Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

It’s Only Fundamentalist Christians They Hate

arroba Email

Arden Chatfield explains that the Darwinian narrative apologists don’t hate all Christians. That would be wrong says he. They only hate fundamentalist Christians and that’s okay because the fundamentalists, he explains, desire to enslave and dominate others.

Let’s dissect this a bit.

Wikipedia defines a Christian fundmentalist as a Christian who believes in

the inerrancy of the Bible, the virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the authenticity of his miracles.

According to this 2002 CNN/Time Poll

CNN/Time Poll conducted by Harris Interactive. June 19-20, 2002. N=1,003 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

“Which of these statements comes closest to describing your feelings about the Bible? The Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word. The Bible is the word of God, but not everything in it should be taken literally, word for word. The Bible is a book written by men and is not the word of God.”

To be taken literally: 36% of all adults

So roughly 70 million adult Americans are “fundamentalist” Christians.

Boy oh boy, Arden. That’s a lot of people to hate. Are you sure you have that much hate in you?

And what exactly is your definition of “enslave” and “indoctrinate”? Pardon me for asking but it seems that putting a sticker in a biology textbook saying that evolution is a theory, not a fact, falls a bit short of enslaving and indoctrinating doesn’t it?

Indoctrinating, at the least, would be like having your pet story of past evolution be the only one that can be legally discussed in a public school biology class and even going so far as to make it illegal to even criticize that theory.

It also seems a bit of stretch for you to claim this is an attack on science. Attacks would be like burning down PZ Meyers’ laboratory in the dead of night like it was an Alabama fundamentalist Christian church.

What you are doing Arden, is called “projection”. You are assigning your own rotten motives and methods to others. Shame on you.

Let us actually try and get some where. I find it really funny that people especially people who hate Bush (not related to anyone on this board) cite the "Fear" that the GOv. tries to pour our on us. In fact Michael Moores last film highlighted this substantially and actually made the case that our Gov. was willfully making us affriad. Now what you might ask does this have to do with this blog? Well, the very same tactics of fear are playing themselves out here. You know there is theory coined by I can't remember who but it basically says that any time we don't undersand someone we make them the "other." This is how I believe humans have been justifying killing other people and enslaving them for our known history. Now this "other" mentality plays itself out on both sides of this debate. For one side a incredible fear of fundamentalism sprouts attacks based on the Fact/Value misunderstanding (Nancey Pearcey) between science and religion. On the other hand we have those fundamentalist who are affraid? that people without a moral conscience are taking over this country and must be stopped. And dare I say there are people just like me who don't fit into either camp but walk a middle line of understanding trying to keep the moral framework without the hard edged fundamentalist approach. However, this will never work itself out in our society since it seems like those who don't understand fundamentalism will fear and hate it without an understanding of those who are actually fundamentalists. And the same for the other side. If you are not part of the left then you are a right but maybe both are mistaken in one sense or another. But we are never allowed to discuss that since we resort back to our stereotypes about the other side. The difference being that some stereotypes are more justified than others. So what does all this jargon have to do with Fundamentalism. Well, I think you must understand that fundamentalism has different meanings to different people. It doesn't mean to everyone that you must take the bible exactly as you understand it 4,000 years after it first was orally passed down but that you must try and jump into each cultures setting to understand what is being said and commmunicated. Futher that means taking knowledge in with you when you interpret and understanding you can be wrong. If there is one complaint I have of what liberals would call fundamentalists it is that they do not understand the word fallible with regard to interpretation. However, at least they have a working knowledge of scripture which many on this board have shown is lacking within our current culture. If you don't understand fear and kill it. hehehehhehehe Just kidding. In any case many christians will unkowningly be dumped into the fundamentalist camp but there is little they can do about it. I guess I like what someone said earlier, "Luke 6:27-35". I don't think I could have said it any better myself. rpf_ID
"The ignorance of posters like jasonng or hamilton would be funny were it not so…well, isn’t willful ignorance actually stupidity?" Radaractive, no offense but maybe you should get a sense of humour. Jt636 was willingly misrepresenting Christians and I was only mocking such a ridiculous comment in response. Ridiculous comments do not deserve well-thought out replies. I think you shouldn't jump to conclusions so easily. Maybe actually read what the other guy said so you understand the context? That's what smart people would do, and I assume you are one too? jasonng
Dougmoran: Thanks. I enjoyed that. What need have they for a tyrant who are capable of enslaving themselves? nostrowski
nostrowski- It's when that obsessive distaste and frothing reaches a breaking point that the picture changes. The seed of hate grows silently within, taking root in every dark place, forcing out the light until only darkness remains, and then bursts forth from its enslaved host who is now the instrument of it's will. Alas, the hater, who first saw himself as the purveyor of truth and light, now finds he is a slave to falsehood and darkness. dougmoran


"This is very basic Christian theology that kids learn in Sunday school when they’re little. At least that’s when I learned it. The way to the Father is through the Son."

I have no problem with that, but you are making my point. What the vast majority of fundamentalists follow is an interpretation of the bible, as presented by the churches, sunday schools, and their own views.

My point was that interpreting everything in the bible literally would make one's actions unforgiveable in a modern context (moreso wrt the OT, but in the new as well), and people generally do not do so, even if they state that they do. Hence, the poll is not representative of reality.

No, it wouldn't make their actions unforgivable. You don't understand basic Christian theology if that's what you think. If they followed Christ perfectly they'd be the most loving, charitable, tolerant people imaginable. You need to go away and come back when you're not a stupid troll. -ds Hamilton
nostrowski:“Overwrought, paranoid, knee-jerk bigotry.” ArdenChatfield:‘Bigotry’? Have you asked Dave lately what he thinks of Muslims? I don't feel compelled to ask Dave anything. I was addressing your statements. Not his. Deflection won't deter me from what is clearly overwrought, paranoid, knee-jerk bigotry. nostrowski
Afghani Moslems Demand Execution for Christian Convert Man, our fundies have just got to catch up! nostrowski

Ooo, Dave finally calls me a liberal. Now the gloves are off! The Shakespeare quotes were just a warmup, I guess.

My point, Dave, is that it is hypocritical to condemn people for religious bigotry when you do precisely the same thing, or worse, but it's supposedly justified when it's a religion you don't like.

I'm no great fan of Islam, either, but I daresay you're in no position to be condemning people for religious bigotry. If you want to say religious bigotry is bad, you can't turn around and say it's okay for other groups you dislike.

Glad you're not a 'hater', Dave. :-)

Responding to you is becoming "excessively annoying" to me. If you don't know what all that entails ask your fearless leader Herr Fuhrer Doktor Professor Vesley. Come back soon, but not too soon, if you get my drift. There's nothing at all wrong with justifiable religious bigotry. Not all religious beliefs deserve respect. You simply have no discernable ability to separate the wheat from the chaff. -ds

nostrowski:‘Enslave’ was just hyperbole. That makes it okay. I find those who classify others without proper knowledge innocent of hyperbole and, to put as kindly as possible, guilty of ignorance. You obviously have little experience among "fundamentalist" Christians who are concerned with protecting their children from omnipresent doses of broadcasted smut and not in the slightest desirous of enslaving you. nostrowski

"Would you say it’s fair to characterize you as more likely to set a fundamentalist church on fire than someone who, all else being equal, doesn’t think the people who attend the church are out to enslave and dominate you? -ds"

So now I'm being judged by what you 'think I'm likely to do'?

Let's call it "profiled". -ds

What was that quote, oh yeah, "judge not lest ye be judged"?

Judge all you want. Considering the source, I won't mind.

(Probably not one of your more favorite Bible quotes.)

I have more favorite Shakespeare quotes than Bible quotes. Maybe you forget that I'm not a Christian in any reasonable sense of the word. Maybe a deist in my less agnostic moments. So you're really barking up the wrong tree.

That is interesting as both a glimpse into your concept of due process and as an example of your willingness to ascribe actions to people you don't know at all.

I know you through your writing.

Let's spin that around: "Would you say it’s fair to characterize you as more likely to send in death threats to a Supreme Court Justics than someone who, all else being equal, doesn’t think the judge committed a horrible miscarriage of justice?"

Yes, that's a fair characterization. Congratulations on having a rational thought. Was it the first time for you?

(That's hyperbole, BTW, Dave.)

No, it wasn't. But I should have known anything resembling a rational thought coming from you must have been an accident. Silly me.

That seems to meet your criteria for 'evidence' pretty exactly. You no doubt think it's a very unfair statement, which it is. So why is your statement any more justified?

Surprise. I didn't think it was at all unfair. It makes perfect sense.

Besides, last I checked, those church fires WERE SET BY A BUNCH OF BOYS FROM NICE CHRISTIAN FAMILIES, not some wicked urban atheist evolutionists. Remember???

Maybe they were adopted. ArdenChatfield
Actually, dougmoran, I believe hatred does far more damage to the hater for often the hated simply don't care. While ArdenChatfield wastes what we can only assume is his valuable time casting epithets at ghosts, the intended targets of his ad hominems are blissfully unaware of his frothing and ostensibly obsessive distaste. nostrowski
ArdenChatfield's comments have been most interesting, but sadly off mark. I've spent a fair amount of time over at PT getting to know them and trying to understand their perspectives. There is a consistent message coming from them: just how deeply hateful and disrespectful they are toward Christians, Christianity, or anything Christ/Jesus related, "fundamentalist" or not. I'd invite everyone reading this to go to PT and read for yourselves just how little they understand about a faith they've personally decided to reject and whose followers they believe are... what was it Dawkins said? Other than that underlying foundation of hatred, I love the folks at PT. They are entertaining and can be quite engaging on many interesting topics. I pray for their peace, happiness, and greater acceptance toward people of faith. After all, hatred does as much damage to the hater as it does the hated. dougmoran

Well, I'd say that "church burners" isn't a popular politically-driven caracature.

And I agree that it's inflammatory as well, applied to anyone except the fringe to which it applies -- though it seems to be a reasonable accusation against those that actually celebrated the burning of churches, and I believe you are familiar with those words of glee.

It's kind of like calling a crowd of people celebrating the 9/11 disaster a "bunch of terrorists". Well, it's not exactly accurate, but the sentiment is certainly there. I'd certainly be nervous about what their kids and mine are learning if a member of the dancing crowd moved in next door and ran for the school board.

There's the danger of inflammatory words and actions. They don't help much.

You say that like you don't realize how funny it is saying "church burner" is "inflammatory". You guys need to give me a break here. I was just trying to "turn up the heat" in the discussion. "Light a fire" under the arses of the opposition. "Fuel" the debate. "Spark" some controversy. "Heat up" some emotions. "Ignite" a "flame" war... :lol: -ds Gandalf


'Enslave' was just hyperbole. That makes it okay.


"Overwrought, paranoid, knee-jerk bigotry."

'Bigotry'? Have you asked Dave lately what he thinks of Muslims?

If you think I'm going to be apologetic for being intolerant of a religious culture that reduces women to chattel then you have another think coming. Liberals like you have some really friggin' warped values that you cling to. You condemn a religious culture that won't allow wanton destruction of the unborn as they grow inside their mother's womb but you refuse to condemn a culture that treats the same women as chattel. You're one dumb bunny, Arden. If Darwinian theory was really operative you yourself would be among the unborn (actually the unconceived but unborn had more poetry in this instance). -ds


C'mon Dave, make up your mind. You can't have it both ways. Do I indeed burn down churches by dint of having a bad attitude, or do I not?

Would you say it's fair to characterize you as more likely to set a fundamentalist church on fire than someone who, all else being equal, doesn't think the people who attend the church are out to enslave and dominate you? -ds

........Aggressive fundamentalism is a different thing, tho, in that it seeks to enslave and dominate others. I, for one, can't see past the churchyard for the slaves of fundamentalist Christians. They stack them like cordwood. Overwrought, paranoid, knee-jerk bigotry. nostrowski

"Another applicable idiom: “If the shoe fits, wear it” and yet another “The truth hurts”. "

So, now you're saying that we evolutionists ARE a bunch of church burners after all. Dave, you're confusing me terribly!

Is that a lighter in your pocket or are you just glad to see me? -ds ArdenChatfield

Calling people who believe in evolution 'church burners' isn't 'a popular politically driven caricature which has no basis in fact'?

As hyperbole approaches truth it becomes more difficult to distinguish between the two. If I called you all steaming piles of dung that somehow acquired vocal cords and learned how to speak you'd know right away that was hyperbole, right? I find it interesting that you don't immediately recognize "church burners" as hyperbole. The Great Bard penned a line for this occasion (Dawkins would call this a meme so you can safely embrace it without ruining your rep): "The lady doth protest too much, methinks". Another applicable idiom: "If the shoe fits, wear it" and yet another "The truth hurts". Maybe you should stop protesting and acting so much like you've been hurt. Just a suggestion. -ds

Perfectly put, Gandalf. Mr. Chatfield's original words demonstrate a popular politically driven caricature which has no basis in fact. I suppose it's just easier for some people to compartmentalize everyone who believes in the authority of scripture into the category of "Fundamentalist". Scott
Thanks, Arden for clarifying your whole post. I would suggest that your words are indeed inflammatory, saying that fundamentalists "dictate laws that would restrict the freedom or criminalize the beliefs of people who disagree with them" and that "It’s a political movement. As such, attacking it is fair game." This is a stereotype that has little to do with Christian fundamentalism, which was all about protecting the fundamentals of the faith from external influence. That was and is a theological movement whose primary legacy has been to pull out of society and set up parallel institutions -- universities, denominations, T-shirt factories -- rather than effectively engage the broader culture. Perhaps this disengagement is why it's so overwhelmingly misunderstood. By contrast, the reaction against fundamentalism from the midst those who respect Christian teachings is called evangelicalism (from a Greek word meaning "good news"). This perspective is one that believes there is positive opportunity for the interaction of Christianity and the broader culture. Again, this movement is misunderstood as well, and often labeled as fundamentalism. Evangelicals predominately affirm the same core teachings of Christianity as fundamentalists, but consciously apply them differently, in an attempt to be engaging, winsome and optimistic, rather than separatist and defensive. Both groups respect the conscience of the individual, and strongly believe that faith communicated by force is no faith at all. Both groups would say that criminalization of beliefs is absurd, though certain wrong behaviors can and must be regulated. (Regulating behavior is universal in civil societies, though constant disagreement occurs over exactly which behavior should be regulated.) The absurdity of criminalizing beliefs is why moral conservatives go "huh?" at the phrase "hate crime". Both groups would overwhelmingly affirm that a government that has too much power to regulate behavior is a threat to individual freedom and that powerful governments historically have produced religious persecution. This is why there is a constant tension among moral conservatives between the principles of limited government and that which is necessary to uphold a moral society. To ignore these subtleties is to create stereotypes which are at best unhelpful and at worst hateful, particularly when coupled with language like "attacking ... is fair game." Gandalf

Sorry I didn't realize it takes 30-45 minutes for a comment to get posted here, but I've never been to a blog before that had software like that. Every other blog I go to your comments get posted immediately. Hmm.

It might take forever for a comment to get posted here. This is a moderated forum. Comments from some authors require explicit approval before they show up on the blog. You shouldn't find it surprising that your reputation precedes you here and that as a result you're on the list that requires approval. If you read the moderation policy on the sidebar you'd know this. -ds ArdenChatfield
Cool. My message got posted. Thank you! For people to see the big picture, I also posted this at ATBC: "The reason people attack fundamentalists at PT is because ID & Creationism are not scientific movements, but religious/political movements. If it were not for fundamentalism, American fundamentalism at that, there would be no ID or creationism. Therefore I don't think arguing with people's religious motives is uncalled for under those circumstances. IDC is about nothing if not religious motives. That said, I do think there are people at PT who go overboard with attacking religion. But when fundamentalists step over into trying to mandate their beliefs over everyone else, then they lose the right for people to not say anything negative about their motives. If fundamentalist Christians kept their religion out of politics, didn't try to take civil rights away from people they dislike, didn't try and change what was taught in schools, and didn't try and subvert science with a lot of dishonest nonsense, I wouldn't be bothered by them in the least. It wouldn't be my business." ArdenChatfield

Hey, Dave, have you banned me yet?

DaveScot replies: No Arden. You haven't been banned. You goofy kids on ATBC don't understand how the Wordpress blog software works. You don't understand much of anything actually and just make stuff up to fit your preconceived notions. Like SteveStory saying I delete hundreds of my own comments that contain errors which is just pure fantasy. I deleted one article I wrote, the infamous one where I demanded everyone start respecting the overwhelming scientific evidence in support of common ancestry, and not a single comment of my own. I didn't delete that article because anything in it was wrong. I deleted it because the negative emotion it stirred up threatened to destroy the community here. At any rate if you bothered to read the moderation policy on the sidebar you'd know why your comments didn't show up right away. All comments from newly registered users require approval from a moderator before they appear on the blog. I don't ban anyone, actually. I just put them on permanent moderation status then seldom if ever approve any comments they submit. You would also know that if you read the moderation policy. ArdenChatfield
I tried to post a response to this, but it never showed up. That doesn't seem fair! ArdenChatfield
Thanks for your interesting response, Mats. By nature, one's average observer feels comfortable assuming, without hesitation, that the Parthenon was designed because they know it was crafted by human hands. They reach this conviction readily because everyday experience has exposed them to the creative endeavors of fellow human beings. I look at nature, and I personally, infer design, and ID looks like a compelling possibility. However, I honestly hesitate to conclude wholeheartedly that nature was designed. Why? Because design-in-nature to me is critically different from human engineering in a conceptually big way - the designer of nature is not human. My immediate suspicions are that that this particular designer is disembodied and resides on planes (dimensions) of existence that transcend the physical realm. Quite an extra-ordinary, non-pedestrian designer, wouldn't you agree? Since my everyday senses are confined solely to the material world, and have not been conditioned by encounters with non-human intelligence (save for that of dogs or dolphins), I cannot come to an truly abiding conclusion that nature was indeed engineered. Unfamiliar with the notion of a transcendent designer, I will always be gnawed by doubts until I encounter this Carpenter face-to-face. Archaeologists and historians can reach unhesitating conclusions that their objects of study were designed because their inventory of experience enables them to do so. Although alien life forms are not in the realm of our experience, SETI astronomers would (and could) infer intelligence from a suitable message because such a transmission would clearly be from embodied, physical creatures just like ourselves. The defining characteristics of Nature's designer, however, are not even remotely in the realm of most people's experience. This designer is clearly extra-ordinary, and extraordinary claims do require extraordinary proof (to quote Sagan) that only actual encounter can provide. Inferences of nature's design, no matter how persuasive, are not enough to assuage all doubt. The doubting Thomas in each of us will, by force of human nature, demand up-close-and-personal conference with the Engineer before we sign off on intelligent design with genuine sincerity. Best regards, Apollo230 apollo230
Oo! My 15 minutes of fame here... Just a few comments before I hastily get deleted. For those readers here other than DS, who knows he's deliberately misrepresenting what I said, I would point out that AT NO POINT did I say I hated fundamentalists. If you care to stray from UD and actually look at ATBC, you will see this. I also explain what I meant by 'enslave' and 'indoctrinate' in the message. I wouldn't retract a single word of it. I also wrote this, which Dave chose not to point out: "Bashing Christianity itself is hypocritical and serves no purpose." The whole quote is this: "There are millions of people in this country who believe that fundamentalists are actually doing a huge amount of harm to this country. Fundamentalist movements are trying to destroy, control or censor science, and to dictate laws that would restrict the freedom or criminalize the beliefs of people who disagree with them. That is very corrosive to American society, and I see nothing wrong at all at attacking THAT mindset. Bashing Christianity itself is hypocritical and serves no purpose. Aggressive fundamentalism is a different thing, tho, in that it seeks to enslave and dominate others. It's a political movement. As such, attacking it is fair game." Again, I wouldn't retract any of it. I would say in closing that considering that DaveScot routinely refers to the Panda's Thumb people as 'church burners', he is in no position to preach to others about civility. ArdenChatfield
At the risk of going off topic, I'd like to share a book that enlivened my relationship with the Bible and deepened my perspective on hermeneutics. "The Word of God in English" by Leland Ryken kathy
"Design detection is clearly not enough to prove ID beyond a shadow of a doubt". It depends on what you mean "beyond a shadow of a doubt". Is anything in "historical sciences" (archeology, etc) proven beyond a shadow of a doubt? "Designer detection-face to face encounter with the actual presiding engineer-remains the only way to genuinely satisfy us pilgrims hungering for a truly abiding verification of the theory." If we were to take your enterprise into the real world, archeology would be impossible since many of the "engineers" are not present anymore. And before you can bring the "we know that this designed bkz we make them" arguement, I would like to point out that the SETI enterprise assumes to be able to detect design without a "face to face encounter with the actual presiding engineer" (aliens). So, it is possible to detect design without knowing anything about the designer. Mats
Luke 6:27-35 Bummer that this moral wisdom does not apply to any athiest! tb

Design detection is clearly not enough to prove ID beyond a shadow of a doubt. Designer detection-face to face encounter with the actual presiding engineer-remains the only way to genuinely satisfy us pilgrims hungering for a truly abiding verification of the theory. I really esteem this verse, Doug, because it reassures me that if I inquire persistently, the doors of perception should one day open, and the Designer will conference with me (and hopefully with you,too, someday!) up close and personal.

Conveniently the Darwinists don't demand similar weight of evidence in finding time and chance to be responsible for a past evolution that is unwitnessed and unrepeatable. Quite the double standard. Physicians, heal thyselves! -ds

How about..."Sanctify them with the truth, Thy Word is truth?" I have read the Bible cover-to-cover several times. Usually I simply one book at a time and rarely do the front-to-back thing. Parts of the Bible are historical narrative, parts are prophetic (and in those cases often symbolic) and parts are doctrinal in nature. There is a lot to the book after all! One is able to know when something may be allegory rather than a literal statement by context, writer, audience, setting, style, and intent to mention a few ways Bible students come to the text. The ignorance of posters like jasonng or hamilton would be funny were it not so...well, isn't willful ignorance actually stupidity? It was Jesus, after all, who when confronted with a mob that seeked to exact judgement by stoning of a "woman taken in adultery", waited until they were paying attention and then said simply, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." They all walked away. Christians who believe the Bible is true have a lot of historical evidence on their side. They also have a relationship with their God that is more than mere words. Here is the theme of the teaching of the Bible as much as any, as endorsed by Christ himself: "One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'There is no commandment greater than these." radaractive
apollo230: Just curious, why is Matthew 7:7,8 one of your fave's? And why do you think it's important to ID? dougmoran
This thread is anoying. Statements like: [quote]Fundamentalism means taking the Bible literally, word for word. Thus: adulterers are stoned to death. Gays are like dogs and should be killed. In fact, capital punishment is the solution to LOTS of crimes ...[/quote] are comments about a fundimentalism that isn't part of the Christian faith. Christians have some strange idea that the Old Testament law was replaced by a new law of love in the New Testament. Though we Christians have, over the centuries, wresled with the balance of love and justice, and sometimes done a miserable job of it. As a rule, we have followed the Scriptures in recognizing this. However, ll this is beside the point. Please consider the initial quote: [quote]Arden Chatfield explains that the Darwinian narrative apologists don’t hate all Christians. That would be wrong says he. They only hate fundamentalist Christians[/quote] What definition is Arden Chatfield using for "fundimentalist Christians"? Is his view not any Christian that would consider that there is more to life than is offered by Random Mutation + Natural Selection? He seems to be saying, hey, if you want to be Christian, fine, no problem, as long as you don't question by sincerely held belief - the belief in neo-Darwinism. He further suggests, I think, that anyone who questions his sicerely held belief must be some sort of "fundimental Christian". bFast
One of my favorite biblical quotes is: "Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened." (Matthew 7:7,8) A fine set of guidephrases for all those who would seek to clinch the case for intelligent design. Best regards, apollo230 apollo230
Hamilton: You seem like an intelligent chap, though your logic makes no sense at all. In any case, I suggest you take up the challenge you just put in front of fundamentalist christians who may not have read the bible cover to cover: go study the bible cover to cover yourself. When you're done, come back here quickly to tell us all about what you've learned. We'll be all ears then. dougmoran
Scott- nicely done. But Hamilton's post wasn't much better than jt636's. dougmoran
"In fact, capital punishment is the solution to LOTS of crimes, from children disrespecting their parents to women having sex before marriage." We'd send some horrifying fundamentalists over to greet you, but given their sheer number a couple dozen are probably on their way. Maybe you should board up your windows before they start singing hymns outside your door. jasonng
And by the way, that wasn't apologetics I was just doing there... that's just basic data that any student of philosophy should know. Scott
Well, okay. Fundamentalism means taking the Bible literally, word for word. Thus: adulterers are stoned to death. Gays are like dogs and should be killed. In fact, capital punishment is the solution to LOTS of crimes, from children disrespecting their parents to women having sex before marriage. The earth was created in 6 days, about 6000 years ago. Dinosaurs and men lived at the same time. Jews? Burn in hell. Yeah, that seems like something I would be comfortable hating. What’s the problem?
I want to thank you, "jt636", for demonstrating for everyone how not to approach Biblical interpretation. I mean, what a laughable display of ignorance. See folks, this is the type of mentality we are up against - so you should feel encouraged. jt636, before you go and make an arse of yourself on another forum, you may want to at least get a basic working knowledge of Hermeneutics and then perhaps a dash of Covenant Theology. Scott
It's easy to see the antagonism against fundamentalism. Since this is a thread on the topic, I'll say many people set up "literal" interpretation of the Bible as a straw man. I personally know many people who have read the Bible cover-to-cover, and believe it to be true, and they act that way. They also understand figures of speech, and cringe at the term "literal". (Jesus called himself a door; does that mean he has a knob on his chest?) They understand the distinction between specific instructions given to specific people in time and history, and the application of underlying principles, separating the temporal from the timeless and universal. I am not a fundamentalist in the cultural sense of the word, but I am an ethical and philosophical essentialist. That drives some people nuts. Gandalf

The self-reporting aspect of the poll should be taken into consideration. The bible does prescribe quite a few horrors, and if 36% of the population truly followed the bible as the inerrant word of God, they would obey all these rules. This is obviously not the case.

More realistically, 36% of the population *believe* that the bible is literally true, but really, are guided in their faith by their religious leaders, not the bible. It would be interesting to query how many of the 36% have actually read the bible cover to cover.

I doubt there is more than a handful of people who truly act as if the bible is literal and absolute.

You too are ignorant of Christian theology like the previous butthead I banned in this thread but it doesn't appear to be belligerent so you can stay but I'm funneling your comments into the sandbox for screening until further notice. The New Testament of Jesus Christ describes a change in the relationship between man and God. Many of the draconian laws of the Old Testament were rendered obsolete by the messiah. That was the whole point of his coming - to serve as a loving and forgiving intermediary between a sinful mankind and the hardnosed unforgiving God of Abraham. This is very basic Christian theology that kids learn in Sunday school when they're little. At least that's when I learned it. The way to the Father is through the Son. -ds

I would like to ammend my previous posting by mentioning that not only does Christian fundamentalism deny the strong exclusion required by apologetes of Darwinian evolution by insisting on a creator, they also deny evolution itself. In fact the fundamentalist position on evolution by intelligent design would also be adversarial, based ultimately on lack of time (6000 years). This is in agreement with the Big Bang Theory which allows only 13.7 billion years, which is also insufficient to permit evolution as proposed by the Darwinian narrative. So, these apologetes must therefore also discredit as heresy the Big Bang. Note that while Christian fundamentalists do not consider the Big Bang to be heresy, how can they reconcile 6000 years with 13.7 billion years? Perhaps time is not a constant ... bigtalktheory

The Darwinian narrative is based on history by extrapolation ie. observable adaptativity implies unobservable evolution. This is the leap of faith that requires apologetics.

Denial of this extrapolation would be equivalent of heresy. In order to avoid being discredited, one must confess the strongly exclusive "evolution only by adaptation" doctrine.

Any inclusive doctrine that would permit evolution by any other means (eg intelligent design) would lead to a split amongst evolutionists.

The fundamentalist Christian position is the epitome of this kind of doctrine.


Well, okay. Fundamentalism means taking the Bible literally, word for word. Thus: adulterers are stoned to death. Gays are like dogs and should be killed. In fact, capital punishment is the solution to LOTS of crimes, from children disrespecting their parents to women having sex before marriage. The earth was created in 6 days, about 6000 years ago. Dinosaurs and men lived at the same time. Jews? Burn in hell.

Yeah, that seems like something I would be comfortable hating. What's the problem?

You're belligerantly ignorant and that was your last stupid inflammatory comment here. Get lost. -ds jt636

Leave a Reply