Constructing reality in your head

[Guest Guest]

How can you possible think you know what Christians think when all you do it try to tear down the fabric that holds  them all together. You need to get your head out of the books instead of quoting some author you read and really see what they think.    You might learn something for a change.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Apparently you think you know what all Christians think because you claim to know what holds them all together. The Christians I speak to think that fundies like you give them all a bad name. Do you ever talk to them, and if you do are they willing to tell you what they think? They probably won't if they see you coming because they don't want the argument. But they talk to a lot of us, and that is what they are saying about you.

As for reading books, I presume that would be OK if it was the Bible. Do you people ever think about what you're saying and about what you said yesterday at the same time?

[Strife767]

Preface: Don't attempt to nest quotes if you don't know how; this is the last time I fix them for you.

9/11 happened only a handful of years ago. Have you forgotten already how dangerous fundamentalism is?

And don't even try the "but that just means Islam is evil!" Bullshit. One visit to Fundies Say the Darndest Things and you'll find a ton of quotes by Christians on several of their own forums saying things that reflect a mindset just as dangerous.

Strife, the best example of the damage caused by fundamentalism you can come up with is 911?

It's the most recent major example.

I already gave the traditional list of fudamentals of the faith in an earlier post.

How about a legitimate example of a great evil Christian Fundamentalism has caused.  Please don't include an example involving an idivididual.

Uh, unless you're looking for evils committed by robots, one really doesn't have another choice but make references to an individual or at least a group of individuals.

That would be unfair.  Their are individuals in every group that are bad examples.  As an Atheist, I'm sure you remember the evils foisted on the world by such noted individual Atheists like Joseph Stalin  or Mao Tse Tung.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Except that Stalin didn't act in the name of atheism, so that in itself makes that unreasonable.

On the other hand, the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades are two of the most obvious examples of horrific behavior perpetrated not only by Christians, but also in the name of Christianity, and perpetrated with the 'targets' specifically being non-Christians.

[Strife767]

How can someone have an intelligent argument with someone like you who blatantly comes here and repeatedly lies over and over?

What a well-polished mirror. Care to give an example or two of these alleged lies?

You have no respect and deserve less than that.  For months you post over and over about your scorn of religion yet you quote it like it was your own. How can you sit there and type this saying that you respect religion when you dread someone saying there might be the possibility of a god.

LOL, find me one Christian on this forum who ever spoke with such little conviction as to say the equivalent of "there might be the possibility of a god." What a transparent attempt to water down the rantings of the fundies on this forum.

Religion has helped comfort more people throughout this world than you can fathom.

This reminds me of an exchange on that old sitcom Becker, in which the eponymous/main character, who is a doctor, talks to a priest about his atheism (Becker's, that is), and the idea of a priest coming to "comfort" (as you said) someone who is hospitalized with a life-threatening condition. It's paraphrased from memory, bear with me:

Priest: I believe in giving people hope.

Becker: So do I, but I don't believe in giving them false hope.

And then Becker went on to say that he would be against telling a dying patient that they'll be fine.

The point is that to take comfort in something that you can't prove is even there certainly does not justify that something, because people could be (and are) taught to cope with stress and stuff in many other, more concrete ways. Your line of reasoning is the kind that would have a soldier tell his dying king that the battle outside his castle is going well, even though he knows that chances are they are losing.

Alcohol also comforts a lot of people by allowing them to forget their troubles for a while. By your logic, that alone would make alcohol inherently good. Surely even you could see the error in that?

All you want to do is bring out the bad facts but avoid the good.

There is nothing positive about theistic belief that cannot be achieved through other means, end of story. Can you think of such a positive 'thing' that can be achieved only through religion? If so, I will completely concede the argument.

I guess feeding, healing, and helping the poor is something you will never understand.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that atheists were literally incapable of doing those things. Your arrogance in assuming that theists are the only altruistic people on earth is ludicrous, not to mention stunningly arrogant.

Whoever scorned you from Church really has left you a very bitter and miserably man.

Ad hominem. How cheap.

If you ever came off that mountain you hold yourself high on you just might see it.

If something is real, it can be perceived regardless of faith. Your claim is empty, and your premise shallow.

If there is an antichrist, I am sure it will come in the shape of you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course, that's how your morality inevitably seems to truly work at its foundation. Liken everyone who disagrees with you with the nebulous enemy you've concocted to heap the blame for all of the world's ills on. You see even the slightest criticism of your outlandish beliefs as extraordinary defiance, because you've already taken your beliefs 'on faith,' and therefore have deemed them unquestionable for no good reason.

[Strife767]

It the same like telling everyone of your son's innocence yet knowing that he was wrong to try to correct a wrong that was done to you a long time ago. 

You are now being more vocal about it because of the damage religion has done? Now look who is calling the kettle black.  It was your own scorn of it that cause you to send your son tape recorded in hand.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What? Even a whole lot of non-fundie Christians agree that Paszkiewicz was in the wrong--you insult them by insinuating that only a non-Christian would find fault in Paszkiewicz's behavior.

[Guest Paul]

How can you possible think you know what Christians think when all you do it try to tear down the fabric that holds  them all together. You need to get your head out of the books instead of quoting some author you read and really see what they think.    You might learn something for a change.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I speak to Christians, and read what they write. They tell me they think, and since I grew up in a Christian family I have a background in it.

It's interesting that when I cite a book that doesn't support your views, you want me to get my head out of books. Would you say that if I had quoted the Bible? You guys make up your rules as you go along, and change them to suit your convenience of the moment. Do you even realize you're doing it?

As for tearing down the fabric of your belief system, I can only be honest. If honesty tears down the fabric of your belief system, then maybe it isn't a good belief system. Aside from the fact that most Christians are not fire-breathing fundamentalists, the content of a theology or religion can only be considered on its merits. You guys have gotten away with the taboo against criticizing your religion for a long time. That game is over. You've done too much damage, and those of us who see that damage are beginning to say so.

[Guest Paul]

How about a legitimate example of a great evil Christian Fundamentalism has caused.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll broaden it to all fundamentalisms. If you're open and honest, you'll see Christian fundamentalism all over the list.

1. Denigration of science, all the way from Copernicus to Darwin and beyond.

2. The Crusades.

3. The Inquisitions.

4. A multitude of religious wars throughout history.

5. The dumbing down of thought in our culture. Fundamentalism asserts things that just aren't true, and encourages people to think from the assumptions built into ancient texts, instead of critically examining the world on its own terms and drawing conclusions accordingly. Look at the way you write, for example. All you do is quote from the Bible, whether it has any application to the situation or not.

6. The division of humanity through the promotion of dogmatic, specific and profoundly different ideas about God.

7. Profound damage to religion itself. Fundamentalism exalts ancient writings that are obviously and deeply flawed (an understatement) over the revealed Truth of our lives. Fundamentalism induces people to overlook the real and valuable lessons of religion in favor of rigid pronouncements, many of which have absolutely nothing to do with what is good.

8. The election of George W. Bush, for all the wrong reasons.

If I really put some time into it, I have no doubt that a more complete list is many times that long.

[Guest Paul]

The problem is not religion though, it is blind obedience to an idea. Whether the idea is slavery, conservativism, liberalism, Islam, Christianity, communism, capitalism-whatever it may be. No one belief system has all the facts, but many people seem to believe that when everyone shares their worldview it will solve all of our problems. Perhaps if people would actually do something to improve the world instead of trying to promote their ideology as the way to solve problems, said problems could be solved.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good points, I like your style and I hope you can have a little more peace here now that you've secured your computer. I agree with most of what you say, except that to a very large degree some religions are the problem. I can't overlook, for example, the harm done by conditioning people to think that eternal torment could be a part of justice, or the harm done by forcing a conflict with science just because some people aren't willing to open their minds to what is real. So while you're correct that no one has all the facts, it is also true that some belief systems are profoundly wrong, and damaging. You wouldn't have much hesitation, I suspect, saying that about Nazism. Well, I can't overlook the things that are profoundly wrong with religious fundamentalism. In particular, fundamentalism conditions people to re-construct reality in their heads. That divorces them from reality, which is why so many people can continue to believe Saddam had WMDs when we know he didn't, and that he was behind the WTC attacks when we know he wasn't. Once you condition yourself to believe things because you want them to be true (this is what some people call faith) instead of by looking objectively and carefully at the evidence, you become an impediment to harmony and progress in the world.

You seem like a bright and engaging person. Have you ever read any of Paul Tillich's works?

[Guest Paul]

How can someone have an intelligent argument with someone like you who blatantly comes here and repeatedly lies over and over? You have no respect and deserve less than that.  For months you post over and over about your scorn of religion yet you quote it like it was your own. How can you sit there and type this saying that you respect religion when you dread someone saying there might be the possibility of a god.  Religion has helped comfort more people throughout this world than you can fathom.  All you want to do is bring out the bad facts but avoid the good.  I guess feeding, healing, and helping the poor is something you will never understand.  Whoever scorned you from Church really has left you a very bitter and miserably man.  If you ever came off that mountain you hold yourself high on you just might see it.  If there is an antichrist, I am sure it will come in the shape of you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You have no idea what you're talking about, and you don't begin to understand me. I quote those things as though they were my own because they are. When I quote favorably from the Bible it is because the text says something that touches and means something to me. When we live, eat, sleep and breathe our religion, that is what happens. My religion is with me every moment of my life. There is no separation between my religion and my life. That is how I know I have found a religion that is True.

At the same time, I scorn what I think invites scorn. If I get it wrong, it won't be hard to put me in my place. What you'll see from me if that happens is an acknowledgement of the fact, but you're not going to get it by comparing me to the antichrist. All that tells me is that you're frustrated. Maybe that's because I'm making points you do not wish to acknowledge.

[Guest Paul]

It the same like telling everyone of your son's innocence yet knowing that he was wrong to try to correct a wrong that was done to you a long time ago. 

You are now being more vocal about it because of the damage religion has done? Now look who is calling the kettle black.  It was your own scorn of it that cause you to send your son tape recorded in hand.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You have no idea what you're talking about. I get the sense that you're discussing this in your church. If so, and if it's bothering you that much, call me, we'll come down and discuss it together.

You know, this thing about all being brothers is a great idea. You should try it.

[Guest Red-Letter edition]

I'll broaden it to all fundamentalisms. If you're open and honest, you'll see Christian fundamentalism all over the list.

1. Denigration of science, all the way from Copernicus to Darwin and beyond.

2. The Crusades.

3. The Inquisitions.

4. A multitude of religious wars throughout history.

5. The dumbing down of thought in our culture. Fundamentalism asserts things that just aren't true, and encourages people to think from the assumptions built into ancient texts, instead of critically examining the world on its own terms and drawing conclusions accordingly. Look at the way you write, for example. All you do is quote from the Bible, whether it has any application to the situation or not.

6. The division of humanity through the promotion of dogmatic, specific and profoundly different ideas about God.

7. Profound damage to religion itself. Fundamentalism exalts ancient writings that are obviously and deeply flawed (an understatement) over the revealed Truth of our lives. Fundamentalism induces people to overlook the real and valuable lessons of religion in favor of rigid pronouncements, many of which have absolutely nothing to do with what is good.

8. The election of George W. Bush, for all the wrong reasons.

I'll deal with each point, and you are correct, I see fundamentalism all over the list.

1. Many of the greatest scientists in the world were fundamentalists or at least theistic creationists this includes Capernicus. In fact, Capernicus was slow in publishing his great work, The Revolutions of the Heanenly Orbs, because he feared a backlash from the scientific community. It challenged their traditional way of viewing the universe. They were students of Aristotle's astronomy which taught that the earth was at the center of the solar system.

Other great theistic creationists / fundamentalists include the founders of modern science:

Leonardo da Vinci- He was an experimental scientist before the scientific method (his faith is evident in his art)

Johann Keplar-founder of physical astronomy. He stated simply, "I am thinking God's thoughts after Him."

Francis Bacon-established the scientific method. Stated, "There are two books laid before us to study, to prevent our falling into error; first, the volume of Scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then the volume of Creatures, which express His power."

Blaise Pascal-father of hydrostatics and one of the founders of hydrodynamics. He stated, "How can anyone lose who choses to become a Christian?.....

Robert Boyle-father of modern chemistry. He donated much of his personal wealth to missions and Bible translating.

Issac Newton-Discovered Law of Gravity. He actually wrote volumes on Bible prophecy. He defended Bishop Ussher's Chronology against those that believed in a longer age of the earth. He also stated, "We account the Scriptures of God to be the most sublime philosophy. I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatsoever."

Carolus Linnaeus- father of biological taxonomy. He actually equated his "species" category with the "kind" of the Genesis account.

Samuel F. B. Morse- inventor of the telegraph. His first message over the wire was, "What hath God wrought?"

Louis Pasteur-he established germ theory. He was a committed Christian and is quoted as saying, "The more I know, the more does my faith approach that of a Breton peasant woman. Could I but know all, I would have the faith of a Breton peasant woman.

2. The Crusades- You seem to have forgotten that they were a response to Muslim acquistion of Christian territory. In fact, Christians were about 600 years late in combating them and only started after Muslims forbid Christian pilgrimages to Christs tomb.

3. The inquisitions were evil, but they are not Biblical. Churchmen and Kings misused the Scriptures in order to work their will on the masses. Don't forget Paul, Christians were also killed in the inquisition for such things as not praying to the Virgin Mary because she is not God.

4. You would have to identify a specific war to deal with. However, again, often the Scriptures are misused by power hungry men. That does not mean the Bible or Jesus are at fault.

5. I think the fact established in point number one make your assertion silly.

Many of the greatest minds in Science were fundamentalists or at least theistic creationists. I think the same could be said of great statesmen in Western Civilization as well.

6. Are you suggesting that it is wrong to have divergent views?

8. This point is ridiculous coming from an obviously highly educated man. You are putting subjective experience over objective truth. The Scriptures are rooted and grounded in prophecy. In Law, is the judge's subjective life experience to be put above the written objective law?

9. The election of George Bush for all the wrong reasons. First of all, you don't list any of these alleged reasons and I am defending fundamental Christianity, not George Bush. I'll indulge anyway. George Bush has made mistakes for sure with regard to his prosecution of the war on terror etc. However, he took up the daunting challenge of fighting terrorism at great risk to his legacy. In addition, he ended the gruesome practice of partial birth abortion. In this procedure, babies are delivered breach. While their little legs are wiggling in the doctor'r's hands, he punctures their skull with scissers and S**ks out the brain in order to collapse the skull. I'm betting its Bush's belief in the Scriptures that caused him to call for an end to this practice. What an evil thing for a fundamentalist to propogate!

[Guest Red-Letter Edition]

You have no idea what you're talking about. I get the sense that you're discussing this in your church. If so, and if it's bothering you that much, call me, we'll come down and discuss it together.

You know, this thing about all being brothers is a great idea. You should try it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul, you seem like you're coming unglued. Stay cool my friend. I can almost hear the chorus, "Their coming to take me away Ha Ha" in the background... There is no vast right-wing conspiracy against you, and in Church, I'm betting Jesus is more popular than you and He is the topic of discussion.

[Bryan]

Like inventing WMDs out of whole cloth to justify an unwinnable war in a country that didn't attack us.

Paul commits three whoppers in one short sentence. And he wonders why I interject frequently.

1. The CIA and U.S. intelligence stood behind the WMD claim, as did the intelligence services of each of our allies (Great Britain, France, Italy, Russia, Germany). There's no reasonable way to say it was invented out of whole cloth.

2. Unwinnable war? Please. You already admitted in another thread that the war was won, and the assessment of the aftermath rests on your presuppositions about Iraqis.

3. Iraq did attack us by firing at planes operating in no-fly zones. Moreover, they repeatedly broke the ceasefire agreement and in Hans Blix's judgment failed to cooperate fully with weapons inspections.

Like asserting the freedom to own slaves, one of the justifications for which was that the Bible said slavery was OK.

The fundamentalist mind was also against slavery--so you figure you understand the fundamentalist mind on that basis?

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0856463.html

Like completely looking the other way when a supposedly conservative president abandons most of what made conservatism a credible governmental philosophy.

Fundamentalists don't care much for Bush, in truth. They wish he'd act more on abortion and collaborate less with Democrats.

Bush is a Methodist, after all. The denomination is hardly renowned for its fundamentalist streak.

http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu.../methodist.html

Sometimes people like Paul classify mainstream Christianity as fundamentalist, OTOH.

Make way for Paul; he's wielding his broad brush today.

When you premise your thinking on an arbitrary authority instead of basing your thinking on the facts, and when you declare things to be true because you want them to be true, you inevitably run into trouble sooner or later. Those are two hallmarks of fundamentalist thinking.

Did you read the article on the Methodist denomination? Are they fundamentalists because you want them to be or for some other reason?

I'm far from the only person making these points. Reasonable people have always rolled their eyes at religious fundamentalists who think their way is the only way. The only difference now is that some of us are starting to be more vocal about it because we see the damage it has done.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No doubt they have X-ray vision enabling them to see through the plank.

Still waiting for the godless ideology that has made a distinct positive mark on the world, and still waiting for Paul's support of his claim to an objective and universal system of values.

[Guest Guest]

Good points, I like your style and I hope you can have a little more peace here now that you've secured your computer. I agree with most of what you say, except that to a very large degree some religions are the problem. I can't overlook, for example, the harm done by conditioning people to think that eternal torment could be a part of justice, or the harm done by forcing a conflict with science just because some people aren't willing to open their minds to what is real. So while you're correct that no one has all the facts, it is also true that some belief systems are profoundly wrong, and damaging. You wouldn't have much hesitation, I suspect, saying that about Nazism. Well, I can't overlook the things that are profoundly wrong with religious fundamentalism. In particular, fundamentalism conditions people to re-construct reality in their heads. That divorces them from reality, which is why so many people can continue to believe Saddam had WMDs when we know he didn't, and that he was behind the WTC attacks when we know he wasn't. Once you condition yourself to believe things because you want them to be true (this is what some people call faith) instead of by looking objectively and carefully at the evidence, you become an impediment to harmony and progress in the world.

You seem like a bright and engaging person. Have you ever read any of Paul Tillich's works?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Only Dynamics of Faith. I'm more a Bonhoeffer fan myself-although I'm not religious and don't actually believe god exists, the man is one of my personal heroes.

The problem is that it is difficult to make it clear that you are attacking religious fundamentalism and not religious belief. Religious belief has a place in many people's lives, and they are welcome to it. The only time it concerns me is when they try to insert relgion into our laws.

Thank you for the well-wishing. Luckily, she didn't make a final post here-where she did, it was nasty.

[Guest Autonomous]

Yes, Bill Gates is a wonderful and generous man. But, I still don't know of any atheist organizations ( that would mean a group of atheists) who provide for the needy in our community.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The previous post was (probably-someone else might be posting right now) me. Oops.

Richard Dawkins compared trying to organize atheists to trying to herd cats. It won't work and annoys all parties involved. The point being that atheists don't really have organizations.

[Guest Paul]

QUOTE

Religion has helped comfort more people throughout this world than you can fathom.

This reminds me of an exchange on that old sitcom Becker, in which the eponymous/main character, who is a doctor, talks to a priest about his atheism (Becker's, that is), and the idea of a priest coming to "comfort" (as you said) someone who is hospitalized with a life-threatening condition. It's paraphrased from memory, bear with me:

Priest: I believe in giving people hope.

Becker: So do I, but I don't believe in giving them false hope.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To me, that's not the point. The point is that eternal torment in hell does not give hope, but does exactly the opposite. It plants irrational fear. I told you, my beef isn't with religion, but with particular aspects of some religions.

[Guest Paul]

9/11 happened only a handful of years ago. Have you forgotten already how dangerous fundamentalism is?

And don't even try the "but that just means Islam is evil!" Bullshit. One visit to Fundies Say the Darndest Things and you'll find a ton of quotes by Christians on several of their own forums saying things that reflect a mindset just as dangerous.

Strife, the best example of the damage caused by fundamentalism you can come up with is 911?

I already gave the traditional list of fudamentals of the faith in an earlier post.

How about a legitimate example of a great evil Christian Fundamentalism has caused. Please don't include an example involving an idivididual. That would be unfair. Their are individuals in every group that are bad examples. As an Atheist, I'm sure you remember the evils foisted on the world by such noted individual Atheists like Joseph Stalin or Mao Tse Tung.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Another reason fundamentalism does so much damage is that it does the exact opposite of what it claims to do. Its claim is that it promotes moral responsibility, but in fact it does the exact opposite. Its claim is that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. If that was true, then the Bible would contain no contradictions, but in fact it does. Relying on the false premise, the fundamentalist merely has to find a single passage in the Bible to support what he wants to do. Once he finds it, he need not look further because he presumes that the entire Bible is consistent with that passage. What he has actually done is decide what he wants to do, find a biblical passage to support his ego-desire, and closed the door to any further thought or study. He has given himself license to do exactly as he pleases without thinking about it, which is irresponsible on every level, and it comes straight out of the way he is conditioned to think about the Bible. I've seen it happen over and over. We all have. Don't respond defensively. Think about it.

[Guest Guest]

Yes, Bill Gates is a wonderful and generous man. But, I still don't know of any atheist organizations ( that would mean a group of atheists) who provide for the needy in our community.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How about seeing it as a group of people who care about people. One of the worst things fundamenalism does is it divides people. You just did it again. When are you going to stop?

[Guest Guest]

. . . the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades are two of the most obvious examples of horrific behavior perpetrated not only by Christians, but also in the name of Christianity, and perpetrated with the 'targets' specifically being non-Christians.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, and also explicitly because other people were not Christians. Both the Inquisition and the Crusades were attempts to force everyone into Christianity. Those are two excellent examples.

[Guest 2smart4u]

You have no idea what you're talking about, and you don't begin to understand me. I quote those things as though they were my own because they are. When I quote favorably from the Bible it is because the text says something that touches and means something to me. When we live, eat, sleep and breathe our religion, that is what happens. My religion is with me every moment of my life. There is no separation between my religion and my life. That is how I know I have found a religion that is True.

At the same time, I scorn what I think invites scorn. If I get it wrong, it won't be hard to put me in my place. What you'll see from me if that happens is an acknowledgement of the fact, but you're not going to get it by comparing me to the antichrist. All that tells me is that you're frustrated. Maybe that's because I'm making points you do not wish to acknowledge.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"We live, eat, sleep and breathe religion", "I have found a religion that is true". So apparently your "true" religion allows you to sneak a tape recorder into a classroom and tape record someone without their knowledge or consent ? Sounds like a pretty loosey goosey religion.

[Guest Red-Letter Edition]

To me, that's not the point. The point is that eternal torment in hell does not give hope, but does exactly the opposite. It plants irrational fear. I told you, my beef isn't with religion, but with particular aspects of some religions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul, I seem to detect a shift in your argument. I admit, I haven't gone back through all the posts to research this, please correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to remember your problem being with "theists" originally and now its specifically "fundamentalists."

[Guest Paul]

6. Are you suggesting that it is wrong to have divergent views?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, and that's the point. Fundamentalism does not allow for divergent views. So while the great scientists you named may have been religious, each to his own degree and in his own way, they were products of their cultures, which made it all but impossible not to embrace Christian belief. Yet they did not allow this intense pressure to beat down their science.

Human beings are walking masses of contradictions. Science managed to advance despite fundamentalism, not because of it. If in fact the Muslims started it, as you claim regarding the Crusades, that doesn't change the fact that the argument and the social division was over conceptions of a god that no one knows to exist.

Equally or more important, it's a new time now. Most scientists today do not accept the Bible as being literally true. They have been freed to a significant degree by modernity, which is what has the fundamentalists up in arms. Remember, Islamic and Christian fundamentalists share a common distaste for a great many things, including modernization of the world.

With seven billion people on Earth (and counting rapidly) and all our technology, we are all over each other. If the old religions held together cultures that were separated geographically, they are now dividing cultures that are inevitably intertwined with each other. It was always an explosive situation, with conflicts popping up all over the world from time to time. Today it is an untenable situation. Many Christians believe that their duty is to convert the world. If you begin to accomplish that by forcing Christianity on people, you'll create a nightmare that will make World War II look like a picnic by comparison.

[Guest Paul]

Only Dynamics of Faith. I'm more a Bonhoeffer fan myself-although I'm not religious and don't actually believe god exists, the man is one of my personal heroes.

The problem is that it is difficult to make it clear that you are attacking religious fundamentalism and not religious belief. Religious belief has a place in many people's lives, and they are welcome to it. The only time it concerns me is when they try to insert relgion into our laws.

Thank you for the well-wishing. Luckily, she didn't make a final post here-where she did, it was nasty.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're welcome. We're far more influenced by cultural conditioning than we realize. Getting past that is like trying to pry loose a board. You have to rock it back and forth quite a bit sometimes before it becomes loose enough to pull out. Undoing all the conditioning about what people in our culture call religion is going to take some time, and it isn't going to be painless.

Dynamics of Faith is exactly the book I had in mind. What did you think of it?

[Guest Paul]

"We live, eat, sleep and breathe religion", "I have found a religion that is true". So apparently your "true" religion allows you to sneak a tape recorder into a classroom and tape record someone without their knowledge or consent ?  Sounds like a pretty loosey goosey religion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Our religion allows us to address a wrong in an intelligent and effective way.

[Bryan]

Another reason fundamentalism does so much damage is that it does the exact opposite of what it claims to do. Its claim is that it promotes moral responsibility, but in fact it does the exact opposite. Its claim is that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. If that was true, then the Bible would contain no contradictions, but in fact it does.

Sounds like Paul has a misunderstanding about the doctrine of inerrancy.

Relying on the false premise,

Oooh! Irony (unintended!)! I like that.

the fundamentalist merely has to find a single passage in the Bible to support what he wants to do.

Doesn't that presuppose that the fundamentalist want to find justification for his actions in a text instead of presuming that the fundamentalist uses the text as a blueprint for action?

Did that method of operation come from the Bible, also?

If not, is it fair to ascribe the same method of operation to the atheist?

The atheist figures out what he wants to do and then justifies it by ... well, nothing. Sounds like the atheist can do as he pleases, using a parallel to Paul's logic.

Once he finds it, he need not look further because he presumes that the entire Bible is consistent with that passage. What he has actually done is decide what he wants to do, find a biblical passage to support his ego-desire, and closed the door to any further thought or study. He has given himself license to do exactly as he pleases without thinking about it, which is irresponsible on every level, and it comes straight out of the way he is conditioned to think about the Bible. I've seen it happen over and over. We all have. Don't respond defensively. Think about it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've seen atheists act by their own moral lights over and over again (earlier this year, an atheist acquaintance hacked a trial version of a $400 software program so that he could keep it and use it indefinitely, for example--he's going into law, BTW).

Don't respond defensively. Think about it.

[Guest Red-Letter Edition]

Another reason fundamentalism does so much damage is that it does the exact opposite of what it claims to do. Its claim is that it promotes moral responsibility, but in fact it does the exact opposite. Its claim is that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. If that was true, then the Bible would contain no contradictions, but in fact it does. Relying on the false premise, the fundamentalist merely has to find a single passage in the Bible to support what he wants to do. Once he finds it, he need not look further because he presumes that the entire Bible is consistent with that passage. What he has actually done is decide what he wants to do, find a biblical passage to support his ego-desire, and closed the door to any further thought or study. He has given himself license to do exactly as he pleases without thinking about it, which is irresponsible on every level, and it comes straight out of the way he is conditioned to think about the Bible. I've seen it happen over and over. We all have. Don't respond defensively. Think about it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There are certainly fundamentalists that do that Paul. They are still subject to the sin nature the Bible talks about. However, they are in the minority. Also, you keep claiming biblical contradictions, yet each supposed contradiction you produced has been refuted. In fact, fundamentalists follow rules of interpretation.

As a starting point, with regard to interpretation of Scripture, the fundamentalist is concerned primarily with the biblical author's intended meaning of the passage. The process is called "exogesis" extracting the meaning from the text, not "eisogesis" or imposing one's meaning on the text. This flies in the face of your value system Paul so I can understand your problem with fundamentalism. You derive truth subjectively through your own experience, therefore it would be your nature to impose your meaning on the text. Fundamentalists approach the text more scientifically. They have a method for interpretation (at least those that are formally trained do).

It looks something like this:

1. Text - Confirm the limits of the passage.

2. Historical Analysis - Research the historical background etc. to put the passage in its full context.

3. Literary Analysis - Examine the literary function and placement of the passage in relation to the whole body of Scripture. (for example, is it among the poetical books?).

4. Identify Literary Genre - This has a bearing on interpretation. For example, historical prose is to be interpreted as such, literally.

5. Grammatical Analysis - Analyze significant grammar issues.

6. Lexical Analysis - Concentrate on the meanings of key words in their time period and context.

7. Application - Establish the author's intended application of the passage.

A favorite verse among fundamentalists is:

"Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15 KJV

You see Paul, true fundamentalist are interested in:

1. Study

2. Objective truth

3. Exogesis of the text (not imposing their meaning on the text)

4. Correct application of the text (the author's intended application) This, by the way, is because the author was under the inspiration of God, not the person interpreting the passage.