Chawlk

1. Drawar
2. Fenxy
3. Decaflon
4. Two Credits
5. Wriging
6. Loose Suits
7. Chixe
8. Dud3s
9. Wing Colors

 

I define 'fundamentalist' as 'rigid' and can be of any denomination, not just Christianity. Not all Christians, Jews or Moslems are rigid in their understanding.

Ok, let's put it like this.

1. Ask any Christian what it will take to change their minds, what they need to see, what evidence needs to be provided to make them stop believing in their God. They will all answer that they will believe in their God no matter what, there's nothing I can show them to change their minds. That is being fundamental in one's beliefs. I, as most other atheists, are willing to change my mind about God. I just need to see the right evidence or proofs.

2. Christians are extreme because they believe things that are unproven because of an accident of birth and geography. They then use these beliefs to form ideas about how others should live their lives. What is moral and what is not.

They believe things that fly in the face of all evidence and argument. They believe that through prayer they can bypass the laws of nature, the laws of physics, that an omnipotent being will come down and change their lives. They believe that an invisible man in the sky listens to them, knows every thought.

They believe that their consciousness exists outside of their brain. That when their brain ceases to exist, they will continue living.

They can of course become more extreme but even the less extreme are still extreme.

As I said before, if I told you I believed in Erik, you would say I was nuts. I could give you a list of 1,000+ Gods that man has believed in and you would dismiss them all. Why? You'd use the same arguments that I could use against Christians. We are all atheists, some of us just believe in one God less.

BTW, I love 9rules!! It makes for such good discussion and it really feels like a great community unlike every other 'community' out there. We may have our differences but the discussion always stays intelligent. I should have been active here long ago.

They then use these beliefs to form ideas about how others should live their lives. What is moral and what is not.

We are all atheists, some of us just believe in one God less.

It sounds to me like you've formed your own ideas about how others should live their lives, and that religion is immoral because it is bad?

I'm not an atheist, because I believe that whoever or whatever you pray to it's the same God. Any name you call it, any face or faces you put to it, it's the same thing. The argument that "we are all atheists" to me is a sad attempt at atheists to try and put everyone on the same level as them, as if their lack of belief in a god is made better by other's belief in a different god from someone else. There is a supreme difference between believing in a single or many forms of higher power and not believing in any higher power at all. To rephrase, there is a difference in that atheists believe in no god and a christian who denies the greek gods still believes in their own god therefore by definition they are NOT an atheist. That's semantics.

The correct way of saying it would be, "We all believe, just some of us believe in less." I'll get to the rest of your response later, when I have time.

At the same time, he tells me that this is the only way to live and I must do everything in my power to make sure other people believe the same things.

No. This is not Jesus.

Just the fact that this perception was made shows that the true character of Jesus Christ has been blended with the character of imperfect human beings who say this is how Jesus is. This is not at all how Jesus is. This is not even how all Christians are. However, these are the Christians which profess this way that you hear about the most, which quite frankly, saddens me. It doesn't really surprise me.

I'm gonna make an all-out general statement myself, here. I have a big problem with Christians who talk like this. Faith is not reason. It's a belief in the supernatural. That's just the definition of things. Christians who talk like faith is fact ignore God-given intelligence that should be used to *think.* That's all I have to say about that.

Thanks Estarla, I actually glossed over a lot of the Erik stuff that AP wrote because I've read it all before so I missed the inconsistencies.

"No. This is not Jesus."

Oh yes it is! :)

The only way to get to heaven and live and ever lasting life is to live as Jesus instructed. To love god and to worship him. Crikey, read the first three of the ten commandments. I know many people have no idea what the full list is, they just remember something about loving others but really, the first three are purely about worshipping God himself. And, as you well know, to worship him, Jesus instructs that we must live for him. Or are we throwing out the teachings of the Bible?

I guess this is another problem that I have. People call themselves Christians but only take the good bits and leave out all the things they don't believe in or that don't fit with them.

So really, they're inventing their own religions, which is almost worse than being an evangelical or literalist. At least they have some basis for their beliefs rather than a mishmash of what they think they should believe.

you say

"true character of Jesus Christ has been blended with the character of imperfect human beings who say this is how Jesus is."

Well how do you know what the true character is? The Bible is our best way of knowing this. If you've read the Bible, you know very well just how evil and despicable both Jesus and God are.

If you don't use the Bible to help define Jesus and his teachings, then what do you use?

I know many people have no idea what the full list is, they just remember something about loving others but really, the first three are purely about worshipping God himself.

Wow. I can see trying to reason with you is counter-productive to an intelligent conversation, now. Let me get this straight... So only your interpretation and only your words that speak of something you don't even believe in (in this case, Christianity) is the only true interpretation despite the history of man and *that* proves an entire belief system ultimately wrong? A term comes to mind, and that is: "selective hearing."

If you've read the Bible, you know very well just how evil and despicable both Jesus and God are.

Are we reading the same Bible? Wow.

This is going to get nowhere. But I appreciate your sharing your thoughts. :)

For me, religion is only partly about the holy book. It's a combination of the ceremonies, the gatherings, the role models, the mythology. I do believe accept evolution. I also believe in gods. I can't reconcile my views of gods and of science, and I don't feel a need to.

Religion's like art. If I had a beautiful piece of music that allowed me to focus and complete my work quickly, would you tell me to stop listening? Maybe there's no scientific basis for my love of music, maybe it's irrational, would you thrust your scientific truth upon me?

It's just two facets of my life, I don't analyze every line of the books, I just know that there are pieces I like, and pieces I don't like.

I think fundamentalists are people who force their views upon others. You can believe that a purple bunny will kill everyone tomorrow at midnight, just don't wake me up to tell me about it.

There was a speaker at TED that suggested we have a religion class, that focused on teaching facts about religions, no moral lessons. Just facts. I liked that idea, would promote open-mindedness and maybe people would see the not-so-antiscience, peaceful side of religion.

Actually I've found AtheistPerspective to be relatively open to discussion, though sometimes a bit forceful with his/her ideas they are definitely open to having a good discussion. Perhaps if we just illuminate how aggressively it's coming across things can be worked out?

I'll join in more when I'm not at work. :)

"Are we reading the same Bible? Wow."

Obviously not. :) I'll point you at Deuteronomy and Exodus. Come back and tell me that those contain a moral teaching upon which you'd like to live your life. I know the answer will be a negative. But feel free to disagree once you've been through the text.

"It's just two facets of my life, I don't analyze every line of the books, I just know that there are pieces I like, and pieces I don't like."

That's fascinating but not uncommon. Most people that describe themselves as moderates do the same thing. It's very difficult to consider oneself as a good person if you don't throw away a lot of the teaching in The Bible.

AtheistPerspective, because your idea of what ALL Christians believe is very, very distant from reality.

That's all I have to contribute, because I'm at work, and I don't want to ruin my mood.

I don't think that 'ALL' Christians necessarily believe anything, apart from that a God exists and Jesus is real. Beyond that it's like a pick and mix, choose what tastes good and throw away the rest. It's very difficult to discuss Christianity because every single person has a different notion. some are lunatics and believe that Genesis is a literal account of how the world was made and others simply that there's a higher presence.

The latter aren't really Christians though.

Bertrand Russell defines it well when he says:

"Nowadays it is not quite that. We have to be a little more vague in our meaning of Christianity. I think, however, that there are two different items which are quite essential to anybody calling himself a Christian. The first is one of a dogmatic nature -- namely, that you must believe in God and immortality. If you do not believe in those two things, I do not think that you can properly call yourself a Christian. Then, further than that, as the name implies, you must have some kind of belief about Christ. The Mohammedans, for instance, also believe in God and in immortality, and yet they would not call themselves Christians. I think you must have at the very lowest the belief that Christ was, if not divine, at least the best and wisest of men. If you are not going to believe that much about Christ, I do not think you have any right to call yourself a Christian. Of course, there is another sense, which you find in Whitaker's Almanack and in geography books, where the population of the world is said to be divided into Christians, Mohammedans, Buddhists, fetish worshipers, and so on; and in that sense we are all Christians. The geography books count us all in, but that is a purely geographical sense, which I suppose we can ignore.Therefore I take it that when I tell you why I am not a Christian I have to tell you two different things: first, why I do not believe in God and in immortality; and, secondly, why I do not think that Christ was the best and wisest of men, although I grant him a very high degree of moral goodness."

BTW, with regards to the Bible and it's morality, this is a good commentary.

http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/bible.htm

It concludes:

"The Bible is a book written thousands of years ago by primitive men. A book that advocates senseless murder, slavery and the oppression of women has no place in our society today. It is time for us to recognize this simple fact."

"Come back" after you've read the New Testament (when Jesus lived and did his teachings). The Bible is a progressive revelation. The New Testament is where certain prophecies in the Old Testament were fulfilled. But, the Old Testament needed to lay the groundwork. Things are given context and different weights throughout the entire book.

However, above, you rejected the ideal that Love is greatest--when that is in case the truth about Christianity, or Jesus specifically. That is case that is laid down in the New Testament. And that is a major disconnect that I don't see any merit in discussing further...

I'm at work too.

I disagree wholeheartedly with that definition, because it fails to take into account the wealth of tradition and community that contribute to my religious experience. That said, I'm leaving the discussion, because these things generally go on forever, and you can't change anybody's mind over the internet :p

Oh, and I'm not insanely religious, but it has filled a few gaps in my life, and I see the value.

Estarla, are you a literalist? Before I continue I need to know exactly what it is you believe. It doesn't seem as if you are a Christian. Are you? And if so, what do you base your belief in? Furthermore, why are you a christian and not a Muslim? How do you define God? What branch of Christianity do you subscribe to? If you can answer these questions I think we might be able to take the discussion further. Otherwise we won't get anywhere!

AP: You're contradicting yourself and I feel this is where a lot of the conflict is arising. You've stated several times that either all christians are fundamentalists or that people who aren't fundamentalists aren't christians (ie - the people who 'pick and choose') Then you reference the Bertrand Russel quote defining christians in a much more broad and easily acceptable sense:

I think, however, that there are two different items which are quite essential to anybody calling himself a Christian. The first is one of a dogmatic nature -- namely, that you must believe in God and immortality. If you do not believe in those two things, I do not think that you can properly call yourself a Christian. Then, further than that, as the name implies, you must have some kind of belief about Christ.

That definition certainly allows for many non-fundamentalist christians as well as a TON of room for christians to pick and choose from. You can easily believe in God, Immortality, and Christ and still not take half or any of what was said in Genesis or the Old Testament literally. I believe this is where a lot of confusion is coming from.

Plus I would argue that you don't need to know at all what Estarla thinks, especially not specifics. If they want to share that's fine, but saying you NEED to know it for a good discussion to happen seems odd to me, it would definitely help, but it hasn't been necessary for us at all. :P

I don't think you should require the specifics regarding an invidual's faith to have a discussion with them about a topic that's much broader and greater than one such case. It sounds like you're reaching for points to attack or argue, AP, and you shouldn't need to do so to carry on a discussion.

I feel way too inadequate to answer a question that lumps all fundamentalists and all Christians together and tries to compare them or integrate them into one group. Who could honestly and truly make such a judgement of so many people and their faith?

Bartoneus

I am saying that anyone that believes in an invisible person who can hear every thought and can break the laws of physics when asked to through prayer is extreme. Those are extreme views in my opinion. You might argue the number game, of course, you're welcome to, but as I said before, my belief in Erik would seem a very extreme belief to you. Yet people have no more proof of the Christian God than I do of Erik. That's why I call them extreme.

It doesn't seem as if you are a Christian.

Interesting. I didn't know my faith was on trial and that you were appointed judge! I certainly don't think my views are superior to anyone else's, either--they are mine because they happen to belong to me and are therefore relevant to me. But only me. From reading your responses in the other thread, though, it seems as though you don't leave it at disagreement. You straight-up say other peoples' beliefs don't "deserve your respect." It is ironic that you use "extreme" to describe only those with any sort of faith.

I guess I, and the rest of the world, will have to live *somehow* with not having your respect.

Best wishes. I won't be contributing to the bumping of this thread to the top anymore.

JeffJ

No, not at all. The reason I need to know these things is because I understand that all christians have slightly different beliefs. You say it yourself:

"I feel way too inadequate to answer a question that lumps all fundamentalists and all Christians together and tries to compare them or integrate them into one group."

That's my point, yes, they all believe in JC and his old man but beyond that we need some clarity. Otherwise it becomes very difficult. That's not to say that Christians cannot be lumped into one group. As I think I've already mentioned, they all believe in JC and his dad, the holy spirit, life after death, heaven (mostly) and will all say that they will not change their minds no matter what evidence is provided to them.

My point was that this makes them extreme in their beliefs (again, if I argued my belief in Erik you'd think I was extreme) and fundamental because they are unwilling to change their minds. Nevertheless, on specific parts of the dogma they do differ.

estarla and I were discussing the Bible. I cannot argue the point unless I know her (?) position. Is she a literalist? If so the discussion takes a totally different direction. Does she define God from a deistic standpoint or does she believe that he is, as JC 'told' us, the father of humanity? Again, these are important questions to further the discussion.

I can easily argue the argument from design or the teleological argument without knowing what one's beliefs are, but that's not what we're doing, we're discussing specifics.

So I don't mean to just pick holes, I'm genuinely interested.

estarla, I think this is what I was talking about in the other thread about respect. Please don't feel attacked, we could have this discussion about our politics and it would be fine but for some reason it seems people want religion to be treated with kid gloves. It shouldn't be and I am not attacking you. I am attacking theism. If you were a Democrat you would not feel hard done by if I questioned your beliefs so I don't think you should see this as any different.

If I asked the question:

"It doesn't seem as if you are a Democrat. Are you?"

I very much doubt I would have got the same response from you. do you see my point?

It seems as if I have upset you. I didn't mean to, my aim was to have a frank discussion about religion.(well, join in the discussion) not to upset anyone. I guess I don't understand why people are so sensitive about religion. It's alien to me, that's all.

I'm not religious, I believe sincerely that religion has contributed way too much to the destruction of various facets of humanity - throughout history.

I am not an atheist in that i believe in something, something which does not need an organized body in order to promote worship.

I see in many cases the outright hatred of religion itself causes a lot of unreasonable opinions which do not lead themselves to debate.

On the other hand religion is a very personal thing, although one can reasonable say that all Christians believe Jesus Christ is the son of God I think you show your contempt when you use the term "Daddy". The contemptuous tone isn't helpful in fostering reasonable debate, a similar tone to that of the Democrats in the last election, an election I believe they lost partly because of the fact that on many levels they dissed those who were Christian.

People do not take kindly to others vilifying their religion.

Well can I make an excuse and say that my tone in the written word is terrible and my first language is not English? Would that work? I don't mean to be mean (does that make sense?) and I don't see daddy as a bad word. This is one of the bad things about the internet :) You can never get the tone right and people miss-understand you. Me mostly.

Christianity is complex. The Bible is complex and intricate. To boil Christians and the definition thereof down to something simple is near impossible.

AP, to be completely honest, I'm not sure that I am convinced that you have read the Bible other than a few stray passages, solely based upon your comment that Jesus and God are both "evil."

Faith, by its very nature, is not something that is logical or scientifically measurable.

hi SmileyFreak1981

I have read the Bible. All of it. I was raised a strict catholic and tutored by monks so I know it pretty well. I'm no expert but I can see when something is evil. Of course there are good parts of the Bible. The golden rule for example. However, you really would need to pick and choose to lead a moral life from it's teachings. You obviously know it and we could both find some pretty strong stuff in there. Maybe I was too strong in saying that it's evil but its certainly not a book of morals. If we lived it we'd both be bought up on genocide charges. God does not come across too well and Jesus obviously has problems with fig trees. ;)

The point is, yes, there are parts in it that offer good advice but there's also a lot that doesn't. It's all too easy to use the Bible, take it literally and discriminate against a lot of people.

to be honest, I think I would rather have my child watch superman the movie to learn about living a good life than having him read the Bible.

We haven't yet branched into the discussion that there are TONS of translations and editions of the bible, and that it's been editted and re-written by humans many times over a long span. None of that matters though, because I don't see any problem with finding a book which has good teachings in it that you can learn from and become a better person because of it. You have some solid arguments against organised religions, against the church, but when you start applying these things to God, Jesus, and Religion as a whole it just doesn't stick.

Also, as I already explained, there is far more pointing to the existence and belief in a Christian God then there is in the imaginary elephant Erik. Maybe in a few thousand years if people are still talking about Erik you'll have a valid point, but right now there is a world of difference between the two on everything BUT a pure conceptual level. On a purely conceptual level, there is no more proof of black holes or of other galaxies then there is of God. I certainly believe in black holes and other galaxies, but the question here is why do YOU believe in them? How do you know the center of the Earth is really molten lava? How do you know that the edges of the universe are slowly expanding out and out? I believe these things, but why? I have no proof, I have no real reason to believe them but I do.

"Also, as I already explained, there is far more pointing to the existence and belief in a Christian God then there is in the imaginary elephant Erik. Maybe in a few thousand years if people are still talking about Erik you'll have a valid point"

It's incredible that you just said this. The numbers argument? You don't believe this. I know you don't. Do you know how many people today believe in Santa Claus? Or Zeus? Or Poseidon? Do they have a valid point simply because they have the weight of numbers behind them?

As for your second point, you're now heading into science requiring faith, or science as a religion. It doesn't and it isn't.

The multiverse is a proposition/hypothesis, not a verifiable law. You do not believe in it. Gravity. It's theory. You don't require faith, it's verifiable, testable and repeatable.

Molten lava? No more proof of this than God? Honestly? (actually, I think you're wrong about the centre of the earth being molten lava. You've probably watched too much science fiction) ;) The point is, we can use evidence to discuss which one of us is right. There are peer reviews out there which we can evaluate and come to a conclusion upon.

The reason you believe some of the things you say is because we have studied them. We have laws of physics, we can measure time and speed, we have newtonian theory, all of these factors mean we can build hypothesis which then turn into theories (and I don't mean theory as used in common speech, I'm talking about scientific theory).

So no, God is very different to many of the other things we 'believe' (accept). God is based upon the absence of evidence. That's what faith is all about. Without faith you don't have salvation.

A theist's job is not to prove God but to show the virtue in believing without any evidence.

Of course I don't think it's virtuous in any way but I realize that some do.

On a purely conceptual level, there is no more proof of black holes or of other galaxies then there is of God.

Whoa, whoa....whoa. Are you being serious here?

If you're going to argue this you might as well start arguing that just because we can detect something using our senses or technology we've created it doesn't necessarily exist.

I'm completely serious, when either of you goes out into space and tells me that a blackhole is EXACTLY what we think it is, then I'll be proven wrong. I'm not denying that blackholes exist, or that they are exactly as we say, I'm simply saying the same you do about God. Without complete and undeniable proof of any of it then it's essentially on the same level.

The largest issue here is that there were no cameras or scientific measuring devices back in biblical times, all they could do was write about it and pass that on. If there were a picture of a burning bush talking to moses, things would be a quite bit different wouldn't they? A picture of a blackhole from lightyears away is no more or less conclusive as to its nature then a story passed down through generations.

Keep in mind that I believe in blackholes exactly as we understand them to be, and that both of you glossed over the words "On a purely conceptual level".

It's incredible that you just said this. The numbers argument? You don't believe this. I know you don't. Do you know how many people today believe in Santa Claus? Or Zeus? Or Poseidon? Do they have a valid point simply because they have the weight of numbers behind them?

First off Zeus and Poseidon are on a seperate level from Santa Claus, because they are not supposedly based upon a real person and they are deity figures. How many people, let's say adults, today believe in Santa Claus? How many adults today believe in God? Throughout history how many people have ever believed in Santa Claus or God or Zeus? Now how many have ever believed in Erik the pink elephant? The numbers argument, as you call it in a derogatory fashion, may not be the best argument but it shouldn't be ignored altogether.

Science does not require faith, but people have faith in science. People once believed that the Earth was flat, they believed it was the center of the universe, they believed any number of things because of their faith in the current sciences. Since I know you'll require it, the very first defintion of faith is:

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing

We have confidence and trust in Science, that does not mean it can't be wrong or incorrect or slightly off in its calculations and theorems.

AP: all of your differentiation between the common use of the word theory and the term scientific theory are personal and applied by you, that does not mean they are correct. Scientific theories are still possibly falsifiable, they simply use known science to explain a phenomena so that experiments may be conducted to either confirm or deny the theory.

Theists do not try to prove that there is VIRTUE in believing without evidence, Theists believe in greater virtues without evidence. There is nothing good, just, or moral (virtuous) about believing things without evidence, but there are virtues inherent in religion. Theists are not virtuous because they believe, they believe in being virtuous.

If you're going to argue this you might as well start arguing that just because we can detect something using our senses or technology we've created it doesn't necessarily exist.

I try to leave everything within the realm of doubt, but I'm also arguing with an atheist who claims to be open to the idea of theism were there proof and yet is not open to the idea that there is no proof for a lot of what they believe.

Here is my challenge, you claim that I cannot prove to you God exists, how can you prove to me that God does not exist? This is a theoretical question so I'm really just asking because I'm curious what your answers will be. :)

The above is why I have no respect for opinions based on or supporting religion. They're just ludicrous.

Let's simplify this:

1. First, I don't base my life on the theory of black holes
2. We have evidence they exist
3. If 100 civilizations have their own religion...and one wins...then does that mean that God exists?
4. No one simply believes things because we can't disprove them
- No one can disprove fairies
- You can't disprove I have the ability to fly

But, you require evidence to actively believe it

You may not base your life on the theory of black holes, but you believe in them. That's the only point I was getting at.

We have evidence that black holes exist, but what evidence do we have as to the nature of them or what exactly they are? We know nothing for certain about them other then that they are black and they look like holes.

3. If 100 civilizations have their own religion...and one wins...then does that mean that God exists?

I think this one is written poorly? Which civilizations, which religions, how does a religion "win" and what does any of that have to do with the existence or non-existence of God? Surely in your logical way of facing everything you've considered that IF God exists he exists with or without religion.

I do not rule out the idea of fairies existing, you seem to, yet you say you don't rule out the idea that god exists. Why? Is there just some innate fear that you might be wrong about God that isn't there with fairies?

I believe that pretty much anything is in the realm of possibility, so you can't say no one believes things because we can't disprove them. There are things I deem much more likely then others, but anything is possible.

There are endless ideas that cannot be disproved.

You can't disprove that a bunny didn't leap out of my shower drain, shave my face with a diamond edged razor blade, then take my rubix cube, shove it up his ass, and pull it out solved.

BUT that doesn't mean you should believe it.

Is it possible? Yes, Am I likely to be delusional? Yes.

The difference there being that YOU could disprove whether or not that happened. But yes, I get the concept, there are any number of unbelievable things that cannot be disproved. You used the argument with me that you believe in blackholes but they don't drive your existence, I put it in much the same way I believe in God but whether or not a bunny leapt out of your shower drain does not drive my existence.

I simply hope that you've learned from this note at least that ALL christians are definitely not fundamentalists, you've even quoted definitions which coincide with it.

Ah, well I was going to agree with you until the last line. I do think that all Christians are fundamental in their beliefs and also extreme. I'm going to write it up properly by tomorrow and let you know when I've posted it on my blog. There are too many tangents here. :)

All I'm trying to say is that all theists are extreme because they believe some very strange things and fundamental because their beliefs that God exists cannot be changed. I don't see how that's so wrong! I'll write it up properly though!

Bartoneus: My question to you is: Are all fundamentalists Christian?

No, I don't believe all Christians are fundamentalists.

According to the dictionary, this is the #1 definition of "fundamentalism"...

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.

Another definition...

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.

I would also say a theist is a fundamentalist if they refuse to even entertain the thought of questioning their faith and what they've been taught over time. I also think fundies are more apt to force their beliefs on people.

I don't believe the Bible is infallible (it was written and compiled by fallible men, after all). I don't necessarily think it's an historical record. I do tolerate other views. I don't oppose secularism (I believe church and state should be separate). I see nothing wrong with questioning one's faith and what one has been taught over time. I don't force my beliefs on anyone, either. The only part of the definition of "fundamentalist/fundamentalism" that fits me would be that I do believe in the basic tenets of Christianity.

As I read through this thread, I think that some of atheistperspective's arguments on the morals in books such as Deuteronomy are forgetting the historical context of them.

At this point, the Israelites had been in slavery in Egypt for a very long time. As such, they had no laws, and they didn't really know how to run as their own nation.

The laws were given to them to help them survive in a desert for the first time on their own. For example, not eating certain types of meat--while that doesn't make much sense now, at that time the Israelites wouldn't have known how to make sure that it's safe to eat. Best just not to mess with it.

When discussing seemingly bizarre passages, you have to make careful consideration of the historical context, where this was taking place, who is saying it, to whom it was being said, the customs of the time, etc. Otherwise you can completely miss the point.

And to answer the first question of whether all Christians are fundamentalists, one first would have to decide how "fundamentalist" is being defined. It seems to me that nobody has agreed on even that yet.

Sure, they need to be put into context. If you don't take the Bible literally then that's fine. For those that do it's not so easy.

As for defining fundamentalism, I'll do this quickly before I check the dictionary...In my mind it is someone that will not change their minds under any circumstances on the basic principles of their dogma. If I tell you that I believe in God, JC, The Holy Spirit, heaven and an afterlife and that there's nothing you can do to make me change my mind then I would call myself a fundamentalist.

So what does the dictionary say?

"A usually religious 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."

"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."

"strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles:"

I guess my definition is close to all three but the last is probably to closest.

Lorri: No, definitely not if you're using the word fundamentalist simply. There can be a fundamentalist of pretty much anything. I will now, however, assume you meant are all religious chrisitan fundamentalists really christians? That's a question that really depends on any specific individual, but I will say that I wouldn't be surprised to find some fundamentalists who really don't believe or at the least act like christians.

AP: to say that you think all chrisitians are fundamentalists for the reasons you listed is correct, the problem is that you're ASSUMING all christians won't change their beliefs or views of god. This means there has never, ever been a chrisitian who lost their faith or stopped believing which I know for a fact isn't true.

Just to hammer it home, I'm telling you, from my experience and knowledge, that there are christians who aren't fundamentalists because their beliefs have been changed and are changing.

"AP: to say that you think all chrisitians are fundamentalists for the reasons you listed is correct, the problem is that you're ASSUMING all christians won't change their beliefs or views of god. This means there has never, ever been a chrisitian who lost their faith or stopped believing which I know for a fact isn't true"

But then they would no longer be Christians so they don't count. Right? :)

They are fundamental in their beliefs until they change them. I don't see why you want to debate this, it's not a question, it's a fact. I'm also not talking about their beliefs about abortion, hell or the afterlife, I'm talking about the basic principles which make them a Christian.

Fundamentalist as the term defined here are the christians who think abortion, birth control, and all of those things go against God. It sounds to me like you're arguing that all christians are fundamental in their belief in Jesus and God, but that's how we defined Christianity anyway so using the term fundamental there becomes moot.

When you say that all christians are Fundamentalists, you are not thinking the capital-F correct term and what it signifies. You are correct that all christians have fundamental beliefs, but they're not all Fundamentalists.

Okay, we'll leave it here then :)

I know I'm a lil' late on this one, but I'd like to ask atheistperspective a question.

You said that you are willing to change your mind based on the right evidence and proofs. I just posted a comment on Josh's post "Please Don't Interfere With My Reality". I've included my comment for you below.

I myself am a Christian. However, I used to share your views.

The difference now is that I'm not relying on someone else's research and theories to come to a conclusion as to whether or not Jesus existed in the capacity claimed. I know for a fact that He did.

I've seen people that were born deaf and dumb speak after prayer in Jesus' name. I've seen the wheelchair bound walk after the same. I've seen what many of us would consider to be the worst of society (murderers, rapists etc) lead transformed lives, and the list continues.

While many of you will post responses to quickly dismiss the following claims as pre-arranged gimmicks designed simply to manipulate crowds (as I once did), I would ask you to consider the fact that I had known some of the people involved for the best part of my life.

Regardless of whether or not you believe what I've posted, these things all happened because of faith. In fact before you reply, think for a second, you're asking me to replace what I've personally seen and experienced with what is at best an educated guess. Hmmmm.

While I appreciate your comments, I for one say we need more faith...

Would simply seeing events similar to those described above be enough for you to believe?

You could say that I'm a Fundamentalist in one breath and label me because of my convictions and in the same breath describe how different I am from what the term has come to mean in popular circles. Then you could say that I oppose fundamentalism. What the trash am I talking about?

I undeniably love the Holy Scriptures. I love God. I love others. Unconditionally.

I fully affirm the heart of God as expressed through scripture. Does that make me a fundamentalist? Some would say so. But if you look at how I function as a disciple of Christ, you might find that I'm quite different from most American Christians. But its up to you.

You can get to know me or you can label me and thereby negate me.

God, Jesus, and The Holy Spirit are what we choose to believe.

I understand AP's thoughts, which are appreciated. Those are your views, which I respect and understand. You're entitled to think and believe, or not believe, whatever you like. Your life, your choice.

To say, "All - or most- Christians" are fundamentalists/radicals is untrue. Many Christian's are Fundamental's and Radical's, which is unfortunate. These 'Christians' take everything in the Bible 'literally.'

Everyone knows, or should, if you start a story on one side of the room with 20 people, the last person to receive that message will have a completely different interpretation. So, I agree that what's written in the Bible shouldn't be taken literally, or as fact.

A book, written by man over 2000+ years ago is surely diluted. But, Jesus' message is clear: Love. Live. Give. Care.

We/You take what you want out of the readings/scripture and interpret it into your own life, your way of living.

IMHHO, I don't think Jesus cares whether you're straight, gay, fat, skinny, weird, or whatever. We're all born with sin, we all make mistakes, and He knows that. We're born in His image, so how could He not love us for who and what we are? Doesn't make sense, does it?

I'm not saying I'm an angel. I've had my share of mistakes, sins, and mishaps thus far in my life. He died on the cross for our sins, so we may be granted forgiveness and given access to His Kingdom when our time comes.

I live each day, one-step at a time, one breathe at a time, doing the best I can to be a good person, son, father, husband, and brother. I don't judge anyone - that's not my job - nor anyone else's - except Jesus'. This is the hypocrisy of those to whom you're referring, I think? Radical Christians are the first to cast down judgment, place blame, point fingers and call out other people's faults, sins, and mistakes - when they should take care of their own lives and families first. I know this isn't what Jesus wants out of us.

So, I hope this sheds light on other's Christian views and beliefs. He said, "You don't need to go to a place made of brick and stone to find me, for I am everywhere." He is with me always, in my heart, prayers, and thoughts, as I walk alongside Him through this journey called life.

I know He is a loving, compassionate, forgiving God who understands our trials and tribulations, our deepest sins we struggle with on a daily basis. We're all His children. He loves us no matter what we do, regardless of how often we screw up, and He knows everything. He is merciful, all-powerful, and wise, and He gave us "Free Will." We make our choices. We must deal with the consequences and ask for forgiveness. Not all Christians are the same, nor have the same beliefs or values. You can't classify us as "One, single group." It's simply not true. Some people know God, have their own, personal relationships with Him, and some only know Him from what they read. There's a big difference.

I guess you could say I'm more 'spiritual' than 'religious?' And I know He loves me, He loves us all, no matter what.

I hope we can kindly agree to disagree?

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, everyone.

e

"My answers are that no, religion is definitely not a poison or it'd be done and gone by now . . ."

Can you point to any semblance of logic in this statement? Or are you relying on the age-old christian trap of believing something must be so because you said it was?