Belief in fantasy Gods. Literalists and Fundamentals.


It is my view that all literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are Religionists.

They all hurt their parent religions and everyone else who has a belief. They make us all into laughing stocks and should rethink their position. There is a God but not the God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HKHa...x=0&playnext=1

Should literalists follow their Bible and pay attention to this quote?

1 Corinthians 13:11
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Should they try harder to know God without fantastic, impossible creatures and miracles of all kinds?

Not to be rude but should literalists and fundamentals not grow up and stop hurting religion?

http://www.truthcontest.com/entries/...y-reality.html

Regards
DL

As an atheist, i actually have more respect for those you're dismissing as crackpots than i do for those who pick and choose. I think what hurts religion more is, for example, christians who live in million dollar homes and drive range rovers. I know many atheists do not share this view fwiw.

You have no clue what DL possesses.

The fundies are the one's that pick and choose, so you statement doesn't make much sense.

The problem is:

* Fundamentalists have beliefs which are based on insufficient evidence.

* You have beliefs which are based on insufficient evidence.

How do you tell me (an atheist) that your insufficient evidence is any better than a fundamentalist's?

I do agree that some beliefs are sillier than others. The chance for any god is more probable than the chance for a personal god who cares about you, which is more probable than a god who answers prayers, etc., etc. But from where I sit as an objective observer, it's like someone who thinks they're Napoleon accusing someone who thinks their from Mars of misrepresenting himself.

As NR summed it up -
What's not clear about "don't eat the fruit."

Someone who claims it wasn't really a snake, there wasn't really a world-wide flood, it wasn't really a whale, it wasn't a fruit ...
is saying "this is the word of god. well, some are literal and some are not, and I know which one is which, trust me. " is picking and choosing. Sure, they claim a source of knowledge outside of The Word itself to know how to do that. Some other theists don't buy their claim.

On what basis Jib? A fundy who takes every word in the bible literally makes no excuses. It is the moderates who must pick and choose what parts of the bible are meant to be taken literally and what parts aren't.

In other words, if I ask a fundy about every one on the planet being descendant from Adam and Eve and then again from those on the ark, he's likely to say, "Yep. What about it?". However, I assume you're too sophisticated to believe that literally, so you'll have to come up with a reason why that wasn't meant to be taken literally. Same goes for the tower of Babel and a myriad of other stories in the bible. Stoning unruly teenagers and non virgin brides not the least withstanding.

The groups your respect do this because of their beliefs in fantasy and hurt all believers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LACyLTsH4ac

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/d...s-8/episode-1/

I am sure they will thank you for the respect you show them.

Regards
DL

Kiss my -----.

Regards
DL

It was not a fruit.
It was the only thing that puts us above the beasts of the field.
The knowledge that gives us our moral sense. A great thing.
Only fools would not eat of it. Thank God, se to speak, that Eve ate.

It was not a fall but the elevation of man to what man should be, not just a dumb animal but an animal that is the crowning achievement of nature.

Regards
DL

The difference is that the fundies take things at face value from an english translation in a 21st century context. They don't read it how it was meant to be read. In other words, each passage had an intended meaning by the author. The fundies disregard how we come up with what that intended meaning was (proper hermeneutics, exegesis, etc) and replace it with things like "but it says SNAKE right there, how am I supposed to believe it didn't mean snake". Now they don't apply this to anything in their lives, just as if I said "My wife will kill me if I get home late", they won't call the cops and tell them my life is in danger because I am not going to get home in time. They would say to the police "but he said she would 'KILL' him, how else am I supposed to take that."

So the idea that fundies "make no excuses" is completely wrong. In fact they are the ones that have to constantly make an excuse why they are not looking at the original context. I don't make any excuses. I read the bible (or attempt to) with the context in mind. Also, if knew much about christian theology, you would know that they have to make excuse after excuse why they ignore half of what the bible says.

This idea that me (or people like me) are going around say "um, take that literal, um don't take that literal, uh yeah that sounds good literal go ahead and take that literal" is a giant strawman.

You mean you don't say "don't take that literally" ?? Or, about another section "take that literally"?
Isn't that your argument, that some things in the bible can't be taken literally?

In Catholicism the difference between good Catholics and Cafeteria Catholics is the cafeteria ones pick and choose what to believe, a good Catholic doesn't, they follow the Church's teachings since it is guided by the holy spirit.

Heretic means chooser, or to choose.

When it comes to reading the Bible, some things are literal and some are not, it takes many years to understand what the author meant and there's been a few thousand years of biblical scholarship and still not everyone agrees.

But this is why I won't read the Bible and say "I understand exactly what that means." Sure I can apply it to my life, but I always look to the Church who gave us the Bible in the first place to help me understand the Bible.

The Vatican stance is to not take scriptures literally.
Do you agree with the Popes who says this and who also say that the veracity of evolution has been proven and that the theory is sound ?

Regards
DL

Some of the Bible is to be taken literally, the Popes certainly do not mean 'take none of the Bible literally.' If this is true then Jesus was never resurrected.

But yes, I think in the theory of evolution is true, it is the best theory we have regarding the world's life systems. It doesn't contradict the Biblical message.

Not in the arbitrary ad hoc manner which you attribute to me.

The context tells us when to take something literally.

I find it laughable how when one of these fundies grossly characterizes something about say evolution, you jump on them about how wrong they are and how the are not following proper scientific methodologies, but then when they do the EXACT same thing to the bible you applaud them for being "consistent". The only thing they are consistent about is ****ing everything up.

Perhaps but it does give a different meaning to the Word of God and says it is not the Word of God.

What or who does the talking snake represent then?

Regards
DL

See how you said "scientific methodologies"? There is no such thing as a "biblical methodology" because you can't test to see if you're right until after you're dead! And even then you might not find out. Unlike science, you really have no basis on which to tell someone else they're wrong. Which I believe was Lestat's point earlier...

I don't attribute an ad hoc manner to your method, not at all.

That does not mean you aren't telling people "this is literal, that is figurative." That you have some process you go through to arrive at those is a separate issue. What is always at question is the validity of the processing.
You do admit that there are a vast array of interpretations floating around, each claiming to have the correct process for theirs being the correct interpretation.

There is no context for a lot of what you claim. God could make a talking snake or a guy live 3 days in a whales belly before he pours his morning coffee.

Um, there is historical methodologies for determining the intended meaning of a text. Why should we not apply these methodologies to the bible?

We should. We should apply historical methodologies to historical events. Applying them to supposed supernatural happenings is silly. It's a non-sequitur and is untestable, unrepeatable and unfalsifiable.

There may be a way to test biblical methodology with this.

That is how a true Christian show his faith.
You might note that there is no one here with faith.
If there was, we would all know it.

Matthew 17:20
And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

Regards
DL

Fair enough, others do.

Ok, well I was not saying that I do not say some things are literal and others are not, the post was supposed to convey an arbitrary ad hoc manner, which maybe you don't attribute to me, but others do.

So you don't believe historical scholars have a valid process?


You do admit that there are a vast arrays of interpretations floating around about biodiversity and each claiming to have the correct process for theirs being the correct interpretation, right?

How is there not context? It is not about what God could have done, but about what the original authors were trying to convey that God did do.

These are historical documents, whether or not you believe that the occurrences that happened in the bible are true or not is inconsequential.

It has nothing to do with whether or not the texts are true, but what the intent was by the original authors.

I have reason to believe that the intent of the original authors was to control the masses and/or create a following. Evidence for my belief: The authors of every other religion known to man (maybe with the exceptions of Buddhism and the purely peaceful Jainism) had this intent in mind.

Do you have non-circular evidence for why your religion deserves special treatment?