible with respect to human rights. Not only women are inferior under Islamic Law, but so are also non-Muslims living in Muslim countries. Nor does one have the right to change one's religion or belief under Islam - an apostate is to be killed.

Christians must not assume that they have been any less violent through the ages. Church history is filled with examples of horrific slaughter and torture of untold hundreds of thousands of innocent victims. Christian fundamentalist have been responsible, almost from the very beginning, for the persecution of Jews, heretics, and pagans, by means of the Crusades, Inquisitions, witch hunts, including the enslavement and oppression of indigenous or native peoples. Fundamentalism continues to find its way in the Catholic Church on such sensitive issues as abortion, gays, birth control, same-sex marriage, the role of women in the Church and so on. To date the Catholic Church does not hold a prominent position among the World Council of Churches while as recently as 2008 the Vatican refused to sign a UN Declaration to Decriminalize Homosexuality.

Religious fundamentalism for the purpose of protecting the 'purity of the faith' cannot be the way to God. By its very nature it will never promote dialogue and understanding necessary to bring about harmony and peace in this world.

Note: Religious Fundamentalism refers to a belief in a strict adherence to specific set of theological doctrines typically in reaction against what are perceived as modern heresies of secularism. When these beliefs are translated into a means of issuing punishment or militant action they can be classed as extremist fundamentalism.

Religious Fundamentalism and World Peace

Religious fundamentalism is on the rise and threatens world peace. For example:

• There exists today, and especially since 9/11, a total lack of meaningful DIALOGUE or trust between various world religions/communities.

• There are alarming signs of a growing fundamentalist approach to religion in general.

• Traditional world religious Institutions remain under constant siege.

• While the west struggles with religious doctrine the east appears mostly focused on submission.

• The Islamic world is largely portrayed in the western media as violent, archaic, anti-Semitic, and untrustworthy.

• Tribalism and fundamentalist extremist continue to radicalize the Islamic religion.
• Moderate Islamic voices are mostly silent about Muslim extremism.

• The North American Christian community is drifting increasingly closer to fundamentalism which has created a deep chasm between the 'right' and 'left' elements of the faith.

• Forces opposed to abortion have become militant.

• Religious symbols and signs are under siege. (Some are gradually being banned in some countries)


Christian Fundamentalism is perhaps best described in 'Christianity, the Complete Guide, edited by John Bowden, as follows:
Fundamentalists in any religion are essentially an opposition movement, and their characteristic beliefs can be defined just as clearly by stating what they are against as what they are for. They are above all opposed to the ongoing process of secularizing social change which is often referred Globalization to as globalization, and which brings with it the erosion of religious traditions and values, to relativism and pluralism, and to sophisticated patterns of interpretation which would , seem to qualify what is said in authoritative texts.

By contrast, fundamentalists believe in a unified and revealed truth, the sources of which are inerrant and absolutely authoritative, and allow of no misunderstanding. However, they are selective in the parts of the tradition that they emphasize, the passages of scripture that they focus on, and the features of modernity that they reject (for example, they are happy to make use of modern means of mass communication).

What fundamentalists accept or reject is largely determined by charismatic leaders who govern and guide communities and organizations, and often introduce their own highly personal emphases. Groups have firm boundaries, and there are strict rules for the behaviour of their members.

Fundamentalism in the Roman Catholic Church, in the beginning of the twentieth century was marked by strong opposition to modernism under Pope Pius X. Movements such as Opus Dei and that headed by Archbishop Lefebvre have been called 'fundamentalist', and so too have many of the standpoints taken by Pope John Paul II followed with even more strident measures by Pope Benedict XVI.

Christian fundamentalism in North America, in its extreme forms, and outside the Catholic tradition, finds its greatest sources in evangelical movements lead by the likes of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, etc. Their movement is marked not only by its obsessions with conspiracy theories, magic, sexual repression, paranoia and death, but also by its infatuation with apocalyptic violence and military force.

When Christian fundamentalism clashes with Islamic fundamentalism their worlds become virtual powder kegs and frequently result in violence or war. When the Muslim community in Manhattan recently proposed to build a mosque near the site of 9/11, or ground zero, many voices were raised in opposition calling for a moratorium on the planned construction of other mosques in far less hallowed locations. Clearly, the fundamentalist world is not ready for such 'in your face' plans.

The question we must now ask ourselves is does fundamentalism reflect true Gospel values for Christians and how does it apply to the Billion or so Islamic people and their understanding of the Quran? For the sake of the future, the lives of our children, is it not time to bring meaningful dialogue to the table? Why and when did we silence the voice of compassion and religious tolerance? With the rise of religious fundamentalism we need to heed to advice given by the silenced voice of Catholic theologian Hans Kung, when he said "There can be no peace amongst nations without peace amongst religions; No peace is possible between religions without dialogue between them; and no dialogue can be had between the religions without investigation of their individual foundations."

Fundamentalism

Religious fundamentalism involves above all else a desire for certainty and the power to enforce that certainty over others. Fundamentlists like order, conformity, and the absence of opposition, and they are willing to do battle royal to achieve this state of affairs in their culture.

Catholicism: The Original Fundamentalism

Catholicism has been engaged in something like a holy war for most of its history. Heretics abounded in the medieval period (Cathars, Waldensians, Free Spirits, etc.), and were invariably harshly dealt with by the Church authorities, who permitted no challenge whatsoever to their power base. (Catharism, or Albigensianism, which flourished in the south of France from the llth to the 14th centuries, even became the subject of a full-blown, and ultimately successful, crusade against its domain.) Then, in the early 16th century, the Reformation came on the scene, setting in motion a long-running conflict with the Protestant movement: a conflict which continues, if only rarely in violent form (as in Northern Ireland), into our own century. (Each side is still competing with the other for converts, with American Protestant evangelicalism latterly making inroads into traditional Catholic strongholds in South America.) The Reformation generated a Counter-Reformation on the part of Catholicism, which was reasonably successful in stemming the advance of Protestantism throughout Europe, and even winning back territory from Protestant control (France reverting to Catholicism after being on the brink of going Protestant, as a case in point). Having weathered the crisis, Catholicism consolidated its position as a major world religion with an aggressive recruiting policy and a practised ability to exercise tight control over the lifestyles of its adherents: 'Once a Catholic always a Catholic', as the popular saying goes.

Despite the development of Protestantism, Catholicism continues to regard itself as not just the only true Christianity, but the only true religion [Dominus Iesus- 2000]. Over the years it has amassed a battery of doctrines to reinforce its claims to this exalted status. Papal infallibility is a latter-day addition to its authority, although the Church hierarchy had never been in much doubt over the tightness of its actions before (as Jonathan Riley-Smith has drily noted, '[f]or most of its 2,000-year history the papacy has not been in the forefront of reform'). Vatican pronouncements are handed down as law, whether on the subject of contraception, [abortion], priestly celibacy, or women priests - to name some of the most contentious issues on its current agenda. While a certain amount of debate is permitted to take place on such topics, it's at a rarefied level in the hierarchy where the laity have little input and decisions tend towards the very conservative. Catholicism has a very strong sense of history, and is more concerned to preserve traditional authority than to respond to cultural change. Considerable pressure has been exerted over the issues mentioned above - contraception, priestly celibacy, women priests - but so far to little avail. As far as the hierarchy are concerned, these are matters of dogma on which only they have the right to pronounce, and they expect their pronouncements to be followed to the letter. Doctrine wins out over the social cost of the Church's ban on birth control in poorer areas of the world (South America, for example), even though the improvement in the quality of life that a change in policy would bring seems obvious to everyone except the Catholic authorities. Although Christian fundamentalism is traditionally associated with Protestantism, it's worth remembering that it has no monopoly on that attitude.

Here follow some other provocative insights from Stuart Sim from his book fundamentalistWorld.

• Religious fundamentalism's great selling point is that it provides a sense of security for believers in what has become an ever more disorienting world, but it does so at the expense of cultivating an intolerance of others which can have devastating effects on global politics.
  

  • The more militant religious fundamentalism becomes the more likely it is to create clashes between rival belief systems.
  • Christian doctrine notwithstanding, there will be little forgiveness of sins, if those sins concern the fundamentals of belief.
  • What fundamentalism involves above all else is a desire for certainty and for the power to enforce that certainty over others. Fundamentalists like order, conformity, and the absence of opposition, and they are willing to do battle royal to achieve this state of affairs in their culture.
    
  • what fundamentalist share is a burning conviction of the rightness of their beliefs and the necessity to impose them on the rest of us.

  
  

  
  

  • Once doctrine, always doctrine, is the immutable fundamentalist law; the script must be followed regardless of who suffers (it's their fault anyway).
    
    

    Fundamentalism by far is not the inclusive domain of some Catholics. It is also found in many sectors of our world religions, for example:
    

    Muslim Fundamentalism

    Muslim fundamentalism is an enormously simple, powerful, earthy, sometimes cruel, absorbing, socially fortifying movement, which gives a sense of direction and orientation to millions of men and women, many of whom live lives of bitter poverty and are subject to harsh oppression. It enables them to adjust to a new anonymous mass society by identifying with the old, long-established High Culture of their own faith, and explaining their own deprivation and humiliation as a punishment for having strayed from the true path, rather than a consequence of never having found it. – Ernest Gellner

    
    

    
    

    
    

    
    

    JEWISH FUNDAMENTALISM

    It stresses the obligatory salvation of the Jews and their return to Israel as a precondition for the establishment of the Kingdom of God on the Davidic throne of Jerusalem. These events, foretold by the prophets Daniel and Ezekiel and the last book of the Christian Scriptures, Revelation, create a rigorous framework within which all fundamentalists can understand past and future history, not as a purposeless record, but as a statement of divine will and a preparation for His eventual triumph over the forces of the Antichrist in the coming conflict known as the Tribulation.

    This brief summary is by no means a complete history of religious fundamentalism. No religion is exempt according to Sim. Nor is fundamentalism restricted to religion. Stuart Sim's book also describes how fundamentalism impacts us through politics and the economy. This well researched book helps us to better understand and reject the negative forces often present in this violent world in which we live. It is no news to anyone that a widespread spiritual awakening is currently taking place - one that has two distinct aspects. On one side, we find a resurgence of religious fundamentalism that embraces a historic view derived from the Middle Ages - a literalist belief that proclaims this world to be the kingdom of a remote transcendent authoritarian father-God, alternately wrathful and beneficent . . . On the other side and in opposition to this view, we have the spiritually awakened and expanded perspective of the secular humanist who perceive an omnipresent, immanent Divine Presence of Creative Force existing within all creation, one that is benevolent, life enhancing and life sustaining. (Mind Before Matter)

    
    

    
    

    
    

Several Years ago I came across the brilliant little book 'Fundamentalistworld –The New Dark Age of Dogma', written by Stuart Sim, Icon Books, U.K., 2004. This thought provoking book provides an in-depth analysis on FUNDAMENTALISM and how it impacts our world politically and religiously. I sincerely hope it will cause readers to renew their personal convictions and beliefs against the Creator of all humankind – and thereby come to embrace and project a love that is totally unconditional and all inclusive.

On religious fundamentalism

Jacob wrestles with Angel
by Delacroix (Genesis. 32:26-28)

As a religious convert in the mid eighties, I struggle with a number of religious teachings . Not because I think they are necessarily right or wrong but because they are often stated in unbending legalistic terms.

Many religious teachings have become inflexible over time and have produced a back-ward orientation. In the hands of fundamentalist they are dangerous weapons of judgment and condemnation. Many religious beliefs surrounding homosexuality, abortion, same-sex marriage etc., are now expressed in militant terms. An increasingly zealous approach to religion has been responsible for many random acts of violence throughout the world. Fundamentalism, it must be admitted, is completely devoid of God's gift of compassion. Have we perhaps forgotten that God's gift of compassion and understanding reaches far beyond the written word?

To the fundamentalist, a 'true believer' is someone prepared to submit to an unquestioning obedience to religious teaching. To a struggling member of a religious institution, it can bring both fear and distrust. Any suggestion which hints at the introduction of change, is frequently met with fear and suspicion. Even the mere act of questioning established dogma and doctrine teachings can be considered heresy in some religious circles, while a virtual anathema or a promise of hell awaits those who dare to openly challenge these teachings. Because virtually all world religious teachings, and their interpretation, are usually held in the hands of a select few, they are not held subject to individual interpretation. But it is important to note that our unquestioning dependence on religious dogma is a relatively new phenomenon. According to respected historians such as Karen Armstrong, fundamentalism first surfaced as recently as the nineteenth century. Since then it has bred the foundation for much religious strife in the world today. Until the twentieth century "the Catholic Church presented itself internally and to the world at large, as the church that did not change. It took great care, as well, to show a united front on all issues and to deal swiftly and discreetly with any occurrences within the church that might seem to suggest otherwise." ( J. W. O'Malley What Happened at Vatican II (2008),P. 34.)

.

But then came Vatican II (1962-1965). For the first time in its two-thousand year history the church showed a desire to accept change from the outside. At its conclusion Dominican Edward Schillebeeckx of Nijmegen University called it "the triumph of anti-triumphal ism"—the rejection by the council of the world-hating, anathema-hurling Counter Reformation conviction that Catholicism alone possessed the truth of life. In contrast to past councils, which devoted much of their time consigning to eternal flames those who did not agree with majority decisions, Vatican II issued no such condemnations. On the floor of St. Peter's, Vienna's Franziskus Cardinal Konig argued that the church has much to learn from the world, even from atheism. (Time Magazine Friday, Dec. 17, 1965).

Clearly the Vatican II authors responsible for the following statement recognized that obedience to a higher norm takes precedence over external authority:

Deep within their consciences men and women discover a law that they have not laid upon themselves but which they must obey. Its voice, ever calling them to love and to do what is good and to avoid what is evil, tells them inwardly at the right moment: do this, shun that. For they have in their hearts a law inscribed by God. Their dignity lies in observing this law, and by it they will be judged . . . By conscience that law is made known in a wonderful that is fulfilled in love for God and for one's neighbour. Through loyalty to conscience Christians are joined to others in the search for truth and for the right solution to so many moral problems that arise both in the lives of individuals and in social relationships. - Pastoral Constitution on the Modern World

Regretfully, even as the Church stood on the threshold of change beginning with Vatican II, it has once again expressed fear of change by denouncing various forms of relativism, secularism, liberalism, modernism, capitalism and just about any other 'ism' it can name. Each article of faith is once again protected in an unbending and unchangeable doctrine which if challenged, might reveal a crack in the concrete of its two thousand year history. Its religious dogma is carefully preserved under 2,865 articles of faith contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church supported by 1,752 rules prescribed in the Code of Canon Law. Both were published after Vatican II under the watchful eye of Cardinal Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI. The Catechism once again states that "Outside the Church there is no salvation." This statement completely contradicts the pastoral views held by the fathers of Vatican II extending God's salvation to all humankind! Similarly, documents released by the Vatican in recent years, state that the Catholic Church considers itself in sole possession of the complete truth. It appears then that in spite of a brief venture into the future, the Church would prefer to remain locked in a safer past. As a consequence, Catholic theology will probably continue to reflect the mistaken belief that:

As God is unchangeable therefore the church must also resist change. Religious practise must be based on proven doctrinal formulations not subject to modern 'novelties'. The church, while in the world, must resist any integration into the world. Reconciliation with any principles outside the church will ultimately cause irreparable damage to church life and a serious dilution of its teaching.

Is there a way of changing religious teachings that will be less likely to form unbending literal interpretations? Author John W. O'Malley thinks so.He shares the belief that the documents of Vatican II were expressed in a new way of speaking. Its persuasive and inviting language encouraged an inner transformation. O'Malley recognized that "persuaders do not command from on high. Otherwise they would not be persuading but dictating. Persuasion works from the inside out. To be successful, persuaders need to establish an identity between themselves and their audience and make clear that they share the same concerns and even the same sentiments, such as hope, joy, and sadness. Implicit in it, therefore, is an invitation to rise above all pettiness and to strive for an expansive vision and a generous spirit."

The question for many of us at this juncture will be "do we follow a religion rigidly frozen in the past or do we follow a faith based on 'unknowing' but securely guided by a Creator who leads us in the present - safely towards the future? Will it be a religion of the heart or a religion of the head? Perhaps, like Jacob, we will have to struggle with our own internal demons (Ego) to make this decision.

And then finally, religious fundamentalism will eventually give way to religious liberty which recognizes that all of God's creation is Holy and that we are all equally Holy Sons and Daughters of God called to community with one another.

We need not think alike to love alike - David Ferenc

On Fundamentalism

"We must move from a belief-based religion to a practice-based religion, or little will change. We will merely continue to argue about what we are supposed to believe and who the unbelievers are." - Richar Rohr, The Naked Now

The words ‘religious fundamentalist’ bring to my mind such people as zealots, fanatics, cultists, militant believers,Traditionalists, Jesus freaks, TV evangelists, Bible thumpers, Holy Rollers and more recently apologists. All of these groups seem bent on protecting the purity of their particular faith or belief system – in extreme!. By clinging tenaciously to their religion, avoiding moderation and change, they want to introduce us to their limited religious views. In their world there is no room for middle ground, ecumenism and even in some instances, ‘compassion’. Their faith is understood through sharply defined doctrines and literal interpretations of Holy Scripture. Any deviations from the scripted word immediately becomes ‘suspect’ and may cause questioners to be branded as heretics or infidels. For these fundamentalist groups the religious world can only exist within narrow and confined boundaries. Practise of this immature religion usually consists of a ridged adherence to ritual and other public expressions of their faith. 'Group think' and religious membership is made the prerequisite, and uniformity at the expense of diversity is accepted as the norm. This will only produce a world where religious differences are finally resolved through much conflict, pain and suffering! Coupled with indifference, does this attitude not cause some people to reject religion altogether and (re)turn to the worship of many false gods or atheism?

But does this insanity not shout ‘stop’? Is it not time to admit that not one of us, Rabbi, Pope, or Mullah included, truly possesses a complete understanding of whom our unfathomable and unknowable God is? Noted theologian, author and Catholic priest, Hans Kung, has stated “there cannot be peace in the world until there is peace among the world’s religions”. "Have we yet to understand what it means to become as ONE, as it was/is accepted in the ancient mystical tradition of the world’s three major religions? Why do we think that our religion should be the only one? How did we become so ridged? Why are we so reluctant to move beyond our established faith tradition? Why are we so afraid of change? Who, and what are we not trusting in?

Can we perhaps begin by accepting that Holy Scripture at one time existed only as oral tradition? Stories that were shared around a fire, intended to highlight the origins of life the cosmos and our role in it. Just because they were oral does not mean that they were not inspired or conveyed a sacred message. It seems however that the Bible as a written word, in the hands of some fundamentalist, has largely become a legal document. A document to be used to spread condemnation instead of inspiration. The ancient Jewish leaders, while contemplating the conversion of oral tradition to writing, warned precisely against this. At the same time the accumulation of various commentaries on scripture has more often than not, lead to even greater divisions among the world’s religions. The world’s major religions all agree that there can only be one God but then why are there are so many different understandings of whom he/she/it is for all of us? And why are we so reluctant to share that same Deity? Has religion become too institutional? Why are most religions insistent on a common creed or belief system?

It is only through experience and constant awareness that we begin to understand and love – not through a belief system. It is only through experience and awareness that we begin to recognize the God that rests quietly within our hearts- not a belief system. It is only through life’s experiences and awareness that we begin to trust in the God that protects and comforts us – not a belief system. It is only through experience and awareness that we gain insight into our true purpose – not a belief system. It is only through experience and awareness of God that we can love him, our neighbour and ourselves. It is only through our unique experiences and awareness that we can begin to realize that we are not separate from one another or from God but that we are truly all ONE! I think it would be far more usefull, when speaking of God, that we begin our statement with "my experience of God is . . . ." rather than " I believe that . . "

We are unique individuals with unique experiences all seeking a common goal – to love and be loved unconditionally.

On God's Provisional Love

The recent responses by readers about the contraversy created by the archbishop of Cincinnati to bar Sister of Charity Louise Akers from teaching catechetics because of her public support of women's ordination in the Catholic church (see National Catholic Reporter http://ncronline.org/news/women/archbishop-explains-why-he-barred-nun-catechist) are a typical example of how divisive and militant the Catholic Church has become on the question of Tradition and faith. It would seem that for some conservative Catholics God takes a back seat to Church dogma while a more liberated segment is searching for a God who does not seek favours or offer reward for the ‘right’ answers.

Accordingly, I wonder what God we are following today and does he/she fall into any of the following categories? Perhaps you have many more such challenging images and would be willing to share them. 

My God can only be found in strict obedience to my religion

To be Holy means to follow strict religious traditions and rules

God’s truth is only revealed in Tradition and Holy Scripture

God’s truth is not revealed outside your particular religious belief, i.e., Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Budhism, etc.

Only the Catholic Church posesses the ‘fullness of the Truth’

God will only love me when I am completely remorsefull and confess my sins

God will only love me when I attend my religious services on a regular basis

God walks away from the sinner

God hates a sinner

God punishes those who do not obey His will for them

God created us in His image therefore he looks exactly like the man painted by Michael Angelo on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel

At the end of time God will seperate the sinner from the just and cast the sinner into hell for all eternity

God wills that the forces of good and evil engage in a final battle to determine who will join him in heaven and who will be condemned to a fiery hell

God condemns all sexual perverts, including gays, lesbians, etc.

God condemns those who did not follow the ten commandments

Satan is a seperate entity and wants to steal your soul and is totally responsible for all the evil in the world 

No one who does not know Jesus will get to heaven

God condemns people who are Pro-Choice

God condemns people who have committed suicide

The Bible is the direct word from God and without error

New Age is an instrument of the devil (Satan)

God rewards only those who perform good deeds

God wants us to evangelize so that everyone will become members of my particular religion

God punished Doctors and nurses who perform abortions

People who have not been baptized cannot enter heaven

God’s salvation will only be realized upon my death, providing I have confessed my sins

Good things and miracles can only happen to people who are ‘holy’

God keeps a record of all my wrong and right doings

If I or anyone else is suffering, it is God’s will

If my prayers are not answered it is because I have not prayed properly

God does not answer prayers from people who have sinned

Celibacy is a church tradition, not a gift from God who does not desire married clergy

Sex between married couples must be reserved for pro-creation

Jesus was a Jew who founded the Christian Church

Priestly ordination is only for men and not a gift from God which women could also enjoy

God does not have a sense of humour

Masturbation is a sin

Missing Mass is a sin

God is more interested in my sins than my potential

No one can be following God if they are not members of a religious community.

Putting your conscience ahead of religious beliefs, i.e., dogma, doctrine, etc. is a heresy and a sin

Is it not time for us as adults to embrace a God who loves us unconditionally and created us for the benefit of all humankind?