The Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Ryanderman]

Yes, discussing is good. And if you want to discuss, I'll discuss. but not based off what I said to Fifthfiend. That's a horrible starting place to discuss, because that wasn't it's purpose. That's what I didn't think I'd have to explain.

[42PETUNIAS]

Oh, and I threw in rape, because it seems to me that in general, an increase in sexual openness has led to an increase in sex related crimes. Not that it matters in the context of what I was trying to say.

So how about soldiers in the middle ages who would think nothing of raping women after they pillaged a town. This happened back when the church was pretty much everything, and sex was bad, so thats not really a valid point at all.

[Elminster_Amaur]

Originally Posted by Oedy

So how blah blah blah

I think I already addressed that using modern times, AND he said that his posts were meant more to show how ridiculus Fifth's arguments were, using the same style. And that's why you shouldn't have gouged your eyes out with buttons. XD

[Darth SS]

I fail to see what Ryanderman's position is.

Fifthfiend made a statement that I think was logical, and well backed up. Ryanderman went off on some crazy tangent trying to show that Fifth's position was crazy. In response a whole bunch of us said "What? You've got no basis for what you've said."

In reply, he is now saying "Well...there's no basis because I wasn't arguing!"

To put this in perspective. Someone is standing in front of a whole bunch of cops, whips out a gun, and shoots someone. When the cops all shoot the original gunman, the gunman says "Why'd you shoot me? I wasn't trying to kill that lady. If you want, I will kill that lady and then we'll see how good you can shoot me."

[Archbio]

I fail to see what Ryanderman's position is.

1: Fifthfiend calls some "fundie" beliefs retarded.

2: Ryanderman calls himself a "fundie". Yeah, I know, I'm surprised too.

3: Ryanderman doesn't think his beliefs are retarded.

4: Hence, Fifthfiend's beliefs are retarded.

That seems to be the gist of it. Of course, the "free pass" rule has been invoked, and so all is moot.

I suppose that the specific argument that arose out of that (but it's not an argument, really, lest it be countered) is the assumption that what Fifthfiend was saying is that in contemporary times all potential and actual negative consequences of any sexual activity have been eliminated, which is not how I read it at all.

I assumed that that argument "pointed toward religion" because Fifthfiend's point was that certain religious beliefs were now superfluous (which is generous) and that holding them and insisting on their supremacy (which is normally understood in the term "fundie") in this day and age is retarded. It followed that a response to that would somewhat try and establish the relevance of these religious beliefs.

Of course, I was wrong. Because there was no argument. No argument. No argument. No argument.

[Ryanderman]

I didn't say fifthfiend's beliefs are retarded, I said his statement about my beliefs was retarded. but I can see howit can be seen otherwise.

And yah, it's a free pass rule in effect on what I said. If by "free pass" you mean "torn to shreds already." I'm just saying why it was so easy to tear it to shreds, and why I don't think you should bother. But whatever.

EDIT: Just to clear up any confusion, though I thought I had already, I don't actually think modern views on sex are retarded and insane. I disagree with a lot of them, but not to the extent of insulting them with undefendable generalities.

[Archbio]

I didn't say fifthfiend's beliefs are retarded, I said his statement about my beliefs was retarded. but I can see howit can be seen otherwise.

It's all my phrasing's fault, really. I didn't mean to imply that I thought that you were reasoning that all of Fifthfiend's belief were retarded, but that some of his beliefs are retarded: specifically the beliefs expressed by his statement.

Still ambiguous, I know.

I'm just saying why it was so easy to tear it to shreds, and why I don't think you should bother. But whatever.

Well, you offered a counter to Fifthfiend's argument. Several posters offered counters to your counters. I think all of this was warranted.

I probably should stop beating that dead horse, though. I still blame either Fifthfiend using the term "fundie" or you self-identifying as a "fundie".

[Ryanderman]

So how about a real discussion on something. I think a lot of strife has definitely arisen of out differing interpretations of the term "fundamentalist" (deragatory slang - fundie) as it applies to Christians.

The general assumption here seems to be (and, please correct me if I'm wrong) that fundamentalists believes in the superiority of Christian beliefs, holds extremely strict views of those beliefs, and thinks that everyone should be subject to those beliefs.

In relality, your general fundamentalsit Christian does believe in the superiority of Christianity. That kind of has to come with the territory. I think the Bible is the one, authoritative word of God, and any other religious book is highly flawed. And yes, I hold a pretty strict interpretation of my beliefs, though what is seen as series of highly restirctive rules from the outside, actually flows from a desire live a Godly life, from the inside, and actually aren't as restrictive, or as universal as they are interpreted to be from the outside.

Where the general belief about fundamentalists and reality differ is the idea that Fundamentalists think everyone should be subject to the same rules they are. That's just not true. I stand up for my beliefs. I support them when they're attacked. And that's interpreted as forcing them down everyone elses throat. But the vast majority of fundamentalist Christians don't have a problem with other people living their lives the way they want to. Have all the sex outside of marriage that you want, I won't try to stop you. yes I think a lot of what is accepted today is wrong. And it saddens me to see so much of what I consider immorality in the world, but that's my problem. Not yours.

I think people see the reaction to issues such as gay marriage as an attempt by fundamentalists to force their views on society. But fundamentalists see the issue as a purposeful attack on their way of life. So they try to defend against it. Each side thinks the other is out to get them, and that's what causes the strife, and the hatred. (Personally, I don't have the problem with gay marriage that most of my contemporaries have, so maybe I'm not as "fundie" as I think)

Beyond the talking heads claiming to represent the Christian right, there aren't that many people who actually want a de-facto theocracy imposing our views on the rest of the country. But neither do we want everyone else's views imposed on us. As it is, political correctness has the effect of not allowing fundamentalist Christians to state their opinions, for fear of being called bigoted. This also leads to anger and resentment.

I guess I see myself as a fundamentalist in the truest sense of the word, sticking to the fundamentals of my belief. And Fifth sees it as a definition of the blowhards on the 700 Club, who are in it for the money and the fame, and don't represent real Christians. I suppose that when most people attack what they call "fundies" they're attacking a phantom target that doesn't really exsit, so I shouldn't get offended.

Much

EDIT: I use way too many commas. Sorry about that.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Originally Posted by Ryanderman

I think the Bible is the one, authoritative word of God, and any other religious book is highly flawed. And yes, I hold a pretty strict interpretation of my beliefs, though what is seen as series of highly restirctive rules from the outside, actually flows from a desire live a Godly life, from the inside, and actually aren't as restrictive, or as universal as they are interpreted to be from the outside.

How much of a literalist are you? Or, to be more direct, how do you deal with biblical contradictions?

[Ryanderman]

I'm mostly a literalist. With the exception of obvious metaphors, parables, and pretty much any prophecy about the end times. That last one was left quite vauge on purpose, to prevent anyone from knowing when it will happen (one reason I get quite annoyed at people who say we're living in the end times, and Christ will come soon. We can't know that, we're not supposed to know that. It bugs me that people claim to know)

Anyways, back on track. If I come across a contradiciton, or someone brings one up to me, I try to work it out. To figure out what it really means. Most of the time, apparent contradictions are really misinterpretations, or taken out of context. I know you've got a whole list ready to spring on me if I give you a window, so go ahead. If I'm going to get in this discussion any deeper, I might as well get all the way in.

On another tangent, I wrote all my previous posts at school. While driving home just now, I thought about stereotypes. All sorts of groups of people have been stereotyped now and in the past. Africans, Asians, Homosexuals, Jews, Muslims, etc... Practically every group of people that can be stereotyped has been stereotyped. And practically all those stereotypes are hurtful and damaging to the people affected (with the exception, perhaps, of geeks. We revel in the stereotype, but I digress).

In relatively recent times, most of those stereotypes have been questioned, found to be wrong, and fought against. What I consider one of the few good effects of political correctness has been to bring about an understanding of the hurt stereotypes bring. But one of the few stereotypes not questioned by the very people who fight against the others is that of the Fundamentalist Conservative Christian. Why was Archbio so surprised when I identified myself as fundamentalist? Was it because my viewpoints that I expressed during my time here don't exactly match his idea of a "fundie?" Or because I don't act or express myself with the intolerance he expects? (If I do, please let me know so I can stop) I don't know what the reasoning is, but I was just as suprised by his surprise as he was by my claim. Why can I not be fundamentalist? We don't all think the same, or act the same. That's as bad as lumping all Jews or Homosexuals together. So why is it so accepted and completely unquestioned?

And the term "fundie." It's become just about as offensive as any low grade term for any other stereotype. Though, definitely not as offenseive as other terms. But anyways, I'm not saying it should be banned, but maybe it's use should be questioned. No one seems to notice that they're using offensive slang, because the stereotype their referring to is never questioned. And it should be.