Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 154 (8094 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-23-2014 10:17 PM
184 online now:
Aurelia, hooah212002, jar, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), NoNukes (5 members, 179 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: yudi
Upcoming Birthdays: Bliyaal
Happy Birthday: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 733,006 Year: 18,847/28,606 Month: 2,118/2,305 Week: 323/671 Day: 55/114 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
26NextFF
Author Topic:   Pick and Choose Fundamentalism
Taz
Member
Posts: 5040
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 76 of 384 (430862)
10-27-2007 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Elhardt
10-27-2007 11:06 PM


Re: Never condemn others on a charge you do not understand yourself
So, how is this not pick and choose fundamentalism or are you agreeing with the premise?


Disclaimer:

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Elhardt, posted 10-27-2007 11:06 PM Elhardt has not yet responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 819 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 77 of 384 (436589)
11-26-2007 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by anglagard
10-24-2007 3:09 AM


No Fun Fundie
anglagard writes:

What is the rationale for worshiping each word in Genesis and ignoring what one does not like in Leviticus or Deuteronomy?

Rationale?! From Fundie's?! Are you Serious?!

I'm not so sure that they "worship each word in Genesis."
Have you seen chapter one of the New International Version of the Bible and compared it to other (i.e. reputable) versions?

Anyhoo. Having read the thread to date I must disagree with dwise1’s “former fundamentalist.” The Jesus Freaks, however disgusting, were a logical outgrowth of fundamentalist indoctrination. Some years before those freaks appeared, I too had taken steps in that direction, (driven by my fundamentalist approach to Bible study) coming home from college long haired, unshaven, wearing sandals and a trench coat (my notion of a 'modern' robe). :D

I was a ministerial student and volunteer Bible instructor well versed in our church's program (crash course) of indoctrination and induction. Our method had already been in play for about a hundred years, and continues today, virtually unchanged (except that I am no longer a part of it). Granted, there was a broader foundation of biblical study but the overwhelming emphasis was on those “24-verses” (thank you SGT Snorkel). :)

Those verses reminded us that we were inherently evil, essentially worthless, and totally helpless without the assistance of Jesus (among other things). Also: when to come to meeting, and where to put our money. Prior to college graduation our ministerial candidates were expected to have memorized more than a hundred Bible verses which supposedly supported our peculiar set of doctrines (SDA). Within five years, however, I was able to demonstrate from the Bible that our doctrines were so much hooey. I came to read it myself, and in context you see; including the chapters which had been ignored or abridged and the verses which had been skipped over, or cut in half. Can you imagine how furious I became, having devoted my life to the service of God and Church, only to realize that our edifice of truth was a house of cards?

About that "former fundamentalist" comment that "the congregations largely failed to carry through with their Bible study -- " My experience suggests that Christian audiences are systematically deterred from exploring the Bible (despite casual appearances to the contrary). Even when believers read outside the bounds prescribed by their instructors, they are likely to distrust their own understanding and rather defer to the clergyman's opinion. That response is only natural but this fact in itself does not explain the phenomenal resistance, among fundamentalists, to form a truly personal opinion. Conformity to official interpretations is further encouraged by instructing Bible students to ignore their own opinion. This anti-intellectual instruction is reinforced by quoting scripture:

"Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not rely on your own insight." Proverbs 3:5 RSV

I cannot say, at this time, whether that scripture is relevant to Bible study. What I can say is that it is one of the few study guidelines offerd to students by their fundie Bible instructors. In a fundamentalist congregation, you risk expulsion if your insight strays from the norm. The prejudice against personal opinion is not limited to the corporate realm but is a powerful factor in fundamentalist family life as well.

For example: I came home from college one Christmas, while studying New Testament Greek, and offered my father the unique translation I had made of John 2:4 (one of the more difficult to translate, according to my instructor). I was rather proud of my effort. I figured I had nailed it. Certainly an improvement over the King James Version of the text. I don't know how I expected my father to respond. But it wasn't the loving father routine. He wasn't going to post my latest art on the refrigerator. No. He surprised me big time; seemingly all out of proportion to the sin which he seemed to think I had committed. He raged. He clenched his massive fists and stepped forward half raising them, as if to attack and glared at me wide-eyed for a second; then lowered his guns to a standby position; and, red-faced and surly, he challenged:

" What !
Now you think you're smarter than God ? "

The old man is gone now, but not before he saw me become an atheist Sunday School teacher. He had mellowed a bit by then but I don't think he expected me to join him in heaven. Arrogance may not be a fundamentalist requirement but it appears to be well accepted in the congregations.


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by anglagard, posted 10-24-2007 3:09 AM anglagard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by SGT Snorkel, posted 11-27-2007 3:16 PM doctrbill has responded
 Message 80 by GDR, posted 11-27-2007 4:48 PM doctrbill has responded

  
SGT Snorkel
Junior Member (Idle past 2078 days)
Posts: 23
From: Boone, IA USA
Joined: 07-25-2006


Message 78 of 384 (436786)
11-27-2007 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by doctrbill
11-26-2007 6:15 PM


My thoughts on fundamentalism
Did not know if I should reply to you or make it a reply to Message 1.

I was once teaching a 6th grade Sunday School class, a wonderful age because they are old enough to really start asking challenging questions. Naturally there were questions on a literal Garden of Eden, a literal flood, etc.

The next week, I took the first 100 words of Genesis (I used a Revised Standard Version) and just wrote down how many definitions were in the dictionary for each word. For the exercise I just used the American Heritage Dictionary.

Consider just the first three words "In the beginning..." For the word "In" I find 19 total definitions, the word "the" I find 6 definitions, and the word "beginning" has 5 definitions.

As I told the class, "You and I could read any verse in the Bible, any chapter in the Bible, or any book in the Bible. We could then write down in our own words what it meant. None of our answers would be the same."

The point, I told them, and I hope they kept it, is that you can try and be a "fundamentalist" but in the end you still have to decide what it means to you and what you are going to take away from it. It's the same as if we read J.R.R. Tolkein, Louis Lamour, or Stephen King, everyone will take something different from it.

I guess what I am trying to say in my own confused way, everyone is going to have to pick and choose what, if anything, in the Bible is important to them, and there is no rhyme nor reason as to why they choose what they do or why they discard what they do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by doctrbill, posted 11-26-2007 6:15 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Taz, posted 11-27-2007 4:26 PM SGT Snorkel has not yet responded
 Message 83 by doctrbill, posted 11-27-2007 6:28 PM SGT Snorkel has responded

  
Taz
Member
Posts: 5040
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 79 of 384 (436798)
11-27-2007 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by SGT Snorkel
11-27-2007 3:16 PM


Re: My thoughts on fundamentalism
There's a reason why it is always better to answer someone in a complete sentence rather than one word answers. Every language in the world operates almost entirely on context. Sure, you can find dozens of different meanings to each word if you look at them seperately, but I'm pretty sure you can narrow your choices down to 1 or 2 after you've read the whole sentence or the whole paragraph.

For example, I'm pretty sure Joshua 6:20-21

quote:
20 When the trumpets sounded, the people shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the people gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so every man charged straight in, and they took the city. 21 They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.

can't be interpreted as...

quote:
And the Israelites invite the people of Jericho, men and women, young and old, out for some icecream.

As a challenge, could you tell us if there is any other possible way we can interpret this little passage in Joshua other than the bleedingly obvious interpretation of it, that every man, woman, and child in the city of Jericho was slaughtered upon the command of the all loving christian god?


Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by SGT Snorkel, posted 11-27-2007 3:16 PM SGT Snorkel has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by zombie ringo, posted 11-27-2007 5:11 PM Taz has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 3711
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 80 of 384 (436803)
11-27-2007 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by doctrbill
11-26-2007 6:15 PM


Re: No Fun Fundie
doctrbill writes:

The old man is gone now, but not before he saw me become an atheist Sunday School teacher.

This is the thing about fundamentalism. (At least by the definition that most would understand it here.) It isn't mainstream Christianity and never has been.

If one is raised in a fundamentalist environment, and then decides to look more deeply into it, they are likely to discard all Christianity because they can no longer accept what I believe to be a distortion of it.


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by doctrbill, posted 11-26-2007 6:15 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by dwise1, posted 11-27-2007 5:17 PM GDR has not yet responded
 Message 84 by doctrbill, posted 11-27-2007 6:56 PM GDR has responded

    
zombie ringo
Member
Posts: 9320
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 81 of 384 (436811)
11-27-2007 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Taz
11-27-2007 4:26 PM


Re: My thoughts on fundamentalism
Taz writes:

As a challenge, could you tell us if there is any other possible way we can interpret this little passage in Joshua other than the bleedingly obvious interpretation of it, that every man, woman, and child in the city of Jericho was slaughtered upon the command of the all loving christian god?

I don't think that's an example of pick-and-choose fundamentalism. They believe the people deserved to be slaughtered - because God said so. We've seen fundamentalists argue that right here.

Their position is perverted but not inconsistent.


“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Taz, posted 11-27-2007 4:26 PM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Taz, posted 11-27-2007 11:07 PM zombie ringo has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2100
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 82 of 384 (436814)
11-27-2007 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by GDR
11-27-2007 4:48 PM


Re: No Fun Fundie
That seems related to something that Bertrand Russell is supposed to have once pointed out: if a Catholic becomes a freethinker, then he will tend to become an atheist, whereas if a Protestant becomes a freethinker then he just creates a new sect.

My understanding of what he was saying is that the Catholic view is that there is only one true faith and everything else is heresy. So if they give up that one true faith then there is no other faith to turn to. OTOH, Protestist history has been filled with groups splintering off from a parent church over some doctrinal difference and forming their own church.

The impression I get from fundamentalists (I spent many years as a "fellow traveller", since several of my friends have been fundamentalists) is that theirs is the only true interpretation of the one true faith, so they'd be in the same boat as Russell's Catholic.


{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)

Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)

Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)

Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by GDR, posted 11-27-2007 4:48 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 819 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 83 of 384 (436824)
11-27-2007 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by SGT Snorkel
11-27-2007 3:16 PM


Re: My thoughts on fundamentalism
Thank you for your response.

SGT Snorkel writes:

... everyone is going to have to pick and choose what, if anything, in the Bible is important to them, and there is no rhyme nor reason as to why they choose what they do or why they discard what they do.

That may be true for a great many individual Christians but I'm not sure it's true of those who embrace the dominionist movement. These folks seem to know why they choose what they choose; or at least: why they are choosing.

The experience which I related re: my fundamentalist father, reflects a rather stern attitude toward freedom of Christian thought but no matter how mellow a dominionist appears to be, he/she is inclined to act, and vote, in ways which threaten freedom of religion. This has some otherwise very mellow Christian people getting up in arms, including Bill Moyers:

quote:
According to acclaimed journalist and television host Bill Moyers,

True, people of faith have always tried to bring their interpretation of the Bible to bear on American laws and morals ... it's the American way, encouraged and protected by the First Amendment. But what is unique today is that the radical religious right has succeeded in taking over one of America's great political parties. The country is not yet a theocracy but the Republican Party is, and they are driving American politics, using God as a a battering ram on almost every issue: crime and punishment, foreign policy, health care, taxation, energy, regulation, social services and so on. more


See the parent site: Theocracy Watch

Having devoted my life to studying the Bible and the people who think they understand it: I am extremely concerned for the future of American Liberty: religious and secular. Your liberal easy going approach to Bible study is refreshing. Fact is, however, the subject has been deadly serious in the past and is far from inoccuous today.

Have you any idea of the horror which would be unleashed by a joining of church and state? The seriousness of the question was pointed up earlier in this thread by Equinox who wrote:

quote:
For instance, 30% of Americans want a Constitutional Amendment making Christianity the Official Religion of the United States (that’s about half of US Christians), according to a Barna poll taken in 2005.

Need I say more?


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by SGT Snorkel, posted 11-27-2007 3:16 PM SGT Snorkel has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by dwise1, posted 11-27-2007 8:17 PM doctrbill has not yet responded
 Message 92 by SGT Snorkel, posted 11-28-2007 10:06 AM doctrbill has not yet responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 819 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 84 of 384 (436829)
11-27-2007 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by GDR
11-27-2007 4:48 PM


Re: No Fun Fundie
GDR writes:

This is the thing about fundamentalism. ... It isn't mainstream Christianity and never has been.

If one is raised in a fundamentalist environment, and then decides to look more deeply into it, they are likely to discard all Christianity because they can no longer accept what I believe to be a distortion of it.

That which you may call "a distortion" of Christianity, the fundamentalist knows as "the true" Christianity. In my experience, fundamentalists are more likely to read the Bible and are generally better informed regarding its content. (Not that it takes a lot to be better informed than the majority of Christians). Fundamentalists are the shock-troops of Christianity. They know that God commands his people to kill the infidel. To their way of thinking: If you don't know what the Bible has to say about such things, then you don't know a lot about the Bible.

If one doesn't know the basics (the fundamentals) then how does one determine what is genuine and what is distortion? No offense intended but if we are going to accuse the other guy of having it wrong then we should be able to explain to him how he's wrong. (whether he accepts it or not is another matter)

Yes?


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by GDR, posted 11-27-2007 4:48 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by dwise1, posted 11-27-2007 8:26 PM doctrbill has responded
 Message 88 by GDR, posted 11-27-2007 9:59 PM doctrbill has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2100
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 85 of 384 (436859)
11-27-2007 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by doctrbill
11-27-2007 6:28 PM


Re: My thoughts on fundamentalism
I first heard about the Christian Reconstructionist movement in the late 80's from a three-part series Bill Moyers did for PBS on the Religious Right. Extremely scary stuff.

Thank you for the current links.


{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)

Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)

Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)

Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by doctrbill, posted 11-27-2007 6:28 PM doctrbill has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2100
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 86 of 384 (436860)
11-27-2007 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by doctrbill
11-27-2007 6:56 PM


Re: No Fun Fundie
I forget who it was and in which topic, but some time within the past one or two months somebody posted statistics of the current trends in church membership in the US. As I recall the statistics he reported, overall membership is declining, such that atheist/agnostic/non-religious segment of the population is growing. Within the religious segment, most of the decline is in the mainstream denominations. Fundamentalist/conservative/evangelical denominations are growing, not shrinking. As is a liberal denomination, the Unitarian Universalists (though our membership has traditionally been small, about 100,000 circa 1990).

So basically, we are seeing US religion becoming increasingly polarized.


{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)

Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)

Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)

Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by doctrbill, posted 11-27-2007 6:56 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by doctrbill, posted 11-27-2007 9:16 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 819 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 87 of 384 (436869)
11-27-2007 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by dwise1
11-27-2007 8:26 PM


Re: No Fun Fundie
dwise1 writes:

So basically, we are seeing US religion becoming increasingly polarized.

Yes. Sad but true. And it behooves peace-loving UU's everywhere to bone up on Bible knowledge; if for no other reason than to defeat the great army of ignorants. Have mercy on their souls, however, for they have entrusted their minds to the corrupting influence of a clergy which, through zealotry or greed, are leading them to war against the very Liberties which have allowed them to prosper.

The statistics you are trying to recall are located here, in this post by Equinox.

BTW. Good to see a UU presence here. :cool:

Edited by doctrbill, : To repair link


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by dwise1, posted 11-27-2007 8:26 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 3711
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 88 of 384 (436882)
11-27-2007 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by doctrbill
11-27-2007 6:56 PM


Re: No Fun Fundie
doctrbill writes:

If one doesn't know the basics (the fundamentals) then how does one determine what is genuine and what is distortion? No offense intended but if we are going to accuse the other guy of having it wrong then we should be able to explain to him how he's wrong. (whether he accepts it or not is another matter)

It isn't always just a matter of how well you know your Bible. For example how do you explain to someone that the Genesis story is allegorical. How do you explain to someone that the people who destroyed Jericho and its inhabitants did so because either they needed to justify it, or they heard God wrong. I've tried telling people to read that in the light of the teachings of Jesus and explained how Jesus viewed conflict with the Romans but that thought is just rejected because it isn't consistent with a literal reading of the text.

If one insists that the Bible is to be taken absolutely literally then there is no way to explain it to them in any other way.

Incidentally I didn't accuse anyone of being wrong, I just said that it is my opinion that they are. (Splitting hairs maybe but it does give a different tone to the discussion.)


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by doctrbill, posted 11-27-2007 6:56 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by doctrbill, posted 11-28-2007 8:37 AM GDR has not yet responded

    
Taz
Member
Posts: 5040
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 89 of 384 (436894)
11-27-2007 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by zombie ringo
11-27-2007 5:11 PM


Re: My thoughts on fundamentalism
It's pick and choose fundamentalism because even though they argue that those people deserved to be slaughtered they absolutely refuse to be more specific.

I've asked this question many times and have so far gotten absolutely no answer from any fundy. Among the people that got killed in Jericho were infants, toddlers, and pregnant women. Were those 2 year olds sinful and therefore deserved to be slaughtered as well?

How is this not pick and choose fundamentalism when they absolutely refuse to discuss this at a more individual level?


Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by zombie ringo, posted 11-27-2007 5:11 PM zombie ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by zombie ringo, posted 11-28-2007 12:32 AM Taz has responded

  
zombie ringo
Member
Posts: 9320
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 90 of 384 (436914)
11-28-2007 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Taz
11-27-2007 11:07 PM


Re: My thoughts on fundamentalism
Taz writes:

How is this not pick and choose fundamentalism when they absolutely refuse to discuss this at a more individual level?

The OP asks specifically why fundamentalists believe Genesis literally but don't obey the levitical law literally. That's picking and choosing which parts of the Bible they take literally.

They do take the slaughter stories literally, even if they can't explain why the slaughter was justified.

The excuse for eating pork or shellfish is "Jesus put an end to all that" - which they can't explain either. Your example is in the same category: things that were changed by Jesus. Jesus made slaughter bad and crabs good. Insane but consistent.

The Genesis literalism, as per the OP, is different. No good or bad, just happened or didn't happen.


“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Taz, posted 11-27-2007 11:07 PM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Taz, posted 11-28-2007 10:23 AM zombie ringo has responded

  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
26NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014