Another Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Archbio]

Well, it made less sense to say Jesus has always been than to say God created him and made him holy, which was the alternative.

Wasn't there a certain interest, in the end, in Jesus being outright divine? Which only really works for strict monotheists if both described Gods are the same God.

In any case, nothing beats the myth where a Goddess is described specifically as wearing deerskin garments and then as going on to create deers.

[Frostatine]

sort of a chicken or the egg I guess.

There are more rediculous religions out there, and like any competitive market, the weak ones fall.

Christianity may be the strawberry pocci of religions, but its not perfect (strawberry pocci has a rediculous amound of saturated fat)

[ZAKtheGeek]

sort of a chicken or the egg I guess.

A question the answer to which, fittingly enough, depends on whether you're a creationist or evolutionist (or are looking to save face and are an "intelligent designist").

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Originally Posted by fifthfiend

I'm just saying, if you have a problem with how "fundamentalism" is used in our society, your argument isn't with society, it's with, well, fundamentalism, and the religious movement which originally put itself forward under that term. To argue about the usage is to complain that the term Nazi isn't used as a description of socialist workers movements or that Communism should actually be used to describe a deep belief in the need for people to have really meaningful conversations with each other.

You do realize you gave multiple definitions, right? Several of the definitions fit my idea of fundamentalism quite well.

"1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming."

or

"3. a strict adherence to a basic set of principles."

I think those two describe pretty much every serious Christian out there without making them the 'intolerant, bigoted, hateful fanatics' that the term fundamentalist often implies, don't you think?

So, sorry, but you were totally wrong, and Ryanderman and I were totally right. How I see fundamentalism isn't a problem with fundamentalism or even its definition. I'm pretty close to those definitions, more so the second one than the first, but I wouldn't call myself a mindless fanatic.

Originally Posted by Sithdarth

stuff he said about logic that I'm too lazy to copy and paste

That was my point I made to krylo. In an area such as this, there are no clear premises, so logic has limited use. If we start off with different truths in mind, we may arrive at completely different conclusions while both using logic.

Because of this, logic can't really be used to either prove or disprove God, and is limited in most metaphysical debates anyway, simply because nobody can agree on the basic premises (mainly because nobody knows what they are).

So I'm pretty sure we're actually agreeing here.

Originally Posted by Archbio

More generally, that's an interesting question. Why do some insist in peppering explanations of why a question has nothing to do with proof, logical or factual, with attempts at logical or factual arguments? That's kind of rethorical question, right there, though.

You just completely lost me. Are you agreeing with me, disagreeing with me, or insulting me? I don't think you're insulting me... but you could be... its okay if you are... this thread is unmoderated. Anyways, I'm pretty sure I've said multiple times that logic is pretty well useless when it comes to the nature of God debates.

Originally Posted by Gorefiend

The second, more in touch with what we're talking about now, is by the creator of the Monkeysphere. The Godfuse, Ten Things Christians and Atheists Can--and Must--Agree On.

I like this article a lot actually. Another thing we all agree on... Paris Hilton is a moron.

[Archbio]

Swordchucks,

You just completely lost me. Are you agreeing with me, disagreeing with me, or insulting me? I don't think you're insulting me... but you could be... its okay if you are... this thread is unmoderated.

I was using your comment as a springboard to remark on the paradoxal attitude of others, including some commenters in this thread.

Anyways, I'm pretty sure I've said multiple times that logic is pretty well useless when it comes to the nature of God debates.

Maybe my comment was somewhat appropriate to you after all.

Logic is useless in some debates? A debate without logic is without interest. Or rather, to say that 'logic is useless in debates about the nature of God' is to say that 'discussions on the nature of God are useless.'

Which sounds about right, and is actually a theological position, I think. However, as long as people will attribute characteristics that can be defined to supernatural entities, logic applies.

I think those two describe pretty much every serious Christian out there

What a silly thing to say. The first one has a very specific historical range.

[Gorefiend]

I also liked it. Mostly, I feel it is telling both sides, "In order that we may all coexist, consider that the other may just be right. Don't believe it, but pretend you do so we can all get along."

The idea that bad things can come from too much of one (theism or atheism) IS supportable by removing one. In a world where all evil comes from atheism, removing the atheists removes evil, and vice versa.

Also, apparently when Constantine called the Council of Nicea, he in particular didn't care about the answer. Jesus was already considered divine, being the Word of God*, and he just wanted things to be gotten over with, because the debate had reached all levels of society (courtesy of Arius, one hell of an advertiser who put his ideas to catchy songs and stuff like that). The question was, did God create His Word on Earth, or was it always up with Him. It makes more sense to you and me (who don't care much) to say God made Jesus, and made him especially holy. After all, then God is only one, which is one of the points of, well, monotheism. However, assuming that God is three, but is still one, is a contradiction. It doesn't really make sense, logically speaking, which is why the Greeks embraced it so. It was better, in their minds, for religion to demand some degree of faith, than that it just make sense. Like in Constantine (movie) John is condemned because he knows, but he doesn't feel.

____
*In Judaism, as worship of God became more estranged from that of other Gods, and the idea of Him was separated from that of idolatry, people began to feel it unacceptable to believe God Himself would possibly be experienced by mere mortals, so ideas began to be formed about concepts like God's Presence, or God's Word (also called the Divine Logos), which were projections of God on Earth (and a part of Him), but were distinct form God's essence, which is completely ineffable.

[Fifthfiend]

I think those two describe pretty much every serious Christian out there without making them the 'intolerant, bigoted, hateful fanatics' that the term fundamentalist often implies, don't you think?

a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.

Explicitly reactionary anti-modernist movements which define themselves specifically in opposition to naturalistic science and liberal theology and promote a view of the world as six thousand years old, created by God in seven days etc etc in no way whatsoever describe "every serious Christian" and absolutely do definitionally denote intolerance and fanaticism. Frankly from the way you're throwing around fanaticism as though that term isn't encompassed here I guess I need to look up that one as well.

fa·nat·i·cal
–adjective
motivated or characterized by an extreme, uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics.

fa·nat·i·cal
adj.
Possessed with or motivated by excessive, irrational zeal.

Yes, a belief system that puts forward that the Bible is literally infallible as a record of historical events regardless of any and all evidence to the contrary strikes me as basically qualifying as fanaticism as so defined.

And this is, again, without getting into that the first definition specifically makes reference to Fundamentalism as an original movement.

But you're right about (3) under the first listing's defintions, so fine, one out of five usages of fundamentalism does not specifically denote intolerance and/or fanaticism, shoot I guess you got me.

[Ryanderman]

You've taken the dictionary definition of fanaticism:

motivated or characterized by an extreme, uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics.

Possessed with or motivated by excessive, irrational zeal.

Decided that the dictionary definition of Fundamentalist fits the defintion of fanaticism, and then applied all the traits of someone fitting the common usage of fanaticism to anyone who fits the dictionary definition. But the two are quite different. The dictionary definition simply requres that one have excess zeal, possibly irrational. The common usage requires that one take the excess zeal to extreme levels, and that one does not tolerate those who do no possess one's zeal. But the dictionary definition of Fundamentalist doesn't fit the common usage of fanaticism.

And that's not even taking into account the rest of the flaws in your arguement. You seem to be making an amazing leap here from believing in the inerrancy of the Bible & in the six day creation, to intolerance & fanaticism. One does not imply the other, despite your repeated insitance that it does.

[Fifthfiend]

I'm with you up to here --

and then applied all the traits of someone fitting the common usage of fanaticism to anyone who fits the dictionary definition.

-- at which point I kind of throw a "huh, what?" I didn't say anything at all about common usage. As far as I know this entire conversation is about words being held to strictly definitional usage held as separate from how people use them in day-to-day language. If fanaticism is defined by its connotational usage then so is fundamentalism and there's absolutely no argument here to be had.

As far as

You've taken the dictionary definition of fanaticism [and] decided that the dictionary definition of Fundamentalist fits the defintion of fanaticism

well, yeah, I read the one, and said yes, this basically describes the other.

You seem to be making an amazing leap here from believing in the inerrancy of the Bible & in the six day creation, to intolerance & fanaticism.

I connect inerrancy with fanatacism because the belief of somthing in direct contradiction of observable evidence is explicitly "uncritical" and "irrational." My claim that fundamentalism is intolerant is not actually intended to relate to the substance of its beliefs but rather that it explicitly defines itself by its intolerance of another set of beliefs, IE modernism, liberal theology, etc. If it wasn't intolerant than it wouldn't exist because people would have just, well, tolerated all that stuff, instead of being motivated by their intolerance of it to start a movement directly opposing it.

[Sithdarth]

I'm all for using the connotation of a word over its denotation but you can't have the best of both worlds. Either all connotative meanings are more important or all denotative meanings are. Though generally its better to strive for some sort of balance between the two.

Also, if you want to use connotations then fundamentalism and fanaticism are synonyms. At the very least the media uses them that way and as such the public has come to think of them as such.

Edit: Oh and when arguing over denotations pick just one definition to work with. Its absolutely pointless to argue about all possible definitions of a word because they can be quite different. If you wanted to make a case about denotations make a case for using the definition you think should be used. Not that Fifth's point is invalid because a couple of the possible definitions that he isn't even required to use don't fit it.