| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Atheistic fundamentalism | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 22 2007, 09:02 AM (4,620 Views) | |
| Moonbat | Dec 26 2007, 11:25 AM Post #251 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
Still boxing day. ...Damnit!!!
|
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| DivaDeb | Dec 26 2007, 11:27 AM Post #252 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
giggle! Happy Boxing Day, Moonbat! I've been in England on Boxing Day...almost more fun than Christmas! |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Dec 26 2007, 11:28 AM Post #253 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
so that would be a specific group of people who live bad lives morally and do so denying God, rather than those who just don't happen to believe in the Christian dispensation for whatever reason and live good lives morally? |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Dec 26 2007, 11:30 AM Post #254 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
We went to the fox hunts on Boxing Day in Wells, before the animals rights wackos got it banned. Good times. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| DivaDeb | Dec 26 2007, 11:52 AM Post #255 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
God's call on that one, IT. I think that in light of Isaiah 64:6, we should consider that man's idea of moral righteousness is a mere vapor of what God's definition is likely to be. I do not believe that I am capable in this life, of being good enough to be in His presence without the dispensation of His grace through the work of Christ on the Cross. |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Dec 26 2007, 11:59 AM Post #256 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
But who is being referred to in that passage? God's call is not really an answer. (Not to be contentious, I am genuinely interested in how broadly you apply specific passages and on what basis). BTW, you *have* been missed, and I am so glad to see you around here again. A blessed Christmastide to you and your family. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| DivaDeb | Dec 26 2007, 12:56 PM Post #257 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Merry Christmas to you and MS, IT...I have really been missing y'all. This has been the busiest couple of months we've had so far. Sorry..I read your question upside down, I guess, I didn't get what you were asking. I do not think this passage applies to any specific group. My reasoning for that lies with the fact that Paul is writing to the church in Rome...saints, in the technical sense, so assumed to be an audience of believers. Therefore, the reference to unbelief would have to apply to those other than to whom the letter is addressed, unlike the letters to the Galatian and Corinthian brethren, who were being addressed specifically about their failings. Also, if you back up to vss 16 and 17, he says: 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For in it athe righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “But the righteous man shall live by faith.” Those verses are immediately followed by the previously copied passage...so I think he's still speaking in terms of the same large and inclusive context he presents in vs 16 and 17, there is no break in the language to indicate a new line of thought, in fact they're joined by the conjuction 'gar,' so I think it means everyone who believes in vs 16-17, and in the following verses, everyone who doesn't. |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Dec 26 2007, 12:59 PM Post #258 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
OK, I appreciate your explanation and see your rationale. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Dec 26 2007, 01:54 PM Post #259 |
|
Cheers
|
Then try hitting the 'Preview Post' button next time you reply.
|
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Dec 26 2007, 03:47 PM Post #260 |
|
Senior Carp
|
John's article: "He said the abduction of Madeleine McCann and the murder of schoolboy Rhys Jones were examples of God being "violated and blasphemed"." This is weird. I would think that in these cases Madeleine and Rhys were being violated. Why divert attention from where it belongs? |
![]() |
|
| Daniel | Dec 26 2007, 09:21 PM Post #261 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Thank you for reminding me why I could never be a fundamentalist. |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Dec 26 2007, 09:40 PM Post #262 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
You just need it explained with more pictures. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| sue | Dec 26 2007, 10:04 PM Post #263 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Pictures? I don't know Larry, but I think I would give Daniel credit for at least thinking for himself, not making his choices about people based on some quotations. I read what Deb said too, and I am still a bit shell shocked at the arrogance of such thought. Wasn't it you, Larry, who said it was the Christians here who were respectful of the atheists, and we were the intolerant ones? Perhaps you need to put your broad brush away, and see that we all, believers and non-believers, have different stripes. |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Dec 27 2007, 03:15 AM Post #264 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Let's give another shot at what Ax was getting at. ![]() (BTW, while the following discussion uses a couple of Christian examples, I'm not picking on Christianity alone, but discussing a general theme common across many religions. We naturally gravitate towards Christian examples for the simple reason that those are what most participants here are familiar with.) Take the Book of Revelation, for example. The book describes a certain doomsday scenario, and you're not allowed to revise it. Now you look at how science approaches end of the universe scenarios -- some predict big crunch, some predict ever expanding universe, some predict (thermodynamic) "heat death" -- you're expected to change your mind and toss the old prediction when warranted by new discoveries and new evidence. Armed with new discoveries and new evidence, future scientists are expected to toss Einstein's or Hawkin's or any one else's theories/predictions, not just "re-interpret" them and play apologetics. Yet it doesn't matter what new discoveries have been made or what new evidence have been unearthed, Christians can't toss the Book of Revelation or even revise the doomsday scenario predictions contained there-in. Christians can only "re-interpret" them. We can also take a look at approaches to understand how the universe "began" (should there be a "beginning"). The Book of Genesis describes how the world was created in seven days. First, the Christian took it "literally," then they started to morph the interpretation by, for example, saying that the "seven days" or not really "seven days," but "seven epochs of indeterminant lengths", and they have to compromise on the ordering of those seven epochs ('coz otherwise you'd have man first and then all the other animals come later -- something that archaeological evidence have shown to be false). Pretty soon, "seven" doesn't even need to mean "seven" any more. That's apologetics. Science simply tossed Genesis and replaced it with something else, and may continue to replace what ever it has today with some other things still, as new evidence and new discoveries come along. Now the examples above are drawn from the Judeo-Christian tradition; we pick Judeo-Christian centric examples for the simple reason that those are what most participants here are familiar with. But it's a common theme among (faith-based) religions. (Heck, it's the bedrock of revealed religions -- you can't change what's revealed, else where's the stability/continuity in pegging a religion on "revelations" if any one can come along, discover something new, and change what's been "revealed"?) Now let's get to your other point that says revelation through text comes secondary to revelation through creations -- that can't work either, because through out recorded history, people have been looking around and arrived at different spiritual believes. Ancient Egyptians believed in Ra (sun "god"), ancient Greek believed in Zeus/Apollo/Hermes et al (many "gods"), some ancient Chinese believed in Way of Nature ("Tao," no god) and some other ancient Chinese believed in hierarchical "gods," some ancient Asian-Indians believed in Buddha (not "god") and some other ancient Asian-Indians believed in Vishnu/Ganesh/Krishna et al (many "gods"), etc. How do "you" know that "your" faith/theology/mythology is the "right" one when different peoples looked at the same "creations" and arrived at different faiths/theologies/mythologies? For those that have "sacred text," such texts are called upon to lend credence that a particular faith/theology/mythology is the "right" one. |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Dec 27 2007, 04:25 AM Post #265 |
|
MAMIL
|
It's worth noting that in the original article the Archbishop stated that "Any kind of fundamentalism, be it Biblical, atheistic or Islamic, is dangerous." |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Dec 27 2007, 05:21 AM Post #266 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
Oh I rather doubt that.
|
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Dec 27 2007, 05:28 AM Post #267 |
|
MAMIL
|
It's a problem if you believe everything you read. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Dec 27 2007, 05:30 AM Post #268 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
Touche, salesman! |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Dec 27 2007, 06:14 AM Post #269 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Ax: "For those that have "sacred text," such texts are called upon to lend credence that a particular faith/theology/mythology is the "right" one." Despite the heated denials, I think we can take the textual debate above between IT and Diva to be rather concrete evidence of this. |
![]() |
|
| DivaDeb | Dec 27 2007, 07:02 AM Post #270 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
What you fail to understand is that I don't think *I* am right, I think God is right. The reason you're offended by that is because you think *you* are right. Many are unable to see the humility in the thinking of a person who has acknowledged that they are a sinful, corrupted being who could be of no value to an eternal and perfect God. I readily admit I am guilty of arrogance (and just about every other sinful attitude there is) at many points in my life, but it is always a sin against His perfection, when I put my will ahead of His perfect plan. There is no arrogance in standing for Jesus Christ. However, I love all of you so I take no offence at your judgment of my arrogance, it's not a problem for me. You have several years of evidence that is always the case, so bring it on, I can/have/will take it with a smile on my face and a song in my heart. In matters such as these, I say what I think based on what Scripture says. Yes, I believe there is right and wrong. I believe that much of that is determinable in very concrete terms based on a document graciously provided by a loving God to inform, guide, and grow His children to spiritual maturity. What people decide about that is between that individual and the Lord. Ultimately, it has nothing to do with me at all. Nothing does. Everything is about Him. What I think God sees as arrogant is the failure to acknowledge the evidence of His existance that He made plain for every man to see. Since I think He will judge those issues, I don't bother with judgments. I live by the rule: Love God, Love Other People. Nothing else matters. You may call that arrogance if it fits your definition. |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Dec 27 2007, 07:16 AM Post #271 |
|
MAMIL
|
But isn't what you're saying is that the Bible is right, not God? Surely it's a historical fact that The Bible was written and compiled by human beings? You may choose to believe that what Paul wrote about women preachers, for example, comes directly from God, or you may believe that it was Paul's opinion based on the society he grew up in, and that some of it is no longer relevant today. Either way, aren't you interpreting the words of a human being, not of a divine creator? The central Christian message of Loving both God and Humanity is surely a wonderful one, however much it seems to get lost in these petty debates about gay marriage and the acceptability of women priests, for example. When it comes to detail shouldn't we critically examine what it says in scripture? |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| DivaDeb | Dec 27 2007, 07:30 AM Post #272 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I'm sorry John...I don't think I'm quite understanding the question? I believe that the Bible is the Word of God, the mind of Christ, divinely breathed out and recorded by men, so no...I do not believe that it is the words of men and I don't think Paul got it wrong. I think God is eternal, infinite, and all three omnis...and I think He created all that is, so facilitating the accurate transmission of His intentions was not a big challenge for Him. My critical thinking skills are firmly in place when I read anything, in or out of Scripture. Yes, my worldview is informed by my Christian beliefs which are based on the Bible. I think the central message of loving God and people is secure even amidst arguments...wrestling with the questions we have is what causes growth. I don't think debate is wrong, and need not be a source of anger or cause tension or division. It's only when the arguments are ego driven that emotion causes intelligent debate to escalate to ugliness. I don't think we need to do that here, so I'm pretty comfortable thinking out loud. I don't know if there's an answer to what you asked in that or not. |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Dec 27 2007, 07:38 AM Post #273 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
Hah Boxingy day over. Diva your position is completely consistent given that you think the bible is the inerrant word of an omnipotent omniscient all-good creator God. I don't find you what said offensive at all, indeed it doesn't even suprise me. I often have conversations with peers who express the opposite sentiment they think deep down you guys really know it's not true. That it's a kind of pretense where you are in some sense aware that your ideas of God are imaginary but do not ever allow yourself to really see it. A bit like the way children consider their stuffed animals to be alive in some sense but also know that they aren't really. They think that it's a kind of willing collusion with yourself. I argue against this conclusion - i think that you guys really do believe what you say believe, i don't think it is pretend, i think to you guys your idea of God feels essentially as real as your ideas of everyday things like tables and chairs and computers. My peers find this exceedingly hard to believe and ultimately it's only because i've spoken to lots of religious people that i have the view i have. I wonder though having been exposed to arguments by people like Jeffrey or Ax or me, or having perhaps read Betrand Russel or Dawkins do you really think we are lying? I mean do you really think when i say that i do not have a belief in a personal God that i am lying to you? I really care about knowing what's true, i really want to know about the world, it's driven me for a long time. If there is a God or God(s), that is if there is an intelligence behind the universe I really want to know. I'm not pretending, i really do mean it. There all these people in the world and indeed many on this board who pretend that they are interested in learning about how things are, but they are charlatans, they just think it sounds good to say it, or they like the idea of being someone who really has an overpowering urge to know, to understand, to learn. But i'm the real thing, and i think it shows. So when you say you don't believe in atheists. Are you sure you believe that? Do you really believe that Mark was lying when he said he didn't believe in God prior to his conversion? If you read the books by people like Dawkins can you really convince yourself that this person secretly belives in God despite the apparent conviction he has in the arguments he presents? And what about my peers? How do you explain them? As i said initially your position is consistent with the view that the bible is the inerrant word of a tradditional monotheist God but that conclusion might be wrong, might it not? Do you not think tha the requirement of claiming that people like me are lying might perhaps indicate that was the case? I mean there are plenty of other reason for thinking that's not the case - the fact that the two accounts in genesis contradict themselves with respect to the order of creation, the fact that if you add the dates in the bible it suggests a world that is a few thousand years old when the evidence is overwhelming for the idea that the world is billions years old, the fact the account of creating is inconsistent with what we understand of the natural world particularly the origin species, etc. etc. Do you not agree that all of this can be taken as justification for rejection of the idea that the bible is inerrant? |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Dec 27 2007, 07:42 AM Post #274 |
|
MAMIL
|
I have to admit that I struggle with the idea that the Bible is the literal word of God. Ignoring for a moment my own opinions regarding His existence, it seems to me clear that the Bible was created by humans in their attempt to interpret what had been told to them. If the Bible is the literal word of God, then surely it cannot be questioned, and that is completely at odds with my view of the world. Just so you know - I don't take offence at anything you say - I don't agree with it, but pretty much the only thing that I don't like here is when the debate becomes personally insulting. I'm happy to acknowledge that if many more of us (including Christians!) sought the Christian ideal the world would be a much better place, irrespective of our beliefs regarding the existence of a divine creator and/or his only begotten son.
|
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Free Rider | Dec 27 2007, 07:46 AM Post #275 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Deb... Hi! Glad to see that you are back posting. I agree with the "love other people" That is the most important thought. As for "Love God"...well I have to admit that I think some people are having a relationship with an imaginary "god" in their own heads...like brainwashing an infant until they are an adult and have faith in a mental concept that has no basis in reality. But I am not a church-goer. I just am searching for a spiritual side of my life and a connectedness to generations before and after me. So I do not feel lke an atheist. I jsut don't buy the Bible as being the work of God. |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |










6:29 AM Jul 11