Putting the "FUN" back in Fundamentalist

Remove all ads!

ARTeChoke picked a fight with the Christians on the forum ( not really Art, you just were trying to make a point and a debate started)

For the roots of this, check out: http://www.sorcerers.net/ubb/Forum7/HTML/000784-2.html

Per his request, I'm starting a new thread to deal with this subject.

Now, down to business . . .

You mentioned that Kansas has outlawed the teaching of Evolution, and used this as an example of whey Fundamentalists are so detrimental to society.

Considering that evolution has yet to be proved as a valid theory . . .

Considering that Michael Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box" refutes evolution from a secular perspective, using only molecular biology . . .

Considering that is as much of an act of faith to believe that we descended from blue-green algae as it is an act of faith to believe that we were created by "God"

Considering this and more than I have time to spell out . . .I can see why neither perspective should be taught in school. Parents can teach either perspective, which maintains intellectual freedom and freedom of religion.

My question is . . . why is it wrong for the Christians of America (or any other country) to voice their opinions, while other groups are as vocal as they want to be.

Consider the Les, Bi, Gay community (among whom I used to live). They represent at most 5% of the country. However, they wield considerable political might. In fact, their agenda occupies closer than 20% of public discourse. As an added bonus, anyone who questions this is labeled a fundamentalist or homophobe or both!

Now, I don't bring this up to knock the homosexual community. My point is that in a country that cherishes discourse and freedom of thought/speech/expression -- why is it that Christians seem to be marginalized.

As in every community, the Christians have a few "personalities" we are not proud of. But we should not be characterized by them.

That would be similar to assuming that every democrat is a philandering, lying, cigar smoker (like Clinton); or that every Republican is a Ranger's fan.

Okay, let the debate begin!

 

BTA - Natural Selection, a minor form of evolution, is indeed a fact.

The idea that we developed from single cell creature into a complex organism.

I could match you link for link, article for artice (if either of us had the time for it, which I don't and hope you don't either )

Let me try to spell this out:

When Darwin laid out his theory in 1859, he said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find ... no such case."

Michale Behe in "Darwin's Black Box" has shown that even some of the simplest systems in a single cell cannot be produced in such a manner. These systems exhibit what he calls "irreducible complexity."

According to Behe, "An irreducibly complex system is one that requires several interacting parts to function, where if you remove or destroy one of the parts, then the function is also destroyed."

An everyday example is a mousetrap. A mousetrap has five parts: a platform, holding bar, hammer, catch and spring. When assembled there's no gradual improvement of function. It doesn't work until every part is in place. The same thing is true inside a living cell. Many of its systems just won't work unless every part is there.

Consider what's involved, for example, in moving a protein from one part of the cell to another. Proteins don't just float around freely inside of cells. They have to be moved from one compartment in the cell to another—from where they're made, to where they're needed.

Cells have two fundamentally different ways of doing this: gated transport and vesicular transport. In gated transport, the compartment wall is equipped with a "gate" and a chemical "sensor." If a protein bearing the right "identification tag" approaches, the sensor opens the gate and allows the protein to pass through. If one with the wrong tag approaches, the gate stays shut.

Note the irreducible complexity in even this simple example. All three components—the gate, the sensor and the tag—must be in place. There's no way to produce the system in a gradual, Darwinian fashion.

If the tag is missing, the gate won't open. Ditto if there's no sensor, or if there's just a solid wall. And if there's a hole where the gate should be, proteins will pass through haphazardly.

Vesicular transport is even more complicated, requiring many more components to work. Nor is such complexity limited to cell transport. Other examples include blood clotting, the chemistry of vision, the immune system and the structure of bacterial flagella—long filaments that some cells use as propellors.

Such systems cannot be produced in the cumulative fashion that contemporary Darwinism demands. To get any function out of such a system, it has to be produced all at once—which looks too much like a miracle for most scientists.

This is just one example of how the guidebook looks at only part of the evidence, while ignoring, misrepresenting or pooh-poohing the rest.

Okay, I know that was WAY TOO MUCH INFORMATION. My point is that Christians are not anti-intellectual.

And the point of this thread is not to debate evolution (that can be yet another thread for later spamming).

The point I want to discuss is that Christians are usually written off as simplistic, obviously wrong, or brain washed. To those charges, I say "unfair". The evolution debate is just a good test case.

 

wheewh . . . there is hope for BTA yet!

One more thing, I just looked up and WOW, I sure talk alot! Sorry about the length of my previous post.

I get fired up (get it! )

 

This is always a highly debated controversy, so of course, I feel the need to put my foot in my mouth.
BTA, I read that essay, and it was very well done. I agree with many of the points, though I disagree with some of them as well.
My general philosophy is thus: I believe in both creationism and evolution. I find that life is all about change (whether growth or extinction) for all aspects of life, civilizations, even ideas. How can I accept both ideas? Well, the bible states that God created the earth in 6 days, resting on the seventh. What it neglects to mention is how He did it. Also, who knows how long a day is for the Lord? I've heard anywhere from 1 earth day to a thousand and more. There's still just so much that we don't know.
Life on this earth evolves, we can see that now. Did it evolve from little amoeba? Why not? Did it get created by a powerful, omniscient being? Again, why not? Until we have proof of exactly what happened all those years ago, I will say that I believe both creationism and evolution are facts and theories. Both can be explained, and both can be argued.

Take it for what it's worth, and btw, I am a Christian, but also a scientist in my own right. And one other thing, no one is going to be converted either way in this kind of discussion, but we can at least get to know each other's ideas, and respect them. Good luck!

 

Okay, here's my 'modern religions' lecture for the day. Salvationism, or as it's usually known by outsiders "The Salvation Army", is a religion that was founded by a methodist couple named William and Catherine Booth in the nineteenth century. It was founded on the premise that "no one ever found Jesus when they were hungry or had a toothache" and, therefore, Salvationists believe that they are called to join an 'Army of God' to care for the poor, sick and addicted. They also use charity as a way of introducing people to Christianity.

Salvationists live some of the most disciplined lives known to Christendom; the "officers" (pastors) own no homes, cars or much else but live on the charity provided by donations to the church. Salvationists do not drink, smoke, use any form of recreational drug, dance, or play cards. The usual recreation is holy music; Salvation Army members nearly all belong to bands (full brass with tambourine) or are singers. All unmarried people must be celibate whether they are heterosexual or homosexual- and yes, celibate homosexuals are treated as normal single members of the community and not ostracised or discouraged in any way.

Salvationists live such disciplined lives NOT because they believe other lifestyles are sinful, but because most of their clients are addicted or otherwise failing to thrive in modern civilisation and they wish to demonstrate that it is possible to have a joyful, full life without any of the little guilty pleasures the rest of us all take for granted. The general feeling is that it is unkind to, for example, spend your days helping alcoholics and then go home and have a scotch and soda. Or, to counsel a couple on the verge of divorce and then sleep around.

I recognise most people view the SA as 'a store'; actually, it is terrific praise for the Salvation Army that they have managed to avoid getting a reputation for pushing religion. But most of what is donated to the Salvation Army *is* given away, and the rest is sold in thrift shops at such a low price that even the poorest customers can afford it. The proceeds only go to keep the store running (rent, electricity, whatever).

And although 99% of 'employees' in SA thrift shops, missions, shelters etc are volunteers, it is quite accurate to compare even the few paid employees to a priest or rabbi. Although not always ordained, ALL participants in the Salvation Army are expected to be able to answer questions about their faith and to present a positive example of a Christian lifestyle: celibacy, sobriety and all. If they were not, the entire reason for such charity would disappear; all the millions of hospitals, soup kitchens, homeless shelters, AIDS hospices and food banks the Salvation Army runs all over the world depend for their existence on the opportunity to evangelise that they provide.

 

hmmm just a thought.. i noticed in Mathetais's first post he says "I can see why neither perspective should be taught in school. Parents can teach either perspective, which maintains intellectual freedom and freedom of religion."

Have to put my two cents worth in here.. School is for the study of sciences, maths, english etc... Now if you want to learn religion send your kids to Sunday School Or take it as a seperate course in highschool/college. As a parent to a school aged child i notice alot of parents dont have time to teach their children on their own ie: work full time. I personally would hope that my child will learn factual, proven theroies in school. And hopefully spelling as i certainly lack it

 

Hey! you guys started without me!

I'm crushed by the amount of content I had to get through before getting to the bottom of the page!

Starters, Mathetais, great GREAT thread name! Kinda takes the edge off somehow (hey snazzy icon too).

I completey, utterly, and entirely (redundantly) agree with your statement, "As in every community, the Christians have a few "personalities" we are not proud of. But we should not be characterized by them."
That was my argument in defense of Americans... haha, I just happened to use a sensitive (and unsensitively dealt with) subject. Yes you guys get a bad rap, and I contributed to that.

In regard to the Kansas evolution controversy, well the issue doesn't really concern evolution itself. That's a red herring. The real issue - there was a powerful religious presence in the state affecting what is being taught in the schools.

The topic happened to be evolution (Look, fact or theory, I'm not going to get into, again, that should be another thread - again - haha) and it was stopped because it contradicted that influential religious presence in the state.

Kansas, as a state in a country that believes in the seperation of church and state, was wrong in cancelling evolution from the curriculum. I say this strongly because, the seperation of church and state was implemented to make sure all americans have the freedom to choose their own spiritual path, and if you make one religions faith into state supported fact, then you are forcing their beliefs.

I hope that's coherent, I just read over it 15 times and I can't follow my own writing...

That was the starting point of my tangent in the other discussion.

Ok, that aside, on to the Salvationists. Put very simply, they got nailed for discriminating.

Does the Salvation Army specifically employ Salvationists? Why did they bring up "faith based" exemption then? (that's really a question, not a snipe...)

Now granted (just a thought) why a homosexual person would want to work for a group that thinks they're all doomed to burn for eternity, is way beyond me.

In any case it is discriminating, and my only point about them, is they aren't this "all good" group the post makes them out to be. I'm not saying they don't have a positive effect on the community, but there is a rigid, intolerant side.

Incidently, the fact that they'd take donations from homosexuals, but feel above hiring them is lamentable as well.

We could go on about the prices, and the profit value of the sales, but that would be pointless, and off the topic.

Great thread so far people, very civillized so far.

Oh by the way, I'm sure most of you will be amused to know that in D&D I like to play Clerics! PRAISE ORCUS! PASS THE DONATION TRAY! haha


[This message has been edited by ArtEChoke (edited July 17, 2001).]

 

Three questions, for all those who care to answer them and not directed towards any one individual:

(a) Why is it considered offensive to expect Christian homosexuals to comply with a religious celibacy rule that single Christian heterosexuals are expected to follow?

(b)Why is a non-Christian's right to a job offered by Christian employers more important than a Christian employer's right to choose an employee who sets a good example of what he/she stands for?

(c) How can the American ideal of Freedom of Religion be best applied so that people have freedom not only to practice their own religion, but also allow freedom for others who do not want religion to affect their lives in any way? It seems to me that this is almost unreconcilable- and what this argument is really about.

[In response to the questions about what is a "Christian homosexual"- by this I meant a person who has homosexual inclinations but, as a practicing Christian, has forced him/herself to not act on these desires.]



[This message has been edited by Sprite (edited July 18, 2001).]

 

Heh. I'm going to get flamed badly for this, but I don't believe there is such a thing as a Christian homosexual. I don't have my Bible with me at the moment, but for starters you could check out Romans 1:24-29, or thereabouts.

[Hehehe Capstone I was wondering about that myself; I guess it depends on who you're affiliated with... BTA]

[This message has been edited by Blackthorne TA (edited July 17, 2001).]

 

IMHO so is impossibly to be both a religous christian and homosexual. It says in the bible that men who sleeps with men should be killed. It also says that women should not speak in church.
So if you are a christians these things should be as sacred as the ten amendments.
But here comes my point i belive in a god but not in religoun. For my own sanity i must believe there is something greater than man or else we are all in deep trouble.
But religioun is made by ordinary people like you and me and sure lots of things are good and lots are bad but i dont think it is divine.
And another thing im wondering is how people that read the same book can see it so completely different that they want to kill eachother. Its strange i think all organised religioun is created by man for various reasons, to opress people for and foremost they usually have a nice ideé but it always gets pervertet during the course of history.

Hope you can read this and its not too confusing im having trouble sticking to my point.

 

I am a big believer in organized religion, but only as long as the people who profess to belong to that religion are actually active and living by it. The church I belong to has quite a history for having it's members be quite active in city and state, and I've lived in communities where the church makes up a huge bulk of the population. It's not always a good thing, to have such a presence, as evidenced by many churches histories. My meandering point I'm trying to make here, we all have what I call free agency, or free will. To deny any human being that is a crime/sin, whatever. I believe that is a God-given right. Of course, we all make mistakes. That's fact. We've got to live with that in society, and that's why the 'fundamentalists' are so intent on being politically active, I think. They see what's right and wrong, and feel the strong need to affect it. Does it affect other's free will? Not at all, we can all choose to do whatever we want, regardless of whether it's 'right or wrong', we can choose to obey our nations laws or not, we live the consequences, good or bad.
(Not an insightful ending, but I'm enjoying reading all the viewpoints on this thread, and just wanted to throw some more into the equation)

 

Kitiara - I agree. The public school was orignially designed to be a forum where two goals were accomplished. First, to teach the basic skills of literacy, etc. . . Secondly, to develop a common language for public discourse. THAT is the main function of public education (IMHO).

(c)

Answer: The American Constitution promises freedom of religion, not freedom FROM religion.

The framers saw the power of organized religion, even as it extends to people who do not participate in that religion. The Salvation Army is a great example. They taught literacy and now provide refuge to thousands, all without drawing tax money.

Pliney the Younger, in the 2nd Century AD commented that the Christians took care of the Roman poor better than the Romans ever had.

So, how can a private individual protect him or herself from the impact of organized religion in a culture that tolerates diversity and freedom of religion? The simple answer is that they cannot! And Hamilton would say that it is a good thing!

[This message has been edited by Mathetais (edited July 17, 2001).]

 

Fundamentalists (according to the bible) must belive?:

1. Pi is 3
2. The world is flat
3. Evolution is a fairy tale
4. Everyone will go to hell if they do not worship statisitcs.

(just a thought)

 

I saw this, and felt I had to throw a few opinions of my own in.

I don't know much so this is largely conjecture. Mat, Is what the Kansas fundamentalists were trying to ban really what you seem to be saying it is. In my experience schools only teach what has been agreed on by everyone for about fifty years. I didn't do biology, but I did physics (only in High school, I assume "school" means primary and secondary) and anything recent and vaugley controversial (basically anything since Einstein) wasn't in the syllabus, or was only mentioned briefly, with heavy emphasis on theoretical. I imagine school biology would teach the mechanism of evolution by natural selection, and the evidence in the fossil record, but not that that mechanism was the ONLY force acting right up from the basic chemical constituents of life to man, for the same reason as high school physics doesn't teach "what happened before the big bang" (actually, we didn't even get taught that there was a big bang, just that there was strong evidence for it and big bang theories worked well enough to be accepted). Admittedly, schools don't emphasise the gaps in knowledge much (what people don't know doesn't pass exams), and your post was very informative in showing me the extent of my ignorance. Banning the teaching of an aspect of science, because it might conflict with religious beliefs is in my opinion wrong. Science can only be approached with an open mind, and atheist assumptions have hindered science as much as religious ones (there cannot have been a big bang because we refuse to believe in an unknowable moment of creation), and the Christian faith has survived the acceptance of "Heretical" science before (Galileo, anyone).

I'll stop rattling my bonebox now.

 

Actually Sprite, I did pick a fight with the fundamentalists here, not intentionally, but it was sort of like proving a point to Peter by hitting Paul with a board.

Hmm, Mathetais, you're right, you can't stop a religions effect on a culture, whether its positive or negative (I originally had examples here, but decided in better judgement to omit them...), and that's ok, that's how it goes...

However it seems that religions can't be stopped from affecting laws and educational systems, and that is not ok.

I find it extremely disheartening that they are willfully trying to alter laws to cater to their faith, and in some cases, force people to comply to their beliefs, under the full knowledge that it is not their place to do so.

By the way, I just read back over this post and it sounds very preachy... its not intentional, but I've been getting very long winded lately, so I was trying to keep it very brief, consise and to the point.

[This message has been edited by ArtEChoke (edited July 17, 2001).]

 

ArtEChoke (btw - that sounds like a bad-guy from the TICK or something ) (This applies to Ironbeards post as well)

Consider it this way . . .

A group of people genuinely believe, in their very heart of hearts, that there are certain things that can ruin a persons life and certain things that promote joy.

It is a natural out-flowing of this belief to want to help others live lives that will be on the path toward joy. So they are not trying to legislate their faith or morality, they are trying to shape a society for the maximum enjoyment of the population.