Is Fundamentalism a Religious Movement or a Psychological Disorder?

[Shadow Wolf]

Independent. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all wrote their Gospels from different locales at different times to different audiences.

Those are not independent sources. Those are religious sources, and are the only sources. An independent source would be Rome documenting it when it happened. There would be stories found here-and-there about it long before it was written about.

Like I've said previously, if you can show evidence the events in the Gospels were not authentic, then cite the scripture #'s and your evidence. Just making claims isn't enough. I mean, you must have some SOLID evidence to base your claims on, right?

We don't have to prove evidence it didn't happen. It's up to believer to provide evidence it did. And there is zero evidence that a dead person can be brought back to life.

 

[Spartan]

Nope, there are not. There is only the Gospels and they are from from independent or historical. There are some weak historical accounts that he was crucified and that is as far as it goes.

The evidence for the resurrection is strong, logical, and compelling. You'd understand why I say that if you'd bother to read the following three books:

"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas;

“The Historical Jesus of the Gospels,” by Dr. Craig Keener

"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.

 

[Spartan]

Those are not independent sources. Those are religious sources, and are the only sources. An independent source would be Rome documenting it when it happened. There would be stories found here-and-there about it long before it was written about.

We don't have to prove evidence it didn't happen. It's up to believer to provide evidence it did. And there is zero evidence that a dead person can be brought back to life.

You're wrong again. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all wrote their Gospels from different locales at different times to different audiences.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You're wrong again. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all wrote their Gospels from different locales at different times to different audiences.

I am aware. That doesn't make them independent sources. Independent sources would be the ones that aren't of the primary text. The Bible is a primary text of Christianity. Thus the Gospels aren't independent sources.

 

[Spartan]

Yep. Just as there are no published papers in scientific journals advocating a flat earth, there are none advocating the Biblical flood either.

If there were any flat earthers they would have been evolution's knuckle-dragging forefathers from antiquity.

But there are any number of scientific papers on the Biblical flood. Here's just one of many sources: The Institute for Creation Research

 

[Spartan]

I am aware. That doesn't make them independent sources. Independent sources would be the ones that aren't of the primary text. The Bible is a primary text of Christianity. Thus the Gospels aren't independent sources.

Define "primary text". Keep in mind that the Gospels / New Testament weren't a part of the "Bible" in the 1st century. They were independent of it.

 

[Jose Fly]

Over the course of this thread, I've started to see it as an emotional diet rich in Big Macs and Twinkies. Fundamentalist adherence to dogma does appear to induce the symptoms of mental illness in a noticeable size of that population. They may not have been born with the genetic stuff normally found in people who are conventionally thought of as mentally ill, but they are still doing things that in some cases resemble behaviors of those profoundly ill. What it's driven by is what they very strongly believe in and adhere to.

I like that. I used to refer to young-earth creationism as "intellectual junk food".

 

[Spartan]

I like that. I used to refer to young-earth creationism as "intellectual junk food".

I'm not a young earther (I don't believe Genesis supports a young earth) but ICR's writings on the flood are largely separate from that argument.

 

[Jose Fly]

If there were any flat earthers they would have been evolution's knuckle-dragging forefathers from antiquity.

They're still around and they primarily justify their position via scripture.

But there are any number of scientific papers on the Biblical flood. Here's just one of many sources: The Institute for Creation Research

No, the ICR requires its employees to adhere to a set of "Core Principles" where they agree to ensure all their work aligns with a literal reading of scripture. So their work is definitively not "scientific" in any way.

That's why they had to create their own "journals" separate from actual scientific journals.

 

[Spartan]

They're still around and they primarily justify their position via scripture.

No, the ICR requires its employees to adhere to a set of "Core Principles" where they agree to ensure all their work aligns with a literal reading of scripture. So their work is definitively not "scientific" in any way.

That's why they had to create their own "journals" separate from actual scientific journals.

Due to the bias of the scientific community is why they had to. Still, they have done some significant research into the global flood. Don't care if you disagree.

 

[Spartan]

Back to the subject of this thread:

Is Fundamentalism a Religious Movement or a Psychological Disorder?

Liberal fundamentalism is moral, economic, and intellectual syphilis.

 

[Jose Fly]

Due to the bias of the scientific community is why they had to.

No, they created their own "journals" in an effort to mimic the work of real scientists and fool rubes like you. As I showed via their own material, ICR requires all their employees to agree up front that all their work will align with a literal reading of scripture.

If you think that's how science is done, well......I'll just let that speak for itself.

Still, they have done some significant research into the global flood. Don't care if you disagree.

One of their papers I'm familiar with clearly states that the flood could only have happened via major miraculous acts of God. CLICK HERE to read it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Define "primary text". Keep in mind that the Gospels / New Testament weren't a part of the "Bible" in the 1st century. They were independent of it.

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.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Back to the subject of this thread:

Is Fundamentalism a Religious Movement or a Psychological Disorder?

Liberal fundamentalism is moral, economic, and intellectual syphilis.

Yup. Keep responding with behaviors that got Fundamentalists studied in the OP source and discussed in the OP at another level.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Independent. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all wrote their Gospels from different locales at different times to different audiences.

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Like I've said previously, if you can show evidence the events in the Gospels were not authentic, then cite the scripture #'s and your evidence. Just making claims isn't enough. I mean, you must have some SOLID evidence to base your claims on, right?

Shifting of the burden of proof. Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The evidence for the resurrection is strong, logical, and compelling. You'd understand why I say that if you'd bother to read the following three books:

"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas;

“The Historical Jesus of the Gospels,” by Dr. Craig Keener

"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.

You need something stronger than liars for Jesus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh that "evil god"! If it weren't for the grace of God you wouldn't even be breathing today.

No your version of God is fictional.. I don't know about you, but I breathe just fine without a make believe friend.

Tell me, do you rely on Dumbledore for your next breath? If not, why not?

But nice deflection. I see that you have no answers for your God's evil acts.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Independent. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all wrote their Gospels from different locales at different times to different audiences.

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

 

[Sand Dancer]

Like I've said previously, if you can show evidence the events in the Gospels were not authentic, then cite the scripture #'s and your evidence. Just making claims isn't enough. I mean, you must have some SOLID evidence to base your claims on, right?

As do you...