Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Fundamentalism

Thread Locked

Posted Mar 15, '08 at 11:38am

chiliad_nodi

chiliad_nodi

652 posts

People on this site attack christians as if they were all bible literalists. I know I am not, and do not approve of bible literalists. We don't even have the bible, but only copies of copies of copies...
I would like to hear what you think.

 

Posted Mar 18, '08 at 6:11pm

chiliad_nodi

chiliad_nodi

652 posts

I know you are not supposed to bump, but once is not going to kill me. Does anybody have any ideas? at all? Please!?

 

Posted Mar 18, '08 at 8:56pm

Asherlee

Asherlee

5,346 posts

Knight

I am not sure that those that you feel are attacking Christianity are accusing anyone of being a "Bible Literalist." I think it is religion all together that seems to be the butt of all our debates. These seems to be because a lot of people will come rolling up in a topic and lay down some Christian ideal or moral and not put any thought into it.

 

Posted Mar 18, '08 at 10:17pm

EequalsMC2

EequalsMC2

10 posts

Spiritual Principles from most religions are good. Most spiritual/religious people are good people. The problem is that most religions are based on 2,000 year old science. Fundamentalists accept the science and the principles; one faulty and one good. Example: Genesis Chapter one says God created the animals first and then man. Chapter two says man first and then the animals. Look it up. Which was it?

 

Posted Mar 19, '08 at 6:39pm

Moegreche

Moegreche

3,069 posts

Moderator

There are certain things about religion that make some people blind to simple reason. Everywhere I see people who have "arguments" for the existence of a god, or intelligent design that are totally fallacious, but they have no idea. It makes me sad and frustrated to see this ignorance perpetuated by church officials and preachers who feed this nonsense to their followers like little goldfish who just don't know any better.
If someone is really a bible literalist, then I usually just can't talk to that person. There are obvious inconsistencies within the bible, or even within just a few pages that cannot be reconciled.
It's the people that think they know the truth and they have great arguments that really irk me, because most don't accept standard refutations of their standard arguments.

 

Posted Mar 20, '08 at 10:42am

Asherlee

Asherlee

5,346 posts

Knight

Moe, I might have to copy and paste what you've just wrote in a few places. It was perfectly constructed and it's like you pulled thoughts out of my head. Thank you!

 

Posted Mar 21, '08 at 5:37pm

chiliad_nodi

chiliad_nodi

652 posts

EequalsMC2 actually brought up a great point:
"Genesis Chapter one says God created the animals first and then man. Chapter two says man first and then the animals. Look it up. Which was it?"
The main point of those stories was something any ancient Hebrews would get. It was not about Adam and Eve, but Human Life. Adam means Human, and Eve means Life. The first creation story (the one written second) is saying that everything that God created is good. (Even if all he did was create energy and plan out the rest.) Cain is an eponym for Caananites, and Abel for <group I can't remember>.

And on Asherlee:
"I am not sure that those that you feel are attacking Christianity are accusing anyone of being a 'Bible Literalist.'"
I think it might just be a misunderstanding on y part. Your post may have made me pick up on it, but many people attack direct pericopies and chapters from the bible expecting all Christians believe that the bible is 100% literal and true.

 

Posted Mar 22, '08 at 11:36am

Moegreche

Moegreche

3,069 posts

Moderator

I think that it's incredibly important that there are people that are educated about the Bible's roots and evolution and don't take it literally. There are, however, plently of people who do as I'm sure you know.
I have seen what you're talking about in many debates, but I think people who attack the Bible without provocation are simply guilty of the straw-man fallacy. In a debate, I try to never refer to the Bible unless my opponent does first because it's very simple to reduce an opponent's argument by attacking the Bible's language or point of view, rather than the person with whom I'm debating.
I certainly think there are just as many ill-informed people on both sides of the debate, but if someone tries to refute an argument by refuting the Bible, then it's clearly an unfair attack on a weak and non-representative position.

 

Posted Mar 22, '08 at 5:39pm

chiliad_nodi

chiliad_nodi

652 posts

I never refute the bible, just refute one's interpretation of it; however, you do bring up a great point.
Oh yeah, and on: "I think that it's incredibly important that there are people that are educated about the Bible's roots and evolution and don't take it literally. There are, however, plently of people who do as I'm sure you know."
That is very sad but true. Christianity would be a better religeon if there were more classes/masses on bible roots.