.
winepusher wrote:Do fundelmentalists/literalists represent the entire christian community?
I, for one, do NOT maintain that Fundamentalists represent all of Christianity, but I note that they are often or usually the most outspoken, vocal, adamant, insistent, and often arrogant with at least a tinge of superiority complex. I note also that Fundamentalists / Literalists often CONDEMN as “not Real Christians� or as “Christians in name only� those self-identified and practicing Christians who are less insistent that the bible be considered “infallible� or “inerrant� and who are tolerant or accepting of competing views.
It is unfortunate, in my opinion, that more rational, moderate, liberal, modern Christians are not better represented in these debates – and perhaps in the public eye.
winepusher wrote:There are indeed some christians who name call and criticize people as "misguided" or "blind."
I would use the term “many� Christians and emphasize that criticism or demeaning of others or their beliefs / convictions is very common.
Unless I misunderstand, Christianity TEACHES that Non-Christians are somehow misguided, uninformed, ignorant (of THE way to “salvation�) – in need of “being saved� or being “converted� to Christianity. Isn’t that part of the “teachings� of the bible?
Many Christians seem to feel required (by their “holy book�) to “spread the word� about their beliefs – even to those who have strong opposing beliefs and convictions. Christianity DOES seek to convert people – to proselytize – to recruit. Do you agree?
When one attempts to recruit other to their beliefs and worship practices, does that NOT indicate that the recruiter regards the beliefs, convictions or practices of those being recruited are somehow LESS than or inferior to the beliefs being promoted?
If one truly honored and respected the beliefs, convictions and practices of others and regarded them as equally valid, WHY would there be an attempt to convert others? Doing so is, in my observation, a claim that what is being promoted is superior to alternatives. Those who are not converted are often referred to as “infidels�, “heathens�, “the unsaved�, or even “savages� (and probably other derogatory terms).
Frankly, WinePusher, those “holier than thou� (or “superior to you�) Christians made an enemy for their cause in me decades ago. This evidently happens with many non-believers who may have been largely neutral toward religion until battered repeatedly by Christian’s claiming to know how others should think and live. I have tempered Anti-Christian attitudes under the influence of several outstanding theistic members of this forum.
The most respected theist members here and my most respected Christian friends FULLY ACCEPT that they do NOT have the answers and do not possess the “only path to salvation�. Many even doubt that there is any such thing as the mythical “afterlife�. The “Thinking Theists� (my term for those who are not mindless parroters of dogma and bible quotations) ACCEPT that others need not believe as they believe
winepusher wrote:Then there are some atheists who also name call and say religious people are "brain washed" "uneducated" and "ignorant."
Does inappropriate action by one group justify similar inappropriate action by others? Do Christians not claim to be “following Christ� (who it is said taught to “love thy neighbor�)?
I agree, however, that many Non-Religious people (not all of whom are “Atheists�) may be very opposed to religious practices (or anti-religion) – and must admit that I tended in those directions until meeting some of the outstanding theistic members of this forum who SHOWED me that one does not have to accept mindless tales and fanciful stories to be theistic. One doesn’t have to “cram the bible down their throats� (or threaten “eternal damnation�) in order to discuss or debate religion.
HOWEVER, fundamentalism / literalism (believing the bible to be “the word of god�, or “infallible�, or “inerrant� – and the bible magic characters and tales to be literally true) DOES apparently often lead one to mindless acceptance of preaching and stories about “gods� with NO evidence of truth.
As you read through these threads, Winepusher, does it NOT become obvious that Fundamentalism / Literalism is typically being promoted or “defended� mindlessly with nothing more than emotion, biblical quotes to “convince� non-believers, and criticism of others – with little evidence of thoughtful / reasoned / substantiated arguments (some might say “ignorant� or “childish� or “dogmatic�).
Whereas, the most reasoned and intelligently presented arguments are by Non-Christians or Non-Theists. Of course, this is personal observation and opinion – but all can judge for themselves – and I seriously doubt that discerning readers find the Fundamentalist “arguments� very convincing in opposition to non-supernatural positions.
In my opinion, Christianity could NOT be promoted without 1) indoctrination of youth before they develop judgment and discernment, 2) unverified promises of “salvation� or threats of “eternal damnation�, 3) appeal to those in personal or emotional turmoil or difficulty.
If a person acknowledges that they do not KNOW that “gods� exist or that supernatural tales and feats are truthful and literal; but that they choose to BELIEVE those things – I honor and respect their position – PROVIDED that they honor and respect my choice to NOT believe those things – and recognize that those who choose to not believe are in no way inferior or less informed than those who believe.
If someone claims to KNOW that “gods� exist or supernatural tales are true, I ask for reason to accept what the offer as truth (something other than religious promotional literature) – particularly if they ask me or others to believe their tales and claims as truthful. Many who are “seeped in religion� appear befuddled when others actually want REASON to accept religious claims and stories as true. However, in real life, they probably refuse to believe without evidence those claims and stories made by promoters of products or services – or promoters of competing religions.
NONE of the Fundamentalists I have debated have been willing to acknowledge the above – but insist, overtly or covertly, that believers are somehow superior in knowledge or position to those who choose to not believe supernatural tales. “If you only ‘knew’ what I ‘know’, you would worship my ‘god’�, is the message typically or often conveyed (again overtly or covertly).
None with whom I have debated (or discussed in person) seem able to admit that they CHOOSE to believe and that the opposite choice by others is JUST AS VALID a choice as theirs (and possibly more so because the only “evidence� of supernaturalism are human books, stories, claims, conjectures and opinions).
None of the Fundamentalists / Literalists I have debated have been willing to honestly and openly answer sincere questions about the position they attempt to promote or defend. Even a question as fundamental to Christian beliefs as; “Is there any evidence other than bible stories to indicate that Jesus came back to life after days in the grave?� is NOT answered honestly and openly. The true answer, as you and I know is, “There is NO other evidence aside from bible stories that Jesus came back to life.�
The greatest event in history – culmination of a thirty year visit to Earth by the “creator of the universe� (or his son or one-third of himself) – a “god� springing back to life after being dead for days – is PROPOSED in religious literature – and noted NOWHERE else. That hardly seems believable.
.
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
