Another Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Fifthfiend]

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

all this

That's interesting, but none of it really seems to reflect on my point that a position of "the Bible is perfect because God wouldn't let it be perfect" is an essentially lazy approach to faith.

...I don't mean to sound snide, it actually was pretty interesting, I just don't see it as relating to the point I was making.

And I'm with Ryanderman... I fit my own personal definition of fundamentalist (as in believing the fundamentals of faith) even if I don't fit the societal definition of a fanatic, which is where the problem lies. Society believes fundamentalist=fanatic, but thats not really true. Its just a connotation, not a solid definition.

From what I took from Ryander / Archbio's exchange that pretty much is the definition. Hell, I'll look it up.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fundamentalism

fun·da·men·tal·ism
–noun
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.
2. the beliefs held by those in this movement.
3. strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives.

fun·da·men·tal·ism (fŭn'də-měn'tl-ĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

2.

(a) often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.

(b) Adherence to the theology of this movement.

It seems to me that fanaticism pretty much is right there in the definition, at least to the extent as you're using fanaticism to refer to what anyone else might refer to as fundamentalism. This seems especially inasmuch as the definition relates back to the movement which put itself forward under the name of Fundamentalism in the first place, which was basically a fanatical movement focused on rigid orthodoxy and anti-modernism.

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.

While Fundamentalism does relate very strongly to a literal interpretation of the Bible, a literal interpretation does also bring into account the fact that the New Testament & Christ's actions therin do away with the Old Testament Law.

I think you're conflating two separate things, the point about Christ's pronouncements re: Old Testament law would be an issue of interpretational accuracy, rather than the issue of whether the events in the Bible as a literal transcription of historical events. I mean whatever Jesus meant by his statement on Old Testament law nobody's arguing that the passage is not actually about Jesus saying something, but rather about Jesus as a figurative conception of the idea of someone saying something.

[Ryanderman]

Originally Posted by fifthfiend

I think you're conflating two separate things, the point about Christ's pronouncements re: Old Testament law would be an issue of interpretational accuracy, rather than the issue of whether the events in the Bible as a literal transcription of historical events. I mean whatever Jesus meant by his statement on Old Testament law nobody's arguing that the passage is not actually about Jesus saying something, but rather about Jesus as a figurative conception of the idea of someone saying something.

You're right, I did mess that up. But in my defense, I was responding to this (bolding mine), which discussed literal interpretaion & Old Testament law at the same time:

Originally Posted by Archbio

Quick consultation of a Webster dictionary reveals that the first definition has to do with the literal interpretation of the bible, which is most often believed to include the Old Testament. By experience, a lot of Christians find it convenient to cite the Old Testament in order to deflect things implied by the New Testament*, that you think they are true fundamentals or not.

..And I suck.

What I should have said is that the interpretation that the Old Testament Law was fulfilled by Christ, & thus is no longer binding is understood & agreed upon by the majority of Christianity, including Fundamentalists. So Fundamentalists should understand that while the Bible is to be taken literally, the Old Testament should not be used to condemn people who aren't living up to "standards."

Besides, even if we were to assume (hypothetically) that the Law is still binding, why should Christians expect everyone else to follow the Laws of a deity they don't care about? Or don't even believe exists? Seems silly to me.

...Another reason why I guess I don't fit the societal view of Fundamentalism.

[Sithdarth]

Wow. I remember saying something similar way back in the first big big thread to krylo because he said God can't exist using logic. I believe he replied "so its not that christians don't know logic, its because they use it poorly?"

Now I see somebody who disagrees with me on pretty much everything else agreeing that logic isn't the start and end of all truth. Go figure.

Here I would like to make a distinction. Logic is probably the greatest tool humans have. Its just that pure logic is about as useful as only getting half the pieces to that new bicycle you bought for your nephew. Logic is essentially useless unless you have facts to apply it to. Even then sometimes you need a very specific form of logic, namely math, to actually make sense of your observations. The point being that logic for logic's sake with no physical reference or relevance is essentially useless.

[Frostatine]

As long as we have all the information we can always use logic to perfection. Entering the realm of religion has several aspects not so easily explained, this is probably because people either want to blow it out of proportion or disprove it altogether.

What stands between logic and religion is basically just information, and its lack or distortion.

[Archbio]

Swordchucks,

I see it as little more than a mind excercise.

That's not really what this example looks like. It looks like something that's meant to be taken seriously. It's just that the intended conclusion is so immediately logically self defeating that I have a hard time to believe that it's propped up as often as it is and is still meant to be convincing to the yet unconvinced.

Again, the conclusion is only logically self defeating in that way in the event of an orthodox Christian trying to establish it.

Why do some Christians need to prove all these unprovable things?

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.

Frostatine,

As long as we have all the information we can always use logic to perfection.

That seems exact, and yet very concise, to me.

Fifthfiend,

From what I took from Ryander / Archbio's exchange that pretty much is the definition.

That's not exactly what I was going for there either, but if I can't be clear I guess I'd better keep quiet.

The Webster's definitions that I was referring to basically presented the word as being more general than this, as long as the word wasn't capitalized. I suppose the whole notion of 'returning to Fundamental principles' implies a reactionnary dynamic, but it says nothing about the principles themselves or the exact tone of the rejection of 'new things.'

[Gorefiend]

I've seen a couple of things that certainly merit being placed here. Well, at least one of them does, as I think the first one MIGHT be a valid topic for regular discussion. Probably not, though.

The first, is this video: Is Islam Compatible with Liberal Democracy?

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.

On the current subject; something interesting to bear in mind is that many religions deliberately chose things that don't make sense, like the contradiction of the Trinity, to prevent religion from being about logic and making too much sense. That said, it is true that verbal logic isn't as good as mathematical logic to prove certain things about the universe, which are more in the realm of physics and hard science than the realm of verbal logic and softer science.

[Archbio]

On the current subject; something interesting to bear in mind is that many religions deliberately chose things that don't make sense, like the contradiction of the Trinity, to prevent religion from being about logic and making too much sense.

I don't know how true that is.

The Trinity, for example, seems to have been much more about trying to smooth out a contradiction between two or more characteristics that needed to be included in the doctrine. In a sense, it's shows a certain concern about what we think of logic that's lacking in more ancient religions.

As for the Godfuse: that's all shades of silly. I don't have to be nice to dead people, and I've never heard of that being the single most fundamental human value. I particularly love that it's super-happy-fun-equivalence-hour until he gets to free will and love, at which points it becomes "atheists and Christians must agree that atheists are silly heads." Humbug.

[ZAKtheGeek]

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.

Ooh, read that one.

Found it pretty shallow. Most of the points it makes are really obvious. And its first point is misleading; the header says that bad things can arise from theism and atheism, but then it only discusses what would happen under societies made principally of either group. That's not the same thing. I don't know if it was just a poorly chosen title or if the author genuinely thinks he's argued well, but I'm pointing it out all the same.

[Gorefiend]

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. There are a lot more examples in Islam, but I'm a bit lazy about finding them just now. Stuff about creation and the nature of God and the Koran were the main points, if I remember correctly.

[Frostatine]

Jesus is an interesting topic. There is a constant fog around him, you cant disprove him, while at the same time every stretch of the truth works in the favor of whichever particular crazy is trying to be "pocket preacher to me".