Pick and Choose Fundamentalism

Taz writes:But in short, denying the whole deity thing has made me a much better person now. In fact, being an atheist makes me want to be yet a better person. It's really something that I feel religion could never do for me. Instead of caring for my fellow men (and women) because some god supposedly told me so, I've found better reasons to care.

CS Lewis -- "The Last Battle" writes:So I went over much grass and many flowers and among all kinds of wholesome and delectable tree till lo! In a narrow place between two rocks there came to meet me a great Lion. The speed of him was like an ostrich, and his size was an elephant’s; his hair was like pure gold that is liquid in the furnace. He was more terrible than the Flaming Mountain of Langour, and in beauty he surpassed all that is in the world even as the rose in bloom surpasses the dust of the desert.Then I fell at his feet and thought, Surely this is the hour of death, for the Lion (who is worthy of all honour) will know that I have served Tash all my days and not him. Nevertheless, it is better to see the Lion and die than to be Tisroc of the world and live and not to have seen him.But the Glorious One bent down his golden head and touched my forehead with his tongue and said, Son thou art welcome. But I said, Alas, Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me.Then by reason of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one? The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted.Dost thou understand , Child? I said, Lord, thou knowest how much I understand. But I said also (for the truth constrained me), Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days. Beloved, said the Glorious One, unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek.

Ringo writes:What's wrong with it being a myth?

Ringo writes:What's wrong with the whole Bible being a fabrication? If they fabricated the "God told us to do it" part, how do you know which other parts are (not) fabricated?

CS Lewis writes:Just as, on the factual side, a long preparation culminates in God’s becoming incarnate as Man, so, on the documentary side, the truth first appears in mythical form and then by a long process of condensing or focusing finally becomes incarnate as History. This involves the belief that Myth is ... a real though unfocused gleam of divine truth falling on human imagination. The Hebrews, like other peoples, had mythology: but as they were the chosen people so their mythology was the chosen mythology - the mythology chosen by God to be the vehicle of the earliest sacred truths, the first step in that process which ends in the New Testament where truth has become completely historical.

Taz writes:It really seems to me that everytime this issue comes up it's always us atheists who are trying to tell the christian side that it's immoral to run a sword through a 1 year old no matter how you look at it. It's not just that. It's also other issues such as gay rights and whatnot. I rarely ever see professing christians standing up for human rights. This is why I don't believe there is such a thing as a silent majority. The evidence simply doesn't exist for the existence of the silent majority.

Taz writes:But anyway, if next time one of these people decide to go on a rampage and claiming acts of genocide was on god's order, would you come and tell him not to read it literally if I somehow could bring your attention to it?

GDR writes:If by myth he means that the whole story is completely frabicated with no historical foundation whatsoever then I disagree....

Equinox writes:Alas - I wish you were right. The data doesn’t seem to support that. I thought that too for a long time because the majority of the Christians I knew were moderate, loving people like you. However, I’m liberal, with a liberal circle of friends and as we know, our own anecdotal evidence is terribly biased by a small sample size.

Equinox writes: I think this is because the fundamentalists challenge moderate Christians to support their views using the Bible, and when they try to, they realize that the Bible supports fundamentalism (I’ve read it cover to cover, and I agree with the fundamentalists on this point). So, they are faced with a choice - uphold the Bible and become fundamentalist, or leave Christianity all together.

NJ writes:I don't really know what a literalist is any more than I know what a fundamentalist is. The meanings have become too obscured, especially since those who call themselves literalists recognize the difference between allegory and commonality.

NJ writes: What I see sometimes is passages that state something happened only to have someone speculate that it was sanctioned by God just because its found in the Bible. Often times it is just listed as a historical fact that is not giving any indication as to how God dealt with it. Others are not so unambiguous. It all depends on the passage.

Ringo writes:I'm asking: if the whole story (or most of it) was fabricated, what would be the problem with that? How would it effect your beliefs?

Ringo writes:Are there some parts that are "deal breakers", that would destroy your faith if they weren't literally true? If so, how do you pick and choose which bits are allowed to be myth/metaphor and which are not?

GDR writes:Christianity tells the story of God and His creation but without the resurrection there is no Christianity.

Ringo writes: I asked: HOW do you pick and choose which bits are allowed to be myth/metaphor and which are not?

Paulk, you showed your ignorance in the Olivet Discourse that you don't dig eschatology being most of the educated escatological Drs of Divinity would have sided more with me in that debate than with you who tried to apply the prophecy to contemporary times when the proclamation was made including the 1900 year dispersement of the Jews worldwide.

GDR writes:If I'm pressed to make a decision on the subject I use any historical or scientific evidence I'm aware of that may apply...

... consider whether it is consistent within its context and is it consistent with the His message of love.

GDR writes:Any form of racism is anti-Christian. Christians played a leading role in the abolition of slavery. How about Martin Luther King or Nelson Mandella.

GDR writes:Any form of racism is anti-Christian. Christians played a leading role in the abolition of slavery. How about Martin Luther King or Nelson Mandella.

Ringo writes:What does the resurrection have to do with His message of love?

Ringo writes:What scientific or historical evidence applies to the resurrection of Jesus?