Putting the "FUN" back in Fundamentalist

Remove all ads!

I won't be long, just to answer Septic's must beliefs for Bible fundamentalists:

1. Pi is 3
Where did you get that idea? Pi is mathematical imaginatory constant value and has nothing fo do with religions and fundamentalism. If you were right then all ones who don't understand nature of pi are fundamentalists. So, Septic Yougurt is fundamentalist.

2. The world is flat
You're out of your mind. Completely. From this one I see you've never read the Bible. Remember prophet Ezekiel and his looks on Earth from the space? According to that description, fundamentalists should NEVER think world is flat.
And of course, you think on Aristotle's idiotic teaching that world is flat and thing that church took that as truth in middle ages - blame ignorancy, not fundamentalism. Speaking of ignorance...

3. Evolution is a fairy tale
ARGH! Your thinking is fairy tale. Tell me pal, where does that stand in the Bible? It says that God created all creatures - but nowhere is specifically written that those creatures does not improve or degenerate or mutate.
Fundamentalist will take that God is creator, but on things not written in the Bible he doesn't have to think everything Septic Yougurt suggests. And btw, if fundamentalist shouldn't take the world on his own if it is not written in the Bible, then your "fundamentalist" will negate existance of nukes - there is no nuclear power in the Bible, so nuclear bombs can't exist. Septic, Septic, tsk, tsk, ...

4. Everyone will go to hell if they do not worship statistics
What statistics? You'll go to hell if you don't worship me.
Seriously, you don't know what are you talking about. Reread that part of Bible, it is not as you concluded.
Real fundamentalist believes that all things you make during your life will be payed back. I believe that too, although I'm not fundamentalist.
If you're good to me, you'll get good things from me or from someone else. If you're bad to me, you'll get bad things from me or someone else. If you like to call it "hell" instead of destiny, suit yourself.

 

Well i mean on Kitiara's point of view I have to disagree. As a schoolkid myself (yeh yeh shut up) I am gonna go on record and say I could NEVER survive school doing English Maths and Science. By saying these are the only necessary subjects you can also cut out History, Geogrpahy, Art, Modern Languages etc etc not just Religion.

I mean what if you want ot be a Historian for example. Can you imagine going back to doing reception level history at College and learing it all then? No it is insane.

Also you have to learn about religion and different religions and geography and art and suchlike in order to be able to express yourself and communicate with others fluently.

My Two Pence.

 

why are there so many topics like this? we could argue and argue over who is correct, and we could bring up points from article after article, and type in link after link, it really is all pointless, yes the evolutionary theory is far from flawless, but i tend to believe in something that i can understand and comprehend, and for this reason i do not believe in any religion(s), however being that there is evidence against the evolutionary theory and there is also apparent mathematical proof of the existence of some kind of higher form of life, i can also see the other side of the argument, basically waht i am saying is that until we as humans can comprehend things like this better, we should just not talk about them

 

Um Gash.. i did say English, Math , Science ETC!! I did not mean those are the only things that should be taught in school

 

Mathetais, I completely understand your point of view... you're saying any given religion will try to alter laws or educational practices in order to benefit humanity.

So religion is well meaning, its there after all to add guidance and meaning to peoples lives, right? I have no doubt of that.

The business of the church, however, (any church religion, whatever) is not in changing laws and educational practices, and (no offense, well meaning or not) they should stay out of it.

Basically, if a religion teaches a certain set of guidelines to live by, then its up to the followers to practice these guidelines on their own, without any expectations of recognition outside that religion. Its personal monitoring and personal censorship; self-control. I think most religions care too much what everyone else is doing.

So they get some laws changed, and now its not self-control, or self-censorship, now you have to follow the guidelines.

This to me doesn't even seem like something people of a faith would want. So you get people adhering to your own self-imposed constraints. Why would you want that? The whole idea is that it's self-imposed to begin with, and now people simply have no choice.

Now, if they're helping out a homeless person, for example, and they want to try and share their faith and structure with him, that's great, they are trying to genuinley help someone, and he gets a choice to take it or leave it. But imposing the rules of a faith on your society doesn't help your faith at all, it just forces people to superficially stick to the guidelines, for fear of getting in trouble (or whatever), and doesn't that beat the meaning out of it?

 

But in trying to influence law or policy, a religious group is no different than any other interest group. For example, how is it any different than an environmental group lobbying for greater restrictions on pollutant emissions, or on logging activities? In both cases you have a group that (whether you agree with them or not) is attempting to influence the society that they live in for the betterment of that same society.

Aside: Just have to say, it's great that we all have the freedom to have this discussion, openly in a public forum, and without fear of reprisals (save for the odd bit of flaming ). There are, unfortunately, still many places in the world where this discussion would get you a prison term, or possibly worse.

 

Gnolyn;

I agree with your points 100%. I was about to tell ArtEchoke that I will not influence the culture as a Christian if he promises to help me stop the enviormentalists, feminists, hispanics, african americans, republicans, populists, etc. . . to stop influencing the culture as well.

We need to strip us all of our beliefs before we vote, because we really can seperate our beliefs from our thoughts and from our actions.

Okay - no more sarcasm. Egg is right, we could go on for ever on this topic.

Summary - Christianity, in its essence, is a revolutionary world-view. It is more than a moral code or a religious practice . . . it is the displacement of an individual from this world and into the Kingdom of God TODAY. It is impossible to compartmentalize the Faith.

I am not identified as an American . . . I am a citizen of God's Kingdom. My sojourn/exile in America is brief, and while it lasts my duty to my KING is to be an example and ambassador of that Kingdom.

Personally, that road has not taken me into politics. However, I do actively engage the thoughts and practices of my workplace, neighborhood and family and will continue to do so until I finally get to go home.

 

Hmm yeh Sorry Kitiara. I would've read the whole thread buyt it is SO boring...

 

The way that fundementalists try to frame the creation vs. evolution debate as a atheist vs. christian issue is really just a smoke screen. many of americans are neither. I doubt alot of native american parents would be any happier about their kids being taught genesis as fact than christian parents would be having their children taught about how crow dove to the bottom of a lake to get mud to rub on the back of the great turtle in order to create the world.

Also, any child who hasn't been taught the basics of modern scientific thought has been done a grave disservice by the educational system. How is some one who has never heard of darwin going to cope with freshman Bio at yale?

I doubt many devout christians walk out of 8th grade science convinced the bible is a thin tissue of lies. I clearly remmember my text book having a dis-claimer stating something along the lines of "The theories presented here are the most widely excepted among the modern scientific community, and some people disagree with them on religous or scientific grounds"

what would be so horrible about simply requiring a teacher to read such a disclaimer at the start of the semester?

[This message has been edited by jester1137 (edited July 20, 2001).]