Is Fundamentalism a Religious Movement or a Psychological Disorder?

[Sunstone]

What complete and total BS. Only ignorance and malice drives idiocy like this.

Hm... Are you not forgetting so many other undesirable motives, Shmogie? What about in addition to my ignorance and malice, my wickedness and evil? Are you not forgetting how wicked and evil I am in addition to being ignorant and malicious?

That's the trouble with so many fundamentalists -- they are always so stingy and never give people they regard as their enemies their full due.

 

[BilliardsBall]

See what I mean?

Still no description of any real thing or being that's God. That leaves us where we were, with only imaginary gods to consider.

And to underline that point, you attribute to the imaginary god a quality that itself can only be supernatural / imaginary, namely the power to alter reality independently of the rules of reality ─ which as you know is exactly how I define magic.

Unless, of course, you can tell us how magic actually works, the real method God uses to bypass the rules of reality. But not only can't you answer that, you're not even curious about the answer ─ and that's why you're not looking for it, no?

One, you claimed many gods, I asked you if man is a god--if man IS a god, your materialism is void.

Two, Definition of God--can alter natural law at will (Satan needs God's permission).

 

[BilliardsBall]

So God can violate the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy?

If that were the case, then we could look to any case where they were violated and find God.

So can you give us a case where this law was violated? Just one will be fine.

By George, you've got it! God can alter natural law at will, but in the Bible case, only does so for the benefit of people. That's settled.

My favorite example is where Christ rose and walked out of His tomb.

Thank you!

 

[blü 2]

One, you claimed many gods, I asked you if man is a god--if man IS a god, your materialism is void.

Well, there are imaginary humans, and I guess they can be gods; but there are real humans and we have no definition of a real god, so the question is no more answerable in real terms that eg 'Are humans pzetbraps?'

Two, Definition of God--can alter natural law at will

Three familiar points arise from that. First, if the ability to alter natural laws is the defining quality of God, then if we humans ever crack the code, will you worship us? I won't, but you're the worshiping kind, so what will you do?

Second, at present the ability to alter natural laws is an imaginary quality, so it only works for an imaginary god.

Third, unless you can tell us HOW God can alter natural laws, then all you're talking about is magic, and magic in the absence of an explanation of how magic works explains nothing. Which fits nicely with the proposition that gods are imaginary.

(Satan needs God's permission).

Yes, I agree that if God is omnipotent then Satan can only ever do what God wants [him] to do ─ hence that as the bible says, all things, good and evil both, must come from God, since there's no other possible source.

 

[Spartan]

Yes, but each one took from the previous one, plus the Q document. You silly person.

That's another one of your fanciful theories, isn't it? Plus, you dredge up the fictitious, non-existent Q document?? LOL. That's par for the course. Now read and learn for a change.

There's simpler explanations than having to posit the mythical Q. One of the big ones is that Matthew and Peter and John most likely sat around campfires after Jesus' resurrection and recalled what Jesus said and did. And according to Acts 1:3 Jesus spent forty days with them after his resurrection, no doubt recalling for them the numerous teachings and acts of his ministry. They may have even taken notes on parchment to be used later in their separate Gospels. In addition, in John 14 John clearly cites the Holy Spirit as helping him recall what Jesus taught. He's the PRIMARY source. Q is not necessary.

John 14:26 (Jesus speaking): "But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

That's the primary source skeptics ALWAYS sweep under the rug because they can't stand to admit the supernatural.

In addition, here's what's wrong with your mythical Q, which has fallen out of favor and of which there is ZERO manuscript evidence for:

The Case Against Q: Fallacies at the Heart of Q

The Case Against Q: A Synoptic Problem Web Site by Mark Goodacre

The Case Against Q: Ten Reasons

Silly me? You just got educated one more time on your silly, sophomoric, no evidence theology.

 

[Spartan]

No your version of God is fictional.. (and blah blah blah)

Someday I would hope you dedicated God and Christ-deniers would actually do some proper due-diligence and start doing some basic research. Instead you just throw more and more horse manure against the wall and think you've accomplished something. Nope.

 

[Sand Dancer]

In addition, here's what's wrong with your mythical Q, which has fallen out of favor and of which there is ZERO manuscript evidence for:

The Case Against Q: Fallacies at the Heart of Q

The Case Against Q: A Synoptic Problem Web Site by Mark Goodacre

The Case Against Q: Ten Reasons

Silly me? You just got educated one more time on your silly, sophomoric, no evidence theology.

It's all up to interpretation I guess. So this Mark Goodacre fellow disagrees, so what?

 

[Sand Dancer]

Someday I would hope you dedicated God and Christ-deniers would actually do some proper due-diligence and start doing some basic research. Instead you just throw more and more horse manure against the wall and think you've accomplished something. Nope.

We did. Most of us were Christian.

 

[Spartan]

We did. Most of us were Christian.

Like I said before, I doubt you former "Christians" were ever born again because had you been born again you would have experienced the incredible presence of the supernatural Holy Spirit, and you would have known it was real.

 

[Spartan]

It's all up to interpretation I guess. So this Mark Goodacre fellow disagrees, so what?

Come on, Thirza, you don't have a single fragment or any other manuscript evidence for Q. No one ever heard of it until it was theorized some 1,800+ years after the time of Jesus.

 

[Spartan]

So you have no knowledge of the history of the Bible either.

Mark was first and it was heavily copied from by the authors of Luke and Matthew. And none of the Gospels were written by the person that they were named for. They are all anonymous.

There's actually evidence Matthew was first. The rest of your post is wrong also.

 

[Spartan]

Primary texts are "straight from the horse's mouth," so to speak. There may not have been a Bible at the beginning, but the Gospels and writings of Paul were the primary texts of Christianity even before the collective of alleged first-hand accounts became a singular canonized book.

The Gospels are still independent, historical documents - written by different people at different times in different localities.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Someday I would hope you dedicated God and Christ-deniers would actually do some proper due-diligence and start doing some basic research. Instead you just throw more and more horse manure against the wall and think you've accomplished something. Nope.

Been there, done that. Every day I wish that fundamentalists would learn the fundamentals of science so that they could understand how they are calling their God a liar.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Gospels are still independent, historical documents - written by different people at different times in different localities.

You don't seem to understand the concept of "independent".

 

[Subduction Zone]

There's actually evidence Matthew was first. The rest of your post is wrong also.

Nope, real Bible scholars put Mark first. Matthew plagiarizes Mark heavily. As does Luke. It appears that your knowledge of the Bible is as poor as your knowledge of science.

 

[JJ50]

The Gospels are still independent, historical documents - written by different people at different times in different localities.

They are not historical, more like fairy tales, the writers having overactive imaginations.

 

[Sand Dancer]

There's actually evidence Matthew was first. The rest of your post is wrong also.

Mark was first. It doesn't even have the birth narrative because then it wasn't important because Jesus was a man.

 

[Spartan]

Mark was first. It doesn't even have the birth narrative because then it wasn't important because Jesus was a man.

It may or may not have been first.

“Now, those four evangelists whose names have gained the most remarkable circulation over the whole world, and whose number has been fixed as four, …are believed to have written in the order which follows: first Matthew, then Mark, thirdly Luke, lastly John.”

“Of these four, it is true, only Matthew is reckoned to have written in the Hebrew language; the others in Greek. And however they may appear to have kept each of them a certain order of narration proper to himself, this certainly is not to be taken as if each individual writer chose to write in ignorance of what his predecessor had done.”

St. Augustine

 

[Spartan]

They are not historical, more like fairy tales, the writers having overactive imaginations.

The fairy tale is what you just wrote.

 

[Spartan]

Nope, real Bible scholars put Mark first. Matthew plagiarizes Mark heavily. As does Luke. It appears that your knowledge of the Bible is as poor as your knowledge of science.

Couldn't prove that by the nonsense you put out. And by the way, I have a science degree. Do you?

“Now, those four evangelists whose names have gained the most remarkable circulation over the whole world, and whose number has been fixed as four, …are believed to have written in the order which follows: first Matthew, then Mark, thirdly Luke, lastly John.”

“Of these four, it is true, only Matthew is reckoned to have written in the Hebrew language; the others in Greek. And however they may appear to have kept each of them a certain order of narration proper to himself, this certainly is not to be taken as if each individual writer chose to write in ignorance of what his predecessor had done.”

St. Augustine