New Christians Have A Voice

[squeekness]

That's terrible logic. It's not even logic. It's like logic's disowned, crack-addicted baby.

Rabbits don't chew cud. The bible clearly states that they do. Sorry, but it was clearly in error. I'll let you and your crack-addicted baby try to spin your way out of it, but it's ultimately impossible. So whatev. Spin away!

Well, let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. Just because the book has its faults doesn't mean there isn't wisdom to be had within or that it should be thrown out in its entirety. It's not all bad.

Getting back to the main topic: is that the problem? Do literalists have more of the Us vs. Them mentality that the author is describing?

It's been my experience that (on this board at least) the literalists are the ones who condemn others most easily, yes.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Do literalists have more of the Us vs. Them mentality that the author is describing?

any fundamentalist from any religion does, since most religions operate upon the basis of exclusion.

 

[Venomfan]

random bit to add to discussion, the hebrew word translated to rabbit or hare, can also be translated to rock badger

 

[JStorm]

You didn't have to yell it!

 

[Venomfan]

You didn't have to yell it!

lol i just know that if i type in regular size font it will get lost in all the boring evolution/creation stuff with rodhulk

 

[JStorm]

lol i just know that if i type in regular size font it will get lost in all the boring evolution/creation stuff with rodhulk

I think it is safe to come out and play, if you wish.

However, soapbox yelling just might wake him.

 

[Lighthouse]

Dude, you didn't pass. Your 'explanation' was so riddled with bullet holes, Kirk Cameron himself wouldn't buy it.

WOULDN'T BUY IT.

Best post of the day.

 

[Gilpesh]

I think it is safe to come out and play, if you wish.

However, soapbox yelling just might wake him.

And we shant want to be waking He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named-And-Debated-With.

 

[JStorm]

And we shant want to be waking He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named-And-Debated-With.

I don't mind debating, as long as it's open and fourth right.


It saddens me, yet it is true: I've found more peaceful banter with Atheists, Agnostics, Diests, Mormons, Muslims, etc, than I have with 6/10 of the Christians here.

For shame on my brethren.

 

[Carcharodon]

Well, let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. Just because the book has its faults doesn't mean there isn't wisdom to be had within or that it should be thrown out in its entirety. It's not all bad.

Oh, no question. I'm just arguing against a literalist perspective, that's all. To say that the bible is factually flawless is completely ridiculous, IMO.

 

[Carcharodon]

any fundamentalist from any religion does, since most religions operate upon the basis of exclusion.

Does literalist automatically translate to fundamentalist, though? Can there be a distinction between the two?

 

[Gilpesh]

I don't mind debating, as long as it's open and fourth right.

I don't mind debating, as long as people respect logic. Then we can all have a fun time actually debating the topic instead of each other.

It saddens me, yet it is true: I've found more peaceful banter with Atheists, Agnostics, Diests, Mormons, Muslims, etc, than I have with 6/10 of the Christians here.

For shame on my brethren.

Well, I guess that fact is the reason for the entire thread in the first place. Which keeps getting lost and bogged down in all this bible versus everything else arguing.

 

[JStorm]

Well, I guess that fact is the reason for the entire thread in the first place. Which keeps getting lost and bogged down in all this bible versus everything else arguing.

Too true.

I wanted to show that not every Christian's brain is made from the same wood of the soap box soooo many preach from.


My Priest, who was Atheist, says it the best: "I want my people to have a church, religious, or God experience, without checking his or her brain at the door."

 

[Gilpesh]

My Priest, who was Atheist, says it the best: "I want my people to have a church, religious, or God experience, without checking his or her brain at the door."

God says that also. Of course that is... if you are allowed to interpret the story of Abraham as anything other than a story of a father going to kill his son for God.

 

[JStorm]

I don't see where you are going with th^t.

 

[Gilpesh]

I don't see where you are going with th^t.

I'll just assume everyone is up to speed on it and jump to the part I am referencing.

At the end, Abraham hears the second voice that tells him not to kill Isaac. It is in clear conflict with God's voice which told him to kill Isaac. So here we have two things at odd, God/religion and angel's voice/morality/logic/reason both weighing in on the subject and both are complete opposite sides.

And Abraham comes to his senses and doesn't kill Isaac... the goat shows up... blah blah blah. So the story tells everyone that though the voice of God/religion is sometimes louder than the other voice/morality/logic/reason that doesn't mean that God is above morality/logic/reason.

But that's only if you can interpret the bible as a collection of allegories that teach guidelines on how to live your life as a good person.

 

[JStorm]

I'll just assume everyone is up to speed on it and jump to the part I am referencing.

At the end, Abraham hears the second voice that tells him not to kill Isaac. It is in clear conflict with God's voice which told him to kill Isaac. So here we have two things at odd, God/religion and angel's voice/morality/logic/reason both weighing in on the subject and both are complete opposite sides.

And Abraham comes to his senses and doesn't kill Isaac... the goat shows up... blah blah blah. So the story tells everyone that though the voice of God/religion is sometimes louder than the other voice/morality/logic/reason that doesn't mean that God is above morality/logic/reason.

But that's only if you can interpret the bible as a collection of allegories that teach guidelines on how to live your life as a good person.

Understood.


A little of topic, but I had to read Mark Twain's 'Letters' and write a paper on it, earlier.

I must say, the satire, and his 'views' through Satan's eyes was breath-taking.

The man was truly a pioneer.

 

[Gilpesh]

Understood.

Yeah. Me and my Christian friend had a chat about that and not only did he already know it, but he also added that in the story of Job, God again proves he does not like blind faith. (I'm not all caught up on my bible so he went on to explain that it was God talking about Job's neighbor who had spoke against Job's cursing of God)

A little of topic, but I had to read Mark Twain's 'Letters' and write a paper on it, earlier.

I must say, the satire, and his 'views' through Satan's eyes was breath-taking.

The man was truly a pioneer.

I'll have to check it out. Letters from Satan are always good in the eyes of a terrible atheist like me.

 

[LexCorp]

Does literalist automatically translate to fundamentalist, though? Can there be a distinction between the two?

I would say the 2 are so close it would be hard to set the clear line between them.

• A fundamentalist has a strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles.
• A literalist adheres to the exact letter or the literal sense.

The difference I can see would be that while the fundamentalist would stick to any ideas or priciples there ideas and principles could be based on anything literal or not like religon which to me makes them more dangerous. Unlike the literalist who takes things in the literal sense by way of viewing the world clearly in the cold facts of the day.

I would say that the literalist is less likely to become a problem in society. Maybe because they are more synical rather than passionate like the funamentalist.

 

[squeekness]

I'll just assume everyone is up to speed on it and jump to the part I am referencing.

At the end, Abraham hears the second voice that tells him not to kill Isaac. It is in clear conflict with God's voice which told him to kill Isaac. So here we have two things at odd, God/religion and angel's voice/morality/logic/reason both weighing in on the subject and both are complete opposite sides.

And Abraham comes to his senses and doesn't kill Isaac... the goat shows up... blah blah blah. So the story tells everyone that though the voice of God/religion is sometimes louder than the other voice/morality/logic/reason that doesn't mean that God is above morality/logic/reason.

But that's only if you can interpret the bible as a collection of allegories that teach guidelines on how to live your life as a good person.

Actually, some scholars believe that story is nothing more than a test of faith. God wanted to see if Abraham believed enough to go through with it. When God saw he did, he let Abraham off the hook. Something like that....

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Does literalist automatically translate to fundamentalist, though? Can there be a distinction between the two?

I think, I might be wrong though, but I think they are almost one in the same.
since they have to follow the word of their God as is directly on the text.

 

[LexCorp]

I think, I might be wrong though, but I think they are almost one in the same.
since they have to follow the word of their God as is directly on the text.

A literalist does not actualy have to have any kind of following to god/religon.

 

[Carcharodon]

Could one say that a literalist is a fundamentalist, but that a fundamentalist is not necessarily a literalist, then?

 

[LexCorp]

Could one say that a literalist is a fundamentalist, but that a fundamentalist is not necessarily a literalist, then?

No I would say the clear distinction remains, the belief of the ideals on religon are part of what makes a fundamentalist which is something a literalist lacks. To me they are very similar but still 2 seperate things.

 

[rodhulk]

Actually, some scholars believe that story is nothing more than a test of faith. God wanted to see if Abraham believed enough to go through with it. When God saw he did, he let Abraham off the hook. Something like that....

That's exactly what it was, Squeekness.