You Guys Need to Communicate! (thoughts from an ex evangelical Christian)

quote:

---

Two Non-Fundies who reject the written fundamentals of God's scripture.

---

Who says it's "God's scripture"? Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

quote:

---

I'm not an atheist, but from the standpoint of intellectual integrity I'd have to say that the atheists have it over everybody, including the agnostics.

---

How so?

I'm only just barely able to describe Sam Harris's views on religious moderates, so defending them is probably too much a stretch for me. I think he makes his point very effectively when he speaks, but reproducing those arguments should not be casually attempted. In the video Sam Harris at Idea CIty '05 he gives a very good summary of this view.This view, among other Harris views, is likely to come up in the upcoming Great Debate between Jazzns and Randman.--Percy

Yes, I understand that you had only given a sampling of the views of Mr Harris. Thank you for the link; nothing too surprising there in comparison with what is heard on a daily basis at EvC.Although I had thought that he was comparing moderates and fundementalists, he is actually condemning them equally.I am sure that, given the right fanatical disposition of his adherents, Mr Harris' own exclusive views could on their own, further intolerence of others in the same way that any belief could.He makes a good point about 'belief' in general, and perhaps it would be a good topic starter; which beliefs exactly are most dangerous, how so, etc?For example, when does a belief in an immanent or eventual return of Jesus, turn dangerous?

quote:

---

Hi Ophir. A hearty welcome to EvC. I hope you enjoy the site. It sounds like you're a sensible thinker. Too bad you aren't into the prophecies so as to stabilize your faith in the scriptures.

---

Gimme some prophecies that will erase my doubt.

quote:

---

It appears that what you needed was not to dump the fundie fundamentals of scripture, but to get deeper into them so you would become apprised as to how it works.

---

I did. In fact, I studied with a YEC preacher who taught me all about the verity of YECism, man’s need for a savior, the reality of Hell, prophecies fulfilled, etc. He was an intense spiritual figure and I wanted to live a life for Christ as uncompromising as him.We recently found out this man molested two of my wife’s cousins. Ritually. Under our noses. I wonder if you know what that does to a believer, Buz.I’ll tell you what it does. Such betrayals become the impetus for believers to test what they have been told by such Christian men. When I did this, I realized I had been lied to about YEC and evidence for biological evolution. Things start coming together and making sense, like the catastrophe thread that I started earlier. Soon you realize you can’t concurrently believe one thing while ignoring the obvious evidence against it. I'm not "into" denying what is plainly evident anymore.You are bidding me to believe that God created a young earth while at the same time “planting” evidence of an ancient earth and speciation over time.This might make perfect sense to you, but I cannot even concieve of a God who would weave that kind of deception into the creation in order to test humanity.

quote:

---

Don't expect to ever know all the details or even to understand it fully. We just are not given those details and after it's OK for God to be God all knowing creator and men to be men, limited in knowledge.

---

I never expected to understand it fully. I only expect fundagelicals to get their stories straight about whether the Adamic Fall introduced death into the world. If it did, YECs have a real problem. If it didn't OECs have a real problem. That's why you guys bicker constantly among yourselves about your beliefs.i.e., A religion concocted by men would obviously branch out into various disagreeing sects and result in the doctrinal confusion and uncertainty that we see today. That’s just what men do, and Christianity is no different in this regard.When I realized this, the scales fell from my eyes. At least in this respect, I identify with Paul.

Welcome Ophir,Glad you decided to add to our diversity. We have a wide variety of forums for your debating pleasure.When replying to a post please use the little green button at the bottom right corner of the post you are responding to. When you use the reply button, an email is sent to the poster letting them know they have a reply. Using the reply button also makes it easier for people to follow the discussion and understand who you are quoting.As members, we are guests on this board and as guests we are asked to put forth our best behavior. Please read the Forum Guidelines carefully and understand the wishes of our host. Abide by the Forum Guidelines and all will go well.In the purple signature box below, you'll find some links that will help make your journey here pleasant.Please direct any questions or comments you may have to the Moderation Thread.Again, welcome and fruitful debating.

---

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate

---

Isn't always interpretation that brings division? I mean, when we read Paul's epistles, a difference in interpretation seems to have caused a lot of enmity and strife. This poor tradition has carried through today. And even when we read Revelation, John talks about the Churches of Asia. There are many different characteristics given of these churches, where God judges them on their merits and faults. If the Revelation passage is true, then there is a multitude of churches who are misinterpreting the message of God. The problem is, even interpreting the message of that passage is subject to interpretation.As for moderates and fundamentalists, its all ambiguous and cryptic. Who is a fundamentalist and who is a moderate? That would seem subjective. To some I'm a fundamentalist, to others, a moderate. I guess it doesn't really matter what man thinks about me anyway. I agree. I have my opinions on who interprets the Bible correctly, but that doesn't mean that I have the esoteric knowledge of knowing that with all certainty. No one owns the title deed to the Bible. I guess all we can do is ask for guidance and extract whatever meaning we can from the message and then to give meaning to it through human experience. I see it the opposite way. I think man made traditions have attempted to usurp, whether by design or happenstance, the authority of scripture. I am more of a Sola Scriptura kind of guy, but at the same time, I do know what you mean. If you mean that tradition in this sense means the human experience, then I certainly agree. Without us going about our daily lives and living the good, bad, ugly, beautiful, just, unjust things of this world, all the scriptures would be meaningless passages.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Sorry, nemesis, I am always inserting foot in mouth. Honestly, when I heard the quotes of Sam Harris in context, any remark that I made was only tangentially relevent. Humorous, but probably a safe bet to say Revelations is right about that one. Well, I think I understand what Harris started to say about moderates, but it all went too general. And it IS very subjective; some think of fundementalism as fanaticism, I see it as a movement which began in the early 1900's, Bible-based, and having a lot of Calvinist doctrine. I think you and I are both probably fanatical about religion, moderate in action, and fundemental in belief, and that any of these adjectives can be interchanged mercilessly. Imagine Christianity dies out altogether. I try to imagine if it could be recreated as anything like what it is now based solely on the Bible and without the accompanying traditional interpretation. I guess the way I see it is that the further back you go, the better chance of understanding the context of scripture and how it was interpreted by those who first heard it, in their own time and their own language. Likewise, those who have gone out from various religious instititions and started small sola scriptura communities, have started their own traditions in interpretation removed from the parent 'plant'. Whether this is an accomplishment or a detriment is debateable. I suppose this is where my bias comes in. I know you are well versed in Hebrew studies, and just imagine if we could not understand the context of so many events of the Bible, because we had lost the entire traditional record of the Jewish people. Yet, from the time of the apostles onward, the traditions and customs of the early church have been abandoned as if no one could ever do anything worthwhile again. It is like we keep studying every little tiny move of Biblical figures in order to get more insight into the passages, when we should also say; 'hey, what did this passage mean to people of that generation?'.There can be a middle ground, I guess, but I tend to stereotype fundementalists as well, fundementalists, house-cleaners, throw it all out bare bones.Besides that, my post was pretty useless; a well-meaning shot in the big toe of the 'enemy'.

I think you have a good observation here. From Harris' point of view I understand what he is saying as well about fundamentalism. Amongst Christians, we sometimes refer to the hard-nosed beliefs as "legalism," a focus on the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law. But from what little I have read from Harris, he seems to believe that all religion is essentially a dangerous dogma. If indeed this is what he believes it incredibly ignorant as it hyper focuses on the negative aspects of any given religion while it overlooks all of its positive attributes. For most people, the Bible is all they have. Take for instance missionaries who take the gospel to the remotest parts of the world. Ingigenous people from these parts of the world probably know nothing about the various traditions. All they have is the gospel in its purest form without bias, without it being tainted or convoluted from the countless interpretations of man. There is something that strikes me as very innocent and pure about that. Surely one could make the argument that all sorts of bizarre and counter intuitive interpretations stem from a parent church where it synthesizes in to some wild vagaries or interpretations. But that's only indicative of man's folly, isn't it? To place blame on a Sola Scriptura mentality, or the scriptures themselves, might be like blaming a baseball bat manufacturer for someone using their bats inappropriately to commit a heinous murder. Is it the manufacturer's fault or the murderer's? Couldn't we then extend that argument to the scriptures? Oh, no, I could by no means think of myself as well versed in Hebrew studies. It interests me and I want to learn more about it, but I'm quite aways out still. I'll take that as a compliment, so, thanks for the vote of confidence, but I have so very far to go. I understand what you're saying. For instance, the tradition concerning Isaiah is that he was sawn in half. We don't know that for sure, but tradition tells us that he was martyred. There are a couple of allusions to it in the Bible, one where Jesus gave His famous rebuking of the Pharisees in the Temple, and the second from Paul in the book of Hebrews. The same traditions concerning martyrdom are said about the early Christians, like Peter and Paul. So in a sense, I appreciate the traditions to a degree, but even Jesus warned about such things to the Pharisees."So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, "Why don't your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with 'unclean' hands?" He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:

​

​

And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! -Mark 7:5-9At the same time, I think there is some balance necessary. Because you and I both know people who opt for a Mr. Potato Head god. What is the best known feature about Mr. Potato Head? His interchangeable parts, right? I think you and I both know people who invent their own god. They take the aspects of a certain religion or tradition that sounds appealing to them and apply it in the best way they see fit. What a convenient interpretation of God, huh? Isn't that tantamount to idolatry? I think so.So maybe a healthy balance is needed, where neither complete tradition or complete non-traditionalis views are asserted. Well, I liked your post.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

What exactly makes for brainwashing do you suppose? What is the criteria for brainwashing? When and how does someone move from listening to personal belief in liturgy to full on brainwashing? Does it really matter either way? Is it so central to the premise that it would justify leaving the faith completely? What did you like about being a Christian that would have held your affection? Were you someone born in to the Church that became disenchanted with life's faade? In other words, is this an act of teenage rebellion or is it actually a well informed decision you have made? Is your beef with Young Earth Creationism or is it with Christianity? It sounds to me like maybe you are a little tired of the religion of religion. Totally understandable. It seems as if you are a seeker of Truth®, but that you aren't sure what it is and where to find it. Is that accurate?

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

May I quote something from a book I have, entitled, 'Religion in the New World'? That might be too long, and I hope no one will get angry, but the book does a good job of showing the progression of religious movements in America, and how in many ways the adherence to any old traditions was pretty incongruous with the new lifestyles, challenges, experiences of the faithful. So, in a sense, they 'moderated' back then into fundementalism, did their own tossing of the irrelevent, and started a new tradition. That was possibly considered progressive, the destruction of what was no longer meaningful. Now I would say a moderate does the same thing.Edited by anastasia, : tyoing error

Make that Jehovah, the Biblical god's scripture. It is the only scripture with Jehovah's signature on it's pages, over 6000 signatures, that is.

You got a copy of that thar signature. LOLDid Jehovah use a pen or jess a stylus? Before he created geese, what type quill did He use?Come on Buz.Stop making folk laugh. Stop saying really stupid things like "It is the only scripture with Jehovah's signature on it's pages, over 6000 signatures, that is."You're just making Christians look stupid.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Mmm....Bickering about constitutional authority....If the Constitution has authority, isn't it logical and in fact needful that debate and dialog is good so as to be sure that the authority of it is not abused/altered/missused? And what if dialog and debate about it's authority were forbidden?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Jar, me olde friend, what other scriptures/holy books even mention the name Jehovah? As for the signatures, i.e. naming Jehovah/YHWH, check out the ASV (American Standard Version), the most literal translation of the oldest manuscripts in existence.ABE: Jar, me olde friend, I gotta say, the more you do to me, the better you make me look. Glad you're back! Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28