Notices
Results 1 to 64 of 64

Thread: What is a fundamentalist?

  1. #1 What is a fundamentalist? 
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    I have seen the term fundamentalist bandied about on this forum, being used as a pejorative term many times in the past with the intent to disrespect the person(s) so labeled. Or sometimes it is used in its even more pejorative form “fundie.”

    From the different contexts used, it does not seem to me that everyone who uses that term in a pejorative sense actually uses it to mean quite the same thing. So it got me to thinking: just what is a fundamentalist and what is fundamentalism? Is it wrong to be a fundamentalist and, if so, why? Is it possible to wrongly be a non-fundamentalist?

    Fundamentalist is actually an adjective and should be followed by whatever it is describing but it is seldom used that way here, especially when the pejorative sense is intended. It is as though fundamentalism is always bad and non-fundamentalism is in some way always good. Using it on this forum in reference to some religious idea or person, it like someone in a group of liberals saying of Rush Limbaugh, “Well, he is a conservative, you know.” It is like saying he is a “good” or a “bad” without saying what he is a good or a bad of.

    Leaving off the modified word clouds the object of the writer’s comment. Does he mean fundamentalist religious person in general? Does he mean fundamentalist Muslim? Or Jew? Or Christian? For that matter, are there such things as fundamentalist Hindus or Buddhists? I don’t know that I have ever heard the term fundamentalist used in reference to them. Are there non-fundamentalist religions? If there are fundamentalist Christians, there must also be non-fundamentalist Christians. How do you differentiate between the two?

    My feeling is that for the most part, writers here using the term almost always are using the term as a pejorative reference to something within Christianity. So is all of Christianity fundamentalist in nature? Are there specific movements within Christianity which are fundamentalist in nature? That is, can some denominations be characterized as generally fundamentalist such as Catholics or Presbyterians or Methodists, or Baptists or Pentecostals or some specific branch within one of those? What is the difference, for example, between charismatic Catholics and fundamental Catholics or are charismatic Catholics more fundamental than fundamental Catholics?

    But mostly, what is it that characterizes a group, or a part of a group, or an individual within a group as being a fundamentalist? What is the difference, then, between them and non-fundamentalists?

    And is religion the only thing to which the term fundamentalist can be applied? Are there such things as fundamentalist mathematicians? That is, vis a vis, a non-fundamentalist mathematician. Is either Euclidean or non-Euclidean geometry fundamental while the other is non-fundamental?

    Or is there such a thing such as fundamental physics and chemistry of which the practitioners are considered fundamentalists? It would seem there are some very fundamental principles of, say, physics, to which practitioners must closely adhere, so would it be wrong to be a fundamentalist or non-fundamentalist physicist?

    Wrapping up, my question is not intended to elicit rewrites of the dictionary, but rather is intended to focus on:

    1) what is one’s connotations of the term fundamentalist
    2) what characterizes one group or person as a fundamentalist
    3) what are the differences between fundamentalists and non-fundamentalists
    4) can the term be applied to something other than religion
    5) is it “bad” to be a fundamentalist in religion but not other areas

    Also feel free to answer unasked questions.


    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: What is a fundamentalist? 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    I have seen the term fundamentalist bandied about on this forum, being used as a pejorative term many times in the past with the intent to disrespect the person(s) so labeled. Or sometimes it is used in its even more pejorative form “fundie.”
    Yes. This is a good topic.


    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    From the different contexts used, it does not seem to me that everyone who uses that term in a pejorative sense actually uses it to mean quite the same thing.
    I think he does. He may not see the positive value of fundamentalism, but yes I think he is generally using it in the same way.


    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    So it got me to thinking: just what is a fundamentalist and what is fundamentalism?
    This is a question I have considered before. The term is of course derived from a "back to fundamentals movement in a religion. And the first thing to observe is that it is a conservative REACTIONARY movement. Such movements have occurred many times in Christianity, because like all religions Christianity tends to become instutionalized and to stray from its root of inspiration and thus from the real power of the gospel to change people's lives, not to mention the very real universal human tendency to corruption and the abuse of power.


    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Is it wrong to be a fundamentalist and, if so, why?
    Like most things it is just not that simple. Is it wrong to be a soldier? Is it wrong to be a politician? All of these can have a postive role but they also represent a real and present danger both to the individual and to mankind as a whole. Just as it depends on what the soldier and politician is fighting for, in the case of fundamentalism, it all depends on what that particular fundamentalist movement is reacting against.


    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Is it possible to wrongly be a non-fundamentalist?
    Now that is just silly. Is it wrong to be a non-soldier? Is it wrong to not be a politician?


    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    4) can the term be applied to something other than religion
    Not really. I mean you could try to use it in politics or philosophy but usually only when these have become mired in ideology - such as a Marxist fundamentalist. In fact I suppose you could use it in regards to any ideological approach to anything. But in any case this lacks any great relevance because ideological approaches to most thing are a bad idea and I don't think you can really see much of a positive role for fundamentalism in anything but religion.


    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Also feel free to answer unasked questions.
    1. Is there a positive role for fundamentalism in relgion:
    Yes there is. When the religion becomes institionalized and mired in corruption and the orginal inspiration of its message has become lost then there is a need for a rebirth of those things that made the religion powerful and effective in people's lives.

    2. Is there an ongoing role for fundamentalism in the body of Christ?
    Yes there is. The fundamentalists are the guardians of scripture and the Christian essentials - those things which make Christianity effective and powerful in the lives of Christians. They act as a counter balance to tendencies to interpret scriptures and Christian ideas to mean practically anything and thus to ultimately mean nothing at all.

    3. What are the dangers of fundamentalism.
    These are the dangers of all reactionary movements. In reacting against excesses in a certain direction reactionary movements tend to excesses in the opposite direction. By reacting against something they tend to boil everything down to that one thing and they tend to take a battle mentality to equate what they are reacting against with evil itself. This can be extremely destructive because the truth is far more complicated than what they boil things down to and in their extreme rejection of what they are reacting against they tend to throw out both the good and the bad. Fighting blindly as they do, the sad reality is that they do a great deal of evil themselves.

    I ask you to observe that Atheism is also quite often a reactionary phenomenon and in their reaction against the corruption and abuses in religion they do exactly the same thing, identifying all religion and all the religious with evil, oversimplifying the problem, and condemning the good with the bad. And so in the case of atheists the adjective "fundamentalist" is quite often VERY applicable.


    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    Good topic indeed, I wish more people would discuss linguistics intentionally, not merely as a tactic to distract from one's own lacking argument.

    I think the proper sub-forum for such discussions might be philosophy.

    1) what is one’s connotations of the term fundamentalist

    A type of person who follows fundamental guidelines. On it's own it does not mean very much. It seems that in pop culture it is used derogatorily to mean closed-minded, but this is plain not true.

    2) what characterizes one group or person as a fundamentalist

    Previously established connotation.

    I really don't know, there is too much of a gray area. It is easy to say that by following fundamentals you are clearly a fundamentalist; by not following fundamentals you are not a fundamentalist, but what about those who try to follow fundamentals but due to weakness of character and/or circumstance, fail; what about those who agree with the fundamentals but don't think they are enough and adopt more? These are important because it might turn out that no one is a fundamentalist, only aspire to be; or that most everyone is, in some way or another, in the sense that we can assume most everyone has some fundamental they aspire to follow. Whether they are conscious of it or not, or accept it or not.

    That said, I will attempt to reconcile the term "fundamentalist" with how it is properly used. Who is and who is not a fundamentalist is determined by those leaders of fundamentalism, the standards they use to do so are based on desires and needs of the group they lead.

    The way it is used popularly. Who is a fundamentalist, is whoever doesn't agree with scientific studies because they conflict with scripture, whether or not they also follow the fundamental guidelines of that religion.

    3) what are the differences between fundamentalists and non-fundamentalists
    A fundamentalist fits the above mentioned description, a non-fundamentalist is one that does not.

    4) can the term be applied to something other than religion
    Yes, I believe so. For example a curtain field of expertise or an art can have fundamentals, otherwise called proper technique. MM said that political and philosophical ideology can fundamentalist, I agree, but will contest that any and all things can be wrapped in ideology. I may be using some words in the wrong sense, but I will let others decide that, since evolution is constantly evolving based on our needs, not the other way around, I will do my part.

    I'm a musician, and am aware of proper techniques and/or fundamentals, that are completely optional. The fundamentals change drastically from western to eastern music theory, but also from genre to genre. I have experience with fundamentalist musicians, which I am not, and when it comes down to it, fundamentalists are those who want nothing to do with a style different than their own. It seems that a fundamentalist will try to hold other people to their own standards, whether or not this is a previously established fundamental or not.

    5) is it “bad” to be a fundamentalist in religion but not other areas
    No it is not bad, especially not in a religion. Bad, in the religious sense, is that God said "This is bad" and I haven't seen that anywhere., but then again, I haven't looked. I am willing to bet it would not be litteral, but one could take "Love your fellow man as I have loved you" or however the parable goes, could be used by some to preach against fundamentalism... but that is assuming Jesus was tolerant and not the PRIME example of a true fundamentalist walking.



    Metaphysically speaking, principles are how we transcend changing circumstances that we could easily become battered and enslaved by.

    Food for thought: God's and kings of all ages, of all mythologies, had rules. Those with the most rules(the most fundamentalist) are the "greats": Hinduism, Judaism, Catholicism, Republican Government, Capitalist Economy

    One can also say that logic, in itself, is a fundamental, and so philosophy might be one of the greats, but just like Christianity, there is no ONE form, and so it is hard to consider a fundamentalist group the likes of Roman Catholicism.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: What is a fundamentalist? 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    1) what is one’s connotations of the term fundamentalist

    A fundamentalist is one who simply interprets their cults doctrines as the truth.

    2) what characterizes one group or person as a fundamentalist

    Fundamentalists don't "cherry pick" their beliefs.

    3) what are the differences between fundamentalists and non-fundamentalists

    Cherry picking and shoe horning scriptures.

    4) can the term be applied to something other than religion

    It usually isn't.

    5) is it “bad” to be a fundamentalist in religion but not other areas

    You would be a hypocrite if you weren't a fundamentalist, yet claimed to be a follower of the cult.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    read the 4 volume series by R.A.Torrey, The Fundamentals, to get an idea what the fundamentals are.

    Q has some good thoughts there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: What is a fundamentalist? 
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    597
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

    3. What are the dangers of fundamentalism.
    These are the dangers of all reactionary movements. In reacting against excesses in a certain direction reactionary movements tend to excesses in the opposite direction. By reacting against something they tend to boil everything down to that one thing and they tend to take a battle mentality to equate what they are reacting against with evil itself. This can be extremely destructive because the truth is far more complicated than what they boil things down to and in their extreme rejection of what they are reacting against they tend to throw out both the good and the bad. Fighting blindly as they do, the sad reality is that they do a great deal of evil themselves.

    I ask you to observe that Atheism is also quite often a reactionary phenomenon and in their reaction against the corruption and abuses in religion they do exactly the same thing, identifying all religion and all the religious with evil, oversimplifying the problem, and condemning the good with the bad. And so in the case of atheists the adjective "fundamentalist" is quite often VERY applicable.
    Ah Hah!

    So the atheist and the fundamentalist think alike.

    Perhaps the constant fault finding of atheist could make the fundamentalist realize that they do not know everything and then engage in some self reflection.

    And perhaps the desire of the fundamentalist to evangelize will make the atheist realize that there is always an "open door" to Christ that he/she could respond to in the future.

    Who knows, the two could save each other.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: What is a fundamentalist? 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo
    So the atheist and the fundamentalist think alike.
    No that is not correct. SOME atheist are indeed very much like fundamentalists, but many atheists are NOT. People can decide that God does not exist for MANY reasons and so sometime a reaction against religion has NOTHING to do with it.

    There may be a commonality between atheists that leads to this belief that God does not exist BUT this is NOT it.


    Quote Originally Posted by dedo
    Perhaps the constant fault finding of atheist could make the fundamentalist realize that they do not know everything and then engage in some self reflection.
    AH! Now you have something. Now you have something indeed!


    Quote Originally Posted by dedo
    And perhaps the desire of the fundamentalist to evangelize will make the atheist realize that there is always an "open door" to Christ that he/she could respond to in the future.

    Who knows, the two could save each other.
    No I think that may be stretching things a little. I think the main thing is that they counter balance each other somewhat keeping mankind from sliding to the other extreme. Not that these are exactly opposites or anything like that.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Fundamentalism is basically the way of thinking of a person who feels nothing for interpretation. A person is a fundamentalist, not specifically a bad thing, when they take EVERYTHING included in what ever it is that they are a fundamentalist in to be absolutely the way it is. In this aspect, a creationist is , respectively, fundamentalist christian, as they take the bible to be literally, completely, and absolutely true. An Atheist who feels the EXACT opposite, in that there is NO credibility in ANY bit of religious text, would be equally fundamentalist in their Atheism. I suppose the better way to think about it is just one level of extremism, where an extreme would be an endpoint on the line that is spiritual belief, (absolute belief.....meh.....absolute disbelief).

    the common person is usually not fundamentalist in a religious respect, as most people don't care about some aspect or another, but do tens to lean to one side or the other. Rarely do you have the 'true' agnostic, the person who simply has no opinion of whether or not there is or is not a God.

    I disagree with fundamentalism, in any respect, just because it blocks out everything. The downsides seem to me to outweigh the upsides, but that is my opinion, and should be treated as nothing more than just that. However, I feel this should be a moot issue, simply because I don't feel the strength of conviction to be that important when weighing someones words and opinions. Everyone has an opinion, and the right to express it, regardless of their faith. If fundamentalism were truly wrong, and undeserving of expression, we would stop allowing people such as The Pope, Michel Onfrey, Christopher Hitchens, John C. Whitcomb, Henry M. Morris, and Sam Harris to be heard. They have as much a right to state their views as we do, on this forum. I will never agree with people saying that you don't have the freedom to present your opinion
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    you people go at this all wrong. you think a person has to continue to struggle even after they have made their choices or that they hacve to continue to process information your way or they are closed-minded etc. sorry but one is a 'fundamental' because through their struggles, they have made a decision and do not have to revisit the same ground eveyrtime someone presents a different thought.

    those of us who truly believe Jesus and the Bible, already know what you are going to say, we have been there and calling us 'fundamentalists' means nothing but it does show your ignorance and limited understanding of christian things.

    people who are 'open-minded' are only kidding themselves and are in for a big surprise if they wait too long. they will come to see how wasted their lives were because they refused to make a decision but chose the path of being 'open-minded'.

    Christ and Christianity is a decision based faith not a struggle based nor a questioning base process. you make a decision to follow Christ and once that decision is made you do not need to be 'open-minded' you have made a decision for a certain path and nothing should deter you from it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    Being open-minded does not mean choosing the atheist path. It means being willing to listen to, and consider, the beliefs of others. Closed-mindedness is the refusal to accept any change to your beliefs, or to listen to what others have to say.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,306
    At least in it's most common application which is towards religion or even more often combined with culture (e.g. Islamic vs Muslim)

    Beliefs held so deeply they are immune to any rational argument or presentation of facts. Yes I think it's almost always bad because they obstruct advancement of knowledge, science, human rights etc.





    (licks a Vanilla Fundie with sprinkles on top)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist

    Christ and Christianity is a decision based faith not a struggle based nor a questioning base process. you make a decision to follow Christ and once that decision is made you do not need to be 'open-minded' you have made a decision for a certain path and nothing should deter you from it.
    The problem is that even if you've made that decision, you should at the very least remain open-minded, just in case you made the wrong decision.

    Clearly, many folks already understand it's a bad decision to follow faith-based reasoning and ignore facts. Yet, they will remain "open minded" to change their decision, just in case one of the deities decides to make an appearance.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13 Re: What is a fundamentalist? 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    5) is it “bad” to be a fundamentalist in religion but not other areas
    You would be a hypocrite if you weren't a fundamentalist, yet claimed to be a follower of the cult.
    As usual Q's change in which team he supports from fundamentalist Xtianity to fundamentalist atheist displays the most irrational contradictions one can imagine. His post here suggest that he retains the insane Xtian fundamentalist prejudice that only those in such a fundamentalist cult can call themselves Christian. This might be neccessitated by an extreme reationary atheism which requires that he see Christianity as utterly opposed to anything good and rational, but it is hard for me to see what the point is of rejecting fundamentalist Christianity when you insist on keeping all of its irrationality.

    The word "Chrisitanity" does not of course belong to the cults and it does not mean what they say it means. One certainly is not a hypocrite if one does not believe that it means what Q or the fundamentalist Xtians say that it means. I could also define "atheism" as a choice of rationality over religion and thus call Q a hypocrite for calling himself atheist when he refuses to abandon the irrational ideas of the fundamentalist Xtian cult which he left. But surely you can see the basic flaw in doing something like that. I can call it cherry picking or whatever else I can think up but it still does not mean that any definition of atheism I make up has anything to do with his claim to be an atheist.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    you people go at this all wrong. you think a person has to continue to struggle even after they have made their choices or that they hacve to continue to process information your way or they are closed-minded etc. sorry but one is a 'fundamental' because through their struggles, they have made a decision and do not have to revisit the same ground eveyrtime someone presents a different thought.

    those of us who truly believe Jesus and the Bible, already know what you are going to say, we have been there and calling us 'fundamentalists' means nothing but it does show your ignorance and limited understanding of christian things.

    people who are 'open-minded' are only kidding themselves and are in for a big surprise if they wait too long. they will come to see how wasted their lives were because they refused to make a decision but chose the path of being 'open-minded'.

    Christ and Christianity is a decision based faith not a struggle based nor a questioning base process. you make a decision to follow Christ and once that decision is made you do not need to be 'open-minded' you have made a decision for a certain path and nothing should deter you from it.
    In other words, once you have been so open minded that your brains fell out, it is time to give your brains a burial and go on without them.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    The problem is that even if you've made that decision, you should at the very least remain open-minded, just in case you made the wrong decision.
    not when you have decided for God and Jesus. this isn't a game and keeping an 'open mind' in case you have decided wrong when deciding for them only leaves the door open for the devil to workhis deception upon a person. once you decide for Christ, that is it, you close the door to all other options so one can remain safe inChrist.

    you fail to see the bigger picture and are too focused on yuor desires to consider everything. that consideration is done BEFORE your decision, that way you know you haven't decided wrong.

    In other words, once you have been so open minded that your brains fell out, it is time to give your brains a burial and go on without them.
    MM continues to show thatthere is nothing christian in him as he goes for the insult and the distortion forgetting what God and Jesus said about obtaining knowledge.

    the new test. tells us 'to study' thus when one becomes a christian they do not throw their minds away, they use them acording to God's ways not man's. those who think otherwise are just fooling themselves and believing a lie.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    In other words, once you have been so open minded that your brains fell out, it is time to give your brains a burial and go on without them.
    MM continues to show thatthere is nothing christian in him as he goes for the insult and the distortion
    Don't be like that. I was just translating and summarizing what you were telling us with all the BS removed.

    But that's ok anyway, I would not want anyone to make the mistake of thinking that I am what archy and Q would call christian. I want nothing to do with their christianity transformed back into a legalistic relgion and a tool of power and manipulation. I continue to maintain that you can tell true Christianity from these frauds because the real thing is something that cannot be used as such a tool. This is because real Christianity attributes all authority and effectiveness for salvation to God alone and ANY attempt to tell you what you must do or must believe in order to be saved is a lie and a deception of men using religion for their own gain.

    The real downfall of the relgionists was the printing press because now we have a copy for ourselves and can read the Bible without their "interpretations" and thus see the lies for what they are.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16 Re: What is a fundamentalist? 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

    As usual Q's change in which team he supports from fundamentalist Xtianity to fundamentalist atheist displays the most irrational contradictions one can imagine.
    Several of Mitchell's unfounded assumptions need to be corrected. I'm not on any team or support any team. One who is simply a bystander in a world where myths and superstitions abound doesn't play that childish game.

    And, it's quite confusing to hear him accusing "irrational contradictions" from simple observations. It's clear though, he is providing a response from a desperate position of denial.

    His post here suggest that he retains the insane Xtian fundamentalist prejudice that only those in such a fundamentalist cult can call themselves Christian. This might be neccessitated by an extreme reationary atheism which requires that he see Christianity as utterly opposed to anything good and rational, but it is hard for me to see what the point is of rejecting fundamentalist Christianity when you insist on keeping all of its irrationality.
    Mitchell appears to be confusing the situation once again and is making more accusations from his desperate position, this time accusations of "prejudice" and once again, from simple observations.

    The word "Chrisitanity" does not of course belong to the cults and it does not mean what they say it means.
    Is Mitchell in a position to define Christianity or is he defining his own cherry-picked brand of Christianity?

    One certainly is not a hypocrite if one does not believe that it means what Q or the fundamentalist Xtians say that it means.
    That's strange, Mitchell is somehow trying to accuse me of having defined Christianity. Where have I done that, Mitchell?

    I could also define "atheism" as a choice of rationality over religion and thus call Q a hypocrite for calling himself atheist when he refuses to abandon the irrational ideas of the fundamentalist Xtian cult which he left.
    The fabrications seem to piling up, or else Mitchell is simply deluded into believing I was in the Christian cult. Funny stuff, Mitch.

    But surely you can see the basic flaw in doing something like that. I can call it cherry picking or whatever else I can think up but it still does not mean that any definition of atheism I make up has anything to do with his claim to be an atheist.
    Mitchell is free to label me as he wishes, of course. The fact of the matter is that I simply don't accept the myths and superstitions of the various cults of the world, including his version and the thousands of versions of Christianity available.

    So far, he has done little more than fabricate pointless accusations meant to detract from his position of denial, clearly indicating he's masking the truth.

    If Mitchell refuses to follow the doctrines of his cult and decides instead to cherry pick the beliefs of that cult to suit his agenda, he's perfectly able to do so, and no one should care less. But, to fabricate accusations in an attempt to deny such a position is disingenuous and unacceptable.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist

    not when you have decided for God and Jesus. this isn't a game and keeping an 'open mind' in case you have decided wrong when deciding for them only leaves the door open for the devil to workhis deception upon a person.
    Sorry, but you can't expect one myth to support another myth as a reason, considering there are many myths in Christianity that contradict one another.

    once you decide for Christ, that is it, you close the door to all other options so one can remain safe inChrist.
    Again, that's not a reason, that's simply a position of personal preference, hence you should just state so instead of making up mythical nonsense to defend your position.

    you fail to see the bigger picture and are too focused on yuor desires to consider everything. that consideration is done BEFORE your decision, that way you know you haven't decided wrong.
    The consideration you speak of is flawed, as can be attested by the many cults of the world expressing the exact same considerations within their beliefs. It then boils down to "your god can beat up another god." Childish kindergarten games.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18 Re: What is a fundamentalist? 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    The word "Chrisitanity" does not of course belong to the cults and it does not mean what they say it means.
    Is Mitchell in a position to define Christianity or is he defining his own cherry-picked brand of Christianity?
    I don't have to. Eccumenical councils already did this in the fourth century and the Nicean creed stands as the earliest and most accepted definition of Christianity.


    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    One certainly is not a hypocrite if one does not believe that it means what Q or the fundamentalist Xtians say that it means.
    That's strange, Mitchell is somehow trying to accuse me of having defined Christianity. Where have I done that, Mitchell?
    You do that whenever you set up yourself as judge of who is and who isn't Christian, or who is following Christian belief and who isn't (bizzarre behavior for a professed atheist). However it may have been for you in you past and however you may wish it to be so now to make your attacks on Christianity easier, the anti-science fundamentalist cults and their absurd literal interpretations of the Bible are not and have never been a valid definition of Christianity. Not only have there been long traditions of understanding Adam as being the first with the covenant relationship with God rather than some kind of magical creation, but leaders in Christianity like Augustine have long warned against such idiot literal interpretations contradicting the findings of science.


    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Mitchell is free to label me as he wishes, of course. The fact of the matter is that I simply don't accept the myths and superstitions of the various cults of the world, including his version and the thousands of versions of Christianity available.
    Your choices for your own life I can respect. But identifying a world wide religion with a few anti-science cults for whatever reason is a strawman argument. I could immitate your absurdities by identifying atheism with a few anti-science wackos that do not happen to believe in God either and it proves no more that you gibbering about cherry picking because you cannot stand it that some people can think for themselves.


    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    If Mitchell refuses to follow the doctrines of his cult and decides instead to cherry pick the beliefs of that cult to suit his agenda, he's perfectly able to do so, and no one should care less. But, to fabricate accusations in an attempt to deny such a position is disingenuous and unacceptable.
    LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
    What do you say to someone complaing about accusations when the preceeding sentence is full of their own irrational accusations. Talk about disingenousness and unacceptable behavior!
    LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

    Anyway it is about time I go back to ignoring you since discussion with you always proves pointless and you just feed like a shark off of anyone stupid enough to reply to your irrational baiting.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19 Re: What is a fundamentalist? 
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)

    The word "Chrisitanity" does not of course belong to the cults and it does not mean what they say it means.
    Is Mitchell in a position to define Christianity or is he defining his own cherry-picked brand of Christianity?
    Aren't you just cherry-picking who is and is not Christian in order to prove your own belief that all Christians are stupid? I'd like to see the verse in the Bible that says McKain is not a Christian.

    There are several ways to define a Christian, generally it means a follower of Christ, even if they don't follow him all the time, eg Peter denying Christ three times, is he not a Christian. Even if McKain is slightly misinterpreting the Bible, according to the Bible, that doesn't make him less of a Christian. You on the other hand change the definition of Christian as to support your beliefs.

    You cherry-pick definitions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20 Re: What is a fundamentalist? 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    I don't have to. Eccumenical councils already did this in the fourth century and the Nicean creed stands as the earliest and most accepted definition of Christianity.
    Fair enough. Is the Christianity that is defined by those councils the Christianity that you follow?


    You do that whenever you set up yourself as judge of who is and who isn't Christian, or who is following Christian belief and who isn't (bizzarre behavior for a professed atheist).
    I've done no such thing, Mitch. I'm simply making the obvious observation that so-called Christians don't follow Christianity as it was defined by those councils, based on your guidance.

    leaders in Christianity like Augustine have long warned against such idiot literal interpretations contradicting the findings of science.
    Ok, what gave Augustine the right to do such a thing? In fact, who on earth has the authority to change the beliefs of Christianity when those beliefs contradict the findings of science?


    Your choices for your own life I can respect. But identifying a world wide religion with a few anti-science cults for whatever reason is a strawman argument.
    Again Mitch, I did no such thing. I'm merely trying to find out who has the authority to contradict their gods commands and change the beliefs of Christianity as they see fit?

    ...you cannot stand it that some people can think for themselves.
    On the contrary, I appreciate only those who do think for themselves. But, does that give them the right to change the beliefs of Christianity?


    Anyway it is about time I go back to ignoring you since discussion with you always proves pointless and you just feed like a shark off of anyone stupid enough to reply to your irrational baiting.
    Sorry you feel that way, Mitch. I see it more along the lines that you cannot answer the questions posed. Oh well...
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21 Re: What is a fundamentalist? 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Golkarian

    Aren't you just cherry-picking who is and is not Christian in order to prove your own belief that all Christians are stupid? I'd like to see the verse in the Bible that says McKain is not a Christian.
    I'm sure no such verse exists. Why would I cherry pick who is and who isn't a Christian? Isn't a Christian one that follows Christianity? Or, is it something entirely different? No one seems to able to provide that answer, yet it appears to be obvious.

    There are several ways to define a Christian, generally it means a follower of Christ, even if they don't follow him all the time
    Kinda like those that would cherry pick the beliefs?

    Even if McKain is slightly misinterpreting the Bible, according to the Bible, that doesn't make him less of a Christian.
    How much misinterpretation is allowed? To what degree can Mitch misinterpret the bible to suit his agenda? Where does one draw the line when it comes to the commands of a god?

    You cherry-pick definitions.
    A Christian is one who follows Christianity. Is that a cherry picked definition?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    I don't have to. Eccumenical councils already did this in the fourth century and the Nicean creed stands as the earliest and most accepted definition of Christianity.
    actually, the Bible was earlier and the creed does not define christianity,it is a statement of what one beliefs condensed down to a simple form.

    Sorry you feel that way, Mitch. I see it more along the lines that you cannot answer the questions posed. Oh well...
    don't be. one cannot trust the people in charge here and one cannot speak freely on this threads as 'the hammer' is always ready to drop, ending discussions wrongly.

    mm's decision to ignore people comes from the fact he does not want to learn that he is NOT right and is in fact speaking heretical things. he wants to construct his own faith his way and that is just wrong.

    augustine is probably one of the most mis-quoted, taken out of context, mis-applied theologian there is. people forget he is not infallible and does not have the final say on things christian. if he says something that disagrees with the Bible then he is wrong and mis-spoke.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist

    Sorry you feel that way, Mitch. I see it more along the lines that you cannot answer the questions posed. Oh well...
    don't be. one cannot trust the people in charge here and one cannot speak freely on this threads as 'the hammer' is always ready to drop, ending discussions wrongly.
    Maybe in other forum sections like chem and bio, where some less reasonable threads are locked, not as far as I can see in the religion forum, unless if you mean "other peoples opinions" when you say "the hammer". Which is highly amusing.

    By the way most of your opinions are religious in nature which is why they are grudgingly tolerated here, but not in the other forums where mainstream science is discussed. If its secular (or possibly even religious ideas) that can be tested they go to new hypothes and ideas. The hammer is more like a shovel, it moves threads to where they belong, it does not generally censure them, the chem forum is a slight exception.

    Also this is "science" forum so you're lucky you are permitted to discuss religion at all, it is often considered too touchy a subject and allowing its discussion has the potential to anger everyone on a forum. This anger leads many forum's to avoid the problem altogether.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    By the way most of your opinions are religious in nature which is why they are grudgingly tolerated here, but not in the other forums where mainstream science is discussed
    which is why i stay here. i show respect to those who just want to talk secular science by not interfering with their discussions or taking threads of topic.

    If its secular (or possibly even religious ideas) that can be tested they go to new hypothes and ideas.
    this is the secular science way and it provides them an avenue to ignore the truth.

    certain things can be tested, not evolution, but to make it a blanket requirement means one is not willing to dealwith the truth. the tuth does not go according to scientific methods, niether does life.

    science may have created the gun, but it is the sin nature which enables the person to pull the trigger.

    The hammer is more like a shovel, it moves threads to where they belong, it does not generally censure them, the chem forum is a slight exception.
    who cares. those who blindly follow science and allows it to govern their lives have just made science their god. it is one reason people cannot get justice in a court room any more--science is blindly accepted even though it manipulates and can be manipulated.

    Also this is "science" forum so you're lucky you are permitted to discuss religion at all
    i wish i had a dime every time someone said this on this forum. i could retire and buy this website and turn it into a christian science (not the cult) forum.

    theology is considered a part of science, it is not that i am lucky but i am right where i should be. just because i am a christian does it mean that i am wrong, out of place or unknowledgable or what ever.

    there is the old story of scientists who spend years and years searching for answers and one day they finally get there only to discover thatthe theologians have been there all along. (paraphrased)

    we who believe God have the truht and know the answers, those who believe science either do not want the answers or they claim the answers will change. they delude themselves.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Like many words, the meaning of the word "science" has changed. With the advent of modern scientific methodology starting around the time of Galileo, "science" has come to mean this particular method of inquiry and the medieval meaning of the word as merely a system of knowledge is not what most people mean by the word. We can of course add the qualifier "modern" to make sure those we are speaking to understand that we are taking about the modern science based on this post medieval methodology, but most people continue to assume that when the word "science" is used, it is modern science that is meant.



    Public schools have little interest in teaching theology which medieval Europe called "the queen of the sciences" for much the same reasons that we are struggling with the topic of relgion here in this forum. There is too much diversity with too much strong convictions and practically NO consensus, which makes teaching this in the public sector a practical impossibility. If that were not enough, there are frankly too many people like archaeologist which destroy all semblance of civility and scholarship when religious discussion is allowed and then we can say that people like Q and others adopt similar behaviors in a kind of self defense.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    There is too much diversity with too much strong convictions and practically NO consensus, which makes teaching this in the public sector a practical impossibility.
    i will disagree with this as consensus comes formthose in charge. if they can provide a basic outline and boundaries you would see quite a difference in the type of posts being made. I did so on my forum and had a militant atheist do better than some so called christians in their posts.

    if the leawdership is going to provide no guidance, or just enact harsh rules then you will get whatever comes plus if you do not enforce those rules then it justs devolves into double standards, kangaroo courts mudslinging and anarchy.

    i have mentioned this privately several times as i have received warnings, even for making a joke, while others attack me with far worse than i ever put up here yet received no warnings or suspensions.

    If that were not enough, there are frankly too many people like archaeologist which destroy all semblance of civility and scholarship when religious discussion is allowed and then we can say that people like Q and others adopt similar behaviors in a kind of self defense
    prime example immediately above. here we have a moderator falsely accusing a poster, maligning him with the innuendo and biased opinon. with moderators doing it, what do you expect to take place.

    what that paragraph quoted immediately above also examples is the fact that the moderator, who claims he is a christian, just doesn't like being exposed for proclaiming false ideas and beliefs. it has nothing to do with being uncivil or lack of scholarship as the moderator was rebutted with scripture and other credible sources.

    it became personal because the moderator wants to be accepted for his thoughts but forgetting that God has rules on how christians are to react to such people who preach falsely.

    there are rules people and whether you agree with them or not doesn't matter. the christian has to follow God's rules or they are in disobedience. getting kicked off a forum is better than getting God angry at you.

    then we can say that people like Q and others adopt similar behaviors in a kind of self defense.
    here we have the example of scapegoating. the moderator refuses to take any blame, refuse to accept that people will disagree with him as he wants to do what he wants, ignoring what god wnats, and still lay claim to the benefits of christianity (i.e. salvation) doesn't work that way.

    Q made an observation, he felt i followed my beliefs while he thought that MM was cherry picking (etc.) and MM was insulted. well people who engage both do make comparisons and will come to their own conclusions.

    MM has to learn that trying to combine the secular with the Holy just does not work and God, Jesus and the disciples NEVER compromised with evil or the secular world. he cannot construct his own beliefs to salve his conscieince and still claim to be christian--christians follow Christ not the secular world.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    was there a secular world that Jesus of Nazareth had to deal with? I thought the world he lived in was HEAVILY religious, either in Judaism, Roman Mythology, or middle eastern philosophy. I didn't know he had to deal with atheist scientists in HIS day. Wow... the more you learn. And just out of curiosity, you do know his name isn't Christ, right? That Christ is the title he was given, and means messiah, right?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    was there a secular world that Jesus of Nazareth had to deal with? I thought the world he lived in was HEAVILY religious, either in Judaism, Roman Mythology, or middle eastern philosophy. I didn't know he had to deal with atheist scientists in HIS day. Wow... the more you learn. And just out of curiosity, you do know his name isn't Christ, right? That Christ is the title he was given, and means messiah, right?
    Now THAT is an interesting question because the answer is YES, Jesus DID have a secular world to deal with for that is exactly what the Roman government was - comparatively. The romans had their traditions and a world view that was not up to modern scientific standards but with their heritage from Greek philosophy it was scientific by the standards of the their time. But most importantly the ideals of the Pax Romana gave considerable religious liberty and self-determination to those within its sphere of influence, when you compare it to other and previous dominions. Not up to modern standards of course but by the standards of the times I think you can can indeed call it secular. They found the Israelites unmanageable and irrational because of their intolerance of religion and culture that was not their own.

    But what is interesting is that while the Jews very much wanted Jesus to go up against the Romans, Jesus refused, saying only "give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and give unto God that which is God's." For all that we can tell Jesus had no problem at all with the secular Roman world, what he had a problem with was the religious zealots, whom he found hypocritical, legalistic, selfish, manipulative, and an obstacle to the work of God. "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you traverse sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves." The religious people, those who devoted their lives to the study and teaching of the scriptures, Jesus called vipers and children of the devil, not the Romans, about whom he said nothing. Interesting isn't it?
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    arcane still doesn't know what he is taling about.

    Q has asked some very good questions in earlier posts which i will reposthere as i want to read MM's response to them without dougble talk etc. iwant to see him answer clearly, concisely, and to the point:

    I'm sure no such verse exists. Why would I cherry pick who is and who isn't a Christian? Isn't a Christian one that follows Christianity? Or, is it something entirely different?
    what gave Augustine the right to do such a thing? In fact, who on earth has the authority to change the beliefs of Christianity when those beliefs contradict the findings of science?
    I'm merely trying to find out who has the authority to contradict their gods commands and change the beliefs of Christianity as they see fit?
    I appreciate only those who do think for themselves. But, does that give them the right to change the beliefs of Christianity?
    Why would I cherry pick who is and who isn't a Christian? Isn't a Christian one that follows Christianity? Or, is it something entirely different
    Kinda like those that would cherry pick the beliefs?
    How much misinterpretation is allowed? To what degree can Mitch misinterpret the bible to suit his agenda? Where does one draw the line when it comes to the commands of a god?
    A Christian is one who follows Christianity. Is that a cherry picked definition?
    The ball is NOW IN MM's court. let's see ifhe canhonesty, clearly, concisely answer eachof these questions. I can, let's see if he can do it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    arcane still doesn't know what he is taling about.
    First of all, there were no Surnames circa 0A.D. so his name was not Jesus Christ. He was called Jesus of Nazereth, If I'm not mistaken, and the term 'Christ' is aramaic for Messiah, correct? If I'm wrong, it's better to correct me than just say I'm wrong, it shows ignorance and a lacking ability to back oneself up when all that is stated is "you are wrong". So again, I ask, is Christ the aramaic word for messiah, or is it truly his last name? I ask, because I cannot think of ANY other individual in biblical reference who had a surname. again, please correct me if I'm wrong
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Actually, Christ is the anglicized version of the Greek word Christos which means annointed.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    240
    I think Messiah may have been the aramaic word for, well, messiah, and Christus/Christos the Latin/Greek term.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    annointed? ah, I was off, but still, not his name.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Messiah comes from the Hebrew word mashiyach (pronounced maw shee' akh) which, like the Greek word christos, means annointed. Possibly the word Messias, used only in the book of John, is the Aramaic equivalent.

    Agreed, this is a title, not a name. In Hebrew culture, Jesus could have been referred to as Jesus bar Joseph -- Jesus, son of Joseph. Buuuuuut, being the son of God, I am not surprised he is never referenced as Jesus bar Joseph.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    where is MM with his answers?

    From the ISBE:

    782
    MESSIAH
    <me-si’-a> (h”yvm; [mashiach]; Aramaic ajyvim] [meshicha’];
    Septuagint [Cristo>v, Christos], “anointed”; New Testament “Christ”):
    1. Meaning and Use of the Term:
    “Messias” (<430141>John 1:41; 4:25 the King James Version) is a transcription
    of [Messi>av, Messias], the Greek representation of the Aramaic.
    “Messiah” is thus a modification of the Greek form of the word, according
    to the Hebrew.
    The term is used in the Old Testament of kings and priests, who were
    consecrated to office by the ceremony of anointing. It is applied to the
    priest only as an adjective — “the anointed priest” (<030403>Leviticus 4:3,5,16;
    6:22 (Hebrew 15)). Its substantive use is restricted to the king; he only is
    called “the Lord’s anointed,” e.g. Saul (<092406>1 Samuel 24:6,10 (Hebrew
    7,11), etc.); David (<101921>2 Samuel 19:21 (Hebrew 22); <102301>2 Samuel 23:1,
    “the anointed of the God of Jacob”); Zedekiah (<250420>Lamentations 4:20).
    Similarly in the Psalms the king is designated “mine,” “thine,” “his
    anointed.” Thus also even Cyrus (<234501>Isaiah 45:1), as being chosen and
    commissioned by Yahweh to carry out His purpose with Israel. Some think
    the singular “mine anointed” in <350313>Habakkuk 3:13 denotes the whole
    people; but the Hebrew text is somewhat obscure, and the reference may
    be to the king. The plural of the substantive is used of the patriarchs, who
    are called “mine anointed ones” (<19A515>Psalm 105:15; <131622>1 Chronicles 16:22),
    as being Yahweh’s chosen, consecrated servants, whose persons were
    inviolable.
    It is to be noted that “Messiah” as a special title is never applied in the Old
    Testament to the unique king of the future, unless perhaps in <270925>Daniel
    9:25 f ([mashiach naghidh], “Messiah-Prince”), a difficult passage, the
    interpretation of which is very uncertain. It was the later Jews of the postprophetic
    period who, guided by a true instinct, first used the term in a
    technical sense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist

    Q has asked some very good questions in earlier posts which i will reposthere as i want to read MM's response to them without dougble talk etc. iwant to see him answer clearly, concisely, and to the point:

    The ball is NOW IN MM's court. let's see ifhe canhonesty, clearly, concisely answer eachof these questions. I can, let's see if he can do it.
    He can't honestly answer those questions, but his silence in that regard speaks volumes.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist

    Q has asked some very good questions in earlier posts which i will reposthere as i want to read MM's response to them without dougble talk etc. iwant to see him answer clearly, concisely, and to the point:

    The ball is NOW IN MM's court. let's see ifhe canhonesty, clearly, concisely answer eachof these questions. I can, let's see if he can do it.
    He can't honestly answer those questions, but his silence in that regard speaks volumes.
    Putting aside your weird definitions of "honesty", "double talk", "clearly" and "concisely" which I do not accept has having any validity whatsoever, I have answered your questions repeatedly, but you both just ignore these answers and pretend that I haven't done so in exactly the same way that archaeologitst pretends that others have presented no evidence for evolution and repeatly shown that his arguments are without merit. Why waste my time on giving answers which you refuse to hear? I have no interest in this childish battle of repetition and silence is the only sensible answer and certainly the only answer that it deserves or that I care to make.

    I do not and never have claimed that any relgious views are objectively provable and never will. I will in fact participate in demonstrating that any claims that they are objectively provable are in fact false. But this is all old hat, and my repetition here is an exercise in fultility when talking to people that refuse to hear what they do not want to hear.

    The only thing you two continue to prove is that I am stupid to bother making any answers to your posts at all. But I admit that up front right. I am stupid to make this response when I know that you will not listen and will most certainly continue to pretend that I have made no such answers.

    This fanciful term "cherry picking" means no more than thinking for oneself and is used by manipulators to suggest that you have to surrender your thinking to them, and shows nothing but intolerance for people doing their own thinking. Christianity has ALWAYS included a great diversity of thought about many things and thus it was defined from the beginning by some minimal agreements in the fourth century given in the creeds and the canon. Those that accept these as I do are Trinitarian Christians those that reject them or redefine Christianity according to their own private requirements are pseudo-christian cults.

    Augustine is a recognized figure of Christian orthodoxy and his warnings concerning interpreting scripture in a stupidly literal way have great merit. On other issues he was an extremist and his battle with Pelagius polarized Christianity in an unhealthy manner. This is demonstrated by the fact that much of what Pelagius proposed became standard Protestant practice and Wesleyan docrine later on. None of this changes what is Christianity because what is Christian remains in the Nicean creed which was certainly never disputed by either of them.

    I'm merely trying to find out who has the authority to contradict their gods commands and change the beliefs of Christianity as they see fit?
    Nonsense! This PRESUMES that you are the sole authority on what are God's commands and what is Christianity. You are not! The Nicean creed has defined Christianity for many hundreds of years and God is the only with the right to say what are His commands.


    I appreciate only those who do think for themselves. But, does that give them the right to change the beliefs of Christianity?
    This is not a matter of rights but of impossibility. You can change only your own beliefs and not those of others. The question is the definition of the word "Christianity" and the definition of words must be a matter of consensus for them to serve the purpose of communication. Whatever consensus the cult you hang out with may have, the largest worldwide consensus among believers defines Christianity according to the Nicean creed and the Biblical canon. But clearly this is a pretty minimal agreement and allows considerable scope for decision about what one believes within those limits. There is for example no mention of the theory of evolution in the Nicean creed or the Bible, thus your decision that it contradicts the Bible remains your personal decision which a vast number of Christians in the world disagrees with you about

    You are of course free to believe anything you like and redefined any word of any language as you please, call yourself anything you like but all this does is make communication with other people impossible. It doesn't prove anything.


    How much misinterpretation is allowed? To what degree can Mitch misinterpret the bible to suit his agenda?
    Disagreement with your interpretation of the Bible is not misinterpretation, for YOU HAVE NO AUTHORITY. That is the meaning of Sola Scriptura, one of the founding principles of Protestantism. The Bible is God's word to each and every person and no one has any authority to change this by saying that it is only true if interpreted correctly to match their own opinions. Something which I never do.


    Where does one draw the line when it comes to the commands of a god?
    You have no authority to draw any lines whatsoever with regards to the commands of God. Only God has that authority. If you set yourself up as a little pope, imagining that you have such authority, then it is you who are contradicting the instructions of Jesus.


    -------------------------------------

    Now, having frankly admitted my stupidity in making any response to your questions, I reserve the right to learn from this stupidity and refuse to respond to any more of your posts, which going by the past record will simply result in further pretending that I have not repeated my answers just as you have pretended that I made no answer in the first place.

    I am free to decide what posts I respond to, and I now read your posts for the purpose of moderation only. So make no more demands like this, for it is pure harrassment, that should be recognized for the trolling it is and should be grounds for having you kicked out of the forum.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    What's more, I have no idea what this non-argument between (Q) and Archy has to do with defining what a fundamentalist is.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    I haven't read it all, but I suspect it has to do with the agreement between (Q) and Archy that a fundamentalist/literalist Christian is a more honest one because they don't cherry-pick the bible looking for the bits they can agree with, assigning the bits they don't like to allegory and myth or just the human fallibility of the authors.

    There's something to be said about this. In a way, I kind of agree with it, though I prefer the more progressive and non-fundamentalist/literalist Christian over the fundamentalist/literalist any day. Particularly when its easy to see where just about even the most devout fundamentalist Christian cherrypicks his written doctrine. Otherwise, in addition to calls for the teaching of creationist poppycock in public schools and their gay-bashing, we'd also see calls for the stoning to death of adulterers, victims of rape, and those that did anything at least as laborious on Saturday as picking up sticks. If archy doesn't adovocate these as well as slavery, then he's a hypocrite and not following litteral interpretation of biblical mythology.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    we'd also see calls for the stoning to death of adulterers, victims of rape, and those that did anything at least as laborious on Saturday as picking up sticks. If archy doesn't adovocate these as well as slavery, then he's a hypocrite and not following litteral interpretation of biblical mythology.
    that is a good example of misunderstanding the Bible and to whom those laws were addressed. it also shows a mis-understanding of the use of the word 'slavery' in the Bible.

    i would recommend people to read the book The Politically Incorrect guide to the Bible by Hutchinson and his chapter on slavery. here is a quote from pg. 157:

    The truth is that the savage cruelty of slavery has existed on a massive scale all over the world for most of human history-and still exists today in parts of the Islamic world and asia-- and yet it was first officiallybanned, by force of law, only in chrisian europe. No culture on earth questioned the morality of slavery until Christians did the questioning
    The Bible has never taught advocacy or application OF slavery. It has taught servants, slaves, employees how to behave during their time of servitude. That is a big difference.

    here is another quote for yu from pg. 162:

    The Hebrew word commonly translated as slave, 'eved' (plural 'avadim'), comes from the root avad, which means 'to work.' Some JEwish translations of the Hebrew Bible, therefore, prefer the term 'bondservant' or 'bondsman' because , as we shall see, a Hebrew eved was not really a slave in the modern understanding of the term.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    The only thing you two continue to prove is that I am stupid to bother making any answers to your posts at all. But I admit that up front right. I am stupid to make this response when I know that you will not listen and will most certainly continue to pretend that I have made no such answers.
    No what we prove is that you think you are at liberty to construct your own beliefs and add/subtract from God's word as you see fit. last i looked, you were not given the authority to do so.

    Augustine is a recognized figure of Christian orthodoxy and his warnings concerning interpreting scripture in a stupidly literal way have great merit
    2 things here: 1. this does not make augustine correct and 2. he was not inspired as the disciples were thus his words do not make scripture. if you appeal to scripture only you should not be appealing to augustine.

    This PRESUMES that you are the sole authority on what are God's commands and what is Christianity. You are not! The Nicean creed has defined Christianity for many hundreds of years and God is the only with the right to say what are His commands
    avoids answering the question and the nicene creed DOES NOT define christianity. john 3:16 does and why ar eyou appealing to a source that is constructed by men? don't you reject men's ideas or do yo accept them only when they benefit you?

    This is not a matter of rights but of impossibility. You can change only your own beliefs and not those of others
    still does not answer the question but tap dances around the issue and misses the point of Q's inquiry.

    no one as the right to change what scripture says, people are free to believe whatever they want but when it goes against scripture they have NO right to call themselves 'christian' the word christian means 'like Christ' and believing things that Jesus did not teach nor God said, is not like Christ.

    Jesus did not teach evolution.

    Disagreement with your interpretation of the Bible is not misinterpretation, for YOU HAVE NO AUTHORITY. That is the meaning of Sola Scriptura, one of the founding principles of Protestantism. The Bible is God's word to each and every person and no one has any authority to change this by saying that it is only true if interpreted correctly to match their own opinions. Something which I never do
    this answer is closer to actually dealing with Q's questions but notice the bolded words---that is existentialism not christianity.

    You have no authority to draw any lines whatsoever with regards to the commands of God. Only God has that authority.
    this ignores what the Bible teaches and the permission granted by Jesus to His followers-- if you see someone sinning, you go to them and if they will not hear you you go to... we do have the authority to approach others and point out their error. MM's statement is a defense constructed to allow him to follow what ever he likes and ignore the truth at the same time.

    Now, having frankly admitted my stupidity in making any response to your questions, I reserve the right to learn from this stupidity and refuse to respond to any more of your posts, which going by the past record will simply result in further pretending that I have not repeated my answers just as you have pretended that I made no answer in the first place.
    in other words he is saying 'i will not answer anything that challenges my beliefs or deprives me of the right to construct my own faith outside of God's word'.

    I am free to decide what posts I respond to, and I now read your posts for the purpose of moderation only. So make no more demands like this, for it is pure harrassment, that should be recognized for the trolling it is and should be grounds for having you kicked out of the forum.
    ha ha ha ha ha ha when he is the target he threatens others, yet when i am the target he remains to be found, hiding in some dark corner cowering. such hypocirsy is not christian as justice and mercy are for all not just those in charge.

    no one has questioned your right to avoid posts, but it is your credibility that is on the line and if i recall i did not demand but said ' i would like to hear MM's answers to those questions' the second time i just put up a question. i did not harass, bully NOR TROLL.

    itis clear that MM has something to hide and we know he is not following Christ as it is says in scripture 'be prepared to give an answer...'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    we'd also see calls for the stoning to death of adulterers, victims of rape, and those that did anything at least as laborious on Saturday as picking up sticks. If archy doesn't adovocate these as well as slavery, then he's a hypocrite and not following litteral interpretation of biblical mythology.
    that is a good example of misunderstanding the Bible and to whom those laws were addressed. it also shows a mis-understanding of the use of the word 'slavery' in the Bible.
    *Sigh* Do I have to start quoting scripture?

    Theres a series of laws about how to treat your slaves. It uses the word: "slave". Trust me on this, the bible allows slavery.

    You have been showed the relevant passages before, but chose to ignore them.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    i would recommend people to read the book The Politically Incorrect guide to the Bible by Hutchinson and his chapter on slavery. here is a quote from pg. 157:

    The truth is that the savage cruelty of slavery has existed on a massive scale all over the world for most of human history-and still exists today in parts of the Islamic world and asia-- and yet it was first officiallybanned, by force of law, only in chrisian europe. No culture on earth questioned the morality of slavery until Christians did the questioning


    Are you suggesting, now, that we should choose how to interpret the bible?!

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    The Bible has never taught advocacy or application OF slavery. It has taught servants, slaves, employees how to behave during their time of servitude. That is a big difference.
    Not really. 'Treat your slave relatively well' is not the same as 'free your slaves'

    here is another quote for yu from pg. 162:

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    The Hebrew word commonly translated as slave, 'eved' (plural 'avadim'), comes from the root avad, which means 'to work.' Some JEwish translations of the Hebrew Bible, therefore, prefer the term 'bondservant' or 'bondsman' because , as we shall see, a Hebrew eved was not really a slave in the modern understanding of the term.
    Why does the bible also say about freeing them after so many years fo service?

    They clearly do not choose to work, do they? If they are freed.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    The only thing you two continue to prove is that I am stupid to bother making any answers to your posts at all. But I admit that up front right. I am stupid to make this response when I know that you will not listen and will most certainly continue to pretend that I have made no such answers.
    No what we prove is that you think you are at liberty to construct your own beliefs and add/subtract from God's word as you see fit. last i looked, you were not given the authority to do so.
    Funny, I did construct my own beliefs. Or, more like, I deconstructed yours.

    God, come and smite my ass for it?



    Didn't think so...

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    this does not make augustine correct
    What exactly makes you correct? Because you say so? But then, you are biased...

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    he was not inspired as the disciples were thus his words do not make scripture. if you appeal to scripture only you should not be appealing to augustine.
    You talk about sticking to scripture only, yet you quoted someone who had read the bible in your previous post.

    It's almost as if you're being intentionally hypocritical...

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    avoids answering the question and the nicene creed DOES NOT define christianity. john 3:16 does and why ar eyou appealing to a source that is constructed by men?
    And the bible was written by who, dogs?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    don't you reject men's ideas or do yo accept them only when they benefit you?
    I accept what you can show to be true.

    Telling is not equivelant to showing.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    no one as the right to change what scripture says
    Except, aparantly, you.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    people are free to believe whatever they want
    This is after shouting at us for months that we are all wrong and are going to hell? OK then...

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    but when it goes against scripture they have NO right to call themselves 'christian'
    So what do you call yourself?

    When was the last time you stoned someone to death? If the answer is never, you cannot be following scripture. Especially since you think so many people around you are sinful and wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    the word christian means 'like Christ'
    Christ is dead.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    and believing things that Jesus did not teach nor God said, is not like Christ.
    How do you know what jesus said? Because you read it in a book. aha.

    I'll be waiting for the price of bacon to rise..... (obscure british joke)

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Jesus did not teach evolution.
    Hey, you know what? I'll say this:

    PROVE IT

    ooooo, you can't. Oh dear. In that case, he must have.

    (this is ironic, because you have used similar logic many times)

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    in other words he is saying 'i will not answer anything that challenges my beliefs or deprives me of the right to construct my own faith outside of God's word'.
    Will you answer to anything that challenges your beliefs? Tell me when you will, and I can quote my past questions.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    no one has questioned your right to avoid posts, but it is your credibility that is on the line and if i recall i did not demand but said ' i would like to hear MM's answers to those questions' the second time i just put up a question. i did not harass, bully NOR TROLL.
    Unfortunately, here you cannot dictate your own rules.

    It becomes incredibly aparant that the reason you believe the shit you do is because you can't stand to lose controll over anything. Probably this is why you see yourself as THE symbol of christianity; the only true christian; so you can bask in your self-importance and controll everything, through god of course.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    itis clear that MM has something to hide and we know he is not following Christ as it is says in scripture 'be prepared to give an answer...'
    Who would want to follow the bible to every literal extent?

    Only murdering psychopaths.

    Stone your child to death for disobeying you?

    Kill anyone not of your faith?

    Don't do anything at all on a sunday? (unless you're a slave, actually)

    Anyone who breaks any minor law must DIE?

    Sacrifice animals on a regular basis, for some bizaar and unstated purpose?

    Cure diseases by putting animal corpses over yourself?

    If you rape someone, you have to marry them?


    Do you do any of the above?

    I highly doubt it.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    OK, I have remained silent far too long on this.

    The term slave as used in the Bible is not the same as the slave we think of in the South of the U.S. prior to the Civil War.

    Most slaves in the Bible as well as throughout the Mediterranean area in the first century and before would be more comparable to hired help. It is not like there were a lot of industries and union jobs in those days.

    It is probable that some people had workers who were on the job against their own will and were endenture for life. But, for the most part, slaves in Jewish culture were more like a person being under peronsal contract today. A "slave" was free to leave his "employer" after a certain amount of time. Often times, when an employer and slave developed a good working relationship, the slave would offer himself to the employer for life.

    Most of the Jewish laws concerning slaves were designed to prevent abuse of slaves no matter why they were slaves.

    This seems to be a major problem for the hard science people on this forum. They do not understand that culture has changed vastly over the last two millennia and although we often use the same English words, they do not have the same meaning when referencing something then as opposed to something we call by the same name today. Slave is one such term. It really seems strange that they cannot understand this idea when even today when we refer to the second law of thermodynamics, we do not mean the same thing we meant some 75 years ago. So why must a word used in the Bible some 2000 years ago, or before that in the case of the Old Testament, mean exactly the same thing today as it did then?
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    i think dayton just repeated what i quoted.

    i will address drowsy later, possibly, usually that is a tiresome task as he ignores anything people say to him and he/she just continues down the same path of destruction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Well, looking back, I do see that you tried to say something along these lines, but nothing you said explained what a "slave" was to them.

    If you are going to say something is different, you probably need to say what is different about it. It is not enough to say that a Fokker D7 is different from a Fokker D8, and that both are different from the Fokker DR1. If someone knows what only one of those airplanes is, how would he know how the others differ?

    Archy has an amazing capacity to assume everyone knows what he knows -- it is a lot like (Q) who thinks you are stupid if you don't have the information he is working from.

    You can never assume someone else knows anything.

    Incidentally, I do not know if it was on this thread or another where Archy was declaring that the Hubble cannot look back in time.

    I, yes even I, can understand that if you have a picture of something that is a 100 million light years away, what you are seeing is that object as it appeared 100 million years ago. I suspect archy thinks those pictures are like Polaroid shots.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    I, yes even I, can understand that if you have a picture of something that is a 100 million light years away, what you are seeing is that object as it appeared 100 million years ago. I suspect archy thinks those pictures are like Polaroid shots.
    no you would be wrong. the looking 'back in time' mentality is based upon an assumption that those planets, comets, asteroids, etc., are all involved with evolution at some point.

    please prove with credible evidence that those photos are taking a picture of something 100 million years ago. they aren't but that is beside the point.

    Archy has an amazing capacity to assume everyone knows what he knows -- it is a lot like (Q) who thinks you are stupid if you don't have the information he is working from
    again an assumption based upon nothing. i know you do not habe the information i have, but it is not hard to read a person's post before continuing the discussion.

    You talk about sticking to scripture only, yet you quoted someone who had read the bible in your previous post
    a post made in confusion of who said what.

    This is after shouting at us for months that we are all wrong and are going to hell? OK then...
    you are. just because you are free to believe whatever you want does it mean your destination has changed or that you are suddenly correct.

    Who would want to follow the bible to every literal extent?

    Only murdering psychopaths.

    Stone your child to death for disobeying you?

    Kill anyone not of your faith?

    Don't do anything at all on a sunday? (unless you're a slave, actually)

    Anyone who breaks any minor law must DIE?

    Sacrifice animals on a regular basis, for some bizaar and unstated purpose?

    Cure diseases by putting animal corpses over yourself?

    If you rape someone, you have to marry them?
    this demonstrates a complete mis-application of the meaning of 'literal' and mis-understanding of scriptures.

    It uses the word: "slave". Trust me on this, the bible allows slavery.
    this is why i do not like answering drowsy--things are explained and he ignores the explanation and goes right back to the wrong meanings and applications.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    no you would be wrong. the looking 'back in time' mentality is based upon an assumption that those planets, comets, asteroids, etc., are all involved with evolution at some point.

    please prove with credible evidence that those photos are taking a picture of something 100 million years ago. they aren't but that is beside the point.
    Again you have no idea what you are talking about. Planets and star systems have nothing at all to do with biological evolution. Nothing. The sole reason you are kicking against this idea is because you think evolution is involved. Is this not so? Yes, I am asking you: Is this not so?

    Fact: The speed of light is known to a very high precision. That means that any light takes a certain time to traverse any distance. The longer the distance, the longer it takes to get there. When something is 1 light year away, it means that light will take 1 year to get from it to here.

    Do you disagree with any of these points?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    I have answered your questions repeatedly, but you both just ignore these answers and pretend that I haven't done so
    The questions related to how you alone decide what tenets of Christianity are to be followed or not were thrown back at me with insults. I'm not complaining about the insults, of course, but certainly you didn't answer them in any other way.

    I do not and never have claimed that any relgious views are objectively provable and never will. I will in fact participate in demonstrating that any claims that they are objectively provable are in fact false.
    You've nailed the problem on the head. I've read your posts where you've dissected many of the Christian beliefs showing them to be false. And, then you call yourself a Christian. It is baffling, sir, to say the least.

    This fanciful term "cherry picking" means no more than thinking for oneself and is used by manipulators to suggest that you have to surrender your thinking to them, and shows nothing but intolerance for people doing their own thinking.
    Here, let me give you the definition:

    "Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position." ~~ wiki

    That is what you do with Christianity, Mitch, and that is why I prefer the more fanciful term "Mitchianity."

    Those that accept these as I do are Trinitarian Christians those that reject them or redefine Christianity according to their own private requirements are pseudo-christian cults.
    I'm shocked. Now, we're finally getting somewhere.

    It would appear that Trinitarian Christianity IS a pseudo-christian cult.

    "The pure Deism of the first Christians … was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the Trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief.

    Most theologians know that the Trinity doctrine is not scriptural.

    Because the Trinity is such an important part of later Christian doctrine, it is striking that the term does not appear in the New Testament. Likewise, the developed concept of three coequal partners in the Godhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the canon.

    But nowhere do we find any Trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead.

    All Pagan religions from the time of Babylon have adopted in one form or another a Trinity doctrine or a triad or trinity of gods. In Babylon it was Nimrod, Semiramas, and Tammuz. In Egypt it was Osiris, Isis, and Horus. Within Israel paganism it was Kether, Hokhmah, and Binah. In Plato's philosophy it was the Unknown Father, Nous/Logos, and the world soul. In the book, A Statement of Reasons, Andrews Norton says of the Trinity:

    We can trace the history of this doctrine, and discover its source, not in the Christian revelation, but in the Platonic philosophy … The Trinity is not a doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, but a fiction of the school of the later Platonists.

    Historians also know that the Trinity doctrine is not authorized in the New Testament."

    http://reluctant-messenger.com/Lost-...tianity009.htm

    Augustine is a recognized figure of Christian orthodoxy and his warnings concerning interpreting scripture in a stupidly literal way have great merit.
    So, you follow Augustine's doctrine, not Christian doctrine?

    None of this changes what is Christianity because what is Christian remains in the Nicean creed which was certainly never disputed by either of them.
    Haha. That's rich. They're disputing what should and shouldn't be in Christianity. See definition above re: cherry picking.

    Nonsense! This PRESUMES that you are the sole authority on what are God's commands and what is Christianity. You are not!
    That is what you continuously throw back in my face, which is rather disingenuous of you. At no point, ever, have I stated what is and what is not your gods commands, that is what I'm accusing YOU of doing. You are the one who has made yourself an authority of what should and what should not be Christianity.

    Although, you may claim to be a Trinitarian, you most certainly don't follow the doctrines of Trinitarian Christianity.

    The Nicean creed has defined Christianity for many hundreds of years and God is the only with the right to say what are His commands.
    And, of course, you don't see the blatant contradiction of that claim. Nor, do you appear not to follow the Nicean creed or your gods commands. That is the entire point of my accusation.


    Whatever consensus the cult you hang out with may have, the largest worldwide consensus among believers defines Christianity according to the Nicean creed and the Biblical canon.
    Oh, I see, it's now a consensus of the worlds population. Can you say, Argument ad Populum? Of course, you and I both know, Christians don't follow either the creed or the canon, you especially.

    And, to be crystal clear, the authority IS the Biblical canon, not me.

    But clearly this is a pretty minimal agreement and allows considerable scope for decision about what one believes within those limits.
    Minimal? How do you explain the creation of the Trinity as minimal? Yes, that's called cherry picking, see above definition.

    There is for example no mention of the theory of evolution in the Nicean creed or the Bible, thus your decision that it contradicts the Bible remains your personal decision which a vast number of Christians in the world disagrees with you about
    Creationism is most definitely in the bible. Yet, you provide a great deal of refutation against it. Where is the need for evolution within such a fairy tale?

    Disagreement with your interpretation of the Bible is not misinterpretation, for YOU HAVE NO AUTHORITY.
    Once again, you throw that back in my face. This is most likely to distract away from answering the questions posed. I have no personal interpretation of the bible other than what is written there. Interpretations are taken only from those who follow it, yours included.

    The Bible is God's word to each and every person and no one has any authority to change this by saying that it is only true if interpreted correctly to match their own opinions. Something which I never do.
    Something you always do, hence my accusations towards you.


    You have no authority to draw any lines whatsoever with regards to the commands of God. Only God has that authority. If you set yourself up as a little pope, imagining that you have such authority, then it is you who are contradicting the instructions of Jesus.
    You also have no authority, Mitch, although you pontificate that authority on a regular basis. One can simply read your posts and compare with the doctrine. Simple, really.

    I am free to decide what posts I respond to, and I now read your posts for the purpose of moderation only. So make no more demands like this, for it is pure harrassment, that should be recognized for the trolling it is and should be grounds for having you kicked out of the forum.
    I really must be getting very close to the mark if that's going to be your modus operandi.

    One thing is certain, Mitch, and you are free not to respond, is that you're no different than any other Christian who cherry picks their beliefs. And, I would also agree with Skinwalker that even Christians such as Archy cherry picks his beliefs, but more so on a interpretive level. However, Archy does try very hard to follow the doctrines of Christianity as best he can, despite that fact that his beliefs are myths and superstitions.

    You, on the other hand, attempt to look smart and not believe some of those doctrines describing it as "thinking for yourself" when all along, your beliefs are no more myth and superstition than Archys.

    You want to be a Christian, but you want credibility too.

    It doesn't work that way, sir.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner

    it is a lot like (Q) who thinks you are stupid if you don't have the information he is working from.
    Your petty attempts at trolling have been noted, Dayton.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner

    The term slave as used in the Bible is not the same as the slave we think of in the South of the U.S. prior to the Civil War.

    Most slaves in the Bible as well as throughout the Mediterranean area in the first century and before would be more comparable to hired help. It is not like there were a lot of industries and union jobs in those days.
    Holy Mary of Mother Jesus Christ...

    You can't be fucking serious, Dayton. Hired help? Slavery has not changed one iota, Dayton. Slavery is being the property of someone else who forces you to work. You are held against your will. Slavery predates most written records.

    This seems to be a major problem for the hard science people on this forum. They do not understand that culture has changed vastly over the last two millennia and although we often use the same English words, they do not have the same meaning when referencing something then as opposed to something we call by the same name today. Slave is one such term.
    You've presented some whoppers, but that one really takes the cake. No Dayton, there really isn't a Santa Claus and slavery is still slavery.

    So why must a word used in the Bible some 2000 years ago, or before that in the case of the Old Testament, mean exactly the same thing today as it did then?
    Slavery is not a word distinctive to the bible, Dayton. And, it's meaning has not changed from 2000 years ago.

    Unbelievable.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    The term slave as used in the Bible is not the same as the slave we think of in the South of the U.S. prior to the Civil War.

    Most slaves in the Bible as well as throughout the Mediterranean area in the first century and before would be more comparable to hired help. It is not like there were a lot of industries and union jobs in those days.
    Ridiculous. Why would the Egyptians have had to go through the plagues before they let the Israelites go? Why didn't the Israelites just "resign"?

    As for the definition of a Christian: To me it simply means anyone that believes in the divinity of Jesus as that he is the way to salvation. It does not mean that the Bible has to be taken literally for such a person to qualify as a Christian. The Nicean creed might have decided what to put in the Bible, but I can't think that that could be the final say on the matter. There is little difference between that and the pope deciding what is to be believed.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Re: replies of (Q) and Kalster

    And you guys complain about Archy???!!! I did not address the idea of "slave" as it may have related to Egyptians some 1500 years B.C. The problem there was that the Israelites had become such an important part of the Egyptian work force, the Egyptians did not want them to leave and sought to keep them there by force. They went to Egypt of their own volition and willingly remained there for the greater part of their stay. Up until the rumblings of wanting to leave, they were well paid essential elements of the Egyptian social order. They worked their butts off and then kept to themselves.

    Your inability to get out of your 21st Century mindset to view ancient history and social orders is really not all that different from Archy failing to join the 21st Century mindset.

    Such narrowness of perspective and inability to relate to the broad spectrum of interrelating schools of thought that reflect on what is really real, is comparable to Archy's.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,306
    THink it's a bit funny we're discussing the nature of Egyptian slavery of the Israelites, when there virtually no archaeological evidence than they were even in Egypt during that period.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Ouch. Being compared to Archy is like getting a face full of pepper spray, so I am willing to consider that slavery as meant in scripture is not slavery as is meant today. For that I need references though. Do you have some?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    As for the definition of a Christian: To me it simply means anyone that believes in the divinity of Jesus as that he is the way to salvation. It does not mean that the Bible has to be taken literally for such a person to qualify as a Christian.
    Yet, according to Mitch:

    "The Nicean creed has defined Christianity for many hundreds of years and God is the only with the right to say what are His commands."

    "The Bible is God's word to each and every person and no one has any authority to change this by saying that it is only true if interpreted correctly to match their own opinions."
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    240
    Interestingly enough, I learnt in my African American literature class this semester that in the 16th and 17th century african slaves had a status similar to the Irish in colonial North America. It seemed that Africans, like the Irish and other european minorities, were treated as indentured servants. Given a period of work they owed their master, roughly 7 to 14 years, they would be granted their independance at the end of this work period and based off of whether the servant's master was generous or not, would either be adopted into the family, be provided with some monetary gift to help establish himself, or turned out into streets. The reason slavery in America turned out the way it did was that like all forms of bondage, indentured servitude had its runaways and africans turned out to be easier to catch and keep track of than white servants. Over time the ease of keeping track of black servants increased and a black slaves gradually lost the same statusthey held with the white servants, which eventually led to the slavery of the South.

    Serfdom was another from of slavery that is extremely prevalent in feudal societies. While the status of the serfs could differ in various areas, sometimes with few or great number of rights, all serfs are bound to the land. Slavery is a very interesting and varied subject.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Re: replies of (Q) and Kalster

    And you guys complain about Archy???!!! I did not address the idea of "slave" as it may have related to Egyptians some 1500 years B.C.
    True. You provided your own personal version of slavery in order to defend your book of myths and superstitions. To say your version was silly in the extreme would be putting it mildly.

    "Hired help," indeed. You're merely a 'syntax improved' version of Archy.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Kalster wrote:

    Ouch. Being compared to Archy is like getting a face full of pepper spray, so I am willing to consider that slavery as meant in scripture is not slavery as is meant today. For that I need references though. Do you have some?
    Thanks for asking. I don't know that it will satisfy you, but this rather lengthy article http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html gives some perspectives on slavery in that culture.

    Certainly, the one aspect of slavery that we deplore -- the idea of capturing people and forcing them into unpaid labor and buying and selling them -- has existed and been employed by almost every culture which has ever existed -- including the Hebrew people. I am not sure why any culture should be demonized for doing that which all other cultures do, too, especially when it is one of the few cultures which had rules which tried to prevent abuse.

    What I think you would find in an in-depth study of slavery is that the Bible had some pretty strict rules on treatment of "slaves." Many Jewish slaves were people who had been sold into servitude by parents or spouse because of economics. The "master" was not allowed to deal that person to another and if the servitude did not work out, there was a redemption process. Jews did have slaves which fit what we consider the most offensive form of slavery -- but even there, the Bible had some strict rules on how to treat them.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    to me, a fundamentalist is simply a person who reads into a religion more literally than others.
    the worst fundamentalists are those who think that stoning is a good way to punish those who do not hold the sabbath holy.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    deja said:

    the worst fundamentalists are those who think that stoning is a good way to punish those who do not hold the sabbath holy.
    Are you aware of the last time this happened? If it was like, maybe, 2000 years ago, why would you still be complaining about it today?

    I do not understand why you guys keep demonizing Jews (ala Hitler) because their cultural practices were pretty much the same as the rest of the world at that time. Do we continue to demonize the practice of medicine because of the practice of blood letting a couple of hundred years ago?

    If you are going to complain about some religious practice, at least choose one from today.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    I think he's interpreting archaeologist's methodology as a hyper-literalist christian to mean that he would support the stoning of people as made law in Leviticus. I don't think it has prevalence today, in any society, but is still alive in select individuals. I agree with that point of view (that it's a dead tradition that only certain people want* to adhere to). I can't really think of any common day religious practices that bug me, except for the pushiness of jehova's witnesses adn their publications and preaching, every flippin time I'm on a bus, I have to hear the words of a preacher behind me, constantly and insesently harping on about the end of the world. beyond that though, they are all kosher to me :wink:
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    deja said:
    If you are going to complain about some religious practice, at least choose one from today.
    people are being stoned to death today in iran.

    but i guess the definition is a bit off.
    thats religious extremists. to me its a scale that goes like this:

    extremist>fundamentalist>moderate>liberal>agnostic >atheist

    extremists are willing to kill/die for a religion and its tenets.
    there are very few extremists left in the western hemisphere.
    there was a few cults who killed themselves in year 2000 because they believed jesus was coming back.

    fundamentalists are the ones most willing to bend their view of reality into a distortion that fits with their religious text.
    this includes denying or writing off archeological evidence and scientific methods in favour of the biblical stories.
    firm belief that god created earth in 7 days, 6000 years ago

    moderates are far more pick and choose about biblical texts, usually taking all the good stuff, and leaving out the bad, mostly because they've never read the bible,
    and instead only listened to what others say about it.
    as for worldview, it tends to tip more in favour of biblical accounts, but not in a literal sense. this may include the belief in the holy trinity, heaven and hell.

    liberals have the least stringent belief in god. usually it only includes god being a creative force in the universe, and a belief in heaven and leaving it at that. this could also be synonymous with "Deist".

    agnostic is one who doesn't know whether there is a god, but leaves the option out there.

    atheists believes gods are all horseshit.

    i think most atheists/agnostics who have been religious, will go through each state of .. urm, religiosity? before becoming an atheist/agnostic.

    for example, a fundamentalist would become a moderate, then a liberal, before becoming agnostic, or atheist.
    but a moderate would only go through liberal, then agnostic and atheist.

    anyways, this is my subjective opinions and ideas, not set in stone, and i'd like to hear what other people think when they think of these words
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    That is the opposite progression I am familiar with.

    atheist/agnostic>born again experience>almost legalistic zealous Christian>realization you still cannot keep the law>understanding the blood of Christ covers all sins past, present and future>accepting God's invitation to participate in informing others about Christ>telling others about Christ.

    Some get hung up on one stage or another or become zealous at that point before moving on, if ever they do. Or perhaps they skip a stage which makes them less effective.

    However, I still think it unfair to debase all religion based on the misdeeds of one religion. I am aware of only one religion that follows any of those ancient barbaric practices today.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •