Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why Fundamentalism is Fundamentally Wrong
#61
Some of us are willing to fight. Besides me. Check Ken Ham on Facebook, or http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html

The main armory of the pro-evolutionists is to claim that all the facts are on their side. We who dispute that cite fact after fact that contradicts that, and in fact demonstrates the inevitable conclusion that only the Creatonist paradigm fits all the observed evidence. So the pro-evolutionists exert almost superhuman efforts to prevent us from being heard or taken seriously. But they can't prevail with such tactics forever.
Reply
#62
Please forgive me if I fail to take the bait. S5
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#63
Yes, your faith is strong. S6
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#64
The title of this particulat thread says it all, but is not accurate.

Each man's belief system is totally true to that person - regardless of scientific facts, vetted data, or pure logic. I give most religions a lot of space, because there is a grain of truth in most things, and little unarguable fact. What gets me are those charlatans who make claims that they know to be untrue, in order to further their own belief system. Hockey stick in Global warming ...Andrew Dickson White writing that Columbus was stopped by the church because it thought the Earth was flat ...John L. and Barbara Hammond writing about the Sadler Report of 1832 ...and so on.

What is most jaded about snipers dissing Christianity as "fundamentalists" forget that Quintus Tertullian instructed in the second century, "Reason is a thing of God, inasmuch as there is nothing which God the Maker of all has not provided, disposed, ordained by reason — nothing which He has not willed should be handled and understood by reason." The success of the West, including the rise of science, rested entirely on religious foundations, and the people who brought it about were devout Christians.

Everyone points in the same direction, but ignores others pointing at the same place - thinking there is only one way to reach truth.
Reply
#65
(12-31-2013, 08:16 PM)WmLambert Wrote: The title of this particulat thread says it all, but is not accurate.

That's you're opinion. Its not mine. My late pastor, Dr. Charles A. Trenholm had a pin he wore each Sunday, which stated "There's Something Fundamentally Wrong With Fundamentalism". And he was a Southern Baptist, presiding over a non-affiliated church. A very learned man, who did not allow blind faith blind his natural skepticism. And he was a fervent believer in Christ.

Quote:Each man's belief system is totally true to that person - regardless of scientific facts, vetted data, or pure logic. I give most religions a lot of space, because there is a grain of truth in most things, and little unarguable fact. What gets me are those charlatans who make claims that they know to be untrue, in order to further their own belief system. Hockey stick in Global warming ...Andrew Dickson White writing that Columbus was stopped by the church because it thought the Earth was flat ...John L. and Barbara Hammond writing about the Sadler Report of 1832 ...and so on.

What does all that have to do with this discussion?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#66
Ron,

There's a reasonable middle ground between assuming Darwin was a savant about how we came about and taking the ancient cosmology of the bible as if it is a science based statement.

Mostly, the ideas came with the Jewish author(s) out of pagan Egypt and while you won't agree, it makes perfectly good logic that they would since the Jews had spent their entire existence in Egypt.

John,

When the big bang idea came about, I understand the evolution crowd was not pleased. Does evolution need to have a slowly evolved universe or just animate beings in the universe?

I still don't get the sheep thing either. If it's a valid view, how did sheep make it through natural selection?
Reply
#67
Patrick, Darwin was a religious person, and considered entering the ministry. His unpardonable sin was to use common sense, and extrapolate upon it. And true to form, one extreme(religious fundamentalism) latched on one extreme side of the argument and the other extreme(Collectivist atheism) on to the other. Now we have this battle royal that makes no logical sense whatsoever.

The truth is that any rube can tell that biological nature has one imperative: perpetuation/success of a particular species. And they will latch on to any strategy that guarantees this success,..........until things change. And then it is flexible enough to change with events. Common Sense 101. But if you believe all this nonsense about the earth being only 11,000, or whatever, you can attempt a rationalization that excludes this. Hence the Creation Museum that has dinosaurs living amongst humans. Geeze, imagine that. All hail Creationism,.....for what its worth.

Patrick Wrote:When the big bang idea came about, I understand the evolution crowd was not pleased. Does evolution need to have a slowly evolved universe or just animate beings in the universe?

I'm not getting you here Patrick.

Patrick Wrote:I still don't get the sheep thing either. If it's a valid view, how did sheep make it through natural selection?

Why not use the Wildebeest, Zebra, bison, or other species here? There is one strategy(of many) that works in nature. Its the success through numbers. If a species reproduces like rabbits(or take another animal that mass produces), then their strength is in numbers, so they are successful. Remember accounts where bison/buffalo were like a sea almost everywhere one looked, from Kentucky to the western plains. Their only failure was that they had the misfortune to come into contact with the ultimate predator on this planet: the genus Homo.

I'm still not understanding this 'sheep' analogy thing. (Scratches one's head in confusion) S11
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#68

Republican Acceptance of Evolution Plummets
.

Quote:The more indocrinated Americans become, however, the less likely they are to deny evolution: According to the Pew poll, acceptance of evolution correlated closely with level of education. 72 percent of college graduates acknowledge that humans have evolved over time, while only 51 percent of those with a high school degree or less accept human evolution.
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#69
Remember, this is Slate, and they are torturing the numbers to fit their scenario somewhat. its the exact same pol that I linked to on the bottom of the last page, but the reported results are a bit different.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#70
John,

The "sheep" idea is this.

They are entirely defenseless, no mechanisms for protection at all. Natural selection it seems would have selected sheep for destruction if it's entirely valid. Sort of like me standing among a group of real hungry wolves w/o a gun.

The question about the big bang and evolution is this, does the evolution idea claim the universe also "evolved" over huge time frames into what it is as man allegedly did? If so, the big bang seems incongruent with evolution.

I don't interpet the bible like Ron, the Genesis ancient cosmology(creation accounts) stuff to me is all mythical. I think the earth is as old as the earth is,whatever.

I do have problems with evolution, but, not theological probelms with it like Ron does. I just have so many questions that need answering to my satisfaction that I can't find answers that make logic to me is all.
Reply
#71
Patrick, today's sheep have been selectively bred for thousands of years by humans. They were not the way they are now, way back then. We have bred their ability to flee with haste, because we don't want to have to go after them, that's why.

Look what we have done with dogs, cattle, goats, you name it. We have domesticated them and selectively bred out most of their wild traits.

But again, sheep used to move around in herds and they had numbers on their side. If a herd lost a member once a week, it didn't matter. They reproduced fast enough to make up the loss. And the rams, have you seen the racks on male sheep? They can put a world of hurt on a wolf, or wild cat, without too much effort.

Again, we have been playing g-d concerning the domestication of plants and animals, for over ten thousand years. Do you honest believe that in all that time humans haven't been able to make significant genetic changes to our domesticated plants and animals?

One of the things I studied as a graduate student, was the domestication of zea Mayes(corn). It all started with teosinte, from Mexico.

Here's what teosinte looks like, compared to modern corn:

[Image: me-teosinte.jpg]
[Image: me-corn.jpg]

We've modified maize/corn so much that it cannot successfully reproduce itself if humans were not around any longer. The seeds would just fall to the stalk and choke each other. And from a single teosinte, we now have different varieties of pop corn, countless numbers of pod corn, and its impossible to keep up with them, unless you are an expert in corn. There is pod corn for early finishing crops, mid finishing, and also for long season crops due to longer summers. We have different colours, different textures, some for human consumption, many for feed animals, etc, etc, etc.

And we now have different varieties of sheep, all due to human selective genetic engineering. Without us to protect them, they would be easy pickings for wild predators. But thousands of years ago, they would have had more acute senses, more speed, and leaner and meaner. You are just looking at today's sheep, and thinking they were that way when man first started domesticating them.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#72
That could be.

I am aware of genetic stuff from ancient days like mating specific types of cattle (it's in Genesis believe it or not, Jacob did it) and how we got dogs and mules.

I wasn't aware of the sheep thing, I assumed they were pretty much the same as 10K years back.

Now, how about the universe and big bang, is there a conflict there with evolution?
Reply
#73
Here's where domesticated sheep most likely came from: Mouflon (Ovis orientalis). These guys are most certainly sheep, but they are mean, lean, and built for survival. There is no problem differentiating these from the domestic cousin.

[Image: Mouflon.jpg]
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#74
Funny enough that what I said revolved around standard behavioral psychological mechanisms that reinforces fundamentalism. It is not easily avoided. Any group - no matter how evolved - that is catastrophically thrown back to existence survival will automatically lose the philosophical beliefs that supported their high-tech culture and devolve to the same ideas that gave stone-age man hope for survival. Not everyone will lose their grip on far-sightedness, but enough will need to live for the moment to set a new standard.

Truly, this is what fundamentalism is all about. If you only call David Koresh-types as fundamentalists, then you lose the bigger picture. All people, everywhere, believe that what they believe is true, and what others believe is not. The smarter you are, and the more you study - the more fundamentalist you can become. Most Muslims, Hindu, and Buddhists are fundamentalists of the first order. Of course, with rebirth and reincarnation, one doesn't worry so much at what others think.
Reply
#75
Strictly speaking from a Christian viewpoint, fundamentalism to me means a Christian who interprets the bible in a crass literalism manner and almost always out of context.

It does not mean to me any person who thinks the biblical narrative is valid and within that narrative, some various genres of expression are not meant to be taken literally yet have literal applications to us grasping God and His desires for His people and/or some of the info from the OT should be understood as God tolerating X conduct as opposed to endorsing X conduct.

Best example is slavery. John C. Calhoun was a believer who thought the bible taught that God sanctioned slavery as the south did it. Forgetting that we Christians have been taught by Christ Himself that loving God and mankind are the pillars of the old Torah. Obviously I cannot own another human being as property if I love them.

The fundy misses that interpretive tool, he just reads the text that says " you must treat your slaves as such" as if that alone endorses slave holding.

I really don't think Islam suffers from this "culture" gap for understanding their book. Their culture(Arabs) is similar to their ancient culture in lots of respects. In fact, an Arabic Christian IMO gets many biblical ideas before I would because of this. We western believers would be real wise to listen to the Arab theologians more.
Reply
#76
"...a Christian who interprets the bible in a crass literalism manner and almost always out of context."

Close, but take it a step farther. The reason that person interprets as he does is because the mechanism built into the human psyche tells him to do so. You see, it doesn't matter if it is the Bible, or a political persuasion, if properly reinforced, that person is converted to that cause.

Jeremiah Wright interpreted the Bible using the South American political ideology of Black Liberation Theology. His preachings influenced his congregation, and together, they created a self-reinforcing process that cemented the message. You can call this message fundamentalism as much as any white southerner of a four-square church who reads the New Testament and reinforces others in his congregation.

Alone, there is no conversion and no fundamentalism. Reinforcement is essential to true belief.

Reading a phrase that permits slavery means nothing unless a paradigm is already established using schedules of reinforcement, that has made that phrase resonate in a way you would describe as "fundamentalism." Someone else can read the same phrase and come away with an entirely different understanding.

BTW, a person can argue that slavery can be a valid thing using logic. Indentured servitude was a lifestyle choice that provided the first levels of Mazlow's hierarchy of desire. Food to eat, a roof over your head, and the certainty of tomorrow's survival is more than enough reason to accept being a manservant for awhile. As long as a contract can be arranged, what is legal can be morally correct. This doesn't mean all slavery is good - just that it can be a moot subject. Slavery by conquest is hard to argue, but if the alternative is death, is slavery positive?

A fundamentalist may be incapable of such a plastic conclusion - but that can occur on both sides of the question.
Reply
#77
The Apostle Paul addressed people within their cultural contexts, admonishing slave owners to treat their slaves with honor and decency. But when setting forth the abstract theological principle that is not relative to culture, Paul said: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28) This is the text that Abolitionists used to overthrow slavery. This argument is based on the Gospel itself; we are saved by being one in Christ, who is the new Head of our race; therefore discriminating on the basis of race, class, or gender is a denial of Salvation in Christ.
Reply
#78
William,

The problem with your expressed view is I have been both, so what does that say about my psyche? I'm not unique, I'm as average as it gets. I used to would have argued until the cows came home that anything in the bible was literal fact.

I just realized one day that the bible cannot be understood based on western cultural expectations and began a journey to more accurately read it is all.

BTW, sure, slavery would be preferable to death. I am discussing more normal situations though, we can't say we love our brothers and that we can own them and order them around at the same time.

Ron,

Yea, that was a good point theologically. I agree with your take on how to approach folks, as Paul said, "I am all things to all people".

I would have argued back then simply what I did above. God tolerated slavery and various other crap with Israel(male chauvinism, etc) because He pretty much had no choice, He would have had 0 followers if He insisted on total transformation of human thinking back then pre Christ.

I tend to think some of the OT weird stuff was tolerated and a little bit God wanted for future reference. One thing is the passages on females cannot testify in a court.

Typical attitude towards females back then. However, with the testimony of the females about seeing Christ's grave empty and seeing Him resurrected, that lends credibility to that documentation because it is exactly NOT what a Jew would have made up to get fellow Jews to jump onboard the new faith. Their testimony wasn't worthy after all in Jewish culture.
Reply
#79
I assume we'd call the new kings of western Iraq fundamentalists?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/al-q...story.html
Reply
#80
On Iraq: I'm sure Junior is celebrating.... he finally has been proven right, yes, after all the years of efforts, there is an AQ in Iraq!

On Fundamentalists: the definition from Wikipedia is more or less neutral:

Quote:Fundamentalism is the demand for a strict adherence to orthodox theological doctrines usually understood as a reaction against Modernist theology, primarily to promote continuity and accuracy.

This would apply to Christianity, Islam, Darwinism, etc. One should be careful in distinguishing between fundamentalist and militant forms, they may not be always identical... AQ in Iraq does seem to fit both... otoh, Darwinism is militant, but is it always fundamentalist? -- like with AGW, the adherents are still trying to patch it up all the time.
Sodomia delenda est

Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)