Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Pick and Choose Fundamentalism
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 91 of 384 (436948)
11-28-2007 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by GDR
11-27-2007 9:59 PM


Re: No Fun Fundie
GDR writes:
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.
Excellent question. Wish I had an excellent answer. It may not be possible to accomplish that goal directly. There are things one can try, however, which might have some impact on an individual who is honestly seeking factual truth.
You might start by pointing up some of the more humorous examples of how Bible writers employ figures of speech. The following are my favorite and perhaps the most obvious (and therefore funny):
quote:
"He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water." Jhn 7:38
Imagine that!
quote:
"Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head." Rom 12:20
When it comes to the allegorical nature of the Genesis story, I imagine that you are referring to the second and third chapters, yes? It appears to me as if the first chapter is a condensed synthesis of ancient middle eastern cosmology.

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by GDR, posted 11-27-2007 9:59 PM GDR has not replied

  
SGT Snorkel
Junior Member (Idle past 5704 days)
Posts: 23
From: Boone, IA USA
Joined: 07-25-2006


Message 92 of 384 (436961)
11-28-2007 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by doctrbill
11-27-2007 6:28 PM


Re: My thoughts on fundamentalism
I had never heard it called "dominionism", interesting. (As a disclaimer, I wasn't smart enough to go to college so I had to go to Iowa State University.) Every once in a while I will read something from a hard liner that scares me a little. Part of me says that they should be responded to, part of me says they are just a nut-case fringe that will never have power, and most of me is so busy dealing with my own darn problems that I don't have time to react one way or another. Perhaps I should make more time.
Certainly food for thought.

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

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 93 of 384 (436969)
11-28-2007 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by ringo
11-28-2007 12:32 AM


Re: My thoughts on fundamentalism
You're not listening to what I'm saying.
I agree that they believe slaughtering an entire city is a-ok if god commanded it. It's pick and choose when it comes to talking about the event on an individual level. When a fundies describes the killing of everyone in the city, they always describe it as god commanding the Israelites to kill all the sinners. In fact, the fundies go as far as saying everyone in the city was a sinner.
When we get to a more specific level, were the infants and toddlers sinners and deserved death as well? Picking and choosing came in when the fundies get to pick which victims to talk about and which victims to ignore. It's picking the lighter side of the story/event (the killing of all the sinners) and ignoring the darker side of the story/event (killing of innocent infants and toddlers).
Given that it a different kind of picking and choosing from what the OP intended, but it's still picking and choosing fundamentalism. They get to pick and choose who among the victims to talk about and who to ignore completely.

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 90 by ringo, posted 11-28-2007 12:32 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by ringo, posted 11-28-2007 11:49 AM Taz has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 94 of 384 (436987)
11-28-2007 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Taz
11-28-2007 10:23 AM


Re: My thoughts on fundamentalism
Taz writes:
Picking and choosing came in when the fundies get to pick which victims to talk about and which victims to ignore.
I hear what you're saying. But you seem to be contradicting yourself when you say:
In fact, the fundies go as far as saying everyone in the city was a sinner.
If "everyone in the city was a sinner", what are they picking and choosing? They don't talk about the specifics of each person's sin because they don't know any specifics. They can surmise the probable sins of some (adults) but not of others (children).
Not knowing is not the same as picking and choosing. It's the God-moves-in-mysterious-ways defense, which is not peculiar to fundamentalists. Most Christians use it at one level or another.
It's no more on-topic than picking and choosing a flavour of ice cream.

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Taz, posted 11-28-2007 10:23 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Taz, posted 11-28-2007 1:08 PM ringo has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 95 of 384 (437007)
11-28-2007 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by ringo
11-28-2007 11:49 AM


Re: My thoughts on fundamentalism
Ringo writes:
If "everyone in the city was a sinner", what are they picking and choosing?
It is picking and choosing because they are willing to declare the whole city as sinful but then ignore the fact that logically speaking infants and toddlers can't sin.
It's picking the macro level and ignoring the micro level. In other words, even within a specific verse they pick and choose which part of the verse they want to praise and which part they want to ignore.
They don't talk about the specifics of each person's sin because they don't know any specifics. They can surmise the probable sins of some (adults) but not of others (children).
And I'm not demanding that they tell me each specific sin of each person. All I'm asking is if they could give any possible sin a toddler or infant could commit. Remember that I am assuming the city of Jericho was indeed a sinful city like the fundies proclaim. I am assuming that the adults were raping and murdering each other. What actions could the infants and toddlers have done to deserve death?
Not knowing is not the same as picking and choosing. It's the God-moves-in-mysterious-ways defense, which is not peculiar to fundamentalists. Most Christians use it at one level or another.
But Ringo, the fundies never say they don't know what sins the toddlers and infants could have committed to deserve death. They just ignore this question.
They are very willing to tell us that the people of Jericho was sinful and had 40 years to repent. Even our very own liberal christian Phat said this. But when I asked what possible sins the toddlers and infants could have committed, they just pretend like they never heard or saw the question. How is this not picking and choosing which part of the story/event to address and which part to ignore?
It's no more on-topic than picking and choosing a flavour of ice cream.
Here is the verse about Jericho again.
quote:
Joshua 6:21 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.
Ok, let's discuss this very simple verse. The fundies are very willing to tell us that the people were sinners and therefore deserved to be slaughtered. They are very willing to tell us some of the possible mortal sins the adults were commiting. But when asked for some of the possible mortal sins the children were commiting, they just ignore us. How is this not picking and choosing which part of this very simple sentence to preach and which part to ignore?
Ringo, here is a challenge for you. Find me a fundy who is willing to answer the question in a straight forward manner and I'll give you this one. I don't care if he tells me the toddlers were raping the infants. Just find one that is willing to say something in a straight foward manner about this issue. If not, it's picking and choosing fundamentalism.

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 94 by ringo, posted 11-28-2007 11:49 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by ringo, posted 11-28-2007 2:02 PM Taz has not replied
 Message 97 by anglagard, posted 11-29-2007 12:03 AM Taz has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 96 of 384 (437016)
11-28-2007 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Taz
11-28-2007 1:08 PM


Re: My thoughts on fundamentalism
Taz writes:
It is picking and choosing because they are willing to declare the whole city as sinful but then ignore the fact that logically speaking infants and toddlers can't sin.
That's not a fact at all, as far as fundies are concerned. Because of The Fall™, they believe that "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God". Many of them do believe that infants are sinners from birth.
It's picking the macro level and ignoring the micro level.
Oh for @#$% sake, don't you start with the macro/micro crap.
In other words, even within a specific verse they pick and choose which part of the verse they want to praise and which part they want to ignore.
As I've tried to explain, not knowing the answer to a question isn't necessarily ignoring it.
What actions could the infants and toddlers have done to deserve death?
Again, you're ignoring how fundies actually view sin: according to them, we're all born sinful. No action is necessary to make us "worthy of death".
But when I asked what possible sins the toddlers and infants could have committed, they just pretend like they never heard or saw the question.
Again, not answering a question is not an example of picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to believe. Remember that fundies are supposed to have God whispering profound truths in their shell-like ears at all times. They're embarassed when there's something they don't know. If you don't like the all-have-sinned defense and God doesn't give them a better one, they fall back on the chirping-crickets defense.
Again, incompleteness is not inconsistency.
The topic is about inconsistency of fundie belief and practice, not about refusing to cave in to your interrogation.
Find me a fundy who is willing to answer the question in a straight forward manner....
While I'm at it, why don't I find you an honest man, Diogenes? If a fundie ever gave a straightforwrd answer to any question, it would be a bloody miracle.
... and I'll give you this one.
I already have this one.
Edited by Ringo, : Changed "practise" --> "practice". Not sure if it's right, but it looks better.

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Taz, posted 11-28-2007 1:08 PM Taz has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 97 of 384 (437155)
11-29-2007 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Taz
11-28-2007 1:08 PM


Re: My thoughts on fundamentalism
Ringo knows my intent in proposing this thread, namely that fundamentalists are inconsistent and self-serving in their selective interpretation of the OT. Your side issue is proving to be a distraction, however unintentional it may be. Perhaps you should consider proposing your own PNT for further discussion concerning any Biblically supported slaughter of innocents.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Taz, posted 11-28-2007 1:08 PM Taz has not replied

  
imageinvisible
Member (Idle past 5918 days)
Posts: 132
From: Arlington, Texas, US
Joined: 12-03-2007


Message 98 of 384 (442013)
12-19-2007 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Taz
10-24-2007 12:49 PM


All Loving God?
Who told you that God was an all loving God? That God can love and that He does love man I can agree with, but I also know that in as much as He loves man He hates sin. The God that told the people of Israel to kill all the inhabitants of Jerico, is the very same God who wipped out all things living (that where not on the ark) on the earth with a global flood, and is the same God who burned Sodom and Gamorah off the face of the earth. Men, women, children, buildings, the entire cities, wipped out without a trace. Who told you that God was just love? God is Holy and Just above all else, He cannot tolerate sin in His presence and justice demands that a price be paid for sin, and all have sinned, even a newborn babe is born in sin, and carries a sin debt that must be paid for. Who told you God was Love? Me personaly, I grew up in a Baptist mission of which my father was the preacher, one of many my parents helped establish back in the late 70's. I, though I was quit young at the time, remeber quit well my father preaching on these topics. (sodam and gamorah, jerico, and many others) I never once got the impression that God was love. That He is Holy yes, Just, yes, that He loves man, yes, that He hates sin, YES. That He is the King of the universe and has the power and athority to do His will, OH YES. That He is an evil tyrant, absolutly not. I know better. Christ has shown me otherwise. "God demonstrates His love for us in that while we where yet sinners, Christ died for us." I cannot presume to know the mind of God, but if He does something or tells His people to do something, He has His reasons for doing so. He 'is' omniscient after all, and may (more likly than not) know something we do not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Taz, posted 10-24-2007 12:49 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Taz, posted 12-19-2007 6:03 PM imageinvisible has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 99 of 384 (442027)
12-19-2007 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by imageinvisible
12-19-2007 4:39 PM


Re: All Loving God?
First of all, what we are discussing is deemed off-topic. However, since this thread has been dead for a while, I doubt anyone would care if I carry this conversation forward a little bit.
imageinvisible writes:
God is Holy and Just above all else, He cannot tolerate sin in His presence and justice demands that a price be paid for sin, and all have sinned, even a newborn babe is born in sin, and carries a sin debt that must be paid for.
If this is true, are you saying that the current generation of Germans are also directly responsible for the Holocaust? What about the current generation of Christians in regard to the inquisition? Am I directly responsible for the killings of Native Americans and therefore should be put to death?
I'm just trying to understand your mentality on this point.

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 98 by imageinvisible, posted 12-19-2007 4:39 PM imageinvisible has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by imageinvisible, posted 12-19-2007 6:36 PM Taz has replied

  
imageinvisible
Member (Idle past 5918 days)
Posts: 132
From: Arlington, Texas, US
Joined: 12-03-2007


Message 100 of 384 (442032)
12-19-2007 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Taz
12-19-2007 6:03 PM


Re: All Loving God?
I am no different than any man woman or child in Jericho, and frankly neither are you. I deserve death, hell, and damnation, the same as they did, the same as you do. As to the cattle and other flocks, I can only put forth a guess, that the people of Jericho where either idolizing them, worshiping them, or had in some way used them in a religious service or ceremony, that rendered them unclean.
The same can be said of the children, a religious ritual carried out after birth and/or prior to birth would have made all of these 'unclean'. There is also the possibility of demonic possession. Like I said I can only guess as I was not there to see or witness what they were or were not doing. This is just one account you are using, there are others where God told the people of Israel to kill every living thing in a particular city, town, or village, and when they did not God punished them. Usually because they brought back idols or 'unclean things' as the Bible puts it, as trophies.
The Bible says that we all inherit a sin nature from our fathers, and that they in turn got their sin nature from the first father who was Adam. So yes or no to your questions (KISS) yes, 'we both' share in the responsibilities of those who committed such acts, because 'we' inherited their sin nature, and it is our responsibility to see that it does not happen again.
Edited by AdminPhat, : fixed paragraph. Try and pay better attention to punctuation, imageinvisible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Taz, posted 12-19-2007 6:03 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Taz, posted 12-19-2007 11:13 PM imageinvisible has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 101 of 384 (442081)
12-19-2007 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by imageinvisible
12-19-2007 6:36 PM


Re: All Loving God?
Ok. Thanks for the honest answer. Where do you live? I'm asking so I could go there and hug and kiss you and your family.
Edited by AdminPhat, : [strange humor]Where do you live? I'm asking so I could go there and slaughter you and your family. [/strange humor]
Edited by Taz, : Upon the Nose's request.

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 100 by imageinvisible, posted 12-19-2007 6:36 PM imageinvisible has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by AdminNosy, posted 12-19-2007 11:21 PM Taz has not replied
 Message 103 by imageinvisible, posted 12-20-2007 2:44 AM Taz has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 102 of 384 (442082)
12-19-2007 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Taz
12-19-2007 11:13 PM


Not very funny
Taz! I see that you are being sarcastic and that it is hard to resist then someone is a self-caricature but this might not look that way.
I think you might do well to edit it please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Taz, posted 12-19-2007 11:13 PM Taz has not replied

  
imageinvisible
Member (Idle past 5918 days)
Posts: 132
From: Arlington, Texas, US
Joined: 12-03-2007


Message 103 of 384 (442090)
12-20-2007 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Taz
12-19-2007 11:13 PM


O' Jerusalem
Luke 13:34,35 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather you up as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you where not willing!" "See Your house is left desolate; and assuradly, I say to you, you shall not see Me again until the time comes when you say, 'Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!"
In the words of Paul, "To live is Christ, to die is gain." Or the prophets, "Why should I fear a man who kills the flesh with the sword; rather, fear Him who has the power to destroy both body and spirit."
In defense of Christ, what was done during the inquisition, the holocost, and to the american indians and many others, was not ordained by God, it is not what Christ taught. When He died on the cross He became the intercessor, the world from His death onward will not be judged accourding to Mosaic Law [from my understanding] it will be judged individually, by whatever measure we judge others, so shall we be judged.
'For if we live we live to the LORD; and if we die, we die to the LORD. Therefore, whether we live or die we are the LORD's. For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that He might be LORD of both the dead and the living. But why do you judge your brother? For we shall "ALL" (note: ALL means ALL) stand before the judgement seat of Christ. For it is written:
"As I live, says the LORD, every knee shall bow to ME, and every tongue shall confess to God." (Isaiah 45:23)
So then 'each of us' shall give account of himself to God. [the rest of this chapter aplies to this thread] Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brothers path. I know and am convinced 'by the LORD Jesus' that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything unclean, to him it is unclean. Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer living in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died. Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil; for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but rightiousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. For he who serves Christ in these things is acceptable to God and approved by men. Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All thing indeed are pure, but it is evil for men who eat with offence. It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak. Rom. 14:8-21
As for the children of jerico, sadom, gamorah, and all that perished in the flood, those that have perished, are perishing, and will perish, {everyone that is under the age of reason} I have no doubts as to where they are now, or where they will go. They inherited the kingdom of God. Their death at a young age purified them of their sin nature and they reside in heaven. "Suffer not the children to come unto me, for it is only as a child that one may enter into the kingdom of God." I would never try to use this excuss to rationalize abortion, I too believe that a child is human from the moment of conception. But for them I mentioned before (from jerico, etc) it is quit possible that death at an early age saved their souls, which would otherwise have been condemned. Am I a little disturbed, yes, (well more fearful than disturbed) but I know that God is good, He's not safe, (because we, humans, are not Holy) but He is good.
You wanted an honest answer, I gave you one.
Edited by imageinvisible, : clarification, added bold text.
Edited by imageinvisible, : added bold text
Edited by imageinvisible, : added bold text

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Taz, posted 12-19-2007 11:13 PM Taz has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 104 of 384 (442166)
12-20-2007 12:00 PM


Just curious
Do other christians on here believe what imageinvisible just said? Or is he a fluke?
Hint: Silence from you I will automatically assume that you support his assertion.

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-20-2007 12:17 PM Taz has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 105 of 384 (442171)
12-20-2007 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Taz
12-20-2007 12:00 PM


Re: Just curious
there's not really a great deal of evidence to support the god of the bible being benevolent without exception. there's some, but it depends what you read. picking and choosing is a very old habit.
but this is a question i've been wondering about for a while. why do we worship god, and why is he worth it? of course the alternative is that we don't worship him, but instead just have a relationship. worship is not a healthy relationship to be in.
1. he's all-powerful. being all-powerful makes him deserving of awe or respect.
2. he's at least more powerful than we are. being more powerful makes him deserving of awe or respect.
3. he's all-perfect. being all-perfect makes him deserving of respect.
4. he's all-loving. being all-loving makes him deserving of awe and respect.
5. he did X for me, and asks for my worship in return (this is why he commands worship from the jews).
these are not necessarily all mutually exclusive, but some of them quite probably are.
it's not the easiest question in the world, especially knowing that the number you'd prefer is probably not the reality.
but. our ideas of morality in no way constrain the potential of an all-powerful but not all-benevolent god.
Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Taz, posted 12-20-2007 12:00 PM Taz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024