PDA

View Full Version : What is a Christian fundamentalist?



Pages : [1] 2

Knight
April 27th, 2004, 11:42 AM
How do you define a Christian fundamentalist?

What do Christian fundamentalists believe? What are the earmarks of a Christian fundamentalist in your opinion?

In other words...
If you had to explain what a Christian fundamentalist is to someone who didn't know, what would you tell them?

Clete
April 27th, 2004, 12:10 PM
It is my understanding (correct me if I’m wrong), that fundamentalism has been crystallized down to five points of common belief. They are as follows...

1. Biblical inerrancy
2. The divinity of Jesus
3. The Virgin Birth
4. Jesus died to redeem humankind
5. An expectation of the Second Coming, or physical return, of Jesus Christ to initiate his thousand-year rule of the Earth.

I've heard also that there is some attachment with "Fundamentalism" and the King James only crowd, although I do not know whether or not it could be said that if you use a different version then you are no longer a fundamentalist, in fact I rather doubt it.

As for me, I hold to all five of the main points of fundamentalism although some qualifications might need articulating...

1. Biblical inerrancy - I do not believe the King James version to be inerrant, in fact I know it is not, however, I do believe that the Bible was directly inspired by God and is inerrant in its original autographs.

2. The divinity of Jesus - No qualification here. Jesus is God. He is THE God who spoke and the universe leapt into existence. He has eternally existed co-equal with The Father and The Holy Spirit, the three of whom make up the Holy Trinity.

3. The Virgin Birth - I believe that JESUS was born of a virgin. I do not believe in the immaculate conception of Mary or anyone else for that matter. Sin is passed from one's father not one's mother; Jesus had no earthly father and thus was born of the virgin Mary sinless and holy.

4. Jesus died to redeem humankind - I would add that a fundamentalist Christian MUST also believe that God raised Him from the dead (Rom. 10:9-10). I also would add the world ALL. Jesus died for the sins of the WHOLE world and thus redemption is available to all who believe.

5. An expectation of the Second Coming, or physical return, of Jesus Christ to initiate his thousand-year rule of the Earth. - This is a clear teaching of the Bible. One might say that if number 5 isn't true that number 1 isn't either.

Resting in Him
Clete

cur_deus_homo
April 27th, 2004, 12:14 PM
The phrase "Christian fundamentalist" has taken on so many connotations of various meanings it's difficult to answer the question as posed.

What do I think of when I hear that phrase?

Mostly I think of the extremist version of Christianity that emerged in America around the turn of the 20th century in reaction to the "liberal" theology of the 19th century and the "Social Gospel" movement. Fundies emphasive God's wrath and thus the brutal punishment of Jesus to satisfy God's righteous demand to punish sinful disobedience.

On Fire
April 27th, 2004, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by cur_deus_homo

The phrase "Christian fundamentalist" has taken on so many connotations of various meanings it's difficult to answer the question as posed.

What do I think of when I hear that phrase?

Mostly I think of the extremist version of Christianity that emerged in America around the turn of the 20th century in reaction to the "liberal" theology of the 19th century and the "Social Gospel" movement. Fundies emphasive God's wrath and thus the brutal punishment of Jesus to satisfy God's righteous demand to punish sinful disobedience.

Are they right? Do you agree with the facts but disagree with their methods?

cur_deus_homo
April 27th, 2004, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by AtheistsSuck

Are they right? Do you agree with the facts but disagree with their methods?
Right about what?

What "facts?"

What "methods?"

On Fire
April 27th, 2004, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by cur_deus_homo

Right about what?

What "facts?"

What "methods?"

YOU called them extremists, not me. :kookoo:

cur_deus_homo
April 27th, 2004, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by AtheistsSuck

YOU called them extremists, not me. :kookoo:
Correct.

What's your point?

On Fire
April 27th, 2004, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by cur_deus_homo

Correct.

What's your point?

I guess that you don't have one. You would rather argue semantics. You're in the right place!

Dry up and blow away.

Gerald
April 27th, 2004, 02:19 PM
'

Knight
April 27th, 2004, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by Gerald

' ?

Duder
April 27th, 2004, 02:39 PM
Fundamentalism is a movement that arose in the early 20th century as a reaction against a metaphorical or mythological understanding of the scriptures. Fundamentalism stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals, but also as a literal, historical record.

cur_deus_homo
April 27th, 2004, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by AtheistsSuck

You would rather argue semantics.
Congratulations! You made somewhat of a point. What's wrong about arguing semantics? If we can't come together and discuss and reason and argue together about the meaning of this thing or that then what the heck are we all doing here on TOL?

Dry up and blow away.
I know that's just your trolling style. Someday you'll grow out of it . . . hopefully.

cur_deus_homo
April 27th, 2004, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by Duder

Fundamentalism is a movement that arose in the early 20th century as a reaction against a metaphorical or mythological understanding of the scriptures. Fundamentalism stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals, but also as a literal, historical record.
And it emphasizes God's wrath. Don't forget about God's wrath or else!

Clete
April 27th, 2004, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by Duder

Fundamentalism is a movement that arose in the early 20th century as a reaction against a metaphorical or mythological understanding of the scriptures. Fundamentalism stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals, but also as a literal, historical record.

For example, fundamentalist beleive that the universe and everything in it was created by God in 6, literal 24 hour days and that He rested on the 7th day.

It would be safe to say that if one does not believe this, they are not a Fundamentalist.

Resting in Him,
Clete

billwald
April 27th, 2004, 04:04 PM
Unless my memory has faild me again, this time Clete (the list of 5 statements) got it right.

Cyrus of Persia
April 27th, 2004, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

It is my understanding (correct me if I’m wrong), that fundamentalism has been crystallized down to five points of common belief. They are as follows...

1. Biblical inerrancy
2. The divinity of Jesus
3. The Virgin Birth
4. Jesus died to redeem humankind
5. An expectation of the Second Coming, or physical return, of Jesus Christ to initiate his thousand-year rule of the Earth.



I tend to disagree with you. It's more how conservative christians believe. What fundys do (as pointed out here already) is to take the Bible and use their own interpretation of it as a pillar of truth on EVERYTHING.

Otherwise i'm fundy too, because i agree with every point listed out, except #1

PureX
April 27th, 2004, 04:27 PM
I think fundamentalism is more an ego-centric reaction to complexity and intellectualism that it is any particular set of ideological beliefs. It's main characteristic is extreme over-simplification with the intent of gaining, through the illusion of self-righteousness, what one secretly feels they lack in intellectual sophistication. Fundamentalism is the attitude that the "slow kids" adopt so that they can tell themselves (and everyone else) that being slow isn't important. In fact, fundamentalists actually convince themselves that being ignorant is an asset, while being intelligent is an impediment.

Fundamentalisn is basically an obsession with righteousness in order to avoid recognizing and dealing with one's own ignorance.

Bernie22
April 27th, 2004, 05:38 PM
Yes, Fundamentalism is generally looked down upon today.

I think Clete's list correct, but believe the last (premillenialism) should not be on the list as a fundamental of the faith.

Duder said, "Fundamentalism is a movement that arose in the early 20th century as a reaction against a metaphorical or mythological understanding of the scriptures."

There's truth in this, but I think the stance against metaphorical interepretation was not necessarily as important as what was viewed as the liberal tendency to lose sight of the virgin birth, the resurrection and other core beliefs...interpretive methodology contributed to this overall, but was only a part of the picture I think.

For what it's worth, I am the sole adherent of Rational Esotericism (or Esoteric Fundamentalism), and have elected myself chief spokesman as well. I think fundamental belief and esoteric belief are compatible, which has brought a lot of crap down on me from both the liberal/mystic and conservative/fundamentalist camps.

http://www.liscoplus.com/~esotericfund/two

Fundamentalism, like guns, isn't bad...people are bad. People corrupt truth found in liberal or conservative religion alike. It's what we do.

Duder
April 27th, 2004, 05:42 PM
Bernie 22.......

added to my short list of good fundamentalists!

Clete
April 27th, 2004, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by Cyrus of Persia

I tend to disagree with you. It's more how conservative christians believe. What fundys do (as pointed out here already) is to take the Bible and use their own interpretation of it as a pillar of truth on EVERYTHING.

Everything like what? I know of no Christian, fundamental or not, that says the Bible is the pillar of Mathematics for example or even science in general for that matter. However, a belief in the infallibility of the Scripture would presuppose the idea that the Bible does not contradict reality.
I would agree that many times Christians will ignore clear extra-biblical evidence on some issue in favor of their own interpretation of the Bible. But while our interpretations of the Bible may be in error, I do not believe that the Bible itself could ever be shown to contradict what is actually true.


Otherwise i'm fundy too, because i agree with every point listed out, except #1
Well this is sort of a dumb thing to say isn't it. That's why somebody took the time to draw up a list of basic beliefs that make one a fundamentalist, isn't it?
If you disagree with #1 then you are definitely NOT a fundamentalist. :doh:

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
April 27th, 2004, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by billwald

Unless my memory has faild me again, this time Clete (the list of 5 statements) got it right.

Which are you refering to?
This one...

1. Biblical inerrancy
2. The divinity of Jesus
3. The Virgin Birth
4. Jesus died to redeem humankind
5. An expectation of the Second Coming, or physical return, of Jesus Christ to initiate his thousand-year rule of the Earth.

Or this one...

1. Biblical inerrancy - I do not believe the King James version to be inerrant, in fact I know it is not, however, I do believe that the Bible was directly inspired by God and is inerrant in its original autographs.

2. The divinity of Jesus - No qualification here. Jesus is God. He is THE God who spoke and the universe leapt into existence. He has eternally existed co-equal with The Father and The Holy Spirit, the three of whom make up the Holy Trinity.

3. The Virgin Birth - I believe that JESUS was born of a virgin. I do not believe in the immaculate conception of Mary or anyone else for that matter. Sin is passed from one's father not one's mother; Jesus had no earthly father and thus was born of the virgin Mary sinless and holy.

4. Jesus died to redeem humankind - I would add that a fundamentalist Christian MUST also believe that God raised Him from the dead (Rom. 10:9-10). I also would add the world ALL. Jesus died for the sins of the WHOLE world and thus redemption is available to all who believe.

5. An expectation of the Second Coming, or physical return, of Jesus Christ to initiate his thousand-year rule of the Earth. - This is a clear teaching of the Bible. One might say that if number 5 isn't true that number 1 isn't either.

Just curious. :)


Resting in Him,
Clete

geralduk
April 28th, 2004, 02:56 AM
"FUNDAMENTAL Christianity"

He that heareth My Word and doeth them NOT is likened unto a foolish man who built his house upon the sand and when the wind and storms come the house will fall and geat will be the fall there of.
But he that heareth My Word and DOETH them is likened unto a man who built his house upon a ROCK and when the SAME storms come the house will stand.


"EVERYTHING will be shaken so that that which cannot be shaken will remain."

TheRefore TRUE CHRISTIANIY and TRUE CHRISTIANS are those that not only HEAR the Word BUT doeth IT."Not deceiveing themselves"


The FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE of LIFE is to make sure you have a SOLID and TRUE foundation for it.

" MAN shall not live by bread alone but by every Word that proccedeth from the MOUTH OF GOD"

Therefore we make a mistake in seperating 'christianity ' from life and man as it were.
For there is NO LIFE save in CHRIST.
and NO OTHER foundation FOR IT save that which GOD has given AND "laid" and that is the ROCK "the CHRIST the SON OF THE LIVING GOD"(DEUTRONOMY)

PureX
April 28th, 2004, 06:20 AM
I think fundamentalism is more an ego-centric reaction to complexity and intellectualism than it's any particular set of ideological beliefs. It's main characteristic is extreme over-simplification with the intent of gaining, through the illusion of self-righteousness, what one secretly feels they lack in intellectual sophistication. Fundamentalism is an attitude that some of the "slow kids" adopt so that they can tell themselves (and everyone else) that being slow isn't important. In fact, fundamentalists actually convince themselves that being ignorant is an virtue, while being curious and intelligent is a moral failure.

Fundamentalism is basically an obsession with self-righteousness in order to avoid having to recognize and deal with one's own ignorance. Christian fundamentalists are no different in this respect than any other religious or political fundamentalists.

What most of you are describing as "fundamentalism" is simply neo-conservative orthodox Christianity.

Cyrus of Persia
April 28th, 2004, 06:29 AM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Everything like what? I know of no Christian, fundamental or not, that says the Bible is the pillar of Mathematics for example or even science in general for that matter.


I used the word "everything" as general rule. Every general rules have exceptions. For example when the Bible says that everyone came to see Jesus, it means that many people came to see Jesus, and i'm very sure there were some people who did not to see Jesus.

Clete
April 28th, 2004, 06:46 AM
Originally posted by Cyrus of Persia

I used the word "everything" as general rule. Every general rules have exceptions. For example when the Bible says that everyone came to see Jesus, it means that many people came to see Jesus, and i'm very sure there were some people who did not to see Jesus.

Oh I see, so what you meant was that fundamentalist are people who say that they believe the Bible is literaly true and then apply that belief consistantly throughout their entire lives.

Very good then, I agree.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Cyrus of Persia
April 28th, 2004, 07:02 AM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Oh I see, so what you meant was that fundamentalist are people who say that they believe the Bible is literaly true and then apply that belief consistantly throughout their entire lives.

Very good then, I agree.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Actually it's mild expression what you use about believing the Bible. PureX and some other people in those threads have explained it more correct.

Otherwise we should equal conservative christian with fundamentalist christian, what is not correct.

Ok, a short list (and of course not everything is pointed out in it) what i meant using THEIR INTERPRETATION of the Bible in everything:

1) self-righteousness - as we know the absolute truth, then those who disagree with us are in wrong path and are most probably going to hell;

2) if it is not in the Bible, then it doest excist. For example i have heard: because the word "culture" is not mentioned in the Bible, then it's dangerous word;

3) justifying their actions with the Bible. As God ordained His people to kill others in OT in certain cases, then killing abortion doctors for example is not wrong, but fully legitimate;

4) using the Bible as guideline by whom we infiltrate what we believe in modern science, etc

5) everybody should follow the morals written in the Bible. Even unbelievers!

The list can go on. Of course not every fundamentalist acts out all of those points. Like for example you might disagree with justification of violence (even if it is justified in OT), but you gladly bash scientists who teach that the Earth is older than some thousand years. Or you gladly support the party that would want to restore theocracy in the society.

On Fire
April 28th, 2004, 07:12 AM
Originally posted by cur_deus_homo
What's wrong about arguing semantics?

It prevents you from defending the turds you lay.

cur_deus_homo
April 28th, 2004, 07:52 AM
Originally posted by AtheistsSuck

It prevents you from defending the turds you lay.
From AtheistsSuck's profile: "self-centered liars drowning in a sin they cannot let go"

Spoken from true familiarity with sin.

On Fire
April 28th, 2004, 08:46 AM
Exposed you, didn't I?

beanieboy
April 28th, 2004, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by AtheistsSuck

It prevents you from defending the turds you lay.

Dude, no one will ever accuse you of arguing semantics.

philosophizer
April 28th, 2004, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by PureX

I think fundamentalism is more an ego-centric reaction to complexity and intellectualism that it is any particular set of ideological beliefs. Hmm... And I think complexity and intellectualism is an ego-centric reaction to a fear of truth. Complexity is an illusion. It's a wire-frame replica of reality. Where complexity continually ads corners to a shape to create something progressively like a circle, truth in all its oneness is perfectly round.



It's main characteristic is extreme over-simplification with the intent of gaining, through the illusion of self-righteousness, what one secretly feels they lack in intellectual sophistication. I'm not going to "over-simplify", as you have, and say that is wholly not true. I'm sure some people are as you describe. But which concept is more proper? That truth is simple or that truth is complex?



Fundamentalism is the attitude that the "slow kids" adopt so that they can tell themselves (and everyone else) that being slow isn't important. Ooooh! Burn! :rolleyes:



In fact, fundamentalists actually convince themselves that being ignorant is an asset, while being intelligent is an impediment. Sure, some do. But in doing so, they are not being true to their fundamentalism. The bible tells Christians to test everything. It's okay to examine other beliefs. It's a good thing to explore and not remain ignorant. Fundamentalists who oppose that are not really fundamentalists.

And intelligence certainly can be in impediment. It is a gift, but it can be misused. Deep thinking should actually cancel itself out.



Fundamentalisn is basically an obsession with righteousness in order to avoid recognizing and dealing with one's own ignorance. In a skewed, prejudiced kind of way, sure.

beanieboy
April 28th, 2004, 09:44 AM
I usually refer to Fundies as people who still like to believe the Bible is literal, even when confronted with fact. They tend to focus on the sins of others, and the wrath of God.

In some ways, I have respect for believing firmly in something. But at the same time, it seems that they have a complicated faith system that is set up like a roomful of dominoes, that is based on fear.
One time, I watched something presented by the Athiests Society of a man explaining that the world had to be 4000 years old, because if we said that it was billions of years old, there was death before Adam and Eve, which makes the Garden of Eden null, which makes Christ death pointless. Zowie.

And then you have to do some mental gymnastics to continue to believe it, like, that Dinosaurs were Jesus-Horses.

Pat Robertson once claimed that Disney was having a Gay Day, and that was why there was a hurricane heading that way. But we have learned that weather is weather. If it rains on your wedding day, it isn't a message from God.

Pat has also used the antiquated idea that illness = God's wrath.
But again, it takes some mental gymnastics.
There was a cartoon that said:
Sicle Cell Anemia is God's punishment for Black people.
-That's ridiculous!
Alzheimer's is God's punishment for old people.
-That's Nuts!
Chicken pox is God's punishment for children.
-You're insane
Breast Cancer is God's punishment for women.
-You've lost it dude.
And AIDS is God's punishment for gay people.
-Right on.

They are often insistent on pushing their religion, while claiming the wonderfulness of Freedom. My mom, for example, thought it would be great to have kids saying prayers. I asked her to whom kids would pray, and she said they would pray to God. When I asked how she would feel if I came home and said that we prayed to Allah, or Shiva, she said that she would not stand for it, but everyone praying to her God was ok. That's illogical.
She celebrates the Freedom of Religion, then wants only Christians to have that religion, and for Public Schools to endorse that religion, which goes against the Freedom that she is celebrating.

So, I asked her if her office mates prayed at work. She said no.
I asked why not. She said that not all of them were Christian.
I asked if praying was only for children.
She said no. I asked her how that was different.
She said that it was.
I asked her why she wasn't pushing for all offices to start the day in prayer. She had no reason.
Again, I asked her if prayer was only for children.
She said no again.
I then asked why teachers should be leading students in prayer at all. It's the parents job. If parents want their kids to begin the day in prayer, pray with them over their Frosted Flakes. Teachers are parents.
She agreed that teachers aren't parents, but should lead kids in prayer.
No matter how much I showed her the missing logic of her argument, she insisted that she was right.

So, because they are often so illogical, they often lose all credibility.
And because their complex faith makes them appear frightened of everything between Harry Potter, and Trick or Treating, and extremely rigid in their beliefs that maybe, just maybe, they aren't correct, that they get dismissed easily.

On Fire
April 28th, 2004, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by beanieboy

Dude, no one will ever accuse you of arguing semantics.

Thank God Almighty!

(Wait a minute.....what did I mean by God Almighty? Should I have just said "God"? Will others misquote me? Oh I hope not!)

On Fire
April 28th, 2004, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by beanieboy

I usually refer to Fundies as people who still like to believe the Bible is literal, even when confronted with fact....

....just maybe, they aren't correct, that they get dismissed easily.

(Yeah, I wanted to use the 'vomit" smilie.)

OK beanieboy, give me one FACT.

Clete
April 28th, 2004, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by Cyrus of Persia

Actually it's mild expression what you use about believing the Bible. PureX and some other people in those threads have explained it more correct.

Otherwise we should equal conservative christian with fundamentalist christian, what is not correct.
Fundamentalist are almost always conservative but I could see how the reverse may not be so.


Ok, a short list (and of course not everything is pointed out in it) what i meant using THEIR INTERPRETATION of the Bible in everything:

1) self-righteousness - as we know the absolute truth, then those who disagree with us are in wrong path and are most probably going to hell;
This is not what self-righteousness is. If you want to call it that go ahead, but don't be deceived, true Christianity pulls no punches. If you do not come to God through Jesus Christ you do not come to God at all. And since the alternative to God is Hell, then the choice is clear.


2) if it is not in the Bible, then it doest excist. For example i have heard: because the word "culture" is not mentioned in the Bible, then it's dangerous word;
Well there are of course some Fundamentalist that are idiots but being an idiot is optional, not a requirement.


3) justifying their actions with the Bible. As God ordained His people to kill others in OT in certain cases, then killing abortion doctors for example is not wrong, but fully legitimate;
God ordained the government to execute criminals (including Homo's) by due process of law. Criminal justice was God idea and Fundamentalist believe that God is smarter than they are and that He is better able to figure out what should be done with those who commit crimes.


4) using the Bible as guideline by whom we infiltrate what we believe in modern science, etc
There is a danger of favoring a particular interpretation of the Bible over clear extra-biblical evidence on certain issues, however, if the Bible makes an unambiguous claim about the nature of the universe which God created then science will not be able to disprove it, as hard as it might try.


5) everybody should follow the morals written in the Bible. Even unbelievers!
Yes, everyone should do rightly. How could you have a problem with that?


The list can go on. Of course not every fundamentalist acts out all of those points. Like for example you might disagree with justification of violence (even if it is justified in OT), but you gladly bash scientists who teach that the Earth is older than some thousand years. Or you gladly support the party that would want to restore theocracy in the society.
I don't recall bashing any scientists although I wouldn't have a problem with it if they were particularly evil like Hawkings for example. But I wouldn't bash them because of their science (or what passes for science), but for their obvious hatred toward God and all things Christian.
And I would never support a theocracy. God's idea for producing the most righteous government possible is a constitutional monarchy, until someone can show me that God is wrong on that issue, then I will defer to His judgment on that issue.

Resting in Him,
Clete

beanieboy
April 28th, 2004, 10:02 AM
Viruses cause illness.
If you get a cold, it's not because God is mad at you.

Galileo said that the earth was not flat, and that the earth revolved around the sun, not the sun around the earth.
The church threatened to kill him.

And obviously, the sun moves, because God stopped the Sun in the OT.

On Fire
April 28th, 2004, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by beanieboy

Viruses cause illness.
If you get a cold, it's not because God is mad at you.

Is that my one fact? If so, I agree.

I thought we were going to argue about something.

beanieboy
April 28th, 2004, 10:07 AM
There are those who believe that AIDS is God's punishment.

On Fire
April 28th, 2004, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by beanieboy

There are those who believe that AIDS is God's punishment.

I'm sure there are. They won't know for sure until He returns.

beanieboy
April 28th, 2004, 10:21 AM
And God is only a little miffed when you have a cold, then?
Chicken Pox truly is God's punishment for children?

Aimiel
April 28th, 2004, 10:28 AM
I always think of what The Lord said, which was that if we believe in His Name we will be saved. He didn't say that we 'were' saved, by that faith, alone; but that by having faith in His Name we would be saved. It is His Grace that we need to enter a completely perfect Heaven, where a Perfect, Holy and Just God rules and reigns. That grace is availble to us, and all that we have to do is to respond to that grace, by faith in His Name. It takes faith to grasp the promises of The Lord, and it takes faith to see what to do next, and even more to do it.

The path that leads to life is narrow and it is straight. There are as many interpretations of what defines that path as there are false religions and false gods, but, IMHO, the two sides of that path are bordered by love on the one side and faith on the other. If we take a step which is not in love, we get off the road on one side, and if we take a step in doubt, we get off on the other. I want to stay in the middle of the road.

On Fire
April 28th, 2004, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by beanieboy

And God is only a little miffed when you have a cold, then?
Chicken Pox truly is God's punishment for children?

Are you asking me what I think or to agree or disagree with what other people think?

beanieboy
April 28th, 2004, 10:37 AM
I'm using your logic.
Please pay attention.
You think there may be a possibility of punishment with AIDS, but not a cold, and not chicken pox.

It's illogical.

They project a cure in 2015, which, following the punishment logic, God will no longer be punishing people after the cure is found.

On Fire
April 28th, 2004, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by beanieboy

I'm using your logic.
Please pay attention.
You think there may be a possibility of punishment with AIDS, but not a cold, and not chicken pox.

It's illogical.

They project a cure in 2015, which, following the punishment logic, God will no longer be punishing people after the cure is found.

YOU pay attention. I just got here. You have no idea what I think. Ask me.

beanieboy
April 28th, 2004, 10:42 AM
Read the posts in order before you type then.

I'm sorry that isn't in the bible, but it's common sense.

On Fire
April 28th, 2004, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by beanieboy

Read the posts in order before you type then.

I'm sorry that isn't in the bible, but it's common sense.

Is that what you did before you chimed in? Notice the thread title, beanieboy.

beanieboy
April 28th, 2004, 10:48 AM
Yes. It's a good thread.
And I was talking about the mental gymnastics one must do to claim the bible is inerrant, and literal.
There are good posts.
Give it a look.

beanieboy
April 28th, 2004, 10:50 AM
btw, Knight, you still haven't weighed in.
How would you describe it?

PureX
April 28th, 2004, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by philosophizer Hmm... And I think complexity and intellectualism is an ego-centric reaction to a fear of truth. Complexity is an illusion. It's a wire-frame replica of reality. Where complexity continually ads corners to a shape to create something progressively like a circle, truth in all its oneness is perfectly round.And what would this "truth" be, I wonder....

Most people would agree that truth is "what is" (reality) and interestingly enough "what is" (reality) is infinitely complex (as we experience it, anyway) while it is not infinitely simple (on the scale of simplicity, reality can only be reduced to one single whole). I would like you to explain how recognizing the (apparently) infinite complexity of reality is avoiding the "truth" of reality, and how ignoring the complexity of reality would make it more "real" (true).

Originally posted by philosophizer I'm not going to "over-simplify", as you have,... But I thought you just said that the more simplified our view of reality is, the more "true" it is. So why is it suddenly wrong for you to "over-simplify" as you claim I have done???

Originally posted by philosophizer ....and say that is wholly not true. I'm sure some people are as you describe.Yes, and it is those people I am calling "fundamentalists", see? There are lots of Christians that don't behave as I described, but then I wasn't describing them as fundamentalists, so they aren't relevant to the discussion at hand.

Originally posted by philosophizer But which concept is more proper? That truth is simple or that truth is complex?The truth is BOTH simple and complex. But this has nothing to do with the point I was making about fundamentalism.

Originally posted by philosophizer Sure, some do. But in doing so, they are not being true to their fundamentalism. The bible tells Christians to test everything. It's okay to examine other beliefs. It's a good thing to explore and not remain ignorant. Fundamentalists who oppose that are not really fundamentalists.Well, it has been my observation, and I am sure the observation of many others here, that one of the overwhelmingly obvious characteristics of fundamentalists is their absolute refusal to question their own beliefs, or to accept even the possibility that their beliefs could be wrong. They don't explore or examine any other views of anything except with the dogged intent of discrediting them, and thus "proving" how right their own beliefs are.

In fact, these characteristices are so prominent that they are how I define "fundamentalism". The way some others are defining it here, ideologically, I wouldn't call it fundamentalism, I'd call that neo-conservative orthodoxy.

Knight
April 28th, 2004, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by beanieboy

btw, Knight, you still haven't weighed in.
How would you describe it? Well.....

I am working on something in my head, so I am really more interested in reading what others say rather than weighing in myself (yet).

I am alreading getting affirmation as to what I had already thought, and that is....

I consider myself a fundamentalist, but I do not fit the description of a fundamentalist according to my opposition.

Therefore I want to acurately define (or re-define) fundamentalism according to how I (personally) think it should be defined.

On Fire
April 28th, 2004, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by beanieboy
And I was talking about the mental gymnastics one must do to claim the bible is inerrant, and literal.


Prove it.

beanieboy
April 28th, 2004, 10:57 AM
Fair enough, Knight.

Can anyone who thinks of themselves as Fundemental give me a definition?

I want to hear the positive version of what it is, to be fair.

On Fire
April 28th, 2004, 11:09 AM
Take your time, beanie.

philosophizer
April 28th, 2004, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by beanieboy

Fair enough, Knight.

Can anyone who thinks of themselves as Fundemental give me a definition?

I want to hear the positive version of what it is, to be fair.

I think Clete already did.

Swordsman
April 28th, 2004, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

4. Jesus died to redeem humankind - I would add that a fundamentalist Christian MUST also believe that God raised Him from the dead (Rom. 10:9-10).

Agreed.


I also would add the world ALL. Jesus died for the sins of the WHOLE world and thus redemption is available to all who believe.


Awww, now why did you have to go and put that in there? I don't really see this as fundamental belief at all. Its more of an extra ideology the Arminians have taken on really. Not fundamental.

We agree on what salvation does for us. We just disagree on how we got salvation. You like to add some works along with it.

Clete
April 28th, 2004, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by beanieboy

Fair enough, Knight.

Can anyone who thinks of themselves as Fundemental give me a definition?

I want to hear the positive version of what it is, to be fair.

Philosophizer is right, read post #2

Clete
April 28th, 2004, 12:25 PM
In response to this...

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
I also would add the world ALL. Jesus died for the sins of the WHOLE world and thus redemption is available to all who believe.

Swordsman said this...

Originally posted by Swordsman
Awww, now why did you have to go and put that in there? I don't really see this as fundamental belief at all. Its more of an extra ideology the Armenians have taken on really. Not fundamental.

We agree on what salvation does for us. We just disagree on how we got salvation. You like to add some works along with it.

I would say that my statement is truer to the fundamentalist position in that I simply believe that the Bible means what is seems to say when it says...

Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

However, I would not go so far as to say that Calvinists are not Fundamentalist. They do believe that God (Jesus) died in payment for sin. They just dispute whether or not His blood paid for it in part or in full.

And by the way, I am not an Armenian. Armenians are way to Calvinistic for my taste, thank you very much.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Cyrus of Persia
April 28th, 2004, 01:52 PM
Clete,

I probably found the webpage you took those 5 points. Or at least it's pretty good site for describing the phenomena:

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/

I will use it to back up some of my claims.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

This is not what self-righteousness is. If you want to call it that go ahead, but don't be deceived, true Christianity pulls no punches. If you do not come to God through Jesus Christ you do not come to God at all. And since the alternative to God is Hell, then the choice is clear.


It's similar for conservatives and fundies i think. Lemme quote what is specific for fundies in this matter:

"3) an assurance that those who do not share their religious viewpoint are not really "true Christians""

So for fundies it's not only the matter do we believe that Jesus is Saviour. For them it's important that we should believe it in "correct" way. I.e. as they understand the truth.

For example here, in Estonia, some Christians believe that most Lutherians are not Christians because they havent experienced "new birth" in certain moment of their life. What they miss is that being born again might be different experience for different people, i.e. some experience it after they pray "sinner prayer", some experience it in different way. But they both are Christians if they have dedicated their lives to Jesus.




God ordained the government to execute criminals (including Homo's) by due process of law. Criminal justice was God idea and Fundamentalist believe that God is smarter than they are and that He is better able to figure out what should be done with those who commit crimes.


Excellent example of fundamentalist thinking. They take whatever they can to justify their "sense of justice". In this example they ignore the fact that NT does't confirm the idea of excecuting homos, and rely on Mosaic Law what was relevant in certain time, certain place and for certain nation.

Generally: they are unable to differ culture and God's eternal truths.




There is a danger of favoring a particular interpretation of the Bible over clear extra-biblical evidence on certain issues, however, if the Bible makes an unambiguous claim about the nature of the universe which God created then science will not be able to disprove it, as hard as it might try.


The science cannot prove, nor disprove that God created the universe. So any christian can believe that God is the Creator and is not labelled as fundy by doing that. The fundy is the one who tries to read from the Bible more than is meant in it. The point of Creation story is to tell us that God created the Universe, and it describes it in form that was understandable for people to whom it was initially written. Today - i believe - the Creation story would be described bit differently, but the eternal truth (that God was behind of it all) would still remain. The Fundy takes over the exact description from the Story and ignores all facts that contradict to it, even if those facts are the realities.




Yes, everyone should do rightly. How could you have a problem with that?


The problem is that you cannot force to non- Christian the same values what Christians follow. At first they need to become Christians and then those values imply to them also.

beanieboy
April 28th, 2004, 02:20 PM
There is an interesting book called Stealing Jesus:How fundamentalists weakens Christianity.

The reviews range, naturally, depending on whether it agrees or disagrees with one's own views.

Worth a look.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0609802224/qid=1083183295/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/104-8506071-2640732?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Bernie22
April 28th, 2004, 04:50 PM
Beanieboy said, "I was talking about the mental gymnastics one must do to claim the bible is inerrant, and literal."

There's some leeway in the word "literal". I believe the Bible is both literally inerrant and spiritually infallible, and don't feel that mental gymnastics are necessary to defend this assertion.

Swedenborg pointed out something a few centuries ago that seems to be lost on most today, that because the Bible is a "book of correspondences", its literal meaning may be abused without affecting its interior (spiritual) meaning.

There are a number of senses that can be applied to the term "literal"--which is why the word may signify a number of meanings among different people. For instance, I recall an atheist some years ago mocking the gospel account of the resurrection because in two of the gospel accounts there was a slight difference in personnel of those who found the tomb empty. This fellow's assertion was that the resurrection was not true because the facts were contradictory...."false in one, false in all". In a positivistic mind bent on finding literally anything to argue about, this may seem a valid argument.

Reasonable, rational human beings, however, should be able to agree that literal historical accounts may contain human error and inconsistencies without doing damage to the literal truth that the reusurrection took place.

I don't see that "mental gymnastics" is necessary to defend Bible inerrancy. Probably just need to first establish definitions.

Clete
April 28th, 2004, 08:12 PM
A good thought Bernie. And welcome to TOL by the way.

I would take only one issue with what you said...



Originally posted by Bernie22
Reasonable, rational human beings, however, should be able to agree that literal historical accounts may contain human error and inconsistencies without doing damage to the literal truth that the resurrection took place.

Any other account of history might have "errors" but the Bible isn't simply some history book, it is the Word of God. It claims itself to be inspired by God Himself.

We are not in possession of the original autographs so I would give accent to the existence of a stray scribal error or two that has no effect on whatever point is being made, but an outright error is not acceptable in a writing that claims to "God breathed".

Resting in Him,
Clete

BChristianK
April 28th, 2004, 09:50 PM
PureX said:


And what would this "truth" be, I wonder....

Most people would agree that truth is "what is" (reality) and interestingly enough "what is" (reality) is infinitely complex (as we experience it, anyway)

Since when did you, a finite being, start experiencing reality as infinitely complex…?



while it is not infinitely simple (on the scale of simplicity, reality can only be reduced to one single whole). I would like you to explain how recognizing the (apparently) infinite complexity of reality is avoiding the "truth" of reality, and how ignoring the complexity of reality would make it more "real" (true).

I’d like you to first explain how you can be so sure that reality is infinitely complex, then maybe you can make philosophizer answer the question that is predicated upon that assumption….





I think fundamentalism is more an ego-centric reaction to complexity and intellectualism that it is any particular set of ideological beliefs. It's main characteristic is extreme over-simplification with the intent of gaining, through the illusion of self-righteousness, what one secretly feels they lack in intellectual sophistication.

Thanks for that extremely over-simplified definition of fundamentalism...

:D


Grace and Peace

BChristianK
April 28th, 2004, 10:18 PM
Knight has a great question. Especially since you get two kind of folk butting heads frequently on TOL, those who think that Fundy’s are back country hicks with little to no education poundin’ the pulpit, and those who still like some of the trappings of Christianity but who the fundy’s think have basically sold Jesus out to follow the hollow philosophies of the world..

Now that we have those stereotypes out of the way, there are a few questions that I think go along with knights question. First, what is the difference between evangelical Christians and fundamentalist Christians?

Second, Clete gave us a working formula:



1. Biblical inerrancy
2. The divinity of Jesus
3. The Virgin Birth
4. Jesus died to redeem humankind
5. An expectation of the Second Coming, or physical return, of Jesus Christ to initiate his thousand-year rule of the Earth.


So what would Clete or anyone else call a 4 pointer.
I’ll take 1-4, and leave 5 as an amillennialist?

Third, given that Duder is correct, fundamentalism being a reactive movement to the liberal interpretation of scripture in the early 20th century, where does fundamentalism become pro-active as apposed to reactive?

Finally, Clete said:


For example, fundamentalist believe that the universe and everything in it was created by God in 6, literal 24 hour days and that He rested on the 7th day.


Which just “shows to go ya” that not all self-proclaimed fundamentalists line up neatly in a row when it comes to some doctrines. Many of the folks I know who consider themselves very fundamental on some issues, such as the inerrancy of scripture, are less dogmatic about a literal 6 day creation.
So is fundamentalism really that monolithic?

Finally, for those of the more liberal persuasion, why is it that that your most common usage for the term ‘fundamentalist’ is derogatory instead of descriptive?

Furthermore, why is it that when the fundy's use the scriptures to declare truth they are accused of being ignorantly dogmatic, but when liberal Christians appeal to principles that contradict scripture their apparent inconsistency is above criticism?

Grace and Peace

Lighthouse
April 29th, 2004, 12:06 AM
Am I fundamentalist or not?! You people can't explain anything to me, without disagreeing! :chuckle:

Duder
April 29th, 2004, 12:54 AM
BCK -

First, allow me to apologize both to you and to all TOL members for my harsh words directed at you several days ago. I cannot even recall what the problem was - and so I bet I was way out of line. You are one of the most intelligent, evenhanded and eloquent posters here. I am sorry, dude.


Which just “shows to go ya” that not all self-proclaimed fundamentalists line up neatly in a row when it comes to some doctrines. Many of the folks I know who consider themselves very fundamental on some issues, such as the inerrancy of scripture, are less dogmatic about a literal 6 day creation.
So is fundamentalism really that monolithic?

That is a very interesting problem. How far away from the most naievly literal interpretation of the Bible text can one move and still be considered a fundamentalist? I don't think your friends who doubt the six-day creation have necessarily crossed the line. Neither, I think, have people who accept an evolutionary model of biology.

We can't deny the fact that moving from 6 days to 5 billion years - or that going from a literal, divinely-sculpted mud figurine to a descendant of lower primates is a move away from literalism and toward a metaphorical understanding. But I don't think such a person has leapt off the platform.

Someone who is dedicated to interpreting the Bible literally to the greatest extent he can without offending logic or experience, is still a fundamentalist - even if he quits belief in the young earth and the global deluge.

Moreover, I would not be inclined to make a list of points that must be believed in order to be a fundamentalist. Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses will not pass Clete's test, and yet I am sure they are still predominantly fundamentalistic. The defining characteristic of a fundamentalist is his predisposition or his preference for interpreting his canon literally.

Flipper
April 29th, 2004, 01:01 AM
I think that an insistence on biblical inerrancy is a sure sign of Christian fundamentalism. Having said that, not all Christian fundamentalists are biblical inerrantists.

Of course, every viewpoint or doctrine has its fundamentalists. Atheism is a case in point. I'm generally not wild about those I consider to be atheistic fundamentalists either.

Cyrus of Persia
April 29th, 2004, 05:45 AM
Originally posted by Bernie22

I believe the Bible is both literally inerrant and spiritually infallible, and don't feel that mental gymnastics are necessary to defend this assertion.


AND



Reasonable, rational human beings, however, should be able to agree that literal historical accounts may contain human error and inconsistencies without doing damage to the literal truth that the reusurrection took place.

I don't see that "mental gymnastics" is necessary to defend Bible inerrancy. Probably just need to first establish definitions.

True. You are giving slightly different definition to biblical inerrancy than i have used to hear. There are contradictory claims and facts written in the Bible. Do you agree then that "literal historical accounts may contain human error and inconsistencies without doing damage to the literal truth"? I would not call it belief in literal inerrancy anymore, but if you find it OK, then maybe even i can fit into belief of biblical inerrancy in this case :D

Cyrus of Persia
April 29th, 2004, 05:50 AM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Any other account of history might have "errors" but the Bible isn't simply some history book, it is the Word of God. It claims itself to be inspired by God Himself.



And still if we are honest we see clearly some contradictions in the historical accounts of the Bible. Of course you can be "clever" and interpret them away, but in this case i can take whatever ancient historian and interpret his errors also away and show you how correct his account is!

BTW, 2 Tim 3:16 can be translated also: "Every inspired scripture is God breathed..." So as you see it makes the Bible lot more trustable, and explains why in Early Christianity they used lot more scriptures than our canon today consists of.

Berean Todd
April 29th, 2004, 05:53 AM
Originally posted by Cyrus of Persia
BTW, 2 Tim 3:16 can be translated also: "Every inspired scripture is God breathed..."

Only by people with no knowledge of ancient Greek, or the ability to understand and translate it. That is in no way at all an acceptable translation of that passage however.

Cyrus of Persia
April 29th, 2004, 05:58 AM
Originally posted by BChristianK

Furthermore, why is it that when the fundy's use the scriptures to declare truth they are accused of being ignorantly dogmatic, but when liberal Christians appeal to principles that contradict scripture their apparent inconsistency is above criticism?


Because fundy claims his interpretation of truth to be the final truth and everything that contradicts to it is false. If he would not be so exclusive, he wouldnt be fundy anymore.

No liberal interpretation of the Bible is above criticism. It is handled the same way as every scientific hypotesis, or theory is handled (and theology is humanitarian science). If you read the books of liberal Bible scholars you will see how much they criticise even each other, and how their old theories are sometimes forsaken after new finds come up, etc.

Surely there are liberal scholars who have fundy mentality: my interpretation vs. false interpretation. But we cannot call him true, and honest scholar then anymore. True scholar in whatever field of science he is working is always open to modify his theories if new findings demand it.

Cyrus of Persia
April 29th, 2004, 06:02 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Am I fundamentalist or not?! You people can't explain anything to me, without disagreeing! :chuckle:

Yes, you are. You sound almost like me 8-12 years ago :D

Cyrus of Persia
April 29th, 2004, 06:06 AM
Originally posted by Berean Todd

Only by people with no knowledge of ancient Greek, or the ability to understand and translate it. That is in no way at all an acceptable translation of that passage however.

Hmm, interesting that you are calling a scholar who has way more knowledge of ancient Greek than most people who have studied theology as somebody without no knowledge of it.

PureX
April 29th, 2004, 06:45 AM
Originally posted by BChristianK Since when did you, a finite being, start experiencing reality as infinitely complex…?Being finite, all I have to do is encounter complexity that surpasses my ability to comprehend, for it to appear infinite to me, even though it may or may not be. You can clearly see this in the post you are referring to, by my use of the word "appearance", but of course you ignored this so that you could throw another red herring into the discussion.

Originally posted by BChristianK I’d like you to first explain how you can be so sure that reality is infinitely complex, then maybe you can make philosophizer answer the question that is predicated upon that assumption….As you are well aware, nothing in my previous post indicated any surety involving infinite complexity, and this is just another ploy on your part to avoid having to explain your own assertions, which by now I am quite sure that you're not going to do.

PureX
April 29th, 2004, 06:57 AM
Originally posted by Duder BCK -

First, allow me to apologize both to you and to all TOL members for my harsh words directed at you several days ago. I cannot even recall what the problem was - and so I bet I was way out of line. You are one of the most intelligent, evenhanded and eloquent posters here. I am sorry, dude.Funny, all I seem to get out of him are annoying cheap intellectual tricks and an endless supply of red herrings.

Originally posted by Duder That is a very interesting problem. How far away from the most naievly literal interpretation of the Bible text can one move and still be considered a fundamentalist?This is exactly why I don't think the main characteristic of fundamentalism is doctrinal. Put any two fundamentalists in a room alone, and they will fight with each other about who is the more righteous. Put a hundred of them in a room with each other and they will divide up into factions and fight about who is the most righteous. The overwhelmingly common trait among fundamentalists is not a particular doctrinal position, it's their obsession with righteousness. The one thing they all agree on is that they are right and anyone who disagrees in even the slightest way is automatically wrong by default, which is why they can't ever really agree with anyone, even each other.

If the definition of fundamentalism were doctrinal, then there couldn't be fundamentalists in different religions.

Clete
April 29th, 2004, 07:01 AM
Look, the question is "What is Fundamentalism?" not, "how many different ways can we twist ourselves around and still allow ourselves to be fundamentalist?".

I submit that you guys don't get to define the term for yourselves, if you did then the word would no longer have any meaning.

You absolutely cannot under any circumstance believe in a evolutionary model of biology and still consider yourself a fundamentalist. You might still be a Christian, but not a Fundamentalist. The same goes for those with a belief that the creation took anything but 6 days. And the same goes for Amillennialists; they all are not fundamentalists.
Isn't this somewhat obviously true? You guys remove the first and primary plank of Fundamentalism and then try to say that you are still standing on the platform! Well, I'm sorry but your not. Otherwise, the term Fundamentalism is meaningless. You want to liberalize the term and make it more comfortable because nobody wants to think that they don't hold to the fundamentals of the Christian faith, but that is the whole reason why Fundamentalism came about in the first place. It wasn't brought up to make everybody feel good, on the contrary, Fundamentalism was started specifically to militate against people being allowed to follow the dictates of their own hearts and to bring Christianity back to its Biblical foundations.
Say I say no, if you do not hold to all five points at least in principle then you are not a fundamentalist, period. That's not an insult, its just an acknowledgment of the meaning of the word "Fundamentalism"

Resting in Him,
Clete

beanieboy
April 29th, 2004, 07:24 AM
Originally posted by Bernie22
I don't see that "mental gymnastics" is necessary to defend Bible inerrancy. Probably just need to first establish definitions.

By "literal", I mean it means what it says, word for word.
If the world was created in 6 days, we are talking about 6 24-hour days.
Nevermind that the bible says that to God a day is a 1000 years, and a 1000 years a day.
It says, "on the first day" and that's what it mean.

The sun is created on the 4th day - not only odd that with a solar system of 7 planets rotating around nothing, the sun is then put into place, and on the 4th day, you have literal night and day.

But nevermind that. The bible said a day, and we mean 24 hours,

Mental Gymnastics.

The bible is really poetic, and you have to think about that if you want to understand it.
Jesus did not say he was LIKE a door. He said he was a door.
He did not say he was LIKE a vine. He said he was a vine.

I remember watching a great movie called Lady Jane Grey, about the churches struggle for power in England. Lady Jane Grey was reading the bible, and eating the host like potato chips. The priest was shocked, and said, "You blasphemer!" And she said, "What? It's a host. It's not truly the body. Christ said, "I am a door, I am a vine. Was he truly a door? A vine?"

She is later beheaded, under the pretext of not believing the wine and host are the body and blood literally, so the Catholic church could regain power.

beanieboy
April 29th, 2004, 07:38 AM
Originally posted by BChristianK
Furthermore, why is it that when the fundy's use the scriptures to declare truth they are accused of being ignorantly dogmatic, but when liberal Christians appeal to principles that contradict scripture their apparent inconsistency is above criticism?

Grace and Peace

I don't agree with all liberals. That's part of liberal thinking.
You approach a subject, listen, then decided whether or not your thinking should change, or the other person isn't correct.

Fundamentalists, on the other hand, seem to never go into it with an open mind. My mother, sadly, was taught that if she ever questioned anything from the bible, that it was a sign that she didn't love God, and would go to hell.

Even Othodox Jews question the true meaning of the scriptures.

When quoting verses, as Enyart as done repeatedly, things are taken out of context of to whom it was said, why, the context of the story, and misused in order to support their cause.

And more often than not, it is the easiest road.
The person is threatened, rather than given FreeWill.
The person has guilt offered, instead of forgiveness.
There is a suggestion that one should be offensive, and brag about it.
There is a suggestion that you should name call freely, because you want to be like Jesus.

But Jesus preached a lot about being kind to one another.
He talked about feeding the poor, forgiving one another, giving more than what is asked.

But never mind that. It's more fun to be mean.

And no matter what you say, their hearts are hardened with self-righteousness.

It's really depressing.

Swordsman
April 29th, 2004, 07:42 AM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
I would say that my statement is truer to the fundamentalist position in that I simply believe that the Bible means what is seems to say when it says...

Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

However, I would not go so far as to say that Calvinists are not Fundamentalist. They do believe that God (Jesus) died in payment for sin. They just dispute whether or not His blood paid for it in part or in full.

And by the way, I am not an Armenian. Armenians are way to Calvinistic for my taste, thank you very much.

Resting in Him,
Clete

But I think you would have to agree that open theism broke off from Arminism. They saw the flaws with the conditional election piece among other things and came up with this ideology known as the "open view."

How can you say "Arminians are way to Calvinistic"??? Maybe you do not understand TULIP compared to the 5 points of Arminism....

On Fire
April 29th, 2004, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by beanieboy

I don't agree with all liberals. That's part of liberal thinking.
You approach a subject, listen, then decided whether or not your thinking should change, or the other person isn't correct.

Fundamentalists, on the other hand, seem to never go into it with an open mind. My mother, sadly, was taught that if she ever questioned anything from the bible, that it was a sign that she didn't love God, and would go to hell.

Even Othodox Jews question the true meaning of the scriptures.

When quoting verses, as Enyart as done repeatedly, things are taken out of context of to whom it was said, why, the context of the story, and misused in order to support their cause.

And more often than not, it is the easiest road.
The person is threatened, rather than given FreeWill.
The person has guilt offered, instead of forgiveness.
There is a suggestion that one should be offensive, and brag about it.
There is a suggestion that you should name call freely, because you want to be like Jesus.

But Jesus preached a lot about being kind to one another.
He talked about feeding the poor, forgiving one another, giving more than what is asked.

But never mind that. It's more fun to be mean.

And no matter what you say, their hearts are hardened with self-righteousness.

It's really depressing.

You may appreciate this: http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html

beanieboy
April 29th, 2004, 07:49 AM
One of the "mental gymnastics" I have found is in translation.

For example, there are 13 Greek words for love.
In english, we have 1.

Jesus asks Peter, Do you love me?
Peter says, "Yes, I love you.
Jesus says, "Feed my sheep.

He continues asking him two more times.
I would read the story, and say, "Mom, why is Jesus being annoying, and doubting Peter?"

But in Greek, Jesus is saying, Do you love me with all your heart, soul and mind?
And Peter says, "Yes, I love you like a brother."
It's a lesser love.

The eye of a needle?
They weren't talking about a sewing needle, as most people assume.
They were talking about the doorway to the city, where you have to get a camel to crawl on it's knees. Camels hate to crawl, and spit, and resist you.

Using the sewing needle definition means that it is impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven without being squished to death.
Using the real definition means that getting a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven is difficult, and you have to actually drag him through the pearly gates.

Completely different meanings.

Inerrant?
Possibly.

Do translations and our definitions change the meanings?
Obviously.

But you can't argue that with a Fundamentalist.

Cyrus of Persia
April 29th, 2004, 07:53 AM
Clete,

to point out your last message, you are still speaking about CHRISTIAN fundamentalism. If you talk about pure fundamentalism, then PureX is right - almost any religion contains fundys, liberals, etc. So we are not speaking about "fundamentalism", but "Christian fundamentalism".

Just a note. Probably unnessessary, but i thought that i will point it out.

On Fire
April 29th, 2004, 08:10 AM
Originally posted by beanieboy
But you can't argue that with a Fundamentalist.

Nor can you argue that with a non-believer.

beanieboy
April 29th, 2004, 08:25 AM
Uh, I believe you are constantly accusing me for arguing that exact thing - discussing meaning, definition, context, translation...

On Fire
April 29th, 2004, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by beanieboy

Uh, I believe you are constantly accusing me for arguing that exact thing - discussing meaning, definition, context, translation...

But not "that". It's beyond your experience.

beanieboy
April 29th, 2004, 09:03 AM
What is beyond my experience?

On Fire
April 29th, 2004, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by beanieboy

What is beyond my experience?

Knowing Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Saviour.

beanieboy
April 29th, 2004, 09:10 AM
1 John 4: 7Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

I have seen no fruit come from you.
Some nastiness.
Some vomitting icons.
But generally, you are angry, snide and self-righteous.

I question whether you know God.
Whoever does not love does not know God.

Clete
April 29th, 2004, 09:12 AM
Originally posted by Swordsman

But I think you would have to agree that open theism broke off from Arminianism. They saw the flaws with the conditional election piece among other things and came up with this ideology known as the "open view."
No that's how Arminianism came into being but not Open Theism.
Open Theism is a logical extension of Dispensationalism (or perhaps it’s the other way around :think: ).
Both Arminians and Calvinists both think that God exist outside of time and the He cannot change. The one simply figures out a way of stressing man's responsibility and the other God's sovereignty. Open Theism stresses both equally because of a different and more logically (and Biblically) consistent understanding of the nature of reality.


How can you say "Arminians are way to Calvinistic"??? Maybe you do not understand TULIP compared to the 5 points of Arminism....

I understand the TULIP better than you do most likely. I'm not saying that Arminians ARE Calvinists, I'm just saying that they are Calvinistic in that they believe in the absolute immutability of God and that time is something that God exists outside of. Since these are two foundational issues of Open Theism, I would say that neither Calvinism or Arminianism are related to it at all.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
April 29th, 2004, 09:18 AM
Originally posted by beanieboy

1 John 4: 7Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

I have seen no fruit come from you.
Some nastiness.
Some vomitting icons.
But generally, you are angry, snide and self-righteous.

I question whether you know God.
Whoever does not love does not know God.

Rom. 12:9 Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil.

On Fire
April 29th, 2004, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by beanieboy

1 John 4: 7Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

I have seen no fruit come from you.
Some nastiness.
Some vomitting icons.
But generally, you are angry, snide and self-righteous.

I question whether you know God.
Whoever does not love does not know God.

Stop worrying about me (and others). Worry about you and God.

beanieboy
April 29th, 2004, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Rom. 12:9 Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil.

Can you explain this in contrast to what I posted?

It seems that you are suggesting that "For God so loved the world" should say, "For God so love the world, except for the evil people..."

God loved everyone, and came for the lost, not the saved.

In the context that I used, I pointed out that AS show no love, and therefore, may not know God at all.

Imagine watching a dad with his kid. The kid punches some other kid, and the dad say, "You make puke! You disgusting pile of crap! I told you to stop hitting kids! Lev. says that I should kill you, and I would jump up and down on your grave and Praise God!"

Is that love? Because it is abhorring what is evil.
Or is the "love" evil itself?

This is why I am constantly backing away from Christianity.
The call love hate, and hate love.

PureX
April 29th, 2004, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by Cyrus of Persia

Clete,

to point out your last message, you are still speaking about CHRISTIAN fundamentalism. If you talk about pure fundamentalism, then PureX is right - almost any religion contains fundys, liberals, etc. So we are not speaking about "fundamentalism", but "Christian fundamentalism".

Just a note. Probably unnessessary, but i thought that i will point it out. Even if we are just looking at Christian fundamentalism, it's still an obsession with righteousness. Why do you think the "inerrant" bible concept is so essential to Christian fundamentalists? I think it's because they believe that through the bible they can have access to "absolute righteousness". They know that as a human being, they can't claim to be absolutely right about God, or life, or death, or justice, or any of the other important issues that we humans worry over because we are not omniscient. But if the fundamentalist can claim that the bible was "written by God" and therefor must be absolutely right in all ways, then by "owning" that bible they can "own" the absolute righteousness within it. They can have the "answers" to these troubling questions AND the certainty that their "answers" are absolutely right. And this is why the bible is the center of everything to the fundamentalist: because it's their source of "righteousness" and it's this idea of righteousness (of certainty) that they crave - that is their "god".

Why is fear of hell and the desire for heavenly reward such a primary motive for fundamentalist doctrines? I think it's because it's the reason they become fundamentalists to begin with - they are desperately afraid of not knowing the answers to those important human questions. They are desperately afraid of "God", and of not measuring up in life, and of what will happen to them when they die. Fundamentalism is how they deal with this fear. This is why being "right" is so important to a fundamentalist. Being "right" is the antidote to his ignorance and fear.

Fundamentalism is not about God, and it's not about religious doctrines, per se. It's about being "right" at almost any cost. It's completely driven by fear and ignorance and a desperate desire to deny it's own fear and ignorance rather than facing it. I think this is basically the definition of an addiction, and that fundamentalism is essentially the manifestation of addiction.

On Fire
April 29th, 2004, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by PureX

Even if we are just looking at Christian fundamentalism, it's still an obsession with righteousness. Why do you think the "inerrant" bible concept is so essential to Christian fundamentalists? I think it's because they believe that through the bible that they can have access to "absolute righteousness". They know that as a human being, they can't claim to be absolutely right about God, or life, or death, or justice, or any of the other important issues that men worry over because they are not omniscient. But if they claim that the bible was "written by God" and therefor must be absolutely right in all ways, then by "owning" that bible they can "own" the absolute righteousness within it. They can have "answers" AND the certainty that their "answers" are absolutely right. And this is why the bible is the center of everything to the fundamentalist: because it's their source of "righteousness" and it's this idea of righteousness (certainty) that they crave - that is their "god".


You were on a roll until that last sentence. Nice try. Come again.

smaller
April 29th, 2004, 09:35 AM
What is a "christian fundamentalist?"

Someone who serves a god who is similar to the Wizard of Oz.

beanieboy
April 29th, 2004, 09:36 AM
I agree with you, PureX.

AS, go back and play with your PS2. The grownups are trying to talk.

On Fire
April 29th, 2004, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by beanieboy

I agree with you, PureX.

AS, go back and play with your PS2. The grownups are trying to talk.

Oh, look...the two Hell-bound atheists agree with eachother. Isn't that CUTE!

beanieboy
April 29th, 2004, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by smaller

What is a "christian fundamentalist?"

Someone who serves a god who is similar to the Wizard of Oz.

SILENCE you whippersnapper!

On Fire
April 29th, 2004, 09:50 AM
Beanieboy, consider this a quiz:

You may be a fundy atheist if....

You became an atheist when you were 10 years old, based on ideas of God that you learned in Sunday School. Your ideas about God haven't changed since.
You think that the primary aim of an omnibenevolent God is for people to have FUN.
You believe that extra drippy ice-cream is a logical proof against the existence of God, because an omniscient God would know how to stop the ice-cream from being extra drippy, an omnipotent God would have the ability to stop the ice-cream from being extra drippy, and by golly, an omnibenevolent God wouldn't want your ice-cream to be extra drippy.
Although you've memorized a half a dozen proofs that He doesn't exist, you still think you're God's gift to the ignorant masses.
You believe the astronomical size of the universe somehow disproves God, as if God needed a tiny universe in order to exist.
You think questions like, "Can God create a rock so big that He cannot lift it?" and, "Can God will Himself out of existence?" are perfect examples of how to disprove God's omnipotence and ultimately how to disprove God. When someone proves to you the false logic behind the questions (i.e. pitting God's omnipotence against itself), you desperately try to defend the questions, but then give up and go to a different Christian site to ask them.
Related to the above, you spend a great deal of your spare time writing to Christian websites asking them these very questions.
You declare on a public forum that you are "furious at God for not existing."
You spend hours arguing that a-theism actually means "without a belief in God " and not just " belief that there is no god" as if this is a meaningful distinction in real life.
You consistently deny the existence of God because you personally have never seen him but you reject out of hand personal testimony from theists who claim to have experienced God as a reality in their lives.
You can make the existence of pink unicorns the centre-piece of a philosophical critique.
You insist that "the burden of proof is on he that alleges/accuses", and "it's impossible to prove a negative",then state "That's what Christians do. They lie. Their most common lie is that they were once atheists." When reminded about the burden of proof bit,you reply with, "Well,prove Christians don't lie!"
You adamantly believe that the "God of the gaps" idea is an essential tenet of orthodox Christian faith espoused by all the great Christian thinkers throughout history.
When you were a child, someone came down with a deadly disease and prayed and prayed for God to take it away. God did not remove the disease and your friend died. You ask other Christians why they had to die when they were such a nice person and never harmed anyone. Dissatisfied with their answers, you suddenly decide that there is no God and that all Christians are nothing but lying, conniving con artists and hypocrites....all that is except for your friend who died.
You call a view held by less than ten percent of the American public "common sense".
You're a spoiled fifteen year old boy who lives in the suburbs and you go into a chat room to declare that, "I know there is no God because no loving God would allow anyone to suffer as much as I...hold on. My cell phone's ringing."
You attack your fellow atheists, who hold the "belief that there is no god", calling them "liars," and state that, "I do not deny the existence of any god. I just don't believe in any." Then you tell someone that their God is "made up." When someone calls you on this,you state, "I never made such a claim."
Going with the definition of "without a belief in God",you insist that all people are born atheists, and that dogs, cats, rocks, and trees are as well. You make statements like, "My dog is an atheist. Ask him about his lack of belief."
You believe that if something cannot be touched, seen, heard, or measured in some way, then it must not exist, yet you fail to see the irony of your calling Christians "narrow-minded".


Origins
You may be a fundy atheist if....

You believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were "all obviously designed," yet the human body, being intricately more complex was "obviously a product of biological evolution." It seems the more complex the apparatus, the more obvious the "fact" that it was not designed.
You claim that evolution and the big bang are two entirely seperate theories that explain different aspects of the universe, yet, in what school of learning can you find any real separation or distinction between the two?
As a member of the Skeptic's Society you pride yourself on being skeptical of extraordinary claims. You also pride yourself on silencing everyone who is skeptical of the extraordinary claims of evolution.
Isaac Newton does not count as an example of a great scientist who believed in the Bible since he died before the Origin of Species was published.
When you watch a punt returner run a 93 yard touchdown, you marvel at what evolution has done for the human race. But when someone gets cancer, you blame God for it.
When you're discussing the origin of the world, the phrase "uncaused cause(God)" is a stupid, meaningless thing to say. You will, however, settle for "uncaused effect(the world without God)".
You descended from apes.(Think about it.)
You think that humans are products of chance but when it comes to human reason we can believe in logic! (Think about it !)
You think you arrived at your position because you are a free-thinker who rationally weighed the evidence, and then freely chose atheism over theism. YET, you also believe that your thinking and actions are nothing more than the FIXED reactions of the atoms in your brain that are governed by the Laws of Chemistry and Physics.
You love to castigate Christians for being "anti-science" if they deny evolution from goo to you via the zoo, and to preach that they should adapt their thinking to the "science" of our day. But you also castigate the Church of 400 years ago for being anti-science, when it DID adapt its thinking to the science of ITS day, i.e. Ptolemaic cosmology, then joined with the Aristotelian scientists of the universities in rejecting Galileo!
You think that some guy named "Dr Dino" with no scientific credentials represents mainstream Evangelical thinking and scholarship about evolution and creation, and thus by spending inordinate amounts of time attacking him you are somehow dismantling the arguments of scholarly dissenters from evolution, creationists with earned Ph. D.s in science, and of advocates of intelligent design.
You claim poker-faced that "social Darwinism" and its spawn of eugenics have absolutely no connection to the biological theories propounded by Charles Darwin in "On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"
You have recently stuck a Darwin fish on your car in the hopes the people with the Jesus fish on theirs will be offended.
You also claim that not only is there no connection between Darwin's theories and the doctrines of social Darwinism and eugenics (despite the fact that the term eugenics was coined and advocated by Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton, who acknowledged his debt to Origin), but that none of these philosophical positions have any connection to the modern fields of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology.
You can claim with as straight face on sites like Talk Origins that "Evolution does not have moral consequences" despite the fact that prominent evolutionary advocates like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett vehemently assert that evolution does transcend biology in a way that has a profound effects upon ethics.
When the Pope says that God may have used evolution, he is an enlightened religious leader whom Christians should listen to. When the Pope preaches on the sanctity of human life from conception, and thus denounces abortion, he's just a senile religious bigot who should keep his opinions to himself.
Concerning the origins of life, you feel that though the chances of life forming without an intelligent creator are small it DID indeed happen that way. And yet you don't believe me when a rock, coming from my direction, hits you in the back of the head and I tell you, "I didn't throw it. There was a sudden shift in the earth's gravitational pull and the rock levitated into your head...Sure the chances are small but it DID happen that way."
When you're shown that your view of origins is silly, you can only respond, "Well...at least it's better than believing in some invisible SKY DADDY!"
When a Christian points out the impossibility of a biological system (or feature) forming by pure chance you accuse them of invoking a "God of the gaps". YET, when you are asked how a particular feature could come about solely by chance you invoke "Evolution of the gaps" (i.e., we don't know HOW but we do know that Evolution MUST have done it!)
You claim antibiotic-resistant bacteria is proof protozoa evolved into a person.
You insist that science is completely partial to all ideas, is not dogmatic and researches all possibilities -- except creationism and/or intelligent design.
You claim Creationists don't research on evolution websites before debating against it. Luckily you caught this useful weapon against Christians at the evolution site you learned all about creation doctrine from.
You think that every scientist who believes in Creationism and doesn't mindlessly accept evolution as a fact is a "kook," but you believe that Francis Crick (Nobel Prize winning co-discoverer of DNA), who reached into his nether regions and pulled out the "theory" of Directed Panspermia (which states with absolutely no support that aliens seeded the earth with life - see the movie "Mission to Mars"), is a great evolutionist scientist.
When a creationist points out problems with the evolutionist model you claim that the whole point of science is to answer problems like these. But if you can point out even one problem in the creationist model it should instantly be abandoned as absurd.
You are a person who absolutely believes that life came from nonlife, yet absolutely deny the possibility of anyone rising from the dead.
You won't bet $10 on the football game because a 50/50 chance isn't good enough, but you have no problem gambling with your life on the nearly impossible odds of a cell randomly generating from nothing.
Engaging the "slippery slope" fallacy, you think you can invalidate the whole bible by discrediting Genesis, since 'the whole bible either stands together or falls apart'. However, when a Creationist tries to invalidate the whole doctrine of naturalistic evolution by exposing the sheer improbability and lack of evidence of abiogenesis, you note this point as 'irrelevant'.
You think the movie “Inherit the Wind” best describes the eternal struggle of how an evolutionist is being treated by creationists in this religious society. And you can personally relate your life to the Scopes Monkey Trial.
You ignore “Time Magazine’s” poll, which states that only 28% of Americans believe in evolution. But of course, “Time Magazine” must been run by creationists.
You teach a belief only held by 28% of a nation, as truth beyond any shadow of a doubt because only educated people believe in evolution. Yet of course, you ignore that fully educated scientists in most other nations have proven against Darwinian theory. Like the Chinese paleontologist who reportedly says: "In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin."


History
You may be a fundy atheist if....

Any scholar who believes in a historical Jesus must be a theist. If they are an atheist, then they must secretly want to be a theist.
You insist that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", then claim that Jesus never existed.
You contend that no war in history has ever been created by non-belief. Yet, when you are told that 176 million people lost their lives in wars during the last century, created by non-believers like Stalin, Lenin, Mao and Hitler, to name only a few, you reply that those wars fought were fought in the name of ideology and not ‘atheism’ as atheists “…don’t fly planes into buildings or start wars.”
You accept (and quote back to Christians) any number of works that say Jesus wasn't the Son of God and call them "honest", "thought-provoking" and 'scholarly" proof, even when they completely contradict each other and come to completely different conclusions.
You believe that when our forefathers are framing the Constitution, they're staunch deists, but when they're beating their slaves, they're Bible-believing Christians.
You think that the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional because it mentions "the creator".
On, that basis, You think that the Declaration is therefore void and the United States should return to British rule.
When it is returned to British rule, you plan to go straight to London and tell those Brits that having the Anglican church as a state church violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
When you use a historical point to prove Christianity is false (i.e., pagan parallel to Christianity), history is objective truth. When a Christian uses real historical scholarship to prove you false, history was written by subjective men and therefore cannot be trusted.
You reject what Cornelius Tacitus wrote about Jesus, dismissing it as "too late",but you readily accept what he wrote about Tiberius and Augustus.
100+ year old scholarship is good enough for you.
You always refer to C.S. Lewis as "that traitor."
You desperately wish that Stalin and Mao hadn't been atheists.
You absolutely insist a Christian recognize your nonscholar as an expert (G. A. Wells) but refuse to recognize his legimate scholar as expert (Colin Hemer).
You not only spell "God" with a lower case "g," but you also add an "E" to "B.C.," and replace the word "Christ" with an "x." Yet, when asked to name the planets you have no problem with spouting out the appropriate list of Roman Gods. Heck, you'll even spell them with capital letters! Not only that, you can even spell and pronounce the name of the 800-mile-diameter Trans-Neptunian Object ‘Quaoar’, and are delighted that it comes from the creation mythology of the Tongva people (aka the San Gabrielino Native Americans).
You think that religious wars have killed more people than any other kind of war, even though the largest wars of the last 200 years (World War I and II, Civil War, etc.) had no discernable religious causes.
You think that the Spanish Inquisition killed millions (or at least hundreds of thousands), even though the population of all of Spain at the time of the Inquisition was only about five million, and the actual total killed numbers about 2000. When informed of this, you accuse the informer of belittling or being insensitive to the deaths of 2000 individuals.
You bring up the alleged 'horrors' of the Spanish Inquisition to show how evil the church is. When shown that the SI was not the horror that it was painted to be, you switch gears and ask if the believer notes this because they think people are justified to feel moral revulsion with the Spanish Inquisition as it is commonly understood.
In a coffee table conversation you hear religion represented in a positive light. You immediately start preaching about the Inquisition and the Crusades to put things back on track. After all, "we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door".
You believe that Christians burned down the Great Library of Alexandria. When you learn that this was impossible, you assert that it is obvious that Christians did burn a lot of ancient books. When you are shown that this too is false, you wait a while, then make the same claim again, hoping that the person who corrected you with the facts won't notice.
You desperately confer with other skeptics to try and refute the evidence that Hitler's Holocaust was evolution-inspired, because, darn it, you just GOTTA prove that Hitler was a Christian.
You're convinced, despite evidence to the contrary, that Christianity was responsible for the Jewish holocaust because, dang it, that just SEEMS like something Christians would do.
You believe that Hitler claiming to be a Christian is undeniable proof that he was a Christian, while George Washington only claimed to be a Christian in order to win the people's favor.
You adamantly refuse to recognise the historical fact that "scientific atheism" was both a foundational philosophical position and an actual policy of the Soviet Union from the time of Lenin on, responsible for untold persecution, torture, suffering, humiliation and death far in excess of the numbers of the "victims" of Christianity.
On the other hand you further show your ignorance of history by constantly repeating "whoppers" about the numbers of victims of Christian Inquisitions, crusades and witchhunts dredged up from various unscholarly hate sites and passed off as historical fact.
For example...you can claim with a poker face that 9 MILLION women were put to death as witches by Christian fanatics in pre-Enlightenment Europe.
You assert that the 300 Protestants put to death under the reign of "Bloody Mary" in 16th century England stand as absolute proof of the inherent evil of Christianity but the tens upon tens of millions killed by Marxist regimes under Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot in the 20th century have absolutely NOTHING to do with the profound atheism inherent in these regimes.
You really believe that the Enlightenment made people more enlightened.
You think that Robert Green Ingersoll and Joseph McCabe are two of the greatest philosophers of religion ever to have lived - certainly far superior to nobodies like Thomas Aquinas or Blaise Pascal.
Indeed you believe that McCabe is "One of the giants of not only English Atheism, but world Atheism". [which could be construed as a slight on the intellectual quality of atheism].
You adhere to a false and fictionalised version of history gained from watching Hollywood movies such as Inherit the Wind so that you can (for example) conclude: "the controversy over creation and evolution was settled way back in 1925, when Clarence Darrow eviscerated William Jennings Bryan in a country courtroom in Dayton, Tennessee."
You continually argue that Hitler was a "real Christian" even when he and his fellow Nazis were slaughtering millions of people (and you "conveniently" ignore the very obvious distinction between someone claiming to be a Christian and someone actually living as a Christian, and the fact that the Nuremberg prosecutors denounced Nazism as fanatically ANTI-Christian!), but you deny that the scientists who rejected Galileo's work were real scientists.


Christians
You may be a fundy atheist if....

You think if a Christian won't address your arguments, they are too frightened to do so, or know they can't answer them; but if they do address your arguments, you think it is because they are "threatened" by them.
Missionaries who give up their personal comfort to aid starving, impoverished and persecuted third-world people are actually "corrupting ancient tribal cultures with western religious dogma", while you sit at home and complain about the price of KFC.
You believe that any Christian who claims to have once been an atheist is either lying or was never a "true atheist."
You think that John Shelby Spong is a reputable theologian but that Ben Witherington is merely an ignorant biblicist.
You assert that the crimes and failings of some Christians (acting inconsistently with the teachings of Christ at that!) disproves the whole edifice of Christianity but that the crimes and failings of some atheists (acting consistently with the fact that atheism can provide no basis for objective morality!) should on no account be held against the philosophy of atheism.
You assert that there is no absolute categories of good and evil, that all morals are merely personal, social and evolutionary constructs but then you can still describe Christians and Christianity as absolutely immoral, repugnant and evil and a danger to humanity and not feel even a twinge of hypocrisy at the monumental illogic of your position.
You think that Josh McDowell represents the apex of Christian scholarly apologetical thinking.
You lump all Christians in with whatever religious fruitcake is the flavour of the month, while living with the delusion that there are no atheistic weirdos out there.
You KNOW that religion causes violence and repeatedly tell this to everyone, hoping to save the world, but you don't believe that TV violence causes any real life violence. In fact, you are offended by this objection, and you have already started to figure out how to refute it. To increase your fundy factor, you have decided not to study social sciences. (Once you heard about Rodney Stark's For the Glory of God - you certainly would not bother reading it - you thought that sociologists were Christian fundamentalists in stealth mode, trying to push religious worldviews.
You think that taking the Bible seriously is the obsession of a fanatical fringe group of right-wing, extremist Christians who do not represent the views of the historic Church or of contemporary enlightened, liberal, skeptical "Christians" who according to you supposedly "fill" the mainstream churches and who on close inspection pretty much reflect your own politically correct views and values - and skepticism - about God. [Sort of like former Bishop Spong].
You claim that the theories and opinions of certain liberal scholars are absolute facts although you shy away from debating such issues with someone equally or better informed than you are.
You get angry when Christians tell you you're going to a place that you don't think exists.
You're convinced that people only believe in God because they're afraid of going to hell...despite the fact that if there is no God, then there's probably no hell either.
You consistently decry Christians for soliciting financial support yet find no problem in atheistic 'missionaries' doing the same thing."
You think that 'mission statements' on Christian websites proves the authors are biased which automatically renders the material on those sites weak and unscholarly yet you see no problem with 'mission statements' glorifying naturalism found on atheistic websites.
When a group of Sydney University (Australia) academics, including a historian, sign a public statement saying the Jesus Christ is "one of the great figures of history" and that his claims to be Son of God "bear up under closest scrutiny", this is a gross abuse of their position. But when Richard Dawkins uses his position as an Oxford professor to pontificate on his atheistic religion and related philosophical matters outside HIS field (animal behavior), that is a responsible use of academic freedom.
Further to the above, you're paranoid that these Christian academics will disciminate against you, even though their statement hasn't the remotest hint of that. But you applaud Michael Dini, a professor at Texas Tech, who refuses to recommend students for Medical School, even if they got "A"s in their courses, unless they not only understand but BELIEVE in goo-to-you evolution. And you're disgusted that creationist medical doctors have the gall to think they know more about medicine than Dini (who never practised medicine or even went to medical school), because by definition an evolutionist is more knowledgeable than a creationist on ANY subject!
You think Christians are narrow-minded for believing in only one religion, but atheists are open-minded for believing in absolutely none.
You believe that Christianity discriminates, because you have to join their religion in order to be a member of their religion.
You feel that Christians who go into atheist chat rooms are "shoving their beliefs down people's throats", and that atheists who go into Christian chat rooms are only trying to educate.
You think it is a "slam dunk" proof against God when you ask why He doesn't stop horrible things like, i.e., child rape, but evade the reply that you obviously don't want God stopping your own sins by pointing out that it isn't your problem because you don't believe in God in the first place.
You are disgusted with Doctor Paul Vitz’s book “Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism” because an educated person with a degree has linked atheism as a psychological condition. Yet, you have no remorse when you tell believers that they are a product of brainwashing, psycho conditioning and wishful thinking.
You believe Freud’s theory that all religious experiences are delusions, as the most revolutionary and truthful thought of all times. Yet, you overlook his heavy use of cocaine because “it can’t be proven.”
You recommend Michael Shermer’s book “How We Believe” to all of your friends who are believers and believe that somehow his opinion will give insight into how we actually think. Yet of course, you ignore that Shermer doesn’t have any education in Anthropology. Must be a coincidence.
You’re stupid enough to think atheists are treated like second-class citizens. Yet of course, you spend most of your day belittling Christians and other religious people.
You're convinced that all Christians are idiots. But when you meet the "rare" Christian who's clearly intelligent, you can only conclude that he was fooled into believing...by the idiots.


Contemporary events
You may be a fundy atheist if....

You demand that theists explain news items where bad things have happened to theists, even though no theists on the board have claimed that belief in God is some kind of a lucky charm that wards off bad luck.
You demand that theists explain news items where theists do bad things, even though no theists on the board have claimed that it is impossible for theists to do bad things.
The only Commandments you know are the ones that are unconstitutional.
You can't remember if she was Mother or Sister Teresa, but you can name every pedophile priest listed in the media over the last seven years.
You feel that Marilyn Manson is really, really profound.
You think the song "Dear God" by XTC is really, really, really................really meaningful.
You are funding or filming a movie called “Heart of the Beholder” a Secular Humanist movie telling a true story of a video store renting out the movie “The Last Temptation of Christ.” The fundamentalist Christian community is in protest of this store renting this movie out. Of course, you also create the image that all Christians were not only opposed to this movie but the fact that with less then 10% of your nation who actually believes in secular philosophy, this movie is actually going to make money. The filmmakers might be suffering from the same kind of false hope they think believers are.
You believe that emotional response interferes with rational thinking. Yet, you think George Carlin is the greatest comedian of all times, because he makes you laugh.
You're saving up to move to some more enlightened place, like Sweden.
You feel that the separation of church and state is a much more important issue than abortion, euthanasia, or infanticide.
You label any change whatsoever in Christian theology or behavior as 'secularization.'
You were too sophisticated to be afraid of (very real) "Reds under the bed" but you nevertheless see Christians behind every act of "evil" in the western world.
You deface money by scribbling God off of dollar bills.
You think God was cruel for killing all of those innocent babies in the flood, and that Christians are cruel for opposing a woman's right to abort her baby.
You think that Reverend Fred Phelps does what he does because of his Christianity, but Reverend Fred Rogers did what he did in spite of his Christianity.


Bible criticism
You may be a fundy atheist if....

You become upset when a Christian says that not everything in the Bible should be taken literally.
You dislike how liberal theists try to interpret the Bible for themselves, while you create your own interpretations of the Bible for yourself: (a) Exodus 34 contains a new set of 10 Commandments; (b) Jesus asked His disciples to slay all His enemies.
You have actually calculated, for purposes of "argument by outrage," an estimate of the number of people drowned in The Flood.
You can quote from the bible better than most missionaries...at least the parts where someone dies.
You label all scholars that actually believe the Bible as "biased fundies" while those who don't believe it are known as "honest" and "accepted scholarship."
You insist that the Bible cannot possibly say anything about homosexuality being a sin, because they did not even have a concept of homosexuality at the the Bible was written...then insist that the Bible says that David and Jonathan were married.
......AND you produce a long list of verses containing the words "children","touching",and "bowels".
You think you have refuted the whole Trilemma because you've added another alternative to it.
You dismiss any attempt to harmonize the resurrection accounts by saying "one says A, the other says B, but none say A+B", then go on to offer your own elaborate conspiracy theory of what happened to the Jesus' body, describing A+B+C+D, none of which are said ANYWHERE let alone together.
You think that Isaac Asimov was a world-class authority in Biblical Studies.
You make a point of referring to Jesus as "Yeshua" and to God as "Yahveh" in order to hint that they are no different from Molech or Baal.
You use one,or more,of the following alternate spellings: GOD-"gawd" JESUS-"jeeezus" "jayzus" "jebus" "jeebers" BIBLE-"bibble" "babble" "wholly babble" "buy-bull"
You refer to the crucifixion of Jesus as the "cruci-fiction".
When a Christian's interpretation of a passage (based on the social/literary context) solves one of your favorite contradictions, it is only their personal interpretation, and can be dismissed as such. But your interpretation (based on a "plain" reading of the text) to arrive at the contradiction in the first place is entirely objective, and is obviously THE correct interpretation.
Your only knowledge of The Bible comes from searching 'bible contradictions' in Google.
Everytime you don't understand a passage in The Bible, instead of trying to figure it out you blame God for not writting it better.
You think that God would have made things a lot clearer for everyone, ranging from the medieval knight to the Chinese peasant, had He inspired His Word in modern English in words and concepts you could understand. You also ask, when told of the scarceness of paper in the ancient world, why God didn't provide enough paper to write a longer story.
You adamantly believe that "the Bible says pi equals 3" in 1 Kings 7:23 even though: (1) the verse does not make the slightest reference to the calculation of pi, (2) there are more measurements of the bowl from that verse in subsequent verses, (3) the bowl in question could very likely not have been a "perfect" circle with "perfect" measurements, (4) it's not unusual for ancient peoples using ancient tools (or even modern peoples using modern tools) to use round, easy to remember numbers, (5) asking an online math forum results in a refutation of your belief but you ignore what professional mathematicians plainly say (including that the Bible is not in error in this place) and twist their words to make it appear as if they are backing your assertion in order to continue to justify your belief (not that you ever had any intention of doing otherwise in the first place).
You consistently appear on discussion lists demanding that Christians accept your literal interpretation of various scriptural passages just so you can then launch into the usual "argument by outrage" - despite being told over and over that no Bible scholar or school of Christianity shares your particular bizarre literal interpretation.
You pontificate about the Bible as if you are an expert in theology, textual criticism, ancient languages & cultures and much more besides, when your knowledge of the Bible is just cut and paste from atheist discussion lists which cut and paste it from atheist websites which cut and paste it from embarrassingly unscholarly rantings by the likes of Messer's Freke & Gandy and Acharya S., etc.
You can quote Acharya S, Kersey Graves, John Remsburg,and Earl Doherty more fluently than Laurence Olivier could quote Shakespeare.
You create a web site: http://www.EvilBible.com,and post an Evil Bible Quote of the Day on usenet. The quotes always end with: "What kind of person would get their moral guidance from an ancient book of myths and magic that says it is OK to murder, rape, pillage, and plunder?"
You decry Christian missionaries for denying cultural relativism; denouncing their efforts to reform cannibalism, slavery and fear of animist spirits as judgmental intolerance. But your attacks on the Bible merely comprise anguished cries of "how barbaric" rather than reasoned arguments; and ignore all considerations of ritual cleanness, the evils of the Canaanites and the fact that ancient society was always one step from anarchy.
You think Secular Humanism actually promotes religious tolerance. Secular Humanism only tolerates religion; it doesn’t accept it.
You claim to hold no Dogma. Yet, you’re just as rigid and stubborn with your beliefs as any Dogmatists.
Archaeology continually frustrates your attempts to find errors and contradictions in the Bible, but you continually use the same outdated accusations anyway since you're running out of material.
The only reason you go to hear a concert pianist play Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata is to complain to him afterwards about the name. Obviously it was chosen as part of a conspiracy to hide the fact that the Bible's mentions of the moon giving light were errors rather than phenomenological language.
You visit a planetarium, but afterwards complain bitterly to the director that it uses the Earth as a convenient reference frame, and portrays the Earth as the center of a celestial sphere with the heavenly bodies revolving around it. This, and his use of the words "sunset" and "sunrise", is another part of the conspiracy to legitimize the Bible's use of such language.
When you go to bookstores, you move all the Bibles to the "fiction" section.
You insist on capitalizing "atheist".
You take the lack of evidence for the Jesus story being a hoax as evidence that Christians got rid of all the evidence.
You claim that there is no way a book thousands of years old can be relevant today, but refuse to do the necessary homework to see how it could apply in modern situations, preferring instead to argue that God should have provided an updated version.
You respond to arguments about the different points of view in the society of the ancient world by calling ancient people and their way of thinking "stupid".
You once heard something about some document in the Catholic Church which says the resurrection never happened. And despite your never having seen it or even met anyone who claims to have seen it (and despite having no idea who wrote it, when they wrote it, or what exactly it says), you're convinced that this document is far more reliable than the Gospels and thus disproves Christianity, and that the church is hiding it so that they can keep the money rolling in.
You believe that priests are only in it for the money, despite the fact that they make less than almost anyone else with their level of education.


General atheism vs. theism
You may be a fundy atheist if....

You find you have a grudging respect for fundy theists for 'sticking to their guns' even while complaining they don't think for themselves.
'Thinking for yourself' means adopting an atheist viewpoint.
When you say "I don't know" you are being brave and honest. When a theist says "I don't know" they are being dishonest and are trying to dodge the question.
When your thoughts on any complex matter are sensible and clear, and a theist's thoughts on any complex matter are mental gymnastics.
You leave 'freethought' tracts lying around, like the littering missionaries.
If someone says 'God Bless' when you sneeze, you make them 'take it back!'
Although you are a 'free-thinker' and 'rational' person, you lose all reason when reading The Bible.
It is OK for atheists to express their godless opinions but the moment Christians do the same you email the ACLU.
You think religious tolerence does not applies to Christians.
You debate (argue, vilify, etc.) as if every theist was a Jack Chick fan, and as if every Biblical inerrantist was a Ruckmanite who believes that the KJV was specially inspired.
You think that Christianity is a 'virulent memeplex' and that atheism is the 'cure.'
You're infuriated by the term "village atheist." You prefer "right-thinking urban humanist."
You can gladly believe any number of conflicting philosophical positions, as long as they're atheistic!
You start a local Atheists and Agnostics Society, the goal of which is to prove through good deeds that atheists and agnostics can be just as generous and caring as some Christians are. When nobody joins, and the club eventually unfolds, you are flustered. You have no idea why a group of people who by definition do not base their morality on anything greater than their own ideas wouldn't jump at the chance to be self-sacrificing for no logical reason.
You get a big kick out of either spamming online Christian forums with offensive material or posing as a grossly over-the-top parody of a Christian on such websites.
You don't realize that Landmark Baptist Church's website is a parody.
Even when you do realize it is a parody, you think that it's implied arguments are suitable for use as a reply rather than Biblical scholarship.
You call God "she" in the presence of Christians simply out of sheer spite.
You create an Atheist Missionary organization and then call it a thinktank, in a small town in virginia. Then you heap scorn on Christians for "proselytizing" (Just think about if for a minute, hypocrites!).
You are part of a non-belief organization such as American Atheists, Church of Freethought, Humanist Association of Canada, Student Freethought Alliance and/or the Council of Secular Humanism. You claim these organizations have absolutely no creeds and that the people involved independently think of different things from one another. Yet of course, on your organization's website they define the commonalities that all non-believers follow. Is that not the definition of creed?
You think that spamming Christian chatgroups and discussion lists with expletives and insults demonstrates superior free-thinking, rational, atheistic logic.
You think that it is possible to talk meaningfully about "good and evil" "right and wrong" when decrying the sins of the Church while simultaneously subscribing to the notion that neither sin nor good and evil exist as ultimate categories but only as personal and social constructs.
You have never pondered the question: why does a smart guy like Richard Dawkins regularly give atheists a bad name by putting his foot in his mouth with his inane and ridiculous pronouncements about God and religion?
You have never pondered the question: why did a really smart guy like Bertrand Russell write such a pathetically limp, uninformed and adolescent critique of Christianity in "Why I Am Not A Christian"?
You assert that "faith is believing things which you know aren't true".
You really "believe" that many human beings actually believe things they know aren't true.
You believe the movie Dogma gives the most accurate portrayal of Christian theology.
You feel that prefacing your responses to Christians with the word bull$#@! somehow makes your argument a little more valid.
You take a self-righteous pedantic "stand on principle" against Christian apologists writing under pseudonyms, but always refer to the "Endarkenment" French infidel writer François Marie Arouet by HIS pseudonym "Voltaire".
You find the term 'fundy atheist' meaningless, baffling, illogical and just plain oxymoronic/self-contradictory even though the two terms are not exclusive of each other (except in the minds of fundy atheists, of course).

You've ever called a Christian a "Paulian".
You deny that someone can possibly know they know the truth ('It's just belief, not knowledge,") while at the same time claiming to know the truth.
You write books like Warren Allen Smith’s “Who’s Who In Hell: A Handbook and International Directory for Humanists, Freethinkers, Naturalists, Rationalists and Non-Theists.” You label 10,000 of these famous non-believers, as good, peaceful people who will be rotting in hell because they are or were infidels. While of course you also fail to realize that for every 10,000 of the world’s peaceful non-believers, anyone can come up with a book that lists 10,000 peaceful, loving and famous historical believers. Of course, you also fail to realize that you’ve wasted your time researching 10,000 historical and modern names just because you want people to think ‘peaceful’ people will be rotting in an afterlife that you don’t believe exists.


You may be a fundy atheist if....

You have your own list of how to tell who is a Christian that itself runs on Fundy Atheist principles.
You get apoplectic about being called a Fundy Atheist for believing all those self-evidently true propositions above. And you label all theists as "fundies".
Last of all -- you write this website a letter which includes a rebuttal to the above listing!

beanieboy
April 29th, 2004, 09:55 AM
Uh, couldn't you just give us a link to the site you lifted that from?

Aimiel
April 29th, 2004, 10:08 AM
The record of humans fighting with one another goes back to the day that Cain slew his brother, Abel. We'll be fighting until The Lord returns to this earth to take command of it, and bring peace, finally, under His Perfect Rule. You don't have to be a fundamentalist to be self-righteous, but it does seem to magnify the, "I'm holier than you are," attitude to it's most evident form. Each of us tries to stand taller than his brother by standing on his back, instead of trying to lift one another up, as we have been instructed. We are supposed to be "our brother's keeper," not our brother's accuser. Every single one of us (humans), except for Jesus, has been disobedient and sinned, and fall short of The Glory of God, daily.

Swordsman
April 29th, 2004, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by Aimiel

The record of humans fighting with one another goes back to the day that Cain slew his brother, Abel. We'll be fighting until The Lord returns to this earth to take command of it, and bring peace, finally, under His Perfect Rule. You don't have to be a fundamentalist to be self-righteous, but it does seem to magnify the, "I'm holier than you are," attitude to it's most evident form. Each of us tries to stand taller than his brother by standing on his back, instead of trying to lift one another up, as we have been instructed. We are supposed to be "our brother's keeper," not our brother's accuser. Every single one of us (humans), except for Jesus, has been disobedient and sinned, and fall short of The Glory of God, daily.


The End.

(Clete, got any ideas for another thread?):chuckle:

BChristianK
April 29th, 2004, 10:47 AM
Duder said:


BCK -

First, allow me to apologize both to you and to all TOL members for my harsh words directed at you several days ago. I cannot even recall what the problem was - and so I bet I was way out of line. You are one of the most intelligent, evenhanded and eloquent posters here. I am sorry, dude.


Duder, no apologies are necessary to me. The debt forgiven me is much greater than any debt that could be incurred. I would be a hypocrite to claim the cross and then hold a grudge. If you got harsh with me it was because I provoked that harshness with my own inappropriate behavior. So I ask your forgiveness as well.

I appreciate our dialog. And I am also thankful for your grace in appreciating my posts. I have a hunch you are more intelligent and eloquent than I so I appreciate your willingness to dialog.

Next you say:



That is a very interesting problem. How far away from the most naively literal interpretation of the Bible text can one move and still be considered a fundamentalist? I don't think your friends who doubt the six-day creation have necessarily crossed the line. Neither, I think, have people who accept an evolutionary model of biology.


Nor do I. I don’t think I have crossed the line either. I wouldn’t agree with my friends on making the Genesis account wholly figurative while embracing evolution, nor would I agree with those who hold to a literal 6 day creation. For the most part, I haven’t figured it out yet.

Personally I think a lot of frustrated is directed at fundamentalism because fundamentalists aren’t willing to admit when they are unsure..



Moreover, I would not be inclined to make a list of points that must be believed in order to be a fundamentalist. Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses will not pass Clete's test, and yet I am sure they are still predominantly fundamentalistic. The defining characteristic of a fundamentalist is his predisposition or his preference for interpreting his canon literally.

Good points here. Though Clete and I probably wouldn’t consider Jehova’s Witnesses Christian fundamentalists, in the sense that they deny some core doctrines of the faith, I am sure they hold some attributes of fundamentalism. Perhaps the fundamental problem is that there really isn’t a list that is universally agreed upon. We all sort of employ the term fundamentalist to suite our own aims. Those who lean more to the liberal side of Christianity often employ the term derogatorily. For them it has become a synonym for narrow mindedness. This has been my beef with PureX. I am pretty sure that PureX is more intelligent than I am as well. But for all that intelligence I don’t think he sees that his definition of fundamentalism is self serving, biased and not open to critique. That sounds very much like the kind of behavior that PureX dislikes in fundamentalists, and the kind of sickness he describes when he defines fundamentalism.

For those who lean more toward conservatism it represents the remnant of the faithful who have not sold out Jesus to the philosophies of the world. The problem with this, and to an extent the problem with me, is that we have a tendency to start drawing lines around folks to label them as “in” or “out.”

I’ll use myself as an example. When we were discussing the war in Iraq, I reacted inappropriately to your posts. I wasn’t really talking to you, Duder, I was reacting to the stereotype that I have constructed of liberals. That was a huge problem, because you may or may not agree with everything that I assign into the “liberal” category. In the end, I did both you and I a disservice. Because I didn’t take the time to clearly understand you, and I also made anything I had to say after that point exempt from evaluation from you by virtue of the adversarial environment I had created.

The same applies to the term fundamentalist. Those who stamp that label on people, and assume that by virtue of that stamp they understand fully the attitudes and opinions of the other person, have done themselves and the other a disservice.

PureX and I will never be able to really understand each other as long as PureX defines all fundamentalists as holding a superiority complex and as long as I see PureX as an aggressor against the faith.

Grace and Peace

BChristianK
April 29th, 2004, 10:54 AM
Cyrus said:




quote:
Originally posted by BChristianK

Furthermore, why is it that when the fundy's use the scriptures to declare truth they are accused of being ignorantly dogmatic, but when liberal Christians appeal to principles that contradict scripture their apparent inconsistency is above criticism?


Because fundy claims his interpretation of truth to be the final truth and everything that contradicts to it is false. If he would not be so exclusive, he wouldn’t be fundy anymore.


You make it sound like fund’s baptize the truth they believe in as the final truth as apposed to coming to accept that there is uncontrovertibly truth that they have come to believe in. The first makes it sound like they are saying, “its true because I say so.” The second has them saying, “I say so because it is true.”

Surely you live your life based on some truths..? Even if that truth is that “nothing is incontrovertibly true.”

Grace and Peace

BChristianK
April 29th, 2004, 11:30 AM
PureX said:


Being finite, all I have to do is encounter complexity that surpasses my ability to comprehend, for it to appear infinite to me, even though it may or may not be.
So what you are saying is that the complexity of the universe is merely beyond your ability to comprehend, not that you know it is infinitely complex.
You said:

You can clearly see this in the post you are referring to, by my use of the word "appearance", but of course you ignored this so that you could throw another red herring into the discussion.

It sounded to me like you were saying that you experienced reality as infinitely complex which is different than saying that it just looks that way to you, but you don’t have a way to verify your observation. But that’s fine. I’m really not out to build a straw man PureX despite your interpretation of my motives. If that is what you are saying, than that I what I will deal with.


Nonetheless, Philosophizer has claimed that though in many cases complexity is illusory. And I would agree with him to an extent. I would agree with him in that complexity is often the excuse to ignore what we see clearly within the complex.

Complexity can’t exist without simple and recognizable elements. In fact, complex aggregates are build on simple and rudimentary parts. A complex equation is built on simple and recognizable equations.

So when we speak of the complexity of the world and the available knowledge in the world, we can certainly speak of it in terms of its complexity, but we would be foolish to speak of its complexity as being irrelevant from those simple and recognizable elements.
I’m not a math whiz, never will be. I’m not going to be able to solve any “good will hunting” math equations in my lifetime. But I can look at those equations, apprehend their complexity, and yet still recognize some simple, recognizable, simple elements within the equation. I know how to calculate a square root. Can I assume that whatever happens in the calculations of the equation that the result will be built upon that element of the equation and not contradictory of that part of the equation?

Absolutely…

That is all that Fundamentalists are claiming when they point to absolute truths. Not that we know everything about everything, nor that world isn’t complex, but that within that complexity there are some truths that we can observe and believe as true in the midst of that complexity.

Now you also said:

This is exactly why I don't think the main characteristic of fundamentalism is doctrinal. Put any two fundamentalists in a room alone, and they will fight with each other about who is the more righteous. Put a hundred of them in a room with each other and they will divide up into factions and fight about who is the most righteous. The overwhelmingly common trait among fundamentalists is not a particular doctrinal position, it's their obsession with righteousness. The one thing they all agree on is that they are right and anyone who disagrees in even the slightest way is automatically wrong by default, which is why they can't ever really agree with anyone, even each other.

If the definition of fundamentalism were doctrinal, then there couldn't be fundamentalists in different religions.


There’s no denying that fundamentalists often have disagreements over doctrinal issues. But if you put a professing non-fundamentalist and a fundamentalist in a room alone, they will also fight with each other about who is “right” and who is “wrong.” So if the litmus test behind being a fundamentalist is the willingness to quarrel over the rightness and wrongness of a position, then you and I both are fundamentalists... One need not read the interchanges between you and I for too long to realize that we both disagree on who is right and who is wrong.
It is a mistake to think that fundamentalists characteristically disagree amongst themselves and non-fundamentalists characteristically agree amongst themselves. Put two Atheists in a room together and you will eventually arrive at some disagreement on the principles of atheism.

As such, I think it is too hasty to divorce fundamentalism from the doctrine of the group you are describing. It is true that there are non-Christian fundamentalists. It is true that fundamentalism is not doctrinally defined, but it is a term that measures the dedication to those doctrines.

Grace and Peace

On Fire
April 29th, 2004, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by beanieboy

Uh, couldn't you just give us a link to the site you lifted that from?

I could've but chose not to.

BChristianK
April 29th, 2004, 12:08 PM
Clete Said:



Look, the question is "What is Fundamentalism?" not, "how many different ways can we twist ourselves around and still allow ourselves to be fundamentalist?".

I submit that you guys don't get to define the term for yourselves, if you did then the word would no longer have any meaning.


No argument here, the term means what it means regardless of who wants in the club.




You absolutely cannot under any circumstance believe in a evolutionary model of biology and still consider yourself a fundamentalist.


Why? You might not be able to be a Darwinian evolutionist and be a fundamentalist but not all evolutionary models are strictly Darwinian. There are all sorts of permutations of that theory at present.
Furthermore, It didn’t even show up on your short list in your first post, are you now saying there are 6 critical doctrines to fundamentalism?



You might still be a Christian, but not a Fundamentalist. The same goes for those with a belief that the creation took anything but 6 days. And the same goes for Amillennialists; they all are not fundamentalists.


Furthermore, when fundamentalism became a popular term in the late 1800’s dispensational theology with a pretribulation rapture was a fledgling hypothesis. Most of the folks who became members of the “Evangelical Alliance” weren’t dispensational at the time, it wasn’t until the 1920’s that Darbyism became a prominent theory among fundamentalists.

This isn’t even an issue of division in the North Presbyterian church (a prominent leading denomination in early fundamentalism). Their five essentials don’t mention eschatological frameworks.





Isn't this somewhat obviously true? You guys remove the first and primary plank of Fundamentalism and then try to say that you are still standing on the platform!

What fundamental plank, dispensationalism or a “literal” interpretation of the first two chapters in Genesis?




Well, I'm sorry but your not. Otherwise, the term Fundamentalism is meaningless. You want to liberalize the term and make it more comfortable because nobody wants to think that they don't hold to the fundamentals of the Christian faith, but that is the whole reason why Fundamentalism came about in the first place. It wasn't brought up to make everybody feel good, on the contrary, Fundamentalism was started specifically to militate against people being allowed to follow the dictates of their own hearts and to bring Christianity back to its Biblical foundations.

Who’s wanting to liberalize the term, make it more comfortable, make everyone feel good or allow people to follow the dictates of their own hearts.?

You are getting awful close to making arguments that you can’t substantiate.




Say I say no, if you do not hold to all five points at least in principle then you are not a fundamentalist, period. That's not an insult, its just an acknowledgment of the meaning of the word "Fundamentalism"


First of all, if it turn out you are right, then so be it. I don’t covet the term for myself. As Popey said,” I am what I am and that’s all that I am.”

But secondly, in your next reply, can you please substantiate for me where historically dispensational theology was an essential in the foundational stages of the fundamentalist movement? Because as far as my historical recollection informs me, the five points of the “Evangelical Alliance” formed in 1895 were:

1. The inerrancy of scripture
2. The Divinity of Jesus
3. The Virgin Birth
4. Christ death as substitution atonement for our sins
5. His immanent return (a principle that amillennialism is perfectly harmonious with)

So why did you see fit to add to number five, where did this come from?, because I also submit that you guys don't get to define the term for yourselves either…..

Grace and Peace

Cyrus of Persia
April 29th, 2004, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by BChristianK

You make it sound like fund’s baptize the truth they believe in as the final truth as apposed to coming to accept that there is uncontrovertibly truth that they have come to believe in. The first makes it sound like they are saying, “its true because I say so.” The second has them saying, “I say so because it is true.”


I don't know any fundy who claims "it's true because i say so". Most of them (or all of them) say: "I say so because it is true". As they are blind to see that there can be other truths out there, then it's the same claim of infallibility. So yes, both claims are marks of fundamentalist.



Surely you live your life based on some truths..? Even if that truth is that “nothing is incontrovertibly true.”

Yes, it's one of the "truths" i believe in. Because i'm not God to know for 100% certainity that my truth (or the truth that my Church helds) is "incontrovertible truth".

Clete
April 29th, 2004, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by Swordsman

The End.

(Clete, got any ideas for another thread?):chuckle:

:crackup:

We have to give credit where credit is due. Knight opened this particular can of worms. But don'y worry, I've got a few cans of my own. I'll probably open one up this evening. ;)

On Fire
April 29th, 2004, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

:crackup:

We have to give credit where credit is due. Knight opened this particular can of worms. But don'y worry, I've got a few cans of my own. I'll probably open one up this evening. ;)

I've got a can, too.

LightSon
April 29th, 2004, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by BChristianK

...

Good points here. Though Clete and I probably wouldn’t consider Jehova’s Witnesses Christian fundamentalists, in the sense that they deny some core doctrines of the faith, I am sure they hold some attributes of fundamentalism. Perhaps the fundamental problem is that there really isn’t a list that is universally agreed upon. We all sort of employ the term fundamentalist to suite our own aims. Those who lean more to the liberal side of Christianity often employ the term derogatorily. For them it has become a synonym for narrow mindedness. This has been my beef with PureX. I am pretty sure that PureX is more intelligent than I am as well. But for all that intelligence I don’t think he sees that his definition of fundamentalism is self serving, biased and not open to critique. That sounds very much like the kind of behavior that PureX dislikes in fundamentalists, and the kind of sickness he describes when he defines fundamentalism.

For those who lean more toward conservatism it represents the remnant of the faithful who have not sold out Jesus to the philosophies of the world. The problem with this, and to an extent the problem with me, is that we have a tendency to start drawing lines around folks to label them as “in” or “out.”

I’ll use myself as an example. When we were discussing the war in Iraq, I reacted inappropriately to your posts. I wasn’t really talking to you, Duder, I was reacting to the stereotype that I have constructed of liberals. That was a huge problem, because you may or may not agree with everything that I assign into the “liberal” category. In the end, I did both you and I a disservice. Because I didn’t take the time to clearly understand you, and I also made anything I had to say after that point exempt from evaluation from you by virtue of the adversarial environment I had created.

The same applies to the term fundamentalist. Those who stamp that label on people, and assume that by virtue of that stamp they understand fully the attitudes and opinions of the other person, have done themselves and the other a disservice.


A well stated summary!


Originally posted by BChristianK
PureX and I will never be able to really understand each other as long as PureX defines all fundamentalists as holding a superiority complex and as long as I see PureX as an aggressor against the faith.

I'm so frustrated with PureX, I want to chew nails. He insists on manufacturing the most tortured definition of fundamentalists, and uses that as a club with which to beat me and those with which I am aligned. Our goal is not be be holier than thou, but to glorify our Creator in all we do.

BChristianK, your synopsis has framed my ineffable thoughts and given them voice. Thank you! :bow:

PureX
April 29th, 2004, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by BChristianK So what you are saying is that the complexity of the universe is merely beyond your ability to comprehend, not that you know it is infinitely complex.What I'm saying is that no matter how full my grasp of the universe is, the universe remains more complex then I am able to grasp. Therefor, the complexity of the universe appears to me to be infinite, as I experience it, though it may well not actually be infinite.

Originally posted by BChristianK It sounded to me like you were saying that you experienced reality as infinitely complex which is different than saying that it just looks that way to you,...But how it looks to me is how I am experiencing it. How could we see something one way and experience it another way?

Originally posted by BChristianK ... but you don’t have a way to verify your observation.In this case the observation is that the universe is complex. We can verify this observation easily, by simply attempting to take the universe apart. The more parts we generate, the more parts there will be yet to be removed. Does this mean that the number of parts is infinite? It's impossible to say, of course, because we are not capable of dismanteling the whole universe to find out. But to us, it would appear (as we experience it) that the number of parts are infinite. Yet our experience of 'infinity' isn't actual infinity, and our assumption of infinity (if we so assume) isn't an established truth.

Originally posted by BChristianK I’m not a math whiz, never will be. I’m not going to be able to solve any “good will hunting” math equations in my lifetime. But I can look at those equations, apprehend their complexity, and yet still recognize some simple, recognizable, simple elements within the equation. I know how to calculate a square root. Can I assume that whatever happens in the calculations of the equation that the result will be built upon that element of the equation and not contradictory of that part of the equation?

Absolutely…

That is all that Fundamentalists are claiming when they point to absolute truths. Not that we know everything about everything, nor that world isn’t complex, but that within that complexity there are some truths that we can observe and believe as true in the midst of that complexity. But what these fundamentalists keep ignoring, and even fighting tooth and nail against, is the basic fact that their "equasion" only adds up "absolutely" in their minds. And thus it is not an intrinsic part of the reality that the rest of us experience (unless we have accepted their intellectual "equasion" as our reality, too). They keep insisting that because 2 + 2 = 4 is an absolute truth in their own minds, that it must be an absolute truth in my mind, in everyone else's minds, and in reality, too. But it's NOT. And the more other people try to tell them that it's not, the more angry, antagonistic, bulligerant, and even violent they become. And they behave this way because it's of the utmost importance to them that they maintain the belief that the "equasions" in their minds are "real". It's so important that over the years they have often committed murder, and torture, and all kinds of terrible crimes in their efforts at maintaining this proposition. And when I converse with them on line, here, I still find them using any and all means possible to dismiss and discredit any other concept of reality.

THIS is fundamentalism. This battle with truth, with reality, with science, with other religions, with anyone and anything that dares to contradict the blind insistance that the equasions that are "absolutely true" in the fundamentalist's minds ARE THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

It doesn't matter what the equasion is that the fundamentalist has deemed the absolute truth. That varries from person to person. What matters to the fundamentalist is that it be maintained as the absolute truth at all cost: at the cost of rationality, at the cost of relationships, at the cost of honesty, even at the cost of life itself.

Originally posted by BChristianK There’s no denying that fundamentalists often have disagreements over doctrinal issues. But if you put a professing non-fundamentalist and a fundamentalist in a room alone, they will also fight with each other about who is “right” and who is “wrong.”Actually, no. To fundamentalists it always looks this way, because they are at war with ALL other views of truth and reality. But for most people, being "right" is not nearly so much of a priority. What happens is that the fundi and the non-fundi begin a conversation, and as soon as the non-fundi says something that dares to contradict the fundi's concept of truth and reality, the fundi feels he is being "attacked", because to him there can only be one right view of anything. But the other fellow may be a relativist. To him there are lots of "right" views, even some that contradict. So he was simply expressing his own opinion in the conversation. He wasn't "attacking" the fundi at all.

Fundamentalists live in a perpetual state of "war". They think everyone is "attacking" them and their "absolute truth". And this is why they are such a problem and a danger among the society of human beings. They can't just "live and let live". They can't accept multiple or relative truths. They can't accept anything but their own absolute truth. Everything else is an "attack".

Originally posted by BChristianK So if the litmus test behind being a fundamentalist is the willingness to quarrel over the rightness and wrongness of a position, then you and I both are fundamentalists... I understand that this is how life appears to you, but it's not true. We do disagree, but not about what's right or wrong so much as about my right to be right, too. That's what fundamentalists can't ever really accept.
Originally posted by BChristianK One need not read the interchanges between you and I for too long to realize that we both disagree on who is right and who is wrong.
It is a mistake to think that fundamentalists characteristically disagree amongst themselves and non-fundamentalists characteristically agree amongst themselves. Put two Atheists in a room together and you will eventually arrive at some disagreement on the principles of atheism.What is at issue here is not the fact that people disagree. That's inevitable, inderstandable, and expected. What's really at issue is how we conceptualize the disagreement, and how we respond to it. I believe that fundamentalism is not defined by the ideology that fundamentalists hold so much as how they conceive of those ideologies (as being absolutely correct) and how they then react to other ideologies because of that conception, and to the people that express them.

Originally posted by BChristianK As such, I think it is too hasty to divorce fundamentalism from the doctrine of the group you are describing. It is true that there are non-Christian fundamentalists. It is true that fundamentalism is not doctrinally defined, but it is a term that measures the dedication to those doctrines.Some ideologies do invite fundamentalism, while others tend to discourage it, I agree. Christianity and Islam both invite fundamentalism because both religious ideologies are essentially elitist, and elitism does invite and encourage fundamentalism.

beanieboy
April 29th, 2004, 02:26 PM
Brother Jed and Sister Cindy should be on campus in a few weeks.
Their facts?

Dinosaur bones were manufactured and placed in the Earth as a hoax to disprove the Bible.
Noah had 3 sons, and they each had children, one yellow, one black, and one red. That's how the races came about.

Gainer with half twist. 6.0.

Aimiel
April 29th, 2004, 02:52 PM
The fact is, Satan is at war with The Lord, and makes use of those who don't hold to The Truth against those who do; who are, for the most part, sitting ducks for him to pick off, most of them not being able to rightly divide The Word of Truth, and many of whom don't have any real relationship with The Lord. The main reason that you don't find anyone who walks in the Whole Council of The Lord is that He hasn't given it. It is still, partly, at least, a mystery. We do our part, and that, too often, rather poorly. When This Body of Christ grows up into Him in all things, as a Mature Man, then we will begin to grasp this more fully, and possibly make more friends than in the past.

Freak
April 29th, 2004, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by Knight

How do you define a Christian fundamentalist?

What do Christian fundamentalists believe? What are the earmarks of a Christian fundamentalist in your opinion?
A Christian fundamentalist is one who embraces...

The triune nature of God

The virgin birth, the sinless life, the miracles, the atoning death, the bodily resurrection, the ascension, and literal second coming of Jesus Christ

That justification is by faith alone in Christ

Holy Scripture is inspired by God

All of these I embrace and promote and would die for. :up:

PureX
April 29th, 2004, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by LightSon I'm so frustrated with PureX, I want to chew nails. He insists on manufacturing the most tortured definition of fundamentalists, and uses that as a club with which to beat me and those with which I am aligned. Our goal is not be be holier than thou, but to glorify our Creator in all we do. Actually, "fundamentalism" is not the word I would have chosen to define the behavior that I have been describing. It seems that general usage has decided this for me. I personally would have referred to this behavior as "absolutism" rather than fundamentalism.

But it isn't really the labels that we give to this phenomenon that matters. What matters is that it's a real phenomenon, and it's on the increase, and it presents a danger to all of us. As far as I know, I have not referred to you as a fundamentalist, and I have never accused you of any of the behaviors that I define as fundamentalist. So I'm not sure why you're feeling as if you had been accused. Perhaps it's just because you have been used to referring to yourself as a "fundamentalist" and now I am using the term in a different and negative way.

But then shouldn't you have had this reaction long before I came along? After all, the news commonly refers to Islamic fundamentalists as exhibiting very bad behavior, why didn't you feel uncomfortable with their use of the term? When David Koresh and Jim Jones were referred to as religious fundamentalists, didn't that make you uncomfortable, too?

Personally, I think you SHOULD be uncomfortable. If you call yourself a religious fundamentalist, and you find yourself being lumped in with these lunatics and killers, I think you certainly should be feeling uncomfortable about it. I think you should be doing some soul-searching, too, to see where your religious fundamentalism might be in alignment with these other more heinous examples. This may be a 'wake-up call' for you.

I am not sorry that I use the term "fundamentalism" to illuminate the most grotesque and dangerous expressions of religious Christianity. I am not sorry that this makes you or other people uncomfortable. It certainly should make us all uncomfortable! This obsession with righteousness at all cost, that I am calling fundamentalism, is a dangerous phenomena that deserves very close scrutiny. Especially by those of you who are the most closely aligned with it.

Chew your nails and be frustrated all you want, but when you're done blaming me I hope you'll take some time to really consider how you may be aiding or participating in this toxic fundamentalism that you see me write about. It's greatest enablers are all you Christians who can't seem to find any fault in any way with any other supposed Christian. Seeing what's happening to Islam because of this fundamentalism should be a wake-up call to Christians, yet all I'm seeing from most other Christians are excuses and denial. Very few of you have realized that it's Christ's and your reputations that these people are destroying. And it you who are becoming their accomplices by your complacency.

jjjg
April 29th, 2004, 07:01 PM
Fundamentalists also believe in the substitutionary atonement accomplished by the crucifixion. Fundamentalism also deals with who you fellowship with. Some will fellowship with only people of the same beliefs and others, even if somebody else has the same beliefs, won't fellowship with those people because of who the other people fellowship with.

CRC_FChristian
April 29th, 2004, 11:16 PM
Originally posted by beanieboy

I don't agree with all liberals. That's part of liberal thinking.
You approach a subject, listen, then decided whether or not your thinking should change, or the other person isn't correct.

Fundamentalists, on the other hand, seem to never go into it with an open mind. My mother, sadly, was taught that if she ever questioned anything from the bible, that it was a sign that she didn't love God, and would go to hell.

Even Othodox Jews question the true meaning of the scriptures.

When quoting verses, as Enyart as done repeatedly, things are taken out of context of to whom it was said, why, the context of the story, and misused in order to support their cause.

And more often than not, it is the easiest road.
The person is threatened, rather than given FreeWill.
The person has guilt offered, instead of forgiveness.
There is a suggestion that one should be offensive, and brag about it.
There is a suggestion that you should name call freely, because you want to be like Jesus.

But Jesus preached a lot about being kind to one another.
He talked about feeding the poor, forgiving one another, giving more than what is asked.

But never mind that. It's more fun to be mean.

And no matter what you say, their hearts are hardened with self-righteousness.

It's really depressing.


I'm independent fundamental bible believing Christian....

I have degree as computer scientist....

Going for degree in theology...

I dont believe that if you dont believe everything in bible you are going to hell...Salvation is a free gift in the Lord Jesus Christ his shedding of his precious blood nothing we can do can merit our own salvation...

And yes I believe that God meant what he wrote and he left us his preserved word in King James bible...If we cant trust that God is powerful enough to preserve his word then how can he possibly provide us a way for salvation...furthermore how could we trust anything he tells us if there are errors or he has lied to us in his word....

My question to all that are out there...say your pastor has niv, one has NSB, one has NKJV, one has american standard bible Which one is the authoritative bible to go by?

As for twisting of scriptures....well many are guilty of this today not just "fundementalists"....


As for close mind...well God has spelled out in his word how christians should conduct themselves...I believe II Chronicles 7:14 is still in effect today...This mean that at we are to be a pecuilar, holy and righteous people otherwise he wouldnt have spent so much time telling us how we should live as christians...
So if adehering to Gods word on how Christian should live then Im guilty as charged.

Several other questions for all out there...we have more church members than ever before in America...

Is America spiritually better off today than say 50 or more years ago ?
Is America still a spiritual beacon in todays world?
Is America closer to God today than ever before?
Does America have better moralistic values as whole than ever before?

Now you might ask question of what does spiritual/moral state of America have to do with anything? The answer is the Church has always set the precendence for the spiritual and moral climate of our country thus...
I think when you find answers to above questions you can find some truth as to whether or not a fundamentalist position is more on side of correct than ere...

CRC_FChristian
April 29th, 2004, 11:19 PM
Originally posted by jjjg

Fundamentalists also believe in the substitutionary atonement accomplished by the crucifixion. Fundamentalism also deals with who you fellowship with. Some will fellowship with only people of the same beliefs and others, even if somebody else has the same beliefs, won't fellowship with those people because of who the other people fellowship with.


well...actually this is not true...in a public setting i fellowship with numerous others that dont believe the way I do...

With that said, I dont go to other denominations churches...I dont try and accomplish Gods work by getting together with others in different denominations....

jjjg
April 29th, 2004, 11:21 PM
Right but I said SOME don't even fellowship with ones that fellowship with non-fundamentalists.

CRC_FChristian
April 29th, 2004, 11:24 PM
Originally posted by jjjg

Fundamentalists also believe in the substitutionary atonement accomplished by the crucifixion. Fundamentalism also deals with who you fellowship with. Some will fellowship with only people of the same beliefs and others, even if somebody else has the same beliefs, won't fellowship with those people because of who the other people fellowship with.


well...actually this is not true...in a public setting i fellowship with numerous others that dont believe the way I do...

With that said, I dont go to other denominations churches...I dont try and accomplish Gods work by getting together with others in different denominations....

CRC_FChristian
April 29th, 2004, 11:43 PM
Originally posted by PureX

Actually, "fundamentalism" is not the word I would have chosen to define the behavior that I have been describing. It seems that general usage has decided this for me. I personally would have referred to this behavior as "absolutism" rather than fundamentalism.

But it isn't really the labels that we give to this phenomenon that matters. What matters is that it's a real phenomenon, and it's on the increase, and it presents a danger to all of us. As far as I know, I have not referred to you as a fundamentalist, and I have never accused you of any of the behaviors that I define as fundamentalist. So I'm not sure why you're feeling as if you had been accused. Perhaps it's just because you have been used to referring to yourself as a "fundamentalist" and now I am using the term in a different and negative way.

But then shouldn't you have had this reaction long before I came along? After all, the news commonly refers to Islamic fundamentalists as exhibiting very bad behavior, why didn't you feel uncomfortable with their use of the term? When David Koresh and Jim Jones were referred to as religious fundamentalists, didn't that make you uncomfortable, too?

Personally, I think you SHOULD be uncomfortable. If you call yourself a religious fundamentalist, and you find yourself being lumped in with these lunatics and killers, I think you certainly should be feeling uncomfortable about it. I think you should be doing some soul-searching, too, to see where your religious fundamentalism might be in alignment with these other more heinous examples. This may be a 'wake-up call' for you.

I am not sorry that I use the term "fundamentalism" to illuminate the most grotesque and dangerous expressions of religious Christianity. I am not sorry that this makes you or other people uncomfortable. It certainly should make us all uncomfortable! This obsession with righteousness at all cost, that I am calling fundamentalism, is a dangerous phenomena that deserves very close scrutiny. Especially by those of you who are the most closely aligned with it.

Chew your nails and be frustrated all you want, but when you're done blaming me I hope you'll take some time to really consider how you may be aiding or participating in this toxic fundamentalism that you see me write about. It's greatest enablers are all you Christians who can't seem to find any fault in any way with any other supposed Christian. Seeing what's happening to Islam because of this fundamentalism should be a wake-up call to Christians, yet all I'm seeing from most other Christians are excuses and denial. Very few of you have realized that it's Christ's and your reputations that these people are destroying. And it you who are becoming their accomplices by your complacency.


If I read your post correctly then Its complete lunacy to catagorize Islamic Fundamentalist with Christian Fundamentalist...

Last I checked I dont have a bomb strapped to my laptop...so no one on here has to beware :)

If my analogy of your post is incorrect then please ignore...

When I see people who claim to be Christian think, act, dress like the world these are the people that damage the reputation of Christ...People laugh behind the backs of those who claim to be Christians yet live by the worlds standards...the word hypocrite comes to their minds...If you dont believe then just ask a few non believers what they think of wordly Christians...I have...and not one person that I've asked this question refutes my position...

BChristianK
April 29th, 2004, 11:43 PM
PureX said:


What I'm saying is that no matter how full my grasp of the universe is, the universe remains more complex then I am able to grasp. Therefore, the complexity of the universe appears to me to be infinite, as I experience it, though it may well not actually be infinite.
and
But how it looks to me is how I am experiencing it. How could we see something one way and experience it another way?


Right, I think you cleared up that misunderstanding last post, you experience the universe as more complex than you can fully grasp…..


You said:


In this case the observation is that the universe is complex. We can verify this observation easily, by simply attempting to take the universe apart. The more parts we generate, the more parts there will be yet to be removed. Does this mean that the number of parts is infinite? It's impossible to say, of course, because we are not capable of dismanteling the whole universe to find out. But to us, it would appear (as we experience it) that the number of parts are infinite. Yet our experience of 'infinity' isn't actual infinity, and our assumption of infinity (if we so assume) isn't an established truth.

So it appears infinite despite your inability to prove that it is, in fact infinite.
Ok…

Now you say in response to me..





quote:
Originally posted by BChristianK I’m not a math whiz, never will be. I’m not going to be able to solve any “good will hunting” math equations in my lifetime. But I can look at those equations, apprehend their complexity, and yet still recognize some simple, recognizable, simple elements within the equation. I know how to calculate a square root. Can I assume that whatever happens in the calculations of the equation that the result will be built upon that element of the equation and not contradictory of that part of the equation?

Absolutely…

That is all that Fundamentalists are claiming when they point to absolute truths. Not that we know everything about everything, nor that world isn’t complex, but that within that complexity there are some truths that we can observe and believe as true in the midst of that complexity.

But what these fundamentalists keep ignoring, and even fighting tooth and nail against, is the basic fact that their "equation" only adds up "absolutely" in their minds. And thus it is not an intrinsic part of the reality that the rest of us experience (unless we have accepted their intellectual "equation" as our reality, too). They keep insisting that because 2 + 2 = 4 is an absolute truth in their own minds, that it must be an absolute truth in my mind, in everyone else's minds, and in reality, too. But it's NOT.


We have been over this argument PureX, and you have been unable to show me how 1+1 doesn’t equal 2. Duder tried by stacking velocities and multiplying 1 by a variable but even if I were to take that attempt as true, I can also make the move of specificity to absolutize my statement. One cent plus another cent always equals 2 cents. THis is an easily understood and applied categorical, objective truth. The fact that you would deny this shows that your argument is problematic.




And the more other people try to tell them that it's not, the more angry, antagonistic, belligerent, and even violent they become. And they behave this way because it's of the utmost importance to them that they maintain the belief that the "equations" in their minds are "real". It's so important that over the years they have often committed murder, and torture, and all kinds of terrible crimes in their efforts at maintaining this proposition. And when I converse with them on line, here, I still find them using any and all means possible to dismiss and discredit any other concept of reality.


Huh? You can go on believing that one cent plus another equals something other than 2 cents. We might laugh occasionally and look kinda funny at you when you try to make change, but I think you are being innacurate in suggesting that Christian fundamentalists have become belligerent or violent. As a general rule, we fundy’s are a relatively harmless lot. And that is where your argument degenerates into a hasty generalization.

Some Muslim fundamentalist factions fly airplanes into buildings, Christian fundamentalists don’t. You might not like the religious right, or the TV shows they broadcast, or the radio programs they have or the books they write. You might want them to focus on their own Darn family But by and large, the Christian fundamentalist movement has used peaceful means to accomplish its aims.

Sure, there is the occasional kook who bombs an abortion clinic, but you and I both know that this is the outlier and not the representative. You can tell this by how Christian Fundamentalists, as a whole, reject such behavior as unacceptable. This stands in contrast to the confirmation and encouragement you get from Muslim fundamentalist groups on acts of terrorism.

All this to say, your argument breaks down at the point of specific application. You may want all fundamentalists groups to employ the same violent methods, for if they did, you would have reason for your accusations. There would be no difference between the heinous actions of extreme Muslim fundamentalists and the actions of Christian fundamentalists. However, not all fundamentalist groups employ the same methods, encourage the same methods, or prescribe the same methods, and that is why your argument, eloquent as it may be, is still a hasty generalization.


You said:



THIS is fundamentalism. This battle with truth, with reality, with science, with other religions, with anyone and anything that dares to contradict the blind insistence that the equations that are "absolutely true" in the fundamentalist's minds ARE THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

Your arguments are circular when you claim that fundamentalism battles with reality, truth, science, etc…

The fundamentalist claims that they are harmonious with reality, truth, science, etc…..

You’ll have to prove that the fundy’s are wrong before you can cast these stones and as of yet, you haven’t convinced me that you have won those points…

Now you say




quote:
Originally posted by BChristianK There’s no denying that fundamentalists often have disagreements over doctrinal issues. But if you put a professing non-fundamentalist and a fundamentalist in a room alone, they will also fight with each other about who is “right” and who is “wrong.”

Actually, no. To fundamentalists it always looks this way, because they are at war with ALL other views of truth and reality. But for most people, being "right" is not nearly so much of a priority. What happens is that the fundi and the non-fundi begin a conversation, and as soon as the non-fundi says something that dares to contradict the fundi's concept of truth and reality, the fundi feels he is being "attacked", because to him there can only be one right view of anything. But the other fellow may be a relativist. To him there are lots of "right" views, even some that contradict. So he was simply expressing his own opinion in the conversation. He wasn't "attacking" the fundi at all.

First of all, it has been my experience that the reverse happens. The “relativist” gets their feathers in a ruffle the moment the fundy asks them to substantiate their worldview. There is some statement analogous to “how dare you insinuate that I am wrong and you are right, you narrow minded fundy!”

Most fundis, especially on this site, are willing to dialog and debate all sorts of things without getting their feelin’s hurt..

Second, fundis don’t consider themselves at war with all other worldviews, they simply vocalize what they observe. And what they observe is that there are incompatible worldviews. They choose, to the exclusion of the other worldviews, based on the evidence. And they urge others to do the same. Many relativists refuse to even consider the pink elephant in the room. They won't admit that worldviews are incompatible regardless of how self evident this truth really is. They are so worried that the Buddhist or the Hindu or the Wiccan might get their feelin’s hurt that they refuse to see that not everyone can be right. So when the conversation gets flooded with the precepts of contradicting worldviews, they scratch their goatee’s, say, “Hmmmm” in a thoughtful tone, and take a sip of their white chocolate mochas.

Now the “narrow minded fundis” just stand up and say what it evident, “we can’t all be right.” Then quickly sip their black coffee and wait for the angry mob of relativists, Buddhists, Hindus and Wiccans to crossly tell them how terrible and intolerant they are for not to acquiescing to other's rights to be agreed with.


And don’t be fooled, you know that that this is what is meant when they say, “its true for you but its not true for me.” You and I both know that really means, "we have a right for you to agree with us."




I understand that this is how life appears to you, but it's not true. We do disagree, but not about what's right or wrong so much as about my right to be right, too. That's what fundamentalists can't ever really accept.

Everyone has a right to be right?

No, we don’t buy that. We don’t because, for one, it is selectively applied. It is ok for new age philosophy to be “right” or Buddhism to be “right”, or relativism to be “right,” and it is just fine for them to share why they think they are right, and it is likewise acceptable for them to persuade others to entertain thier worldviews. But the moment the exclusivity of the Christian message becomes “right for me,” and I become equally active explaining why I think I am correct, and persuading others to consider Christianity I am labeled “intolerant.”

It is the fundamental hypocrisy of the “right to be right” principle. The real statement is, “you fundi’s have no right to be right, you should shut up about what you think is right and capitulate to my right to be right.”


No, you are correct, we can’t really accept that. And though it might be a shock to you, the reason we can’t accept it is because no one has the right to be right. This, "right to be right" notion is the perhaps the most abusive ontological principle ever devised.

In never, never land, lolly-pops might materialize into existence at the wishes of a sugarplum fairy but in the world that we really live in, things exist or they don’t regardless of a persons claimed right for it to be otherwise. Some things are true or they are not, some things are right or wrong. People don’t have the right to wish things into existence. To think this is foolish. And, based on these facts, no one should beholden to entertain another’s worldview without scrutiny.

The concept that people have the right to be right assumes that if someone claims there are unicorns and they worship them, we are all beholden to entertain that possibility that there really are unicorns worthy of our worship, and we must entertain this without reservation. No matter how preposterous a proposition it is, we must always allow them to make these claims without criticism. To openly criticize, or even to doubt is to be intolerant, unless of course the criticism is directed at the fundi Christian, then such criticism is a righteous voicing of opinion.

This crazy idea that everyone has the right to be right completely destroys rational thought. It makes the child learning their multiplication tables right no matter what answer they give.

Finally you say:



Some ideologies do invite fundamentalism, while others tend to discourage it, I agree. Christianity and Islam both invite fundamentalism because both religious ideologies are essentially elitist, and elitism does invite and encourage fundamentalism.

Elitism is the wrong word. Both faiths are exclusivistic. If all worldviews that are exclusivistic are elitist then relativists are elitist for their worldview is equally exclusivistic. A relativist must, by virtue of accepting the principle that multiple roads lead to salvation, exclude the claims of religions that teach that only one road leads to salvation.

I understand, it is much easier to vilify Christians if you can call them elitist. That straw man is much easier to push down. And the relativist certainly couldn’t admit that they share the same tendency because that would equalize the standing and eliminate the high ground from which accusations of intolerance are hurled.

Hopefully you will one day see the hypocrisy this presents…



Grace and Peace

Mr. 5020
April 30th, 2004, 01:09 AM
Originally posted by Knight

How do you define a Christian fundamentalist?

What do Christian fundamentalists believe? What are the earmarks of a Christian fundamentalist in your opinion?

In other words...
If you had to explain what a Christian fundamentalist is to someone who didn't know, what would you tell them?

I would say, "Here is Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. Read it."

Flipper
April 30th, 2004, 01:47 AM
BChristianK:


We have been over this argument PureX, and you have been unable to show me how 1+1 doesn’t equal 2. Duder tried by stacking velocities and multiplying 1 by a variable but even if I were to take that attempt as true, I can also make the move of specificity to absolutize my statement. One cent plus another cent always equals 2 cents. THis is an easily understood and applied categorical, objective truth. The fact that you would deny this shows that your argument is problematic.


It's convenient to think so, and behave as if it were that way. But, once again, reality may be more slippery than a neo-platonist absolutist might like..

Allow me to quote extensively from an intriguing interview with the mathematician Gregory Chaitin.


"...Einstein has a very interesting remark in his intellectual autobiography, I think he calls it his epitaph. And that remark is, I think it goes something like this: even the positive integers, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ... are clearly a free invention of the human mind, invented because they help us to organize our sense impressions. So if that's true, there is no necessity... the positive integers are not a necessary tool of thought. If they are a free creation, we're free to make modifications, if it helps us to organize our mathematical experiences. And I think that we should feel more free to do that.

My work does suggest that mathematical questions which escape our power are common, they are not unusual. The question is, are these interesting mathematical questions or not, are they natural or not?

There's also a remark, by the way, of Gödel's which I think also goes in the same direction that I'm talking about. Now Gödel has a completely different view than Einstein. Einstein is an empiricist, he's a scientist, he believes in the physical world, right, that mathematics is all invented. Gödel believes that mathematics exists, that mathematical reality is just as real as physical reality. And he believes we observe, we discover mathematical truths, we don't invent them. We don't invent mathematics, we just discover it, we just observe it. And that's a very different philosophical position from Einstein. But the funny thing is that it leads Gödel to the same conclusion, to the same point that Einstein said. Because if mathematical reality is just as real, it's different, but it's just as real as physical reality, if 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ... are just as real as an electron or an electromagnetic wave, then why can't we sort of use the scientific method, and if we find a new mathematical principle that helps us to organize our mathematical experience, maybe we should just add it to mathematics as a new axiom, the same way that physicists would!

Here's an interesting fact. I've gotten old enough that I'm not even sure that I believe in mathematics at all any more! I mean, not just because, you know, maybe I prefer to have a family and a more normal life. But also because I don't really believe in real numbers anymore and I don't even think I believe in positive integers anymore.


http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/CDMTCS/chaitin/mindship.html

To insist that it is obvious that arithmetical operations are absolute seems apparent. Nevertheless, Chaitin is implying that such a view of the integers themselves, never mind the rules of their operation, is essentially superficial and imperfect, no matter how useful it may be for us to consider them so.

But it seems that, on a deeper level, things are not as obvious as you assert. If we define something absolutely, we have automatically created something that is an abstraction from reality, not reality itself.

Flipper
April 30th, 2004, 01:58 AM
Mr5020:



I would say, "Here is Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. Read it."

Interesting, as I often thought Lewis to be quite a distant cousin from the fundamentalist Christians I have observed. Also, indications are from his books that he accepted evolutionary theory; to my knowledge he was a theistic evolutionist for most of his life.

The christianity of C.S. Lewis and the Christianity espoused by the fundamentalists I read on this site seem to be poles apart.



Lewis always struck me as very much tempered by his early Anglicanism. Yes, I know he leaned towards Catholicism in later life, but much more towards a liberal English form.

PureX
April 30th, 2004, 05:55 AM
Originally posted by CRC_FChristian If I read your post correctly then Its complete lunacy to catagorize Islamic Fundamentalist with Christian Fundamentalist...No, my point is that fundamentalism is not a specific ideology, but an attitude toward a selected ideology. That's how there can be Islamic and Christian and even political fundamentalists. These ideologies are different, but the fundamentalist's attitude toward their chosen ideology is the same.

Originally posted by CRC_FChristian Last I checked I dont have a bomb strapped to my laptop...so no one on here has to beware.No one starts out with bombs strapped to their back. They start out as children being taught that there is only one absolute truth and one way of life and that all others are expressions of sin, inspired by satan, etc. The illness is progressive, and tends to get progressively extremist if left unchecked. The bombs don't get strapped on until later.

Originally posted by CRC_FChristian When I see people who claim to be Christian think, act, dress like the world these are the people that damage the reputation of Christ...People laugh behind the backs of those who claim to be Christians yet live by the worlds standards...the word hypocrite comes to their minds...If you dont believe then just ask a few non believers what they think of wordly Christians...I have...and not one person that I've asked this question refutes my position... Non-Christians are not concerned about the "worldliness" of Christians. Non-Christians are concerned about zealots and lunatics who use the name of God to justify their own insane desire to judge, condemn, and to punish other human beings. When we look at history, it's not the "worldly" Christians that commit the torture and murder and systemic oppression; it's the "fundamentalists". It's the zealots - the extremists. I think you're focussing on the wrong evil. The evil that the rest of the world is worrying about is the evil in YOU, not the evil in those other "worldy Christians".

PureX
April 30th, 2004, 06:35 AM
Originally posted by BChristianK We have been over this argument PureX, and you have been unable to show me how 1+1 doesn’t equal 2. Duder tried by stacking velocities and multiplying 1 by a variable but even if I were to take that attempt as true, I can also make the move of specificity to absolutize my statement. One cent plus another cent always equals 2 cents. THis is an easily understood and applied categorical, objective truth. The fact that you would deny this shows that your argument is problematic.I have explained this to you many times, now, over several threads, but you simply refuse to acknowledge the explanation. The concept of absolute equality is an ideal that exists only in your mind. In the real world, equality is a relative application. No two anythings are absolutely equal to any two anything elses. We simply ignore the inequity for the sake of function. 2 + 2 = 4 only because we ignore the relative inequality of the items we are applying the formula to.

It's the same with any absolute ideal. It can exist as an absolute in our minds, but when we apply it to reality it becomes only relatively true. And you are proving my point about fundamentalism through your dogged refusal to acknowledge this simple fact. You have fought tooth and nail with me to deny it, and you have used all sorts of cheap intellectual tricks, and straw arguments, and red herrings to dismiss by "any means necessary" my opposing relativist view regarding the verifiability of an absolute.

Of course you are not strapping on any bombs, but the pattern of your response is the same as fundamentalists the world over. They MUST be right. Being right and protecting that righteousness is always their first priority. Only the degree of radicalization and extremism varries. I think you should think about this very carefully.

Originally posted by CRC_FChristian Some Muslim fundamentalist factions fly airplanes into buildings, Christian fundamentalists don’t.Christian fundamentalists have done their share of killing in the past, and they will do so again if they manage to gain that power. I was watching a story on Dateline the other day about four fundamentalist Christians in Texas who somehow managed to get themselves appointed to investigate some spurious allegations of satanic ritual murder, and before the state's attourney could finally get there and put a stop to them, they had half the town locked up in prison based on manufactured evidence that they had tortured out of children. They were just having themselves a high old time huntin' down the demons. And anyone who dared to object to their little orgy of "divine justice" would soon find themselves among the accused. They ruined many people's lives and of course have not even appologized for it. In fact I'm sure that to this day they still think they were RIGHT, because fundamentalists are always absolutely right no matter what. And that's exactly why they are so dangerous.

smaller
April 30th, 2004, 08:24 AM
Read about any "christian fundamentalist" mothers who murdered their children in cold blood to "save them from hell?"

Seems like we are getting a few of these each year.

BcK loves this subject.

On Fire
April 30th, 2004, 08:27 AM
Originally posted by smaller

Read about any "christian fundamentalist" mothers who murdered their children in cold blood to "save them from hell?"

Seems like we are getting a few of these each year.

BcK loves this subject.

And just how man NON-Christian fundamentalists murder their children every year?

:zakath: - is that you?

beanieboy
April 30th, 2004, 08:45 AM
Originally posted by CRC_FChristian

Is America spiritually better off today than say 50 or more years ago ?
Is America still a spiritual beacon in todays world?
Is America closer to God today than ever before?
Does America have better moralistic values as whole than ever before?



In the 1950s, Black people couldn't vote or eat in the same restaurant as White People. There was a witch hunt with McCarthyism, black listing people as Communists.

Does America have better moralistic values?
Than when we had slavery?
Than when we thought hanging black people from trees was ok?

My grandparents freely used words like Spook, Darkey and Coon.
What does that say about the way they loved their neighbor?

I think that we are constantly moving forward. It just depends on how you want to look at it.

Are there bad things in the world? Surely. But you can do things to change that.

Are there good things in the world. Surely. And you should acknowledge them.

So often, I see people on TOL focusing only on the bad. This bad thing happened. This bad thing happened... It's like they search the world for evil, so they can complain about it, throw their hands up and say, "Come quickly, lawwwwdy Jesus..."

"Yeah. So what are you going to do about it???" Do The Right Thing.

smaller
April 30th, 2004, 08:47 AM
There is certainly no shortage of MURDERERS in this world eh?

The "doctrine of eternal torture" makes MURDERERS look like SAINTS via comparison.

BChristianK
April 30th, 2004, 11:38 AM
Flipper,

I don't see how your quote somehow makes 3 pennies two cents.. On a deeper level, 2 cents is still two cents.



My work does suggest that mathematical questions which escape our power are common, they are not unusual. The question is, are these interesting mathematical questions or not, are they natural or not?
which means what? That one penny plus another penny no longer equal 2 pennies? The abstraction has stopped quite short of denying this truth.



Einstein is an empiricist, he's a scientist, he believes in the physical world, right, that mathematics is all invented. Gödel believes that mathematics exists, that mathematical reality is just as real as physical reality. And he believes we observe, we discover mathematical truths, we don't invent them.
Whether the unit being analyzed mathematically is a real, empirical unit or a fabricated one means nothing at this point.
Two pennies, whether they are real or fabricated still equal two cents.



Here's an interesting fact. I've gotten old enough that I'm not even sure that I believe in mathematics at all any more! I mean, not just because, you know, maybe I prefer to have a family and a more normal life. But also because I don't really believe in real numbers anymore and I don't even think I believe in positive integers anymore.

So when he pays for his coffee and it comes out the 3.02, Starbuck is expensive :D, its ok if he gives them less than three dollar bills and two pennies because he doesn't believe in integers? He would be ok if he gave the cashier a 5 and the cashier return $1.10 in change because the cashier doesn’t believe in integers anymore either?

Probably not. Theory is tested by practice and we practice one penny plus another one equals 2. Every time, all the time….

Next time you do your taxes, just write on their that you don't believe in integers anymore, see if that floats with the IRS,,,

Note: Be prepared to pull those receipts out of the shoebox because the audit will be forthcoming..

Your quote doesn't refute that 2 pennies added together equal 2 cents...

Grace and Peace

BChristianK
April 30th, 2004, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by smaller

Read about any "christian fundamentalist" mothers who murdered their children in cold blood to "save them from hell?"

Seems like we are getting a few of these each year.

BcK loves this subject.

Hey Smaller, its funny seeing you in here, your a one issue kinda guy. Since we aren't discussing universalism you probably won't have much to say.....


Grace and Peace

BChristianK
April 30th, 2004, 12:19 PM
PureX said:


I have explained this to you many times, now, over several threads, but you simply refuse to acknowledge the explanation. The concept of absolute equality is an ideal that exists only in your mind. In the real world, equality is a relative application. No two anything’s are absolutely equal to any two anything else’s.

Yes, you keep reiterating this as if repeating it like a mantra is tantamount to proving it. You have been unable to show us an example where this is the case, you just state that it is. I’m sorry PureX but I can’t take your claims seriously until you provide some evidence.

We are all looking for one example from you that shows that 2 integer something’s plus two of the same somethings, with no intervening multipliers equals something other than four something’s.

I’ve got a world of evidence to show that they do so just one example from you would be nice in lieu of your blanket assertions to the contrary.





We simply ignore the inequity for the sake of function. 2 + 2 = 4 only because we ignore the relative inequality of the items we are applying the formula to.

What is it we ignore, if you are sure we ignore it you can give us an example that demonstrates your point, right?




It's the same with any absolute ideal. It can exist as an absolute in our minds, but when we apply it to reality it becomes only relatively true. And you are proving my point about fundamentalism through your dogged refusal to acknowledge this simple fact. You have fought tooth and nail with me to deny it, and you have used all sorts of cheap intellectual tricks, and straw arguments, and red herrings to dismiss by "any means necessary" my opposing relativist view regarding the verifiability of an absolute.

First, its not a simple truth, and until you can demonstrate it we are foolish to believe you. Second, who’s fighting, I thought we were discussing? Thirdly, I think I’ve make a pretty honest effort to make sure I am debating the true substance of what you say as apposed to a straw man or a red herring. I think you need to own up to your own straw men in regards to the attitudes you superimpose on fundamentalism. Most of them are just false.




Of course you are not strapping on any bombs, but the pattern of your response is the same as fundamentalists the world over.
Describe that pattern, I thought strapping on the bombs was the pattern we should be concerned with? Don’t you agree?




They MUST be right. Being right and protecting that righteousness is always their first priority.

Straw man. Not true. That didn't take long...




Only the degree of radicalization and extremism varies. I think you should think about this very carefully.

Well if we don’t define radicalism by the extremity of action taken then I don’t know how to define it. I think you should think about your claim here carefully. You are claiming that the only thing that separates us from the extremists who are willing to strap bombs to their chests and blow up pizza parlors is the degree to which we are willing to defend what we believe to be true. You claim we both actually think we are correct in our worldview but we aren’t willing to kill anyone to advance it, is that what you are saying?

Ok So what? By the way, that’s the same thing that separates you from the radical extremist that blows up pizza parlors, unless of course the difference is that they act inappropriately from the sincerity of their beliefs but you act appropriately from the insincerity of your beliefs.
Do you think the fundamental difference is that they actually believe that they are correct in their beliefs but you don’t suffer from that malady, you really don’t believe you are right? They actually believe what they claim but you don’t really believe what you claim?

Are you telling me that you differ from them in that you really don’t believe the words that come out of your mouth? Are you saying that the difference between them and you is that they believe what they say but you don’t really believe what you say? If that’s the case then they must question their actions and you must deal with your hypocrisy.
You said:


Christian fundamentalists have done their share of killing in the past, and they will do so again if they manage to gain that power.
I was watching a story on Dateline the other day about four fundamentalist Christians in Texas who somehow managed to get themselves appointed to investigate some spurious allegations of satanic ritual murder, and before the state's attorney could finally get there and put a stop to them, they had half the town locked up in prison based on manufactured evidence that they had tortured out of children. They were just having themselves a high old time huntin' down the demons. And anyone who dared to object to their little orgy of "divine justice" would soon find themselves among the accused. They ruined many people's lives and of course have not even apologized for it. In fact I'm sure that to this day they still think they were RIGHT, because fundamentalists are always absolutely right no matter what. And that's exactly why they are so dangerous.


And this proves what PureX? That every fundamentalist everywhere is out on a witch hunt?

You see, your measure is corrupt if you look for this stuff to happen. If You take great delight in finding nuggets of news that put fundamentalists in a poor light, but you don’t look for the good that fundamentalists bring to the table either then you telegraph your bias. Like the fact that fundamentalists, those jerks, actively involve themselves in finding adoptive homes for orphaned or unwanted children. Fundamentalists, are active participants in fundraising for providing monetary assistance to children in third world countries so that they can attend school. Fundamentalists are among the largest population of individuals who contribute to habitat for humanity projects. But that’s not as sensational and wouldn’t boost Dateline’s ratings much. And it wouldn’t fuel anti-fundamentalist hatred very well.

You see PureX, I don’t need to excuse their behavior. If what you have provided for us here is an accurate portrayal of the facts, then they were out of line. They were wrong. There’s no P.R. machine at work for fundis who flub up. But the opposite doesn’t appear to be true. There are a host of people just searching for reasons to fuel their arguments that fundis are bad, bad people who can’t be trusted..

Unfortunately, those people don’t see their own hatred, their own irrational need to be more righteous than the fundi’s, the don't bother confronting their own hypocrisy.

I hope you won’t buy into being one of those people..

Grace and Peace

smaller
April 30th, 2004, 12:53 PM
I think we have found many issues in "christianity" with serious holes BcK. You have presented many very fine examples....

I also see most of these "issues" as a desire within CHRISTIANS in particular to JUSTIFY THEMSELVES and CONDEMN others...sometimes ETERNALLY...but even within their own reeks, I mean RANKS, there is LITTLE agreement...if ANY...

The over riding factor in "christianity" is THE JUDGMENT OF OTHERS...behind SELF JUSTIFICATION and SELF righteousness...

and OF COURSE they, like you, certainly don't like to have these OBVIOUS GAFFEs exposed....

it ruins their little game....messes up the "system."

PureX
April 30th, 2004, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by BChristianK Yes, you keep reiterating this as if repeating it like a mantra is tantamount to proving it.It is self-evident that no two things are absolutely identical. And as they are not absolutely identical, they can't be absolutely equal, either. They can only be deemed equal relative to the tolerance of variation that we are applying to each instance. If you refuse to accept this then you are being willfully irrational and there isn't really any way I can overcome that for you. There is no "proof" or reason that I can offer that can overcome the willful denial of proof and reason.

Originally posted by BChristianK You have been unable to show us an example where this is the case, you just state that it is.This is the case in EVERY example. You just don't want to recognize it. There are no examples of any two things that are absolutely identical, and therefor there are no examples of any two things that are absolutely "equal", either. Absoluteness is an ideal that we can't verify through reality.

Originally posted by BChristianK We are all looking for one example from you that shows that 2 integer something’s plus two of the same somethings, with no intervening multipliers equals something other than four something’s.No two pennies are exacly alike, and are therefor not exacly equal. We simply accept them as equal within a the parameters of variability that we apply to pennies. The pennies are only equal relative to the parameters of variability that we apply to them. They are not absolutely equal, they are only relatively equal. And this is true of any other two objects you care to name.

Originally posted by BChristianK I’ve got a world of evidence to show that they do so just one example from you would be nice in lieu of your blanket assertions to the contrary.You don't have any evidence at all of any two things being absolutely equal. The only place absolute equality exists that you can know of, is in your mind.

Originally posted by BChristianK I think I’ve made a pretty honest effort to make sure I am debating the true substance of what you say as apposed to a straw man or a red herring. You aren't debating the substance of what I'm saying, you're just presenting distractions, mostly.

Originally posted by BChristianK Well if we don’t define radicalism by the extremity of action taken then I don’t know how to define it.But I wasn't discussing radicalism, I was discussing fundamentalism. And I was not basing my definition of fundamentalism on behavior, I was basing it on the attitude of the fundamentalist toward doctrine rather than the substance of the doctrines they hold. Not all fundamentalists are radicals, and not all are violent. But by my definition of fundamentalism, they all have an obsession with the idea of their own righteousness that can easily become radically extreme and/or violent.

Originally posted by BChristianK You are claiming that the only thing that separates us from the extremists who are willing to strap bombs to their chests and blow up pizza parlors is the degree to which we are willing to defend what we believe to be true. You claim we both actually think we are correct in our worldview but we aren’t willing to kill anyone to advance it, is that what you are saying?There is a difference between believing that we are right about something, and believing that we are absolutely right about something. The difference is that in the first case we understand that there is always the possibility that even though we think we are right, that we are actually wrong. But in the second case we are denying ANY possibility that we can be wrong. And this is the attitude I define as "fundamentalism". It's this attitude that is unable to govern itself or the extremism of it's reactions because it can't perceive itself as ever being wrong about anything. The reason fundamentalism tends to degererate into violence and destruction if left unchecked is that it's not capable of checking itself. If I believe that I'm ALWAYS right, then I can do anything and still perceive myself as being right. This is the danger of fundamentalism.

Originally posted by BChristianK Are you telling me that you differ from them in that you really don’t believe the words that come out of your mouth? Are you saying that the difference between them and you is that they believe what they say but you don’t really believe what you say?The difference is that I understand that I can be wrong even when I think I'm right. This is exactly the characteristic that fundamentalists lack. If you lack this ability, you are a fundamentalist, if you possess this ability, you are not a fundamentalist. That is what I am saying.

CRC_FChristian
April 30th, 2004, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by PureX

It is self-evident that no two things are absolutely identical. And as they are not absolutely identical, they can't be absolutely equal, either. They can only be deemed equal relative to the tolerance of variation that we are applying to each instance. If you refuse to accept this then you are being willfully irrational and there isn't really any way I can overcome that for you. There is no "proof" or reason that I can offer that can overcome the willful denial of proof and reason.
This is the case in EVERY example. You just don't want to recognize it. There are no examples of any two things that are absolutely identical, and therefor there are no examples of any two things that are absolutely "equal", either. Absoluteness is an ideal that we can't verify through reality.
No two pennies are exacly alike, and are therefor not exacly equal. We simply accept them as equal within a the parameters of variability that we apply to pennies. The pennies are only equal relative to the parameters of variability that we apply to them. They are not absolutely equal, they are only relatively equal. And this is true of any other two objects you care to name.
You don't have any evidence at all of any two things being absolutely equal. The only place absolute equality exists that you can know of, is in your mind.
You aren't debating the substance of what I'm saying, you're just presenting distractions, mostly.
But I wasn't discussing radicalism, I was discussing fundamentalism. And I was not basing my definition of fundamentalism on behavior, I was basing it on the attitude of the fundamentalist toward doctrine rather than the substance of the doctrines they hold. Not all fundamentalists are radicals, and not all are violent. But by my definition of fundamentalism, they all have an obsession with the idea of their own righteousness that can easily become radically extreme and/or violent.
There is a difference between believing that we are right about something, and believing that we are absolutely right about something. The difference is that in the first case we understand that there is always the possibility that even though we think we are right, that we are actually wrong. But in the second case we are denying ANY possibility that we can be wrong. And this is the attitude I define as "fundamentalism". It's this attitude that is unable to govern itself or the extremism of it's reactions because it can't perceive itself as ever being wrong about anything. The reason fundamentalism tends to degererate into violence and destruction if left unchecked is that it's not capable of checking itself. If I believe that I'm ALWAYS right, then I can do anything and still perceive myself as being right. This is the danger of fundamentalism.
The difference is that I understand that I can be wrong even when I think I'm right. This is exactly the characteristic that fundamentalists lack. If you lack this ability, you are a fundamentalist, if you possess this ability, you are not a fundamentalist. That is what I am saying.

Its a long stretch to think that any human can be completely right about everything...Only God is completely right about everything...

I certainly dont have a problem admitting when I'm wrong and I've been wrong on numerous occasions...

However, if you are alluding to that fundamentalists cant admit when they are wrong about Gods word...well...this is entirely separate context...

Of course it will be very difficult for you or anyone else who dont believe concept of there are absolutes wont be able to intelligently discuss this subject matter...


I have to agree that during Jesus day number of groups believed that they were absolutely convinced their religious convictions were 100% correct...This same group crucified the only perfect man to ever walk the face of the Earth...Matter of fact they tortured, maimed, killed a number of Christians for their belief system simply because they thought their religion was absolutely the only correct religion...

BTW, concept of ever changing absolutes based upon personal viewpoint, society....is the greatest hypocrisy on face of the earth...

Clete
April 30th, 2004, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by PureX
The difference is that I understand that I can be wrong even when I think I'm right. This is exactly the characteristic that fundamentalists lack. If you lack this ability, you are a fundamentalist, if you possess this ability, you are not a fundamentalist. That is what I am saying.

Would you admit then that this statement could also be wrong, even though you think it's right?

Resting in Him,
Clete

jjjg
April 30th, 2004, 04:02 PM
purex has a hangup with relativism but doesn't understand what relativism defines or has no argument why relativism would somehow limit what we know.

Just because we don't have absolute knowledge doesn't mean what we do know is false. We just have a limited knowledge of truth.:hammer: :dead: :dead: :grave: :grave:

PureX
April 30th, 2004, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by CRC_FChristian Its a long stretch to think that any human can be completely right about everything...Only God is completely right about everything...Fundamentalists don't have to be absolutely right about everything, but they do have to be absolutely right about the essentials of whatever ideology they have adopted. Religious fundamentalists, for example, have to be absolutely right about the nature and existence of God, often including God's will for themselves and everyone else.

Originally posted by CRC_FChristian I certainly dont have a problem admitting when I'm wrong and I've been wrong on numerous occasions...Can you admit that you may be wrong in your belief that God exists, or that Jesus was God, or that the bible is inerrant, or that there is an "afterlife"?

Originally posted by CRC_FChristian However, if you are alluding to that fundamentalists cant admit when they are wrong about Gods word...well...this is entirely separate context...What's seperate about it? It's exactly these ideas that are the MOST unprovable, yet it's these ideas that the fundamentalists believe they know absolutely. And it's this presumption of absolute knowledge of God that they must maintain at any cost.

Originally posted by CRC_FChristian I have to agree that during Jesus day number of groups believed that they were absolutely convinced their religious convictions were 100% correct...This same group crucified the only perfect man to ever walk the face of the Earth...Matter of fact they tortured, maimed, killed a number of Christians for their belief system simply because they thought their religion was absolutely the only correct religion...And they will do so again if given the chance, make no mistake. If Jesus walked the Earth today, it would be the fundamentalists who shout the loudest for his crucifiction. They will be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that he is satan.

PureX
April 30th, 2004, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Would you admit then that this statement could also be wrong, even though you think it's right?

Resting in Him,
Clete Can you admit that God may not exist, or that if God does exist that your conception of God may be completely wrong? Can you admit that your belief in the existence and nature of God is based entirely on faith and personal experiences that could easily be the product of bias, wishful thinking, and self-hypnosis?

Clete
April 30th, 2004, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by PureX

Can you admit that God may not exist, or that if God does exist that your conception of God may be completely wrong? Can you admit that your belief in the existence and nature of God is based entirely on faith and personal experiences that could easily be the product of bias, wishful thinking, and self-hypnosis?

"...easily be the product of bias, wishful thinking, and self-hypnosis"?

No, to admit this would be to abmit that I was completely irrational in which case my admition would itself be irrational and therefore meaningless. In otherwords if you cannot know that you are rational, then to admit that you might not be is meaningless because it would be equally impossible to tell if such an admition was itself irrational, you find yourself in an endless loop of logic that has as it's only escape an acceptance of one's own rationality.

However, I do freely and boldly admit that ALL of my beliefs about not only God but everything else must be falsifiable or they are altogether meaningless. If, for example, you could show that Jesus did in fact die and stay dead, that the resurection is false, then you will have, in one stroke, completely dismantled the entire Christian faith. That's a pretty big 'if' but it is an 'if' all the same and the payoff for having accomplished it is equally as big. And that's only one of dozens of ways in which one could falsify all or part of the Christian world view.

So, I've answered your question, now I insist that you answer mine.

You said...

Originally posted by PureX
The difference is that I understand that I can be wrong even when I think I'm right. This is exactly the characteristic that fundamentalists lack. If you lack this ability, you are a fundamentalist, if you possess this ability, you are not a fundamentalist. That is what I am saying.

Would you admit then that this statement could also be wrong, even though you think it's right?

Resting in Him,
Clete

geralduk
May 1st, 2004, 03:14 AM
Originally posted by jjjg

purex has a hangup with relativism but doesn't understand what relativism defines or has no argument why relativism would somehow limit what we know.

Just because we don't have absolute knowledge doesn't mean what we do know is false. We just have a limited knowledge of truth.:hammer: :dead: :dead: :grave: :grave:


Something to chew on...?


Jesus IS the truth.

For " I am the way the TRUTH and the LIFE"

If then you KNOW Him you know the truth.
and allbeit we may not know all that is as yet HIM.
Nevertheless even as children when BORN know not thier parents in all things.
YET do they know them.
But then PROGRESIVELY come to know as they "folow onto know" and will in time know them even as they are known.

Therefore the TRUTH is NOT CHANGED or is LESS than what it is as it were by mens ignorance of it.
But WE are called to GROW in our knowldge of the truth and be established in it.

and by knowing the truth we recognise error.

PureX
May 1st, 2004, 07:22 AM
Originally posted by jjjg Just because we don't have absolute knowledge doesn't mean what we do know is false. We just have a limited knowledge of truth. But fundamentalists think they DO have absolute knowledge of the truth. I agree with you that what you think you know to be true could certainly well be true. But it could also be untrue without your realizing it because your knowledge of truth is not complete and is therefor not absolute.

But fundamentalists think their knowledge of the truth IS complete and is absolute. therefor, they believe that they cannot possibly be wrong. And it's this inability to doubt themselves that makes them so dangerous, because it renders them capable of all sorts of harm against themselves and others without even any second thoughts - in effect, without conscience.

I brought up those fundamentalists in Texas that went on the witch hunt as an example. It never once occurred to them that they might be wrong in the way they were getting their "evidence" or the people they were accusing of terrible crimes. And even after the state's attourney showed up and exposed their little witch hunt for what it was, none of them showed any remorse at all, or even appologized. They were absolutely certain that they were right. They had no doubts, and therefor they had no second thoughts at all about what they were doing.

This is how people come to strap on bombs or to hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings. You and I would not do these things because we have the capacity to doubt our own ideas and motives. But fundamentalists have resigned that capacity. They are absolutely right in their own minds, and so they become capable of anything.

PureX
May 1st, 2004, 07:58 AM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

"...easily be the product of bias, wishful thinking, and self-hypnosis"?

No, to admit this would be to abmit that I was completely irrational in which case my admition would itself be irrational and therefore meaningless.How does admitting that you could possibly be wrong about what you believe to be true make you irrational and your life meaningless? I don't understand this thinking at all.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer In otherwords if you cannot know that you are rational, then to admit that you might not be is meaningless because it would be equally impossible to tell if such an admition was itself irrational, you find yourself in an endless loop of logic that has as it's only escape an acceptance of one's own rationality. Welcome to the human condition. See, the thing is that we are not God. We don't get to be right all the time, and we don't get to be certain that we're right even when we think we are, because we're not omniscient. This is why we have to live by faith, and this is why we have to always doubt our own beliefs and motives. Why do you find this so abhorant? Why do you see being a limited and ignorant human being as a "meaningless" existence? Isn't this what God created you to be - at least for the time being?

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer However, I do freely and boldly admit that ALL of my beliefs about not only God but everything else must be falsifiable or they are altogether meaningless. If, for example, you could show that Jesus did in fact die and stay dead, that the resurection is false, then you will have, in one stroke, completely dismantled the entire Christian faith. That's a pretty big 'if' but it is an 'if' all the same and the payoff for having accomplished it is equally as big. And that's only one of dozens of ways in which one could falsify all or part of the Christian world view.You seem to have a very twisted idea of the concept of "falsifiable". If Preston the Prestidigitator does a magic card trick for you, and "reads your mind", do you assume that he really read your mind until someone can prove to you that he did not? I doubt that you will.

Yet the bible tells you that Jesus performed magical feats and you assume that they must be real until someone can prove to you that they are not. Why this inconsistancy in your skepticism? Could it be that you WANT to believe in Jesus' feats of magic, but you don't want to believe in Preston's feats of magic, so you've simply accepted one and denied the other out of pure selfish bias?

And now that you have accepted Jesus' feats of magic as real, what evidence would you require as the "falsification" of your beliefs? Is such evidence even physically or humanly obtainable? And if it's not (and I suspect it is not), aren't you really just 'stacking the deck' against falsification so that it can't possibly occur? And isn't that just more selfish bias? So how honest are you really being with us and with yourself when you claim that your mind is open to the possibility that you might be wrong regarding the nature and existence of God?

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer So, I've answered your question, now I insist that you answer mine.As a limited and finite human being, I could be wrong about anything. This is why I have to have faith that even though I can never be certain about what's right or true, that God does exist and that it's God's nature to see me through this 'darkness'. I don't "know" this to be so, I just hope that it's so and then try to live by that hope.

Faith isn't pretending that we know all about God. Faith is understanding that we DON'T know, but trusting in God's love, anyway.

Fundamentalism is built on self-centered fear, ego, and lies about the nature of the human condition. And it's this dishonesty that makes fundamentalists so aggressive and antagonistic. In order to maintain these lies the fundamentalists have to fight against everything and everyone one that exemplifies reality and truth. Fundamentalists are addicted to the delusion that they can (like God) be absolutely right.

But they can't. They're not. And they are toxic to the rest of us as long as they keep tryng to maintain these lies.

smaller
May 1st, 2004, 10:03 AM
As a limited and finite human being, I could be wrong about anything. This is why I have to have faith that even though I can never be certain about what's right or true, that God does exist and that it's God's nature to see me through this 'darkness'. I don't "know" this to be so, I just hope that it's so and then try to live by that hope.

Faith isn't pretending that we know all about God. Faith is understanding that we DON'T know, but trusting in God's love, anyway.

That is about as fine a description of faith from anyone that I have seen at TOL

From a non fundie no less

Clete
May 1st, 2004, 10:23 AM
smaller,

You are stupid and a waste of time. If you think that what PureX is talking about has anything to do with genuine faith you are also not a Christian, fundamentalist or otherwise. I really wish you would just go away. In fact, as for you me, you just did go away. You just made my ignore list, I've wasted entirely too much time reading your stupid drivel already.

Clete

Clete
May 1st, 2004, 10:30 AM
PureX,

Since you aren't even sure yourself that what you say is true, then why should I give a rats backside about anythying you have to say?

Please don't respond until you know for sure that you're giving me an acurate answer to my question.

Resting in Him,
Clete

smaller
May 1st, 2004, 10:33 AM
Clete, I would take Purex's statement over your nonsense any day. You have yet to make any type of reasonable response to any of our exchanges anyway.

So I am on your IGNORE list and you have always been on my IGNORant list. So what? You are a mealy mouthed puppet of some psuedo religious damnation camp. bravo.

PureX
May 1st, 2004, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

PureX,

Since you aren't even sure yourself that what you say is true, then why should I give a rats backside about anythying you have to say?

Please don't respond until you know for sure that you're giving me an acurate answer to my question.

Resting in Him,
Clete You weren't going to "give a rat's backside" about anything I said, anyway, because you're so certain that you're absolutely right, already.

Apollo
May 1st, 2004, 01:12 PM
Never been big on math, but this much I know: When you add one Christian fundamentalist with ZERO sense to another Christian fundamentalist with ZERO sense, it adds up to NON-sense.

You da man, PureX.

Clete
May 1st, 2004, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by PureX

You weren't going to "give a rat's backside" about anything I said, anyway, because you're so certain that you're absolutely right, already.

How do you know this to be true, or do you?

Cyrus of Persia
May 1st, 2004, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

How do you know this to be true, or do you?

Clete, your posts give the best answer to it.

BChristianK
May 1st, 2004, 05:51 PM
PureX said:





It is self-evident that no two things are absolutely identical. And as they are not absolutely identical, they can't be absolutely equal, either. They can only be deemed equal relative to the tolerance of variation that we are applying to each instance. If you refuse to accept this then you are being willfully irrational and there isn't really any way I can overcome that for you. There is no "proof" or reason that I can offer that can overcome the willful denial of proof and reason.


Here is the beginning of an invalid conclusion. You’ll attempt to argue from this that because no two things can be absolutely equal in every way, then no two things added together can be absolutely 2. The problem with this is that your premises don’t hold up categorically.


You can have a penny, lets say it weighs about 2.4 grams (round figure) and then take another penny, and for some reason this one is a bit odd, it isn’t perfectly round and it has tarnished, it weighs about 2.2 grams (for some reason, tarnished pennies weigh less, who knew?). You put them on the scale and they weigh 4.6 grams together. You do the same experiment with two other pennies and you get 4.75 grams. Can you conclude that not all pennies are equal then?
Nope. You must qualify your statement. You can claim that they are unequal in regard to weight. You can’t claim that they are unequal in regard to monetary value. Nor can you claim that they are not equally identifiable and individual units of the category entitled penny.


PureX, you and I both know that if you take the first two pennies and add them together, ya still get two cents. You can get two penny candies and you still need 98 pennies, regardless of the weight, to make a dollar.

So when you say that no two pennies are alike in every way, I say, “So what?”

The fact that they aren’t the same in every way doesn’t even come close to proving that they don’t equal two pennies.


Now you say:




This is the case in EVERY example.

Well in your first example it didn’t make any difference so my answer is still, “so what?”




You just don't want to recognize it. There are no examples of any two things that are absolutely identical, and therefore there are no examples of any two things that are absolutely "equal", either.


Sure they are, you take a penny that weighs 2.4 grams and you can exchange it at the bank for a penny that weighs 2.432 grams at the bank, they might look at you funny for wasting their time but they are still monetarily equal. They are also equal in unit value. Both are still one penny when evaluated alone. You add them together, you get two.



Absoluteness is an ideal that we can't verify through reality.
Wrong. One penny plus another penny is two pennies absolutely. One cent plus another cent is two cents, absolutely.


No two pennies are exactly alike, and are therefore not exactly equal.


Equal in what, weight? Therefore not equal in value? Wrong.

Absolute equalities do exist, your red hearing here is failing miserably.



We simply accept them as equal within the parameters of variability that we apply to pennies. The pennies are only equal relative to the parameters of variability that we apply to them. They are not absolutely equal, they are only relatively equal. And this is true of any other two objects you care to name.


We accept them as equal because they are equal, they are equal because we accept them as equal. Who cares whether the chicken or the egg comes first in regards to the penny? The fact that there are peripheral differences in the objects doesn’t negate our ability to see them in isolation (as a single penny) and then notice the demonstrated accuracy of a mathematical equation when they are combined numerically becoming two pennies.


You don't have any evidence at all of any two things being absolutely equal.


In what? Absolutely equal in what, PureX? I have an example of two pennies being absolutely equal in two examples.
1. They are absolutely equal in monetary value.
2. They are both easily recognized as being equal in their singleness. (In otherwords when don’t say that one penny is more of a penny because it weighs more, it is still one penny.)
If you don’t believe me, then prove your argument correct? Show us! Show me that somehow, that because all pennies don’t weigh the same, that some pennies are less than one unit in a category of pennies and some are more, and then tell us which are more and which are less.

Or even better. What is the monetary value of these two pennies if not 2 cents? Show us how the pennies' relative weights affects the absolute outcome in a measurable way concerning the monetary value of the penny.




The only place absolute equality exists that you can know of, is in your mind.

Well now this is a crazy argument, the only way that relative inequality can exist as a concept is in your mind as well. So what? Pennies don’t compare the weight of themselves…. It take a mind to call them equal or unequal, so your argument here fails the uniqueness test.


You aren't debating the substance of what I'm saying, you're just presenting distractions, mostly.

I’m always open for you to straighten me out if you think I have misrepresented your argument.

But please note that my disagreeing with you is not the same thing as misrepresenting you..
Now I said:

:
Originally posted by BChristianK Well if we don’t define radicalism by the extremity of action taken then I don’t know how to define it.
You replied:


But I wasn't discussing radicalism, I was discussing fundamentalism. And I was not basing my definition of fundamentalism on behavior, I was basing it on the attitude of the fundamentalist toward doctrine rather than the substance of the doctrines they hold.
And that behavior is what? Fundamentalists are convinced of what they believe and therefore live by those convictions? This being contrasted with non-fundamentalists who apparently aren’t really convinced of the substance of the doctrines they hold but live their lives by those convictions anyway?





Not all fundamentalists are radicals, and not all are violent. But by my definition of fundamentalism, they all have an obsession with the idea of their own righteousness that can easily become radically extreme and/or violent.


And how do you know that they are obsessed with the idea of their own righteousness?
And furthermore, if you would please, explain to me the difference between holding a conviction and being obsessed with their own rightousness.

Maybe you come close in the next statement…


There is a difference between believing that we are right about something, and believing that we are absolutely right about something. The difference is that in the first case we understand that there is always the possibility that even though we think we are right, that we are actually wrong.


Ok, I am assuming you then would have some form of differentiation.

So lets take your theory about no two things being equal…

An ignorant statement would be one in which the chance you were wrong outweighs the possibility that you are right.
A risky statement would be one in which the chance you are wrong and the possibility you are right are roughly equal.
A confident statement is one in which the chance you are right is greater than the possibility that you are wrong.

Which one of these is your theory about no two things being absolutely equal? Lets subject that claim to some metrics.

Is this a confident statement, a risky one or an ignorant one?


And, substantiate how we know that it is confident, risky or ignorant.

And by the way, you can’t use the argument that your claim is “self-evident” because if it were self evident then the proof would overshadow any possibility of it being wrong and then it would be absolute. Remember if you believe an absolute statement, you are a fundamentalist, and that would make your argument hypocritical.

Now since you started you post off with……


It is self-evident that no two things are absolutely identical.
You have some serious backtracking to do….

I’ll continue on another post

BChristianK
May 1st, 2004, 06:04 PM
Continued From above




Now you say:



The difference is that I understand that I can be wrong even when I think I'm right. This is exactly the characteristic that fundamentalists lack. If you lack this ability, you are a fundamentalist, if you possess this ability, you are not a fundamentalist. That is what I am saying.
What ability, the ability to understand that we could be wrong concerning what?

In answering another post you said:


Fundamentalists don't have to be absolutely right about everything, but they do have to be absolutely right about the essentials of whatever ideology they have adopted. Religious fundamentalists, for example, have to be absolutely right about the nature and existence of God, often including God's will for themselves and everyone else.

Clete answered you quite adeptly saying:


However, I do freely and boldly admit that ALL of my beliefs about not only God but everything else must be falsifiable or they are altogether meaningless. If, for example, you could show that Jesus did in fact die and stay dead, that the resurrection is false, then you will have, in one stroke, completely dismantled the entire Christian faith. That's a pretty big 'if' but it is an 'if' all the same and the payoff for having accomplished it is equally as big. And that's only one of dozens of ways in which one could falsify all or part of the Christian world view.

You answered by saying:


You seem to have a very twisted idea of the concept of "falsifiable". If Preston the Prestidigitator does a magic card trick for you, and "reads your mind", do you assume that he really read your mind until someone can prove to you that he did not? I doubt that you will.

No, he probably wouldn’t for good reason. The question is, is there any evidence that would convince Clete to accept Preston’s ability to read his mind? If he answers no, then his belief isn’t falsifiable, if he answers yes, then it is.
You continue:



Yet the bible tells you that Jesus performed magical feats and you assume that they must be real until someone can prove to you that they are not. Why this inconsistency in your skepticism?
No, he is simply stating that his belief is falsifiable, that it is not absolute, no matter what. If anyone can provide sufficient evidence that the claims of Christianity are false, then, per Cletes admission, he will stop believing it. Let’s review PureX since you seem to be wandering a bit.

Your claim is that fundamentalists are dangerous because they can’t admit that they could be wrong under any circumstances. Clete has refuted your argument by describing circumstances in which he would admit that he was wrong.
Your whining about how you perceive those circumstances to be unfair are peripheral to the fact that, unfair or not, they are still circumstances in which the fundamentalist would admit that they are incorrect. So even if the circumstances aren’t a fair evaluation, and I am about to argue that they are, you are still off base in your diagnostics of fundamentalism, for even an unfair exception is still an exception.

However, Cletes provisio isn’t that unfair anyway. The bible provides 4 independent accounts from authors who were willing to put their lives on the line to publish documents that could get them crucified and they all substantiating the reality of the resurrection. You have no contemporary documentation saying, “Ha!, you Christians are crazy, we’ve got Jesus’s decaying body right here!” In fact, you have Jewish authorities making fabricated arguments that the disciples stole the body. Now that makes a lot of sense :rolleyes: , the disciples, stole the body, fabricated a story about his resurrection, and then went to their deaths defending a lie that they knew wasn’t true because they invented it. And not one of the 10 of them that were martyred cracked and said, Yeah, we were just kiddin’” The alternative explanation to the accuracy of these accounts is proposterous!

So you have the substantiation of credibility for each of the authors and cross referenced accuracy of the events by all the sources of the gospels, coupled with a noticeable absence of any contradictory evidence. The case is pretty tight.

Thus, Clete, based on that evidence, concludes that the example of Preston and the example of Jesus are as equal as comparing the battle of Gettysburg to the battle of the network stars. The metrics of his falsifiability are right on.





Could it be that you WANT to believe in Jesus' feats of magic, but you don't want to believe in Preston's feats of magic, so you've simply accepted one and denied the other out of pure selfish bias?

Could it be that you WANT to believe in your theory about fundamentalists but you DON”T WANT to believe that you are wrong?
Probably.
Should we therefore ignore the evidence just because you want to be right?
That would be crazy.

Lets say that Clete does want to believe the bible is true, does that make it any less true, does that somehow make the evidence any less compelling?

No.




And now that you have accepted Jesus' feats of magic as real, what evidence would you require as the "falsification" of your beliefs?

I thought he was pretty clear here.




Is such evidence even physically or humanly obtainable?

Yes, documentary evidence that Jesus didn’t rise.



And if it's not (and I suspect it is not), aren't you really just 'stacking the deck' against falsification so that it can't possibly occur?
It would have been simple to provide falsifiable evidence denying the resurrection, just open the tomb and show us a dead Jesus. The reason the gospels were written was because the resurrection wasn’t falsified. Furthermore, if you want to make Clete and the rest of us prove that our theories are contemporarily falsifiable, then produce for us a reliable manuscript that contradicts the conclusions the four gospel writers made about the resurrection.



And isn't that just more selfish bias?

Nope. I don’t know about Clete, but I converted from Atheism. I didn’t exactly want to give up the kind of lifestyle I was living.




So how honest are you really being with us and with yourself when you claim that your mind is open to the possibility that you might be wrong regarding the nature and existence of God?


Pretty darn honest

How honest are you being with yourself and others when you make your hasty generalizations about fundamentalism?

Grace and Peace

Duder
May 1st, 2004, 06:19 PM
BCK -

Perhaps PureX's point is related to the idea that all "things" are arbitrary. The very concept of "thing-ness" is slippery. Let me explain.

I take all the change out of my pocket, and I can easily seperate the pennies from the other coins. That is because pennies have a similar shape, and there are similar patterns stamped on them.

Now I take two pennies and examine them under a magnifying glass. I can see differences between the two pennies - little irregularities between the two coins. But I say they are both pennies because without the glass they look the same.

I take one of the pennies and bang on it with a hammer for a minute. Then I place it beside the other penny and compare them again. The differences are greater, but the banged-up penny is still a penny. I can still read the writing, and make out the shapes that make it look more or less like the nice, mint penny.

So next I take the banged-up penny and let a train run over it, and then again compare it to the mint penny. Do I still have two pennes? Hard to tell at this point. I can kind of make out Lincoln's head, but the whole shape is wildly different now, and I would probably have difficulty spending this object as a penny.

So now I subject the squashed penny to the heat of a torch and I melt in into a indiscriminate mass. When I again set it next to the mint penny for comparison, do I still have two pennes? At this point I'm inclined to say no, I do not have two pennies. The differences between these two objects are too great.

Where did I cross the line and destroy the penny's penniness? I slowly increased the differences between the pennies, and at some point I arbitrarily decided that this object was no longer the same kind of object. Exacly when I crossed that line is a matter of debate - not all will agree.

So I guess PureX is saying that what makes a thing this kind of thing instead of that kind of thing is a matter of choice - and not really an essence in the object.

BChristianK
May 1st, 2004, 06:32 PM
Duder said:


Where did I cross the line and destroy the penny's penniness?
Good question, and a well thought out point. I don’t have the slightest clue when it stopped being a penny.

But how does that affect the concept that 1 penny plus another one equals 2 pennies.

Lets say I took the cooled mass of copper along with 99 pennies into a bank. I might have a problem getting the cashier to exchange them for a dollar because of the melted penny.

So what is the nature of my dispute with the cashier? That 100 pennies equal a dollar?

No, that absolute principle is still agreed upon, what we disagree on is whether the melted thing is a penny.

You said:


So I guess PureX is saying that what makes a thing this kind of thing instead of that kind of thing is a matter of choice - and not really an essence in the object.


Which may or may night affect the nature of an absolute statement. In the case of the monetary value of a penny, it does not.

Grace and Peace

temple2006
May 1st, 2004, 07:38 PM
You people (the fundamentalists) cannot understand that for human beings everything is faith , not absolute knowledge. The only thing that we know is that we do not know, therefore we must believe.

PureX
May 1st, 2004, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by BChristianK Here is the beginning of an invalid conclusion. You’ll attempt to argue from this that because no two things can be absolutely equal in every way, then no two things added together can be absolutely 2.*sigh* First of all, "two" is a concept, not an object. Things are things and conceptions about things are conceptions about things. The things never become our concept of them; they remain what they are.

Absolute equality is a concept that we can imagine in our minds but that doesn't really exist materially. We can apply this concept to things, but only by ignoring the aspects of those things that fall outside the perameters of the concept. We imagine that two pennies are "equal" but we are ignoring the fact they they are not exactly the same, and so are not really equal in many ways. We say they are equal but their equality only holds true if we ignore the ways in which they are not equal. What this means that they are really only relatively equal. They are equal only relative to our excusing the ways in which they are not the same.

Originally posted by BChristianK You can have a penny, lets say it weighs about 2.4 grams (round figure) and then take another penny, and for some reason this one is a bit odd, it isn’t perfectly round and it has tarnished, it weighs about 2.2 grams (for some reason, tarnished pennies weigh less, who knew?). You put them on the scale and they weigh 4.6 grams together. You do the same experiment with two other pennies and you get 4.75 grams. Can you conclude that not all pennies are equal then? It doesn't matter what the pennies weigh, or what their weights add up to. Even if their combined weights are the same, they will still be different in other ways from any other two pennies. And anyway, if we calebrate our scale progressively closer, at some point the pennies won't weight the exact same anymore. Even their "equal weight" is only equal relative to the degree of calibration involved.

Originally posted by BChristianK Nope. You must qualify your statement. You can claim that they are unequal in regard to weight. You can’t claim that they are unequal in regard to monetary value.Exactly, so their equality only holds true relative to the scale of monetary values we are applying to them. And relative equality can't by definition be absolute equality. This is what I've been trying to get you to understand all along. Absolute equality only exists as an ideal in your mind. In the real material world, the application of the conception of equality will only function relatively - that is relative to a scale of values that ignores the ways in which all things vary.

Originally posted by BChristianK Nor can you claim that they are not equally identifiable and individual units of the category entitled penny.Here, you are confusing the concept of the objects with the objects themselves. Pennies are not ideas, and ideas are not pennies.

Originally posted by BChristianK PureX, you and I both know that if you take the first two pennies and add them together, ya still get two cents. You can get two penny candies and you still need 98 pennies, regardless of the weight, to make a dollar.Yes, this is a relative truism. That is it remains true relative to the scale of truthfulness being applied. But if we refined the scale, this will no longer be true. Thus it is a relative truth.

Originally posted by BChristianK So when you say that no two pennies are alike in every way, I say, “So what?”. The fact that they aren’t the same in every way doesn’t even come close to proving that they don’t equal two pennies.Again, you're forgetting that pennies are objects, and that equality is an idea. Just because you ignore this distinction does not make the distinction irrelevant, and it certainly doesn't negate it. The fact is that no two pennies are exactly alike, and therefor they can't be absolutely equal. Just because we often ignore this fact doesn't make it not be a fact anymore. And if this fact wasn't important, why are you devoting so much energy to these long posts desperately trying to negate it?

Originally posted by BChristianK I have an example of two pennies being absolutely equal in two examples.
1. They are absolutely equal in monetary value.
2. They are both easily recognized as being equal in their singleness. (In otherwords when don’t say that one penny is more of a penny because it weighs more, it is still one penny.)
If you don’t believe me, then prove your argument correct? Show us! Show me that somehow, that because all pennies don’t weigh the same, that some pennies are less than one unit in a category of pennies and some are more, and then tell us which are more and which are less.Your idea of a penny is such that one penny "equals" any other. But the reality of the pennies is that they are not the same at all. They actually differ in many ways and by many degrees. Now you're trying to claim that because the reality of their variation doesn't effect the functionality of your idea, that your idea is somehow "absolute". Apparently you don't understand the meaning of the word "absolute".

The definition of "absolute" means that it's not dependant upon or relative to anything else. But the equality of pennies IS dependant upon our ignoring all the ways in which pennies are not alike. Pennies are only relatively equal in size, weight, shape, material content, color, surface design, etc. In reality all these characteristics of pennies are different. We have to ignore all these differences to call these pennies equal, and therefor their "equality" is dependant upon our doing so. Thus, they can't by the definition of the word "absolute" be absolutely equal.

Originally posted by BChristianK Or even better. What is the monetary value of these two pennies if not 2 cents? Show us how the pennies' relative weights affects the absolute outcome in a measurable way concerning the monetary value of the penny.Just because we all agree to ignore the difference between pennies, and to consider them equal in value does not make them "absolutely equal". It only makes them equal relative to our aggreeing to ignore how they are not the same.

Most of your argument/confusion seems to come from the fact that you are having difficulty understanding the difference between the objects we call "penies" and your ideas about pennies. In your mind they are equal so you keep insisting that they are equal in reality, too.

But they aren't.

temple2006
May 1st, 2004, 08:15 PM
Apparently everyone has me on their ignore list, but I just have to comment on the stupidity of the things you people argue about. These things are self-evident to the thinking man.

Turbo
May 1st, 2004, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by temple 2000

Apparently everyone has me on their ignore list, but I just have to comment on the stupidity of the things you people argue about. These things are self-evident to the thinking man. And by "you people" are you again referring to Christian fundamentalists?

temple2006
May 1st, 2004, 08:36 PM
I am referring to the people who cannot comprehend the difference between object and concept.

Apollo
May 1st, 2004, 09:06 PM
If, for example, you could show that Jesus did in fact die and stay dead, that the resurrection is false, then you will have, in one stroke, completely dismantled the entire Christian faith.

It’s not necessary to prove that a particular man called Jesus rose or didn’t rise from the dead.

What can be proven is that numerous resurrected savior-god myths existed in first century Palestine in the days of Jesus, in some cases predating Christianity by a thousand years.

It can also be proven that the mythical god of the Roman mystery cult of Mithra became a man, died, and rose again on the third day. It can also be proven that, according to myth, Mithra ascended into heaven having promised to return to defeat the enemies of his followers.

It can also be proven that Mithra was worshipped every Sunday in a eucharist of bread and wine. It can also be proven that his followers were commanded to symbolically eat his flesh and drink his blood.

It can also be proven that Mithra’s birthday was celebrated on December 25th. And it can also be proven that the Vatican is built on the remains of a Mithrite temple.

It can therefore be proven that there is nothing “unique” about Christianity’s truth claims, including its ludicrous claim to be speaking for God. If a mental patient claimed to be speaking for God, no one would believe him. A fundamentalist Christian says the same thing, and we’re supposed to take him seriously. Go figure.

Then there’s the always sticky problem of Christian history. For an organization whose sole mission on earth is to spread the gospel of peace and reconciliation, 200 centuries of religious intolerance, war, and human rights violations IS evidence. Of Christianity’s failure.

By their fruit we do know them.

PureX
May 1st, 2004, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by BChristianK The question is, is there any evidence that would convince Clete to accept Preston’s ability to read his mind? If he answers no, then his belief isn’t falsifiable, if he answers yes, then it is.
You continue:
No, he is simply stating that his belief is falsifiable, that it is not absolute, no matter what. If anyone can provide sufficient evidence that the claims of Christianity are false, then, per Cletes admission, he will stop believing it. Let’s review PureX since you seem to be wandering a bit.Saying it isn't doing it. Clete can claim that his beliefs are falsifiable, yet it doesn't appear that they are. Just the fact that he accepts claims of feats of magic for his chosen ideology, unproven, but routinely denies them for all others, also without proof, tells me that he is willfully biased. So even though he says that he will accept falsification, there is no practical examples to suggest that this is true. While there is practical evidence to suggest that it's not.

Originally posted by BChristianK Your claim is that fundamentalists are dangerous because they can’t admit that they could be wrong under any circumstances.No, that's not what I claimed. You're constantly trying to throw absolutism into everything I say so that you can run back to that very tired old hobbyhorse of the self-contradictory absolute.

I claimed that fundamentalists are dangerous because they can't conceive of themselves as being wrong. They have no mechanism for doubting their own ideas and actions because they believe in "absolute truth", and that they possess that truth.

Originally posted by BChristianK Clete has refuted your argument by describing circumstances in which he would admit that he was wrong. Claiming that there are such circumstances does not make the claim true. And I don't believe his claim because I'm not seeing any evidence that would suggest that it's true.

Originally posted by BChristianK Your whining about how you perceive those circumstances to be unfair are peripheral to the fact that, unfair or not, they are still circumstances in which the fundamentalist would admit that they are incorrect. So even if the circumstances aren’t a fair evaluation, and I am about to argue that they are, you are still off base in your diagnostics of fundamentalism, for even an unfair exception is still an exception.These fantasies about how open-minded fundamentalists are are just that - fantasies. They prove nothing. And the evidence of their behavior bears that out.

Originally posted by BChristianK The bible provides 4 independent accounts from authors who were willing to put their lives on the line to publish documents that could get them crucified and they all substantiating the reality of the resurrection.....Other religions have similar stories, yet you refuse to believe them before you've even heard them. Our magician Preston could get people to write about how his magic is real, too, so will you have to believe these claims then?

No, you're already so thoroughly convinced that your concept of God and Jesus is true, and that ANY other concept of God and Jesus is false that no amount of evidence or argument will ever change your mind, and you know it. You're just lying when you claim that you're really open-minded, and that you would accept anything as viable falsification of your own beliefs. The proof is in your own posts.

BChristianK
May 1st, 2004, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by temple 2000

I am referring to the people who cannot comprehend the difference between object and concept.

Maybe you are on thier ignore list because you make insulting insinuations about who's thinking and who isn't without backing them up...

Just a though..

Grace and Peace

Turbo
May 1st, 2004, 10:14 PM
Doesn't the religion of Mithra prove that Christianity is false? (http://www.carm.org/evidence/mithra.htm)


If the argument that pagan mythologies predated Christian teachings and therefore Christianity borrowed from them is true, then it must also be truth that the pagan religions borrowed from the Jewish religion because it is older than they are! Given that all of the Christian themes are found in the Old Testament and the Old Testament was begun around 2000 B.C. and completed around 400 B.C., we can then conclude that these pagan religions actually borrowed from Jewish ideas found in the Old Testament.

...At best, Mithraism only had some common themes with Christianity (and Judaism) which were recorded in both the Old and New Testaments. What is far more probable is that as Mithraism developed, it started to adopt Christian concepts.

"Allegations of an early Christian dependence on Mithraism have been rejected on many grounds. Mithraism had no concept of the death and resurrection of its god and no place for any concept of rebirth -- at least during its early stages...During the early stages of the cult, the notion of rebirth would have been foreign to its basic outlook...Moreover, Mithraism was basically a military cult. Therefore, one must be skeptical about suggestions that it appealed to nonmilitary people like the early Christians." 1 (http://www.carm.org/evidence/mithra.htm#1)What is more probable is that with the explosive nature of the Christian church in the 1st and 2nd century, other cult groups started to adapt themselves to take advantage of some of the teachings found in Christianity.

"While there are several sources that suggest that Mithraism included a notion of rebirth, they are all post-Christian. The earliest...dates from the end of the second century A.D." 2 (http://www.carm.org/evidence/mithra.htm#2)Therefore, even though there are similarities between Christianity and Mithraism, it is up to the critics to prove that one borrowed from the other. But, considering that the writers of the New Testament was written by Jews who shunned pagan philosophies and that the Old Testament has all of the themes found in Christianity, it is far more probable that if any borrowing was done, it was done by the pagan religions that wanted to emulate the success of Christianity.

BChristianK
May 1st, 2004, 10:34 PM
PureX said:


*sigh* First of all, "two" is a concept, not an object. Things are things and conceptions about things are conceptions about things. The things never become our concept of them; they remain what they are.

*Sighing equally as long, waiting for a point*




Absolute equality is a concept that we can imagine in our minds but that doesn't really exist materially.


Oooops, your own philosophy of the limitations of human knowledge precludes you from making this statement. You’ve not a clue if absolute equality exists materially or not.




We can apply this concept to things, but only by ignoring the aspects of those things that fall outside the perameters of the concept.


Isn’t that what I said? A pennies weight falls outside the parameters of its worth. I didn’t say that things were absolutely equal in every way, I claimed that there are absolute statements that can be verified about the worth of pennies.

You continue:


We imagine that two pennies are "equal" but we are ignoring the fact they they are not exactly the same, and so are not really equal in many ways. We say they are equal but their equality only holds true if we ignore the ways in which they are not equal. What this means that they are really only relatively equal. They are equal only relative to our excusing the ways in which they are not the same.

Who’s arguing against this, I’m not. I have claimed that 2 pennies plus 2 pennies equals an absolute value (4), not that there are no relative elements when comparing pennies.



You said:


It doesn't matter what the pennies weigh, or what their weights add up to. Even if their combined weights are the same, they will still be different in other ways from any other two pennies. And anyway, if we calibrate our scale progressively closer, at some point the pennies won't weight the exact same anymore. Even their "equal weight" is only equal relative to the degree of calibration involved.
And that affects the absolute value of the penny how? It doesn’t, your last paragraph just proves that it doesn’t.

Now, lets take a moment and analyse the impact of what you have just said. You have said that there are elements of pennies that are relative.
Do I, the dreaded fundy disagree with this statement?

No.
I acknowledge it. We also agree that despite the relative elements of comparing pennies, there are some things that remain constant about the statement, “One Penny plus one Penny equal 2 pennies.”
Do any of the relative elements of comparing pennies negate this statement?
No, they do not.
So apparently, we both agree that there are relative elements, and in spite of that fact, there is still absolutism in the statement, a penny plus a penny equals 2 pennies.
For all that you and I have bantered about on this topic you have yet to impact this statement with any degree of doubt.

I think my point is pretty well made at this point.

Now you continue in a last ditch effort







quote:
Originally posted by BChristianK Nope. You must qualify your statement. You can claim that they are unequal in regard to weight. You can’t claim that they are unequal in regard to monetary value.
Exactly, so their equality only holds true relative to the scale of monetary values we are applying to them. And relative equality can't by definition be absolute equality. This is what I've been trying to get you to understand all along. Absolute equality only exists as an ideal in your mind. In the real material world, the application of the conception of equality will only function relatively - that is relative to a scale of values that ignores the ways in which all things vary.


Your tough to pin down on what you mean in using the term relative. If you mean that the statement,

“1p + 1p = 2 cents”

(p=penny)


And you mean that this is always and absolutely true but true only relative to the monetary value of the penny, then I say, I agree.

Does that negate the absoluteness of the equation?

Nope.
Even more, lets look at the unit value of a penny.

1 of p + 1 of P= 2Ps Where P=penny.

Does the monetary value of a penny change this equation? Nope.


Now you say




quote:
Originally posted by BChristianK Nor can you claim that they are not equally identifiable and individual units of the category entitled penny.
Here, you are confusing the concept of the objects with the objects themselves. Pennies are not ideas, and ideas are not pennies.
No. If you want to think of a penny, and then think of another one, and think of them sitting in a little dish near your computer, and then look (with your minds eye of course) into the dish and count the imaginary pennies, how many do you have?

I tried this one on a 4th grader just to see if it wasn’t just me, she said two also.

Now, take two pennies, but don’t call them pennies, lets call them Lincoln heads. Put them on the desk and count them, how many do you have?
Same thing, same 4th grader, just to see if it was just me, 2 again.

So, your argument that the concept and the objects aren’t the same make no difference if P= the idea of a penny or if P=a copper thing renamed a Lincoln head.


Now finally you come to some sense:


Yes, this is a relative truism.

If what you mean that 2 pennies equal 2 cents, and that this is absolutely true relative to the monetary value of a penny, then congratulations, you have just found your first absolute principle. Here’s a second. No matter what the monetary value of a penny is, if you take one, and get another, and put them in the same pile and count them, you get two.





That is it remains true relative to the scale of truthfulness being applied. But if we refined the scale, this will no longer be true. Thus it is a relative truth.

Ahhh, you were so close to. If we refined the scale, and said that their monetary value was worth 5 cents instead of one, then we haven’t destroyed the absolute relationship we have only modified it. Now the absolute value of 2 pennies is 10 cents.

Again, notice, that didn’t destroy the principle of 1 penny plus one penny equals 2 pennies. There are still only two things called pennies. This statement is untouched.
Now you say:


Again, you're forgetting that pennies are objects, and that equality is an idea.


No, haven’t forgotten.



Just because you ignore this distinction does not make the distinction irrelevant, and it certainly doesn't negate it. The fact is that no two pennies are exactly alike, and therefore they can't be absolutely equal.

Again your refusal to qualify the statement is your mistake. Absolutely equal in what sense?





Just because we often ignore this fact doesn't make it not be a fact anymore. And if this fact wasn't important, why are you devoting so much energy to these long posts desperately trying to negate it?

One, its just good entertainment :D
Second, because you fail to see that because something maintains an absolute elements that doesn’t negate that it has relative attributes and vise versa.








You said:


Your idea of a penny is such that one penny "equals" any other. But the reality of the pennies is that they are not the same at all.

Look, I’m not sure if you are being intentionally confusing here or not. One penny can’t ever equal another penny, as far as I know, in that it is a perfect mimicry in every evaluative dimension that can be measured. For that matter, no two object can be exactly equal because they aren’t the exact same object, the fact that there are two of them means they hold separate ontological identities.
So does that mean they can’t retain any absolute relationships?

I don’t think so. Within the framework of mathematics, 2 pennies that are not exactly identical in every way can still work within a mathematical framework with 2 other pennies to produce the product of 4. And furthermore that equation, when working with pennies, just to be consistent, always and absolutely produces 4.

Now you said:



They actually differ in many ways and by many degrees. Now you're trying to claim that because the reality of their variation doesn't effect the functionality of your idea, that your idea is somehow "absolute". Apparently you don't understand the meaning of the word "absolute".

We’ve argued this before
Remember this discussion?

You sarcastically asked me if I knew what absolute meant,


I replied



Taken from post #141 of Relativism

I think this is the second time you have asked the question, the answer hasn’t changed.



Yes, I know what absolute means. Now lets clarify the sense in which we are using the term. You said in response to jjjg.




If you look up the word "absolute" in the dictionary, you will see that the word defines an idea that specifically stands alone. The essence of the meaning of the word "absolute" is 'not dependant upon any conditions outside of itself'. The word "absolute" specifically means not relative to or dependant upon any external condition. When you claim that "absolute certainty is relative to our reason" you are contradicting your own chosen terms.


First, lets get clear about what the word really means in the broader sense of the term, and the sense in which jjjg, koinonia, and myself are using the term. Webster’s New Dictionary of the American Language defines “Absolute” as:


1. Perfect; complete; whole.
2. not mixed, pure
3. not limited by a constitution
4. positive; definite (an absolute certainty)
5. not doubted; actual; real
6. 6. not dependant on or without reference to anything else; not relative.
7.


I think in the sense that us absolutist folks understand the word, we are appealing to the 4th, 5th and 6th definition. With some exception to the 6th definition. I don’t think that either jjjg or kononia or I would agree that absolute moral principles exist independent of God, or that they are without reference to humans or culture. We do believe that they are actual, real, not doubted, positive and not relative.

If you still take issue with the term we are using, then please give us another one that you would prefer. Then, can we please start discussing substantives not semantics?


I can see you didn’t care to honor my explanation nor my request to stop arguing semantics. Honestly PureX, it just looks like you’re being slippery here.

You can call my definition BVAbsolute for Brian’s version of absoluteness from now on if you like, or you can call it whatever you want..

I have already explained to you more than twice that I, nor do I think any other fundamentalist, uses the term “absolute” to retain the meaning of an isolative property unrelated to anyone, or anything. As it appears you have in post 115 of this thread...


Actually, "fundamentalism" is not the word I would have chosen to define the behavior that I have been describing. It seems that general usage has decided this for me. I personally would have referred to this behavior as "absolutism" rather than fundamentalism.


So if you accuse fundamentalists of believing in absolutes, and then posit your definition of absolute as the basis for your criticism, then buy a HUGE barn because you have just erected the biggest straw man argument in TOL history and you owe all fundamentalists everywhere a HUGE apology for misrepresenting their beliefs and then bashing them.




Furthermore, you either have a very short memory or you just like misrepresenting me. In either case, I think you can start stowing your accusations that I misrepresent your arguments.

Don’t worry there’s more comin’

jjjg
May 1st, 2004, 10:49 PM
Purex, were you once a fundamenatalist?

BChristianK
May 1st, 2004, 11:08 PM
Now I claimed that Clete’s example of the falsifiability of his faith was valid, you complained that….



Saying it isn't doing it.

NO KIDDIN’
:noway:

Of course he hasn’t falsified his claim. He showed that it was falsifiable, if he has to actually argue his argument is false in order to show that it is falsifiable then you are asking him to contradict himself in order to show that his argument is valid.

And, I’m sorry, but that’s just about the worst argument you’ve ever made!




Clete can claim that his beliefs are falsifiable, yet it doesn't appear that they are.


He gave you a way to falsify his argument, I even modified it for ya, you’ve not much room to complain here PureX




Just the fact that he accepts claims of feats of magic for his chosen ideology, unproven, but routinely denies them for all others, also without proof, tells me that he is willfully biased. So even though he says that he will accept falsification, there is no practical examples to suggest that this is true. While there is practical evidence to suggest that it's not.

What’s not practical about historical information denying the resurrection of Jesus? All Clete is asking for is a reliable, historical account that Jesus’ dead body was found decaying in some tomb somewhere….. Nobody’s asking you to produce a 2000 year old corpse, we’ve asked you to substantiate that historically, someone has found a 2000 year old corpse they have identified as Jesus, and do so in a document that meets or exceeds the standards of reliability we have placed on the 4 gospels.

Now responded to my saying




quote:
Originally posted by BChristianK Your claim is that fundamentalists are dangerous because they can’t admit that they could be wrong under any circumstances.
No, that's not what I claimed. You're constantly trying to throw absolutism into everything I say so that you can run back to that very tired old hobbyhorse of the self-contradictory absolute.

Ok, let me be more specific, your claim is that fundamentalists are dangerous because they can’t admit that they could be wrong under any circumstances when it comes to the core doctrines of their religion.

Better?

Now, What I said to follow up this statement which was…




quote:
Originally posted by BChristianK Clete has refuted your argument by describing circumstances in which he would admit that he was wrong.

and


quote:
Originally posted by BChristianK Your whining about how you perceive those circumstances to be unfair are peripheral to the fact that, unfair or not, they are still circumstances in which the fundamentalist would admit that they are incorrect. So even if the circumstances aren’t a fair evaluation, and I am about to argue that they are, you are still off base in your diagnostics of fundamentalism, for even an unfair exception is still an exception.

This shows that, in regards to matters of the core doctrines of his faith (you can’t get much more core in doctrine than the resurrection), Clete, a fundamentalist by his own admission, has described to you circumstances in which he would admit that he was wrong, regarding the core doctrine of his religion no less.

So if your claim is that fundamentalism is bad because it doesn’t allow for any falsifiability then once again you have either lied or are mistaken…

You choose.


Grace and Peace

PureX
May 2nd, 2004, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by jjjg

Purex, were you once a fundamenatalist? No, but I have direct experience with addiction and the way addiction effects us psychologically. Fundamentalism is basically an addiction to the illusion that one can possess the absolute truth. This is why the fundamentalist HAS to maintain their belief in and access to the idea that they are absolutely right by whatever means necessary. Just look at BCKs posts and you can see his bizarre and convoluted mind-set. It will not matter how many times or ways I explain to him that as a fallable and limited human being, his idea of God could be completely wrong and that God may not even exist for all he actually knows. He simply cannot accept the idea of truth being relative and limited. To do so would turn his intellectual heroin into soda pop, and he's not going to give up that heroin, no matter how illogical and irrational trying to hold on to it causes him to become. After all, what's rationality compared to the "high" of knowing that you're absolutely right about God, and truth, and right and wrong, and what's going to happen when we die?

For fundamentalists to accept relativism, they would have to let go of this illusion of being absolutely right, and they will then have to face all of their doubts and fears about themselves, about God, about truth, and about right and wrong, and about death, every day of their lives, just like the rest of us. To a fundamentalist this is unthinkable! It's beyond their comprehension that people could live like this! They would have to live by faith, instead of religious dogmatism, and they don't honestly even know what real faith is. So to them it looks like some sort of oblivion. The whole point of the illusion of absolute righteousness is to avoid falling into such a state. The whole point of their LIVES is to avoid falling into such a state!

Clete's shock and incredulousness at my suggesting that he could be wrong about his concept of God, is real. He really does think that his life would become meaningless if he had to actually live by faith instead of his unquestioned adherance to a religious dogma (which he wrongly thinks IS faith).

All addiction has at it's core a profound lack of faith. And the addiction to religious dogma (and the illusion of it's absolute righteousness) is no different. Fundamentalists substitute the illusion of possessing absolute truth for faith because they have no faith and it's very frightening for a human being to live without faith, because we know so little about the nature of our own existence. To suggest to a fundamentalist that their illusion of absolute truth IS an illusion brings an understandably desperate denial. And this is why we are seeing all this bluster, illogical arguments, red herrings, straw men, accusing the accuser, deflection and substitution, and every other intellectual trick they can think of being brought out every time I suggest that human beings can't honestly be absolutely certain about anything, especially about ideas like God, and righteousness, and divine truth, and an afterlife. Such a suggestion strikes at the heart of the fundamentalist's illusion. It turns their heroin into soda pop, and they can't let that pass. They HAVE to defend their dope.

And it's the same the world over. Islamic fundamentalists have to defend their ideological dope just as stridently as Christian fundamentalists, or political fundamentalists, or any other kind of fundamentalists do. The ideologies change from group to group, but the fact that their ideologies have become their intellectual dope, so that they can avoid having to deal with their profound lack of faith, doesn't change. And it's this addiction to intellectual absolutism that defines the fundamentalist, everywhere. It's not about the ideologies, it's about using the ideologies like a drug. And it's about what the addict is willing to do to himself and others to maintain his "high".

jjjg
May 2nd, 2004, 09:37 AM
Purex, we know truth but in a limited way. Saying that the truth we know could be completely wrong is bogus because through human reason we know it is true and there is nothing else but reason to judge truth by.

You have this deluded concept that there could be something else besides human reason to judge truth by. What? If you can't provide an alternative then it is a bogus comment.

Relativism simply means that our knowledge is built upon relationships. It does not create a basis for doubt.

Christian fundamentalists, although I'm not one, base there beliefs solely upon faith. The Christian believes God revealed himself to us and not that we have learned revelation through natural reason.

PureX
May 2nd, 2004, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by jjjg Purex, we know truth but in a limited way. Saying that the truth we know could be completely wrong is bogus because through human reason we know it is true and there is nothing else but reason to judge truth by. But actual, or real truth is not the product of reason, it's simply "what is". It's reality. I think you're trying, here, to place human reason above reality. I agree with you in that "truth" is a concept, created in the human mind by the way that the human brain works. But when we die, the human brain will remain, while the mind and it's reason (and it's concept of truth) will no longer exist. Reality trumps our idea of reality because our idea of reality is itself a abstracted manifestation of actual reality. "Truth" is only of our idea of what is, and this is why it can be wrong.

Originally posted by jjjg You have this deluded concept that there could be something else besides human reason to judge truth by. What? If you can't provide an alternative then it is a bogus comment. There is, it's called reality. It is "what is". When we deem something to be true, we are in effect judging an idea we have of realty against actual realty to determine it's "relative truthfulness". Reason is not the way we arrive at truth, reason generates an idea of truth, but then we have to test that reason, through experience, against reality itself. Otherwise, our "truth" is just so much intellectual arithmetic. This is why 2 + 2 = 4 absolutely, in BCK's mind, but is only relatively true when BCK applies it to actual reality.

Originally posted by jjjg Relativism simply means that our knowledge is built upon relationships. It does not create a basis for doubt.If our knowledge is based on relationships, so is our "truth". In fact so especially is our concept of truth. We have to relate our ideas of truth to reality, via experience, to establish their truthfulness. And that's obviously a relative process. And guess what - that makes our truth, relative, and therfor not absolute.

Originally posted by jjjg Christian fundamentalists, although I'm not one, base there beliefs solely upon faith. The Christian believes God revealed himself to us and not that we have learned revelation through natural reason. Fundamentalism is the irrational assumption of one's own truthfulness. It's irrational because it is not being tested against reality in any logical or (I would say) honest way.

We humans develop ideas about what is real and true in our minds, but we have to keep testing those ideas against actual reality, through experience, to establish their relative truthfulness. This is the step that fundamentalists ignore. They accept their ideas of what is true regardless of their experience of reality. When living by their pre-conceived ideas of truth produce experiential evidence that does not support their ideas of truth, they do whatever is necessary to eliminate it. When living by their ideas of truth produce experiences that appear to verify their pre-conceived ideas of truth, they accept them categorically, and without any further testing or qualification. They allow their bias to have free reign, and they stifle their doubts as thoroughly as possible.

I don't believe this is "faith" at all. I believe this is fundamentally dishonest, and is based entirely on self-centered fear and egotism.

Faith is accepting that our ideas of truth could always be wrong, and so being willing to trust in the process of vetting our ideas of truth against reality, by experience, and being willing to let go of those ideas that the evidence of experience does not support, and then to correct and test again those ideas of truth that experience does appear to support.

If not this, what do you call "faith"?

temple2006
May 2nd, 2004, 10:39 AM
BK...I was not insinuating anything. I was making a statement of fact and it is backed up by the very thing you people love ...LOGIC.
Grace and peace.

Apollo
May 2nd, 2004, 11:19 AM
Turbo, not the time or place to argue the specifics of Mithraism vs. Christianity, although the scholarship and assumptions of your quote are not quite accurate. Simply wanted to make the point that skeptics don't have to "produce a body" in order to debunk the Resurrection, as the resurrected savior-god theme is not unique to Christianity. Happy to argue the point someplace else. Thanks for the link.

BChristianK
May 2nd, 2004, 11:58 AM
PureX said


No, but I have direct experience with addiction and the way addiction effects us psychologically. Fundamentalism is basically an addiction to the illusion that one can possess the absolute truth. This is why the fundamentalist HAS to maintain their belief in and access to the idea that they are absolutely right by whatever means necessary. Just look at BCKs posts and you can see his bizarre and convoluted mind-set.


Yeah, look at em. He actually believes you can add two pennies together count them and come up with two.

:chuckle:

What a kook that BCK is…..






It will not matter how many times or ways I explain to him that as a fallable and limited human being, his idea of God could be completely wrong and that God may not even exist for all he actually knows.


And no matter how many times I explain to you that despite our fallibility we can still know objective truths.




He simply cannot accept the idea of truth being relative and limited.

Wrong, and I have told you this numerous times, I readily acknowledge the limits of my own ability to know. Are you lying here or have you just misunderstood the umpteen times I have corrected your misrepresentation?





To do so would turn his intellectual heroin into soda pop, and he's not going to give up that heroin, no matter how illogical and irrational trying to hold on to it causes him to become. After all, what's rationality compared to the "high" of knowing that you're absolutely right about God, and truth, and right and wrong, and what's going to happen when we die?

Intellectual heroin? You have quite the imagination my friend. I’m not addicted to being right, I just strive to discover the truth. It is unfortunate you can’t discern the difference. There isn’t anything irrational about examining the facts and then making a decision, placing faith, in the conclusion that follows from a careful examination of those facts.

Your definition of rationality is nihilistic. It refuses to place confidence in any conclusion accept for the hypocritical conclusions you hold to like:
“All fundamentalists are the victims of an addiction to absolutism.”

If its an absolute statement, then your definition about fundamentalists is correct, but you also hold absolute tenants and your accusations are hypocritical.

If this isn’t an absolute statement, and you will say that it isn't, then not all fundamentalists are victims of an addiction to absolutism. Your definition of fundamentalism is fatally flawed and your argument is a lie.

Are you intentionally lying to folks here or is this just an oversight, an unoticed inconsistency…?
I’ve been pointing this out to you for some time and my confidence in allowing you the benefit of the doubt is waning.

Grace and Peace

BChristianK
May 2nd, 2004, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by smaller

Clete, I would take Purex's statement over your nonsense any day. You have yet to make any type of reasonable response to any of our exchanges anyway.

So I am on your IGNORE list and you have always been on my IGNORant list.
Smaller, not ignoring Clete, answered....

:chuckle:

smaller
May 2nd, 2004, 12:35 PM
WE have had our little dance on the subject of the logic of your own positions BcK and they are far from sound eh?

BChristianK
May 2nd, 2004, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by temple 2000

BK...I was not insinuating anything. I was making a statement of fact and it is backed up by the very thing you people love ...LOGIC.
Grace and peace.

Which statement of fact is that? You've got 4 posts on this thread.
Most of them are hit and run posts. You assert and then run.



You people (the fundamentalists) cannot understand that for human beings everything is faith , not absolute knowledge. The only thing that we know is that we do not know, therefore we must believe.

Actually we people (the fundamentalists) understand that some things are a matter of faith and some are not and that faith and fact are not diametric opposites. And if the only thing we know is that we don't know, they we don't really know if we don't know..

So though that statement is pithy, its not really all that helpful.



Apparently everyone has me on their ignore list, but I just have to comment on the stupidity of the things you people argue about. These things are self-evident to the thinking man.

Well the thinking man also tends to back up their arguments. Thanks for your comments though, maybe you should try to figure out how it is that, "all we know is that we don't know,” Before you start assigning the status of stupidity to other’s arguments.


You can make yourself dizzy on the self contradiction of your own principle.



I am referring to the people who cannot comprehend the difference between object and concept.


Well, I for one, get the difference and I think most here do to.

But thanks for your contributions.. Got anything else?

:e4e:


Grace and Peace

jjjg
May 2nd, 2004, 12:46 PM
Purex,

Read my post in the relativism thread. We never completely separate the subjective from the objective. We test the subjective with experience and arrive at what is. We do derive at truth period not just a subjective truth in our mind. In fact the subjective is abstracted from experience.

In order to make a relationship, we have to know something about the essntial nature what we are relating.

The only way we know the difference between subjective ideas and reality as is is through reason.

Whether the reality still exists when we die is beside the point.

PureX
May 2nd, 2004, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by BChristianK And no matter how many times I explain to you that despite our fallibility we can still know objective truths.But all this time you were calling them "absolute" truths, not objective truths. And it's the absolutism that I was referring to.

Anyway, I don't like the way this is going. Somehow I have fallen into addressing the problem of fundamentalism to you and Clete specifically, and I am not comfortable with this, even if you do call yourselves fundamentalists.

I can't read your minds or your hearts and I apologize for implying that I can. I stand by my defnition of fundamentalism, but I have no right or even ability to decide who is or is not a fundamentalist. You will have to do that for yourself. All I can say is that I see evidence of it in many of your posts.

If we are going to keep this discussion open, please lets stick to the ideas and avoid personal suppositions (I am saying this mostly to myself).

PureX
May 2nd, 2004, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by jjjg We test the subjective with experience and arrive at what is. Well, not exactly. We test our subjective ideas about what is the truth of reality through experience with reality, but we experience reality only partially, so the results of our "tests" are never absolutely conclusive. They can indicate truthfulness, but they can never be considered absolute. We arrive at a better (partial) idea of what is, but "what is" is still so much greater than we can grasp that our better idea is still incomplete and subject to doubt.

Originally posted by jjjg In order to make a relationship, we have to know something about the essntial nature what we are relating.Yeah, but what we think we know about those things we are relating to each other came from previous relationships we observed between these things and others. And the first relationships that we have with things is the relationship they have to us. So it's all relative, to ourselves. And I still don't know what you mean by the term "essential nature" in this case. How many parts of anything do we have to remove before it loses it's "essential nature"? And who decided on this essential number of parts?

Originally posted by jjjg The only way we know the difference between subjective ideas and reality as is is through reason.Reason doesn't really exist without experience. Reason without experience is ... what .... fantasy?, imagination?

jjjg
May 2nd, 2004, 02:46 PM
They don't have to be absolutely conclusive. They just have to be beyond a reasonable doubt. Nobody says that human reason is not limited. Our knowledge involves through reason and reflection. You hung up on this "you must have absolute knowledge." The models in our mind are true models even if they are inadequate.

No, we know things in themselves as their essential natures otherwise we could not make a relationship in our mind.

The point is you say what we reason might not be what is, but obviously we can differentiate between subjective ideas and what is and know what is through human reason. Otherwise you could never make the statements you do.

Physical science abstracts the various phenomena from individual substances, math abstracts the quantity. Ontology finaly abstracts what is left - the essence, existence, substance and causality.

smaller
May 2nd, 2004, 02:51 PM
A Christian fundamentalist is a person who will defend the Deity of Christ to the extent that the fundamentalist will condemn another person to be burned in fire forever for not believing in the Deity of Christ,

....and in the process completely and totally IGNORE the Command of said "Deity" to "Love Your Neighbor As Yourself."

go figure

smaller
May 2nd, 2004, 02:54 PM
A Christian fundamentalist is one who will acknowledge that God does not have a DESCRIPTION, yet DAMN YOU TO BURN in FIRE FOREVER for denying his description of God.

go figure

A Christian fundamentalist believes that God is Sovereign, yet a nearly complete failure.

go figure

A Christian fundamentalist believes that the "Accepted Text" is WITHOUT A SINGLE FLAW, has to offer NO explainations for contradictions, nor the NEED to attempt to explain contradictions, and will damn you to eternal torture for questioning such things.

go figure

Shall we continue?

temple2006
May 2nd, 2004, 03:01 PM
Post #178 of 181

quote:
Originally posted by temple 2000

BK...I was not insinuating anything. I was making a statement of fact and it is backed up by the very thing you people love ...LOGIC.
Grace and peace.



Which statement of fact is that? You've got 4 posts on this thread.
Most of them are hit and run posts. You assert and then run.

I don't run. I am here anytime you want to talk to me so what's your problem?
quote:

You people (the fundamentalists) cannot understand that for human beings everything is faith , not absolute knowledge. The only thing that we know is that we do not know, therefore we must believe.



Actually we people (the fundamentalists) understand that some things are a matter of faith and some are not and that faith and fact are not diametric opposites. And if the only thing we know is that we don't know, they we don't really know if we don't know..

So though that statement is pithy, its not really all that helpful.

It is not helpful because you do not understand it and it is self-evident.
quote:

Apparently everyone has me on their ignore list, but I just have to comment on the stupidity of the things you people argue about. These things are self-evident to the thinking man.



Well the thinking man also tends to back up their arguments. Thanks for your comments though, maybe you should try to figure out how it is that, "all we know is that we don't know,” Before you start assigning the status of stupidity to other’s arguments.


You can make yourself dizzy on the self contradiction of your own principle.

How in the world do you back up self-evident things? Tell me what is it exactly that you KNOW.

jjjg
May 2nd, 2004, 03:05 PM
Maybe I'm being a bit unfair, Purex.

The argument is really to think is to condition. The absolute is the unconditioned so how can we even think about it?

Well the truth is conditioning affects the process we go about thinking and not what we can think. We can know something of the absolute but in a relative way and we have to be careful of the language we use to understand it.

This is obvious because we can define the absolute as that which is unconditioned and exists in itself. If we couldn't even think about it, we couldn't even define it.

Relativism as an absolute doctrine of human knowledge contradicts itself.

PureX
May 2nd, 2004, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by jjjg The argument is really to think is to condition. The absolute is the unconditioned so how can we even think about it?I agree with this, but it begins to take us to another level of discussion. I think that to reach the place where the "absolute" becomes relevant we have to enter the area of mysticism. I think other folks have brought this up on other threads, before, too. For the concept of absolute truth/reality to become relevant to human experience, we're going to have to get past our natural inclination toward dualism, and leave behind conceptions of existence that rely on understanding things by their relationships to each other. Then we can begin to perceive existence as a single whole, and thus as an "absolute truth".

I am happy to discuss this as far as I am able, but it is a whole new discussion, I think. And I'm not sure how far we could go into this area, anyway, as mysticism does not lend itself much to discussion. It basically has to be experienced.

I do agree with what you're saying, here, though. And I do agree that when we really dig into BOTH our concepts of relativism, and our concept of the absolute, we sooner or later end up at a contradiction. In a strange way, it's as if all roads lead to mysticism, eventually. Which is I guess how the mystics got there. *smile*

jjjg
May 2nd, 2004, 04:52 PM
Sounds good, Purex. I'll look into it and come up with some arguments.

geralduk
May 3rd, 2004, 04:41 AM
Originally posted by smaller

A Christian fundamentalist is a person who will defend the Deity of Christ to the extent that the fundamentalist will condemn another person to be burned in fire forever for not believing in the Deity of Christ,

....and in the process completely and totally IGNORE the Command of said "Deity" to "Love Your Neighbor As Yourself."

go figure

What folly!

For even if a man DID condemn another to hell.
He could not do so for it is only God we should fear that not only can kill the body but send the sould to hell also.

Why then should you be so concerned by anothers (in your perception) condemning men to hell.
If God has opned a door of salvation then none can close it.
Likewise if God closes it none can open it.

Thus if a man rejects the truth concerning the diety of CHRIST then it is not man they contend with but God.
is it not true that the LORD JESUS CHRIST was GOD and the WORD made flesh?
Then how then can THAT be changed?
What then can man do ?
For if he believes NOT the truth what hope has he?
and if he does beleiev the truth he ahs a "SURE AND CERTAIN HOPE"

yOU ON THE OTHER HAND SEEM TO BELIVE that no matter WHAT a person belives there is ALWAYS the SAME conclusion!

But how can this be?

Jesus said I am the WAY the TRUTH and the LIFE"
He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood hath LIFE ,it folows then that they who do not have not!

Or do you say that thye who do NOT recieve the SAME things that those who do do?

Are you saying that thye who believe and loveth a LIE will receive HIM who is the truth?
How may I ask can this be so?

Is God not RIGHTOUS?
and a s ABRAHAM found out "the JUST JUDGE and the MORAL GOVENER of the WHOLE earth"?

Are yuu saying that there were NOT men IN sodom? WHO WERE as MEN the same as LOT?

Yet where as they FOLOWED the lusts and the desires of their sinfull flesh.
LOT DID NOT!
AND they who yeiled thier members unto UNRIGHTOUSNESS condemned him who yelided hsi members unto rightousness.

Do you then say that either they did NOT deserve thier condemnation and judgement?
or that they were NOT MEN?

Why do you fail to see that ALL have sinned and have come short of the glory of God?
and that if NONE should REPENT ALL should PERISH!?

More that if God had "not made a way where therte was no way"
Then there would be NO HOPE for ANY!
bUT IN THAT God in the garden gave a PROMISE of a savior and therefore HOPE and then a COVERING for sin.
It was then as always GODS intention that men have the LIBERTY to do what is RIGHT AND GOOD.
the FIRST thing then is to REPENT!
AND BELIEVE ON HIM whom God promised and fullfiled in CHRIST.
Able believed God CAINE DID NOT.
Able then was "COUNTED RIGHTOUS"
Caine manifested his wickedness.
and found no place of repentance for he believed not and rejected the BLOOD SACRAFICE of CHRIST

You therefore DENY the JUST AND RIGHTOUS judgements of God.
By saying that ALL men are saved wether they repent or not.
and also DENY men any TRUE HOPE and HINDER them if they believe you; from EVER finding the truth and getting saved.
For you give them a false hope thta has NO basis in the scripture.


Yous ay God has failed if not all are saved?
That is YOUR reasoning not Gods.
fOR THE SEED THAT IS FRUITFULL will produce more fruit and seed than the one which does not .
God is intersted in FRUIT and that"which remains"!
and to THAT end HE Has SOWN.
"For it is for the joy that was set before Him He endured the cross"
Thus though the CALL is to ALL it is the WHO SOEVERS that ANSWER that call will receive the promise.

For GOD so loved the WORLD (that is ALL.)
That WHOSOEVER (that is PERSONAL and INDIVIDUAL_) believeth on Him shall NOT perish but have everlasting life"

smaller
May 3rd, 2004, 08:20 AM
smaller said:
A Christian fundamentalist is a person who will defend the Deity of Christ to the extent that the fundamentalist will condemn another person to be burned in fire forever for not believing in the Deity of Christ,

....and in the process completely and totally IGNORE the Command of said "Deity" to "Love Your Neighbor As Yourself."

go figure

And geralduk says:
"What folly!"

Do we have another fundie in the house or what? I rest my case.

Typical SELF RIGHTEOUS, SELF JUSTIFICATION nonsense. Take ONE WORD and DENY THE OTHER nearly in the same breath.

This is a classic case of SEVERE and IRRATIONAL UNbelief.

smaller

smaller
May 3rd, 2004, 09:16 AM
What is a fundamentalist?

Someone who thinks they are led by The Holy Spirit, but who sees no problem with said Holy Spirit leading them and all other fundamentalists to thousands of conflicting/opposed positions.

go figure

On Fire
May 3rd, 2004, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by Apollo

Never been big on math, but this much I know: When you add one Christian fundamentalist with ZERO sense to another Christian fundamentalist with ZERO sense, it adds up to NON-sense.


Similarly, when you add one ignorant atheist with ZERO experience with God to another ignorant atheist with ZERO experience with God, it adds up to NOTHING.

Duder
May 3rd, 2004, 09:59 AM
Geralduk -

I WISH you would try to post nice, smooth messages, UNINTERRUPTED by unnecessary changes IN text appearance. I AM sure you have very INTERESTING things to SAY, BUT THE appearance of THE message makes it TOO HARD TO read.

Ecumenicist
May 3rd, 2004, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by Duder

Geralduk -

I WISH you would try to post nice, smooth messages, UNINTERRUPTED by unnecessary changes IN text appearance. I AM sure you have very INTERESTING things to SAY, BUT THE appearance of THE message makes it TOO HARD TO read.

When I read Geralduk I get the impression someone is
SHOUTING! at me...

It is hard to consider the content when a voice in my head
is SHOUTING!

djm

LightSon
May 3rd, 2004, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by PureX
Fundamentalism is the irrational assumption of one's own truthfulness. It's irrational because it is not being tested against reality in any logical or (I would say) honest way.

Once again, your arbitrary definition of fundamentalism puts us in a bad light. Thanks, but no thanks.

Fundamentalism is the rational assumption that God exists and that He has revealed His will in the scriptures and that we can, if led by His Spirit discern His will.

My faith leads me to trust in God as He has revealed Himself.


Originally posted by PureX
We humans develop ideas about what is real and true in our minds, but we have to keep testing those ideas against actual reality, through experience, to establish their relative truthfulness. This is the step that fundamentalists ignore.
We fundamentalists are being tested in the crucible of life's reality every day.

Your philosophy is nihilism; it offers no hope. Because my God and His inspired Word offer me hope, you dismiss this as some "opiate of the people". Your position makes me profoundly sad. :(

To the degree that my faith increases, my confidence in God increases. Were I to jettison my faith, I would then find myself in the godless state that you propose. Yes I know that you allow for a god, but as far as I can tell your god is useless, unable to impart eternal life, powerless to make himself known. :(

If God is not, then we are just a random happenstance, a chance intersection of improbably conditions. We have no eternal value, no purpose in being here. We may as well eat, drink and make ourselves merry because tomorrow we make embark on our eternal state of being dust. :down:

Again, I have not made up a god in the way that you have. I have allowed Him to show Himself to me. I seek Him everyday. I choose to trust Him with my life, both now and after my body expires. You trust in yourself and your keen ability to know nothing for sure. I see no reason to exchange the hope imparted to me for a confidence in no thing.

It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
Psalm 118:8

smaller
May 3rd, 2004, 12:52 PM
What is a christian fundamentalist?

Someone who has sinned and has sin, just like everyone else.

LightSon
May 3rd, 2004, 12:58 PM
"For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God."

But that fact does not distinquish a Christian Fundamentalist from any one else. Does God have a people that He reserves for Himself?

Does Christ mean anything?

The smaller philosophy is:
Believe in Christ & reap eternal blessing.

Spit on Christ & reap eternal blessing.

In short, all men will reap eternal blessing and Christ can be factored out and jettisoned.

Hence, in smallerism, Christ means nothing. :(

Don't you have anything else to share besides this tired old hobby horse?

smaller
May 3rd, 2004, 01:09 PM
But that fact does not distinquish a Christian Fundamentalist from any one else. Does God have a people that He reserves for Himself?

God says:

"Behold, all souls are mine," saith the Lord. "As the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine." Ezek. 18:4


The smaller philosophy is:
Believe in Christ & reap eternal blessing.

Spit on Christ & reap eternal blessing.

Ah, excuse me, but that would be your false accusation of my position.

The only thing you show is poor reading and comprehension skills. So what else is new?

The SIN THAT INDWELLS men who SPIT ON CHRIST is CONDEMNED TO ETERNAL DESTRUCTION.

You always forget this part because you only see SIN IN OTHERS and NOT YOURSELF

or

you see YOURSELF as forgiven BUT not OTHERS...

go figure you Christ Limiter.

I could post on the anti-spiritual ignorance that runs rampant in christian fundamentalism for WEEKS and you would have no rebuttal but TO ACCUSE because that is what is IN YOU.

smaller

On Fire
May 3rd, 2004, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by smaller
The SIN THAT INDWELLS men who SPIT ON CHRIST is CONDEMNED TO ETERNAL DESTRUCTION.


What does this mean?

Also, what will happen to the people who have not accepted Christ upon His return?

Apollo
May 3rd, 2004, 01:41 PM
A religious fundamentalist is one who accepts as reality what everyone else understands as a myth.

Tickles me pink when the brethren start name-calling. I forget -- how does the world know you're "Christians"? Oh yeah, by the LOVE you show for one another!

Smaller! You Rock!

Apollo
May 3rd, 2004, 01:54 PM
Similarly, when you add one ignorant atheist with ZERO experience with God to another ignorant atheist with ZERO experience with God, it adds up to NOTHING.

Wow. Good one. A paraphrase. How about, What do you get when you add one psychological cripple to another psychological cripple? No legs to stand on!

Or, what do you get when add one so-called experience with God with another so-called experience with God? The Inquisition!

On Fire
May 3rd, 2004, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by Apollo
Or, what do you get when add one so-called experience with God with another so-called experience with God? The Inquisition!

Starting your autobiography?

smaller
May 3rd, 2004, 02:02 PM
If anyone does actually HEAR His Word and understand it IT IS A MIRACLE FROM GOD. These are given to the world as LIGHT and PRESERVATIVE to keep the DARKNESS from running rampant over others.

What happens to those who do not believe? Truth needs no ACKNOWLEDGMENT. Truth IS as HE IS.

Here is what happens to the "unbelieving others" who WILL SEE TRUTH as He IS:

"And in his name shall the Gentiles trust." Matt. 12:21

"The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand." John 3:35

"All things are delivered to me of my Father-" Luke 10:22

"All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you. John 16:15

And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of allwhich he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. John 6:39

How much will JESUS LOSE fundies????

"Thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him." John 17:2

How much FLESH does Jesus have POWER OVER fundies???

"All that the Father giveth me, shall come to me, and him that cometh to me I will in nowise cast out." John 6:37

"Who will have all men to be saved, and come unto the knowledge of the truth." 1Tim. 2:4

I could go ON AND ON with DOZENS UPON DOZENS of WORD verified salvation of ALL TEXTS, but it would not matter.

UNBELIEF has captured the hearts of MANY believers and their LOVE HAS GONE UTTERLY COLD to the extent that they would SEE OTHERS BURN FOREVER. How SICK is this???

Here is the FATE of EVERY PERSON OF HUMANITY:

Philippians 2
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

My goal is to EMBARASS some of you SO CALLED "believers" WITH YOUR OWN DOCUMENT and thereby you may be SAVED FROM THE HATRED that has CAPTURED YOU ALL.

So we have a NEW THING...

Saved by EMBARASSMENT! (or is that FROM?)

You "fundies" don't believe your own WORD!"

one trick pony???? HA!

ENJOY!

smaller

LightSon
May 3rd, 2004, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by smaller

God says:

"Behold, all souls are mine," saith the Lord. "As the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine." Ezek. 18:4


Ah, excuse me, but that would be your false accusation of my position.

The only thing you show is poor reading and comprehension skills. So what else is new?

The SIN THAT INDWELLS men who SPIT ON CHRIST is CONDEMNED TO ETERNAL DESTRUCTION.

You always forget this part because you only see SIN IN OTHERS and NOT YOURSELF

or

you see YOURSELF as forgiven BUT not OTHERS...

go figure you Christ Limiter.

I could post on the anti-spiritual ignorance that runs rampant in christian fundamentalism for WEEKS and you would have no rebuttal but TO ACCUSE because that is what is IN YOU.

smaller

I see myself as forgiven since the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses me from all sin. I see anyone else under His blood to be likewise forgiven.

Yes I do tend to forget your position. I think that is because it is so foreign to my way of thinking and to orthodox Christianity in general.

Also, assuming that smallerism is false, it has dangerous practical implications.

Consider Charlene Manson who likes slaughtering people of purple skin color.

"Charlene," probes the prosecutor, "why did you kill all those people and hack their bodies to bits?"

"Hey," says Charlene the smallerist, "that wasn't me. That was sin dwelling in me. But not to worry. The sin in me will be punsihed in due course. In the meantime, please let go."

Can you see smaller, how this view, if carried to its logical conclusion would give wackos the liberty to rape, burn, pillage & murder? Afterall; they are not doing anything wrong. It is sin in them.

On Fire
May 3rd, 2004, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by smaller

If anyone does actually HEAR His Word and understand it IT IS A MIRACLE FROM GOD. These are given to the world as LIGHT and PRESERVATIVE to keep the DARKNESS from running rampant over others.

What happens to those who do not believe? Truth needs no ACKNOWLEDGMENT. Truth IS as HE IS.

Here is what happens to the "unbelieving others" who WILL SEE TRUTH as He IS:

"And in his name shall the Gentiles trust." Matt. 12:21

"The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand." John 3:35

"All things are delivered to me of my Father-" Luke 10:22

"All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you. John 16:15

And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of allwhich he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. John 6:39


Come again...in your own words, please. What happens to those who do not believe?

smaller
May 3rd, 2004, 02:12 PM
Greetings Lightson


I see myself as forgiven since the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses me from all sin. I see anyone else under His blood to be likewise forgiven.

So you have A DOUBLE PROBLEM. Even they are FORGIVEN yet DAMNED TO BURN FOREVER.

I see your form of FORGIVENESS eh?


Yes I do tend to forget your position. I think that is because it is so foreign to my way of thinking and to orthodox Christianity in general.

Yeah, that DIVINE LOVE TO ALL is pretty strange to CHRISTIANITY or what falsely PASSES as it.


Also, assuming that smallerism is false, it has dangerous practical implications.

You have already seen that THE WORD is my ally and YOUR FOE apart from HIS LOVE TO ALL.


Consider Charlene Manson who likes slaughtering people of purple skin color.

Compared to ANY SIN OF THE FLESH the SIN IN YOUR HEART TO SEE OTHERS BURN IS FAR FAR FAR greater so DON'T EVEN GO THERE you hypocrite.


"Charlene," probes the prosecutor, "why did you kill all those people and hack their bodies to bits?"

blah blah blah mr. FORGIVENESS. Mr. Eternal TORTURER. Your word is SO HOLLOW it STINKS.


"Hey," says Charlene the smallerist, "that wasn't me. That was sin dwelling in me. But not to worry. The sin in me will be punsihed in due course. In the meantime, please let go."

Did I EVER SAY that MURDER SHOULD GO APART FROM THE LAW. NO.

Those who are CAPTURED BY SIN should PAY THE PRICE. So your other FALSE SMEAR ATTEMPT does not work either.

You FALSE ACCUSERS are ALL THE SAME.


Can you see smaller, how this view, if carried to its logical conclusion would give wackos the liberty to rape, burn, pillage & murder? Afterall; they are not doing anything wrong. It is sin in them.

Compared to WHAT IS IN YOU even HITLER looks like the Virgin Mary.

enjoy!

smaller

smaller
May 3rd, 2004, 02:13 PM
Atheistsuck IF THE WORDS OF THE BIBLE are NOT ENOUGH FOR YOU what do you care of MINE???

Can't you READ OR WHAT????

LightSon
May 3rd, 2004, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by smaller

blah blah blah mr. FORGIVENESS. Mr. Eternal TORTURER. Your word is SO HOLLOW it STINKS.



Since I understand your position, I realize you are not talking to LightSon, but rather sin dwelling in LightSon.

Whew. Dodged that damnation bullet :doh:





Hey! Anybody want to get some crack? We can party down.

smaller
May 3rd, 2004, 02:33 PM
CorrectOmundo...

the SIN THAT CONTROLS Mr. so called "all are forgiven BUT"

the SIN THAT CONTROLS Mr. Damn the murderer to burn forever but OVERLOOK me please....

need I go on? I am sure not for the one who will NEVER listen eh?

And you even show what it is YOU REALLY WANT TO DO...

go figure...

Sozo
May 3rd, 2004, 02:41 PM
A Christian fundementalist is anyone who believes in Jesus, and thinks smaller is an @ss.

LightSon
May 3rd, 2004, 02:44 PM
You smaller, would lead men to their doom by lulling them into the false sense of security.

"God will not hold you accountable" says smaller.
"Ignore Jesus and God will excuse your sin," says smaller
"You can spit on God and His Christ with impunity."

On the contrary,

Look to Christ and His cross dear smaller. Trust in Jesus Christ, for in Him alone is there forgiveness and life eternal. In that you have rejected Christ and manufactured your own path to God, universally for all God haters, you are accursed.

LightSon
May 3rd, 2004, 02:58 PM
A hymn to share with smaller.



I've learned to know a Name I highly treasure,
Oh how it thrills my spirit through and through ;
Oh, precious Name, beyond degree or measure,
Oh wondrous Name of Him so kind and true.

My heart is stirred whene'er I think of Jesus,
That blessed Name which sets the captive free;
The only Name through which I find salvation,
No name on earth has meant so much to me.



smaller,
It is my prayer that you come to Christ.
And when you do, that you, in turn, point all other men to Christ.

Apollo
May 3rd, 2004, 02:59 PM
Suckerman, you should NEVER lead with a punchline. If you're the only one who gets the joke, YOU'RE the joke.

Another gnat, mesmerized by the beating of his own wings.

Bzzzzz...ahhhhh...feeling warm and fuzzy...heading toward the light...heading toward the...ZAP!

smaller
May 3rd, 2004, 03:07 PM
Perhaps some of these WORD BRAWNS could give the TEXTS a swing instead of ACCUSING smaller?

Of course that would be very out of character...

and I would also loose my own reward:

Matthew 10:25
It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?

so these RESISTORS are God's Sign to me...

go figure...

smaller

Aimiel
May 3rd, 2004, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by smaller

Matthew 10:25
It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?If you were anything like Jesus, you would teach that hell is real, and warn very sternly against it, as He did. He described a man in torment, and gave the name of a witness to the torment. That type of speech could never be termed 'parable.' He also warned that we would be better off cutting off a hand or an eye than to enter into hell with a fully functioning body. That's pretty strong warnings. The best description of Who we should fear included One, The One Who has the power to cast body and soul into hell. Do you believe that means that they will only be in hell until they're slightly cooked, or until 'cleansed?' It will be eternity, with flames and worms. You ignore The Word of God repeatedly and only attack those who hold sound doctrine, that's an anti-Christ spirit. You need deliverance. Repent!!!

Cyrus of Persia
May 3rd, 2004, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by Sozo

A Christian fundementalist is anyone who believes in Jesus, and thinks smaller is an @ss.

Ouch what i relief. I almost started to fear that you call me fundy, but with the second part of your sentence....

glad that i'm not the one :thumb:

Apollo
May 3rd, 2004, 03:56 PM
Aim: What kind of twisted freak could for a moment believe that a “loving” God would (or worse, SHOULD) punish even a wayward son with fire and “worms” for eternity. Worms? Well, bring a fishing pole just in case, because for all YOU know, YOU are will escorted out of the wedding for being improperly dressed and hear the words, “I never knew you.”

Hell’s an invention because “the Bible’s” an invention. The Book of Revelation almost didn’t make it. MAKE it? What were they doing? Compiling “God's Word” -- or editing a “cook” book?

smaller
May 3rd, 2004, 05:24 PM
Before the non-fundies start jumping for joy, I might remind them that THE WORD of God is TRUE as written by The Prophets, The Law and lastly through THE SON, Jesus Christ. The Bible as it stands also contains many "inspired" writings that assist in seeing The Word in action and in understanding The Word.

As such the dialog apart from The Word from non-adherents is quite another subject.

For example the guys who contend with my understandings at least have A GRIP on The Word as far as RESPECT for it and they DO NOT DENIGRATE it, except in PART, whereas a PUREX or an Apollo will DENY IT nearly entirely.

On that basis the position of contention is more accurately portrayed from outside of Word positions.

and Hell is NOT an invention.

God's Word promises that both DEATH and HELL will be destroyed THERE. This is a portion of HOPE.

Bernie22
May 4th, 2004, 06:29 AM
I know now for sure I'm a fundie. I believe in Jesus and think smaller is at least an ***, if not worse.

Reading his posts, I'm reminded of Merry's (or is it Pippin's?) words whilst grasped by the hands of the ent...

"Don't encourage it!"

Cyrus of Persia
May 4th, 2004, 06:48 AM
Originally posted by Bernie22

I know now for sure I'm a fundie. I believe in Jesus and think smaller is at least an ***, if not worse.



Have you read his posts with trying to understand why and what he says? If you have, you would say: he got some point, but i disagree with some of his thoughts.

It's sad that people love to call each others with bad names instead of trying to understand those whose ideas sound weird to them. If we would try to be more understanding and look what someone is really saying, we would not use such nasty words.

I tell honestly that i follow bit different idea when approaching to the Bible than Smaller does. That's why i cannot agree with everything he says. But he got some deep truths in his saying nevertheless.

On Fire
May 4th, 2004, 06:53 AM
Originally posted by smaller

Atheistsuck IF THE WORDS OF THE BIBLE are NOT ENOUGH FOR YOU what do you care of MINE???

Can't you READ OR WHAT????

It's just that the crap you're spouting doesn't sound anything like the bible I've read. Why are you affraid to say what you believe?

PureX
May 4th, 2004, 07:01 AM
Originally posted by smaller For example the guys who contend with my understandings at least have A GRIP on The Word as far as RESPECT for it and they DO NOT DENIGRATE it, except in PART, whereas a PUREX or an Apollo will DENY IT nearly entirely. How can one "deny the bible"? Do you mean we deny that it has "magical" properties? Do you mean we deny that it was written by God through some magical manipulation of the hands and minds of it's human authors? Do you mean that we deny that every word in it is absolutely correct and true even though different versions have different words in them?

Christians love to accuse people of "denying the bible" but they're never very clear about what exctly they mean by this accusation. Could it be that if they were really clear about what they're accusing people of, we would be able to see that they're accusing people of denying that the bible has magical properties, or more specifically, that they're really just accusing people of not believing what they believe?

In fact, I think this is the real accusation these Christians are making against others, but if they were this clear about it, everyone would be able to see how self-serving and disingenuous it actually is.

Aimiel
May 4th, 2004, 07:01 AM
Those who hold even the least bit of sound doctrine are easily able to spot the foolishness of smaller, and others like him. Hell is real, and those who know The Lord know that.

On Fire
May 4th, 2004, 07:41 AM
Originally posted by PureX

How can one "deny the bible"? Do you mean we deny that it has "magical" properties? Do you mean we deny that it was written by God through some magical manipulation of the hands and minds of it's human authors? Do you mean that we deny that every word in it is absolutely correct and true even though different versions have different words in them?

Christians love to accuse people of "denying the bible" but they're never very clear about what exctly they mean by this accusation. Could it be that if they were really clear about what they're accusing people of, we would be able to see that they're accusing people of denying that the bible has magical properties, or more specifically, that they're really just accusing people of not believing what they believe?

In fact, I think this is the real accusation these Christians are making against others, but if they were this clear about it, everyone would be able to see how self-serving and disingenuous it actually is.

Do you deny this:

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

smaller
May 4th, 2004, 07:42 AM
How can one "deny the bible"? Do you mean we deny that it has "magical" properties?

The Word admonishes against magic/sorcery.


Do you mean we deny that it was written by God through some magical manipulation of the hands and minds of it's human authors?

Case in point. You insist on using the magic/sorcery terms. This is not the case.


Do you mean that we deny that every word in it is absolutely correct and true even though different versions have different words in them?

Never said that but you would deny what you "don't like" or don't understand.


Christians love to accuse people of "denying the bible" but they're never very clear about what exctly they mean by this accusation.

Perhaps you have a position on it?


Could it be that if they were really clear about what they're accusing people of, we would be able to see that they're accusing people of denying that the bible has magical properties, or more specifically, that they're really just accusing people of not believing what they believe?

Perhaps you could actually TELL.


In fact, I think this is the real accusation these Christians are making against others, but if they were this clear about it, everyone would be able to see how self-serving and disingenuous it actually is.

You don't have to beat about the bush Purex. The Word has Words, YOU have words. Why accept "yours" in place of The Word?

smaller
May 4th, 2004, 07:45 AM
and perhaps AIMiel could learn to read someday.

I have never denied the reality of hell, ever.

I just deny PEOPLE being TOSSED IN THERE because there is not a SINGLE NAMED HUMAN BEING in THE ENTIRE TEXT given as an example of what AIMile promotes is IN THE B-I-B-L-E he purports to KNOW oh so very well.

smaller
May 4th, 2004, 07:48 AM
and perhaps BURNie22 has some specific GRIPEs that are WORD related rather than the typical pointless accusations that some idiots are so fond of.

On Fire
May 4th, 2004, 07:49 AM
Originally posted by smaller
I just deny PEOPLE being TOSSED IN THERE because there is not a SINGLE NAMED HUMAN BEING in THE ENTIRE TEXT given as an example of what AIMile promotes is IN THE B-I-B-L-E he purports to KNOW oh so very well.


Psssssssst!!! The judgement hasn't happened yet.

smaller
May 4th, 2004, 08:15 AM
Perhaps we could have received just ONE NAMED EXAMPLE?

Obviously the DEVIL and his MESSENGERS were foretold of receiving the infamous TOSS. Why no named PEOPLE?

Surely Judas, the BETRAYER OF GOD. Or one of the many bad guys in the O.T.

Certainly such a fate deserves ONE NAMED EXAMPLE if it is such a VITAL DOCTRINE.

Of course this would conflict severely with Jesus Own Words which I previously posted that you can't seem to either read or accept.

On Fire
May 4th, 2004, 08:37 AM
The fact of the reality of Hell is taught throughout the Bible in innumerable passages. The Lord Jesus Christ Himself probably had more to say about it than anyone else. He was a teacher with the most impressive credentials--a sinless life, a miraculous ministry, and an empty tomb that could not hold Him.

Christ is often spoken of as "Gentle Jesus, meek and mild," but that label hardly fits with the language we find in Mark chapter nine as He affirms the fact and reality of Hell. We read these strong statements:

"And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."
-Mark 9:43-48

In another passage Christ calls the Scribes and Pharisees a "generation of vipers," and warns them, "How will you escape the damnation of Hell?" (Matt. 23:33) Those are pretty strong words from the Lord Jesus. He laid it on the line. He told it like it is.

When smaller questions the fact and reality of Hell, he's actually questioning the authority of the Bible, and the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. The Christian faith is all tied up together, and when it is attacked at one point, it becomes vulnerable at all. It holds together beautifully.

PureX
May 4th, 2004, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by smaller You don't have to beat about the bush Purex. The Word has Words, YOU have words. Why accept "yours" in place of The Word? Words in themselves are meaningless. They are only symbols. Just the act of reading words is already an act of interpretation; of reasoning for ourselves. We are inventing ideas and deciding that these ideas are the ideas that the symbols are referring to.

In fact it's ALL ideas. It's all men's ideas. Some men wrote their ideas in books, using these symbols. Other men try to interpret the symbols to reclaim the writer's ideas from them. But the process is inevitably flawed. The ideas are never transfered precisely. To claim that the ideas in the book are somehow superior to the ideas in the reader is an inaccurate representation of the whole process of reading and writing. The ideas were never in the book. There's nothing in the book but symbols. The ideas are only in our minds. In men's minds.

So why should I accept another man's ideas over my own just because he recorded them with symbols in a book? You don't. No Christian does. Yet many Christians seem to love to accuse everyone else of not doing so as if it were some sort of moral failure. Why is that?

On Fire
May 4th, 2004, 08:46 AM
Atheists, like PureX, have asked the same questions over and over again throughout history. There are no new questions and there are no new answers. They are given the answer but will turn around and ask the same question tomorrow. Why is that?

smaller
May 4th, 2004, 09:36 AM
Greetings Purex


Words in themselves are meaningless.

They are only symbols. Just the act of reading words is already an act of interpretation; of reasoning for ourselves. We are inventing ideas and deciding that these ideas are the ideas that the symbols are referring to.

What you refer to is the position of subjectivity.


In fact it's ALL ideas. It's all men's ideas. Some men wrote their ideas in books, using these symbols. Other men try to interpret the symbols to reclaim the writer's ideas from them. But the process is inevitably flawed.

I do not say subjectivity is flawed. What are the alternatives? NO thing.

We have subjectivity=all things in diversity and OBJECTIVITY meaning without form or definition.


The ideas are never transfered precisely. To claim that the ideas in the book are somehow superior to the ideas in the reader is an inaccurate representation of the whole process of reading and writing.

This is merely your subjective view of an OBJECTIVE presentation.


The ideas were never in the book. There's nothing in the book but symbols. The ideas are only in our minds. In men's minds.

So why should I accept another man's ideas over my own just because he recorded them with symbols in a book? You don't. No Christian does. Yet many Christians seem to love to accuse everyone else of not doing so as if it were some sort of moral failure. Why is that?

The particular document we are discussing has presentations. It does not present itself as a compilation of "mens ideas" but of course any individual subjective view of same will produce "mens ideas" of it.

enjoy!

smaller

On Fire
May 4th, 2004, 09:40 AM
smaller,

Waiting to hear your thoughts on http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=516479#post516479

smaller
May 4th, 2004, 09:52 AM
Greetings AS


The fact of the reality of Hell is taught throughout the Bible in innumerable passages.

The Jews had and have to this day NO BELIEF in the eternal torture of mankind. This position is one that has only come about AFTER Christ. Not even Christ taught that any of MANkind would be ETERNALLY TORTURED by God.

And because this is my single favorite biblical topic I think it makes for a good discussion point for the vailidity of certain "fundamentalist" positions.

You could divide FUNDAMENTALISM into DENOMINATIONAL camps and find that nearly every denomination will DIVIDE SEVERELY on certain individual topics BUT the on the topic of the ETERNAL TORTURE of nearly ALL OF MANKIND the fundamentalists would RALLY indeed.

It is a "pet" doctrine of the fundamentalist.


The Lord Jesus Christ Himself probably had more to say about it than anyone else. He was a teacher with the most impressive credentials--a sinless life, a miraculous ministry, and an empty tomb that could not hold Him.

You would be hard pressed to find a SINGLE INSTANCE of Christ teaching that ANY NAMED PERSON would BURN IN HELL FOREVER.


Christ is often spoken of as "Gentle Jesus, meek and mild," but that label hardly fits with the language we find in Mark chapter nine as He affirms the fact and reality of Hell. We read these strong statements:

"And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."
-Mark 9:43-48

I do not deny the POSITION of the ETERNAL FIRE OF DESTRUCTION.

I emphatically DISAGREE with your INTERPRETATION of these things.

Should you engage me on this matter you will find yourself quite defenseless in justifying such a position without casting YOURSELF into said ETERNAL TORTURE as well.


In another passage Christ calls the Scribes and Pharisees a "generation of vipers," and warns them, "How will you escape the damnation of Hell?" (Matt. 23:33) Those are pretty strong words from the Lord Jesus. He laid it on the line. He told it like it is.

If you take a position that MANkind are CHILDREN OF THE DEVIL then you will merely make GOD HIMSELF the FATHER OF DEVILs. If Adam was A SON OF GOD (he was) then ALL OF HIS CHILDREN are also SONS AND DAUGHTERS.

IF then GOD'S OWN CHILDREN become for any reason DEVILS, then GOD HIMSELF has spawned DEVILS. Quite an untenable position scripturally.


When smaller questions the fact and reality of Hell,

But you see I DON'T. Can't you READ??? I am beginning to think you are more than a LITTLE SLOW.


he's actually questioning the authority of the Bible, and the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

I am questioning ONLY YOUR FALSE INTERPRETATIONs in the light of the TEXTS I previously cited. Perhaps you can GO BACK AND ACTUALLY READ THEM and then come with YOUR POSITION and we can simply COMPARE what you falsely believe and what JESUS actually presented. But of course this would take some actual WORK on your part and it is EASIER FOR YOU to BLINDLY ACCUSE because that is WHAT CONTROLS YOU.


The Christian faith is all tied up together, and when it is attacked at one point, it becomes vulnerable at all. It holds together beautifully.

Your presentation of unified faith is good for a hardy belly laugh, that is all,

...except of course for the UNIFIED FALSE THEORY OF HELL and it is in this very subject that MOST of what passes for "christianity" can be PROVEN as both FALSE and as a VERIFICATION of the very document they supposedly stand upon.

enjoy!

smaller

On Fire
May 4th, 2004, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by smaller

Greetings AS


The Jews had and have to this day NO BELIEF in the eternal torture of mankind. This position is one that has only come about AFTER Christ. Not even Christ taught that any of MANkind would be ETERNALLY TORTURED by God.

You and the Jews have it wrong? Imagin that.




And because this is my single favorite biblical topic I think it makes for a good discussion point for the vailidity of certain "fundamentalist" positions.

You could divide FUNDAMENTALISM into DENOMINATIONAL camps and find that nearly every denomination will DIVIDE SEVERELY on certain individual topics BUT the on the topic of the ETERNAL TORTURE of nearly ALL OF MANKIND the fundamentalists would RALLY indeed.

It is a "pet" doctrine of the fundamentalist.

You would be hard pressed to find a SINGLE INSTANCE of Christ teaching that ANY NAMED PERSON would BURN IN HELL FOREVER.


There's a big difference between "hard pressed" and impossible.



I do not deny the POSITION of the ETERNAL FIRE OF DESTRUCTION.

I emphatically DISAGREE with your INTERPRETATION of these things.


I EMPHATICALLY DISAGREE WITH YOUR INTERRPRETATION!



Should you engage me on this matter you will find yourself quite defenseless in justifying such a position without casting YOURSELF into said ETERNAL TORTURE as well.


Big bark, zero bite.



If you take a position that MANkind are CHILDREN OF THE DEVIL then you will merely make GOD HIMSELF the FATHER OF DEVILs. If Adam was A SON OF GOD (he was) then ALL OF HIS CHILDREN are also SONS AND DAUGHTERS.

IF then GOD'S OWN CHILDREN become for any reason DEVILS, then GOD HIMSELF has spawned DEVILS. Quite an untenable position scripturally.


You missed the sign that said "BEWARE: Deep End".



:vomit:

Pretty well sums up the last half of your diatribe.

smaller
May 4th, 2004, 10:53 AM
Hey Atheistssuck---

tell me which of these STATEMENT are NOT TRUE since you can't seem to get the picture for some reason:

"And in his name shall the Gentiles trust." Matt. 12:21

SOME of the gentiles AS????

"The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand." John 3:35

How MANY THINGS AS????

"All things are delivered to me of my Father-" Luke 10:22

How MANY THINGS AS???

"All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you. John 16:15

How MANY THINGS AS???

And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of allwhich he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. John 6:39

HOW MUCH does JESUS LOSE AS???

"Thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him." John 17:2

How much FLESH does Jesus have POWER OVER AS???

"All that the Father giveth me, shall come to me, and him that cometh to me I will in nowise cast out." John 6:37

HOW MANY AS???

"Who will have all men to be saved, and come unto the knowledge of the truth." 1Tim. 2:4

HOW MANY AS???

God IS THE SAVIOUR OF ALL MEN, especially those who believe." 1 Tim. 4:10

How many of these texts DO YOU really believe anyway???

enjoy!

smaller

BChristianK
May 4th, 2004, 11:24 AM
PureX said:



But all this time you were calling them "absolute" truths, not objective truths. And it's the absolutism that I was referring to.
I think I have called them objective truths in the past, but there little use arguing that point.
As it stands now, do you agree that objective truths can exist?





Anyway, I don't like the way this is going. Somehow I have fallen into addressing the problem of fundamentalism to you and Clete specifically, and I am not comfortable with this, even if you do call yourselves fundamentalists.

Ok.




I can't read your minds or your hearts and I apologize for implying that I can.


No apologies necessary.




I stand by my definition of fundamentalism, but I have no right or even ability to decide who is or is not a fundamentalist.
Well I applaud you for your second admission. I would still urge you to reconsider your definition of fundamentalism. It’s a little antagonistic to define a movement for those in the movement. Why not just let them (the fundamentalists) define their movement for themselves?

You said:



You will have to do that for yourself. All I can say is that I see evidence of it in many of your posts.

And I think, if we are both honest, we will both admit that we see elements where the other refuses to give up their right to be right.




If we are going to keep this discussion open, please lets stick to the ideas and avoid personal suppositions (I am saying this mostly to myself).

Sounds good to me, I’ll agree. And if you feel like I have made personal suppositions than I apologize.

Grace and PEace

BChristianK
May 4th, 2004, 11:25 AM
Smaller,

Is that you dragging universalism into a thread again?

No way
:noway:

:chuckle:

Grace and Peace

On Fire
May 4th, 2004, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by smaller
:vomit:

Nine single verses?! You couldn't even string 2 or 3 together? Get back to me when you finish the whole book.

smaller=ignored

smaller
May 4th, 2004, 01:40 PM
I see the theoretical MIND OF CHRIST is UNABLE TO RESPOND....

typical fundamentalist ACT...

If the WORD doesn't fit the PRECONCEPTION then IGNORE IT....

go figure....

smaller
May 4th, 2004, 01:47 PM
Hey BcK!

I just like to see you FUNDIES deny your own GOD'S WORDS that's all. It is called MARKING THOSE who MISS THE MARK....

BChristianK
May 4th, 2004, 03:00 PM
Smaller,


I’m sure you are a pretty coherent person most of the time. That is why I am surprised at the way you treat scriptures like Matthew 24:46. So you are in no place to be pointing out where others refuse to believe in God’s word.

Your interpretation of Matthew 25 shows me you will import nearly any crazy idea to salvage your universalism.



I don’t agree with universalism, but honestly, smaller, there are those who do agree with universalism but who must have read your posts and cringed at their preposterousness.

I don’t buy universalism, but I know that there are argument for universalism that are vastly more coherent than your theory that the demons in all of us that make us do bad things will be punished while the rest of us will go to heaven.

There are probably people who agree with your conclusion but recognize that your arguments are silly. If someone like me were to associate your silly arguments with theirs, they have to make an effort to distinguish their rational from your own…

(For those who aren't familiar, read Smallers embarassing interpretation of Matthew 25 here:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13428&perpage=20&pagenumber=5 )

I wish those folks would send you a private message and urge you to reconsider some of your posts…. It might make it easier on them.

Finally, I think knight might like us to stay on the topic of fundamentalism, so can you please stick to this topic. If universalism plays into it, then fine, but you have demonstrated that this is your one big thing and you don't discuss much else.

Grace and Peace

smaller
May 4th, 2004, 04:47 PM
I’m sure you are a pretty coherent person most of the time. That is why I am surprised at the way you treat scriptures like Matthew 24:46. So you are in no place to be pointing out where others refuse to believe in God’s word.

Aw, your still TICKED OFF because you could not OVERCOME the WORD presented that DAMNS YOUR ETERNAL JUDGMENT OF OTHERS in favor of GOD'S LOVE TO ALL.


Your interpretation of Matthew 25 shows me you will import nearly any crazy idea to salvage your universalism.

Your failure to read OR comprehend The Word is no surprise. That is why you FALSELY DAMN OTHERS and of course SPARE YOURSELF.


I don’t agree with universalism

I guess when Jesus said He came to SAVE THE WORLD he was just joshin eh? He REALLY came to TORTURE THE MOST people right???

Your beliefs really are quite pathetic, and YOU like ATHEISTSSUCK cannot even OWN UP to DEALING WITH THE SIMPLE STUFF such as posted to him herein. I expect you to DENY THE WORD on these matters as well or SEVERELY LIMIT God in Christ. No surprise...


, but honestly, smaller, there are those who do agree with universalism but who must have read your posts and cringed at their preposterousness.

Nice try... I know my way around the block on Word matters and if a UNIVERSALIST agrees on THE MAIN THING then our DIFFERENCES MATTER much less...

But of course there is still that GOOD OLD money factor that comes in to TAINT any belief "system" eh???


I don’t buy universalism

Here's the good news...I'm glad THE WORD has given MORE HOPE than what YOU dish out you penny pinching salvation tightwad.


, but I know that there are argument for universalism that are vastly more coherent than your theory that the demons in all of us that make us do bad things will be punished while the rest of us will go to heaven.

Hey, just because you don't understand a position doesn't make it valid. If you found a BETTER WAY to the truth of the SALVATION OF ALL more power to ya.


There are probably people who agree with your conclusion but recognize that your arguments are silly.

Your good ol' "other professionals disagree with you" debate tactic is rather DULL. I am happy to COMPARE with ANYone. Christian Universalists as a whole are FAR ABOVE you in WORD KNOWLEDGE for sure...


If someone like me were to associate your silly arguments with theirs, they have to make an effort to distinguish their rational from your own…

Someone like you would have to GET A CLUE first though eh?


(For those who aren't familiar, read Smallers embarassing interpretation of Matthew 25 here:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forum...mp;pagenumber=5 )

Your entire position was to PROVE THAT SIN is the SAME AS people...IT IS not...AND that PAUL was the SAME AS sin...he wasn't.

When you hit the wall on this subject you went home bawling and declaring FALSE VICTORY eh? Same ol' same ol' You damnation dudes are really pathetically THE SAME.


I wish those folks would send you a private message and urge you to reconsider some of your posts…. It might make it easier on them.

Why don't you DEAL WITH THE FACTS and leave your petty debate tactics at home you SICKo torture fiend.


Finally, I think knight might like us to stay on the topic of fundamentalism, so can you please stick to this topic. If universalism plays into it, then fine, but you have demonstrated that this is your one big thing and you don't discuss much else.

Why don't you FUNDAmental the last post I hit your buddy Atheistssuck with Mr. Word Genius??? I want to hear you DENY the WORD some more....

The BEST THING you FUDIES do is DODGE....

Salvation by DODGING...your creed of the day...

enjoy!

smaller

PureX
May 4th, 2004, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by BChristianK As it stands now, do you agree that objective truths can exist?Reality exists. Truth is an evaluative assessment of our grasp of reality. Truth itself has no "existence" except as an idea. And since our grasp of reality is incomplete, and is limited by our own place, time, physical nature and intellect; the truthfulness of our grasp of reality is only relative (and relatively accurate). Thus, to claim that our ideas about what is true or untrue are "absolute" would be dishonest. This is basically what I have been saying all along.

Originally posted by BChristianK No apologies necessary.Thanks.

Originally posted by BChristianK I would still urge you to reconsider your definition of fundamentalism. It’s a little antagonistic to define a movement for those in the movement.It's a LOT antagonistic! And I am fully aware of this. I intended to "antagonize" those who claim to be fundamentalists. I understand that my definition of fundamentalism is essentially a "worst case" definition, in that I am using the name tag of "fundamentalist" to define one of the worst inclinations within human beings regarding ideology (religious, political, cultural, ethnic, or whatever). And I want those folks who call themselves fundamentalists to be shocked or angered or otherwise disrupted in their minds by my doing so.

Religions, like all human institutions, have a huge inclination toward the denial of their own faults. They NEED to have their metaphorical butts kicked right square where they least want to look, and they need it to be done to them hard and often. The temptation of a religion to use God as it's excuse to fall into self-righteous elitism, and from there into outright willful ignorance, hatred, and even violence, is very great. In fact it's so great that pretty much any religion men come up with will succumb to this path if given the opportunity and enough time. And Christianity is no exception. In fact, it's one of the two most worrisome religions on the planet, at the moment, and it deserves intense scrutiny.

So I'm not at all apologetic about focussing the light of this discussion right squarely on the Christian religion's worst fault. And I'm not at all apologetic about using the term "fundamentalist" in the process, because those are the very people who are most inclined to fall into the dangerous muck of religious ignorance, hatred, and violence. And if they can't see this themselves, I want those nearest to them to see it, if possible. And I want everyone else to see it, too. I want Christians and non-Christians alike to stop making excuses for the nasty and dangerous prejudices that lurk within religion, just waiting for a chance to be expressed in the worst kinds of human behaviors. And if I step on a few egotistical toes to do it, I'm not going to worry about it.

LightSon
May 4th, 2004, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by PureX
Religions, like all human institutions, have a huge inclination toward the denial of their own faults.

It is not my intention to bore you with the spiritual dynamics of my faith. Suffice it to say, there is no honor in me denying my faults. As a fundamentalist; I affirm my fallen, flawed & (with deference to Sozo) sinful nature.

"He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy. " Proverbs 28:13
This is a core principle; God is not fooled or impressed by my hypocracy.

Righteousness is an important Godly principle, but self-righteousness is detested by God and should loathed by us. Our "good" behavior and zeal (as Christians) is meant to separate us unto God and not to be used as a pretext to look down our noses at you or anybody. Many Christians do fail to get this, so I am not surprised you are picking up on muddled signals.


Originally posted by PureX
And I'm not at all apologetic about using the term "fundamentalist" in the process, because those are the very people who are most inclined to fall into the dangerous muck of religious ignorance, hatred, and violence.

You err by painting Christian fundamentalists with the broad brush. Regarding religious ignorance, hatred, and violence:

Interestingly, it is you that insist we can't know anything for certain; hence, it is you that ought to be advocating a pandemic ignorance of any "truth". I think that the fact that we are so bold as to assert a body of revealed truth really chaps you, and so you are on a mission to undermine that principle. Yes. God has revealed His will. You don't like that; you don't want to be under God's authority and so you have picked up a philosophical stance to give yourself a plausible deniability. Your position will not stand in the day of judgment; God will not be impressed with your denial of Him and His word. Life is not a game to be played so as to avoid our responsibility to our Creator.

We are to love that which God loves, and to hate that which God hates. God loved PureX enough to die for him, so I guess that means I gotta love you. Hope that is okay.

Regarding violence: there is a time for war and a time for peace. Christians are generally directed to live peacably with all men as much as is possible. Sometimes it is not possible. Yet, Christians ought to be characterized as people of peace.

Bernie22
May 4th, 2004, 07:35 PM
BCK said to smaller...

"I don’t agree with universalism, but honestly, smaller, there are those who do agree with universalism but who must have read your posts and cringed at their preposterousness."

I'm a universalist, and I cringe that one like smaller is a representative of this doctrine at all. Fortunately, intelligent people realize that there are some like smaller in every belief system, and that these do not represent the whole.

Like most universalists, he makes the error of trying to say all our badness is from the devil and tries to use the tired, worn out argument of most universalists, that forever doesn't mean forever in Scripture. He either is John from goodnewsinc or one of his disciples.

There is in fact a coherent, rational approach to Scripture which doesn't try to "fit" the concept of universal reconcilliation with either Arminian or Calvinist thought, or to denigrate traditional truths like the forever controversy, but you won't find it in smaller. You will find it in rational esotericism, or esoteric fundamentalism, however.

Again, doesn't anyone see that smaller feeds off of the contempt of others? It gives him his rush. Ignore it and it will go away. He's being fed here; why would he cease and desist as long as he's being encouraged?

jjjg
May 4th, 2004, 07:50 PM
Purex, Bk is asking is there objective truths not absolutes. Again, you have to show how our knowledge being built upon relationships somehow limits our knowledge or falsifies it. Even from the first relationship we make, we have to know things about the essential nature of beings in order for a relationship to arise in our mind.

The relationships only apply to our knowledge of corporeal bodies. But although first cause is derived from what we percieve of the world, it become purely conceptual and we can conceive absolutes in a conceptual manner.

smaller
May 4th, 2004, 09:35 PM
Bernie22 comes out of the closet! Very good. We have been here before though eh? I don't recall you blowing any universal trumpet til TODAY...go figure...


I'm a universalist, and I cringe that one like smaller is a representative of this doctrine at all. Fortunately, intelligent people realize that there are some like smaller in every belief system, and that these do not represent the whole.

Talk is easy friend.

I found universalism to be filled with similar degrees and separations on text in various camps as is amply demonstrated here. Would you like to AIR some of them?


Like most universalists, he makes the error of trying to say all our badness is from the devil and tries to use the tired, worn out argument of most universalists, that forever doesn't mean forever in Scripture.

First of all I have NEVER used the eternal/ages position other than an sometime NOTE. It is NOT the fulcrum of the "universal position" imo.

I also do not think that Paul said HE was EVER sin indwelling or EVIL present with him. (Romans 7:17,20-21) so MAKE PAUL SIN and you will CONVINCE ME EH??? You will have to re-write the text to do so.

1 John 3:6 also brings YOUR position some HARD RUNNING eh?

Methinks you may also be a bit of a shil, so go figure.


He either is John from goodnewsinc or one of his disciples.

Truth stands as TRUTH. You have tried this one before as well BERN, but hey, better luck next time.

It is always easy to make trouble when you have ZERO on the table yourself eh?



There is in fact a coherent, rational approach to Scripture which doesn't try to "fit" the concept of universal reconcilliation with either Arminian or Calvinist thought, or to denigrate traditional truths like the forever controversy, but you won't find it in smaller.

I adhere to neither the calvie or arm position and DO NOT deny the eternal position either..so again you are a hollow ring.

I also am not A TEMPORARY burning believer Bernie.

Perhaps you see the TEMPORARY burning of people as a good way to, you know, scare people into belief of universalism. Some tried that one on me as well. This position seems to suit those who MAKE A LIVING on the Good News eh?


You will find it in rational esotericism, or esoteric fundamentalism, however.

Again, doesn't anyone see that smaller feeds off of the contempt of others?

The fact that I belittle ignorance of the text is certain. What you have remains to be seen AND is meant to be SHARED not hidden. hint hint.


It gives him his rush. Ignore it and it will go away. He's being fed here; why would he cease and desist as long as he's being encouraged?

Hey Bernie, if you feel you can do better, I really could care less HOW the doctrine of ETERNAL TORTURE is SET ASIDE.

It is simply an abomination and a lie.

and btw, I do not accept any of your false accusations Bernie/the shil...in this way you are no different than any common FALSEaccuser, universalism or no universalism.

We all wage a war in this wicked and evil generation. You are not exempt from the false accusers work. We only know our WAY THROUGH via HIS LIGHT.

His WORD is light.

enjoy!

smaller

BChristianK
May 4th, 2004, 11:08 PM
PureX said:


Reality exists. Truth is an evaluative assessment of our grasp of reality. Truth itself has no "existence" except as an idea. And since our grasp of reality is incomplete, and is limited by our own place, time, physical nature and intellect; the truthfulness of our grasp of reality is only relative (and relatively accurate).

Well, like a good philosopher, you separate the ontological from the epistemological. The essential problem that we all struggle with is the fact that, in reality, we only know of ontology through epistemology.

So the statement that truth only exists as an idea, which is the same thing as saying that truth is not ontological it is only epistemological, is subject to the same limitation.

I can say that something appears true, and you can respond that the appearance of truth is merely epistemological and not ontological, it is only the appearance of truth when in reality it is not inherently true.

You can say that that it appears to you that nothing is inherently true, that truth is not a part of the ontology of reality, and I can respond with the same objection, that it only appears that nothing is inherently true when in fact truth might be an inherent ontological characteristic.

Neither of us can know something apart from our own experience of it, we can never know it directly, so we both are interpreting reality through knowledge. We are both creating an ontology through our epistemology.

Now your argument is that fundamentalists don’t admit that their ontology is epistemological. You say as much in your next statement.




Thus, to claim that our ideas about what is true or untrue are "absolute" would be dishonest. This is basically what I have been saying all along.


And to say that it is dishonest, is equally dishonest. You don’t know, any more than they do, if they are right or wrong. You don’t experience reality directly either. So what appears to be true to them are the essentials of their fundamentalism. What appears to be true to you is that truth doesn’t exist as an ontological element in reality. Neither of you can verify anything apart from your existence so both of you are creating an ontology epistemologically.

The fundamentalists says that they believe in God. You say, “that’s just their interpretive experience of reality, reality apart from their experience and interpretation of it might be different.”

You say, “no one can know for sure if something is absolute”, the fundamentalist replies, “that’s just your experience of reality as well, apart from your experience and interpretation it might be different.”


That is what I have been saying all along.

Both position require faith. Both require us to make a decision as to what we are going to believe, and then stake our actions on those beliefs. You have faith that your interpretation of the nature of reality is correct. The fundamentalists do the same.

The only difference is the conclusion, not the epistemological process. But your argument is a criticism of the process not the conclusion.




Now I suggested that you definition of Fundamentalism was antagonistic, to which you replied:


It's a LOT antagonistic! And I am fully aware of this. I intended to "antagonize" those who claim to be fundamentalists. I understand that my definition of fundamentalism is essentially a "worst case" definition, in that I am using the name tag of "fundamentalist" to define one of the worst inclinations within human beings regarding ideology (religious, political, cultural, ethnic, or whatever). And I want those folks who call themselves fundamentalists to be shocked or angered or otherwise disrupted in their minds by my doing so.


Well then, it isn’t very fair to poke the gorilla and then blame him for aggressively taking away the stick, is it?

It is a little disingenuous to incite them to anger and then to use the fact that they got angry as fuel for your arguments, don’t you think?




Religions, like all human institutions, have a huge inclination toward the denial of their own faults. They NEED to have their metaphorical butts kicked right square where they least want to look, and they need it to be done to them hard and often.

You mean, like all human institutions, right?

Because it appears from me, a not so casual observer, that your crusade is against fundamentalism, not the dynamics of “all human institutions.”




The temptation of a religion to use God as it's excuse to fall into self-righteous elitism, and from there into outright willful ignorance, hatred, and even violence, is very great.

The tendency to use anything as an excuse to fall into self-righteous elitism, hatred and violence is very great. Religion is no exception to that rule. The anti-semetism of communist Russia before during and after WWII was not due to religion but it was nonetheless a form of elitism that resulted in hatred and violence.



In fact it's so great that pretty much any religion men come up with will succumb to this path if given the opportunity and enough time. And Christianity is no exception.

Well, that’s a pretty dim view of humanity. Not one I will deny categorically. And no, Chrisitanity is not an exception, it should be, but it isn’t. However, fundamentalists aren’t categorically religionists either. There are as many folks who agree with Cletes 5 points of Xtian fundamentalism that detest organized religion as it exists today as those who agree with Clete and love it.




In fact, it's one of the two most worrisome religions on the planet, at the moment, and it deserves intense scrutiny.


Why is it one of the two most worrisome?




So I'm not at all apologetic about focusing the light of this discussion right squarely on the Christian religion's worst fault.


The fault is violence, or religious conviction? Because, I don’t want to reignite another argument, but I don’t think you have affectively shown that they are the same or even that one precedes the other.




And I'm not at all apologetic about using the term "fundamentalist" in the process, because those are the very people who are most inclined to fall into the dangerous muck of religious ignorance, hatred, and violence.


Here’s the main point of disagreement. I don’t think you have established this.

I don’t think you have exemplified or, or proven it sociologically. Nor do I think you have shown effectively that the tenants of Christian Fundamentalism lend themselves to violent action.

And this is where I think your argument is unfair. It draws a conclusion about a group of people that hasn’t been proven.

It would be equally unfair to me to say that all Darwinists are essentially hate mongers and then go on to define Darwinism as a philosophy defined principally by its hate mongering. You would rightly point out that my definition of Darwinism is self serving and abusive, and that my argument is flawed by virtue of my biased definition.

You would rightly be frustrated if you told me that you were a Darwinist and not a hate monger and I replied that you were simply wrong about what it means to be a Darwinist and that you were being dishonest about what Darwinism really is.

Would you not you become vehemently active in rebutting my assertions?, and become further frustrated when I just used that vehemence to feed my bias saying that this was just another sign that you were really hateful and that your behavior was just a proof of my argument?

When you pointed out that Darwinists aren’t currently involved in any systematic form of hatred, I would just say, “well just wait until they get the power, then we’ll see, but we’d better stop them before they do.”

You would be right in concluding that there was no rational discussion that would ever change my opinion about Darwinists, or any logic that I would consider that would falsify my viewpoint. In short, my view would be unfalsifiable in regard to Darwinism. And I would be the holder of a dogmatic belief that has absolutely no exception.

You would say that my argument is fundamentalistic for displaying these characteristics. Do you not see the similarities in how your argument treats the objections of the likes of Lightson, or JJJG or myself?

Grace and Peace