Please prove it to me

[Tawn]

I must say, I read it the way Captain X read it.

Yes that happens.. but if you can just detatch your bias for a second youll see that hes just neutralising the argument.. not making a case for Atheism with that particular remark. He wasnt even belittling a particular group of people.
All he was saying was is that humanity in general can be quite stupid.. so the 'majority is correct' argument is pointless. That doesnt mean theyre wrong!!! It just means theyre not necessarily correct either.

 

[James the Persian]

I think it's the difference between the more fundamental theists and the more liberal theists. As atheists we see more of they fundy types because they are the ones who actively seek to change people and voice their opinions more and louder.

Perhaps mention how loving and caring a christian they are that they wish eternal torture and damnation to you for simply not believing.

Well I'm certainly not liberal in my theology (I'd be a very odd Orthodox Christian if I were) but it seems from this that you'd call me a 'liberal theist', which is inaccurate and slightly insulting. I'm also most certainly not a fundamentalist (you're, I assume, thinking of the sort of fundamentalism exhibited by some Evangelicals).

There's at least a third option, that of the 'traditional', for want of a better word, Christian. Devout Orthodox, RCs and Oriental Orthodox are certainly not liberal (we Orthodox are really conservative), but nor are we Bible-thumping man-haters.

We often say that we know salvation can be found in the Church (in my case the Church is the Orthodox Church) but that we don't know where it can be found outside of Her. Anything more than that is placing limits on God (not to mention very closed-minded) and this is often the failing of the 'fundamentalists'.

James

 

[CaptainXeroid]

Yes that happens.. but if you can just detatch your bias for a second...

Sorry, but you are the one that needs to detach your bias. I didn't say that Dayv was belittling anyone anymore that he said Christians were ignorant. Plus, I never said that the majority was 'correct'. I said that so many people believing something influenced me to reexamine my beliefs. That was a misinterpretation on your part. Truthfully, what was 'uncalled for' was your's and Dayv's posts as they do not relate to the original post.

If you reread my posts with an open mind you will understand that I was referring to Magurk's classmate as the one who was belittling someone who didn't share his beliefs. Even when I don't agree with you, your posts are well-thought out, so I don't think I'm asking too much of you here.

 

[Tawn]

Sorry, but you are the one that needs to detach your bias.

Truly..

 

[Scuba Pete]

Ah, the rites of passage!

The new convert, whether to Christianity, atheism or whatever, approaches their new found beliefs with a zeal that can simply take your breath away. Done with mucking about in their indecision, they feel liberated and ready to meet all comers. Some of these new converts will villify all who disagree with them. Why? Because they truly want to make a difference and be seen as "extreme" in their beliefs.

Not-so-new converts, will often take one of the newbies under their wing just to help them with their transition. I am sure that if they were able to see this scene, they would have shaken their head in amusement and would have tried to defuse the situation without ruining the new convert's joy.

The point to remember here, is that this applies to ANY new convert for any belief system.

BTW, I agree with Michel... too many people have this stereotype of a Christian or "Fundy" in their heads. They have met too many to remember alright. Ask for a name, and many times none can be given. Why??? Go re-read the part about the new convert villifying everyone that doesn't agree with them.

 

[michel]

[PART QUOTE=NetDoc]Ah, the rites of passage!

......"The new convert, whether to Christianity, atheism or whatever, approaches their new found beliefs with a zeal that can simply take your breath away. Done with mucking about in their indecision, they feel liberated and ready to meet all comers. Some of these new converts will villify all who disagree with them. Why? Because they truly want to make a difference and be seen as "extreme" in their beliefs"..............

[/PART QUOTE]

This is what I term the 'pendul swing effect'; the way I see it, the energy needed to convert from one faith to another produces such a momentum that the convert overshoots his goal by quite some way.:bonk:

 

[Original Freak]

Well I'm certainly not liberal in my theology (I'd be a very odd Orthodox Christian if I were) but it seems from this that you'd call me a 'liberal theist', which is inaccurate and slightly insulting. I'm also most certainly not a fundamentalist (you're, I assume, thinking of the sort of fundamentalism exhibited by some Evangelicals).

There's at least a third option, that of the 'traditional', for want of a better word, Christian. Devout Orthodox, RCs and Oriental Orthodox are certainly not liberal (we Orthodox are really conservative), but nor are we Bible-thumping man-haters.

We often say that we know salvation can be found in the Church (in my case the Church is the Orthodox Church) but that we don't know where it can be found outside of Her. Anything more than that is placing limits on God (not to mention very closed-minded) and this is often the failing of the 'fundamentalists'.

James

I use those two terms for this reason. Either you believe (being a believer) every word of the bible is 100% accurate with no metaphors or implications, just the plain word of god (fundy) or you allow for metaphors, symbolisim and interpritation (liberal christian). I didn't use that big scary word 'liberal' with any political implications. It's possible I choose the incorrect word to use but I thought it fit with what I was trying to get across. If you can suggest another word (and I think traditionalist can still fit in either catagory) then let me know.

 

[James the Persian]

I use those two terms for this reason. Either you believe (being a believer) every word of the bible is 100% accurate with no metaphors or implications, just the plain word of god (fundy) or you allow for metaphors, symbolisim and interpritation (liberal christian). I didn't use that big scary word 'liberal' with any political implications. It's possible I choose the incorrect word to use but I thought it fit with what I was trying to get across. If you can suggest another word (and I think traditionalist can still fit in either catagory) then let me know.

Ah, I see where you're coming from now and I believe that your dichotomy works - but only for sola scripturalist Protestants. You seem to think fundamentalist means scriptural literalist whereas liberal means everyone else - probably true for that one section of Christendom.

However, the reason I found liberal slightly insulting has nothing to do with politics (I'm dead centre there anyway) but everything to do with theology. If you talk of liberal theology it makes me think of the Jesus Seminar, Bishop Spong and all those assorted people who throw out Holy Tradition (whether written or not) in favour of new ideas like the 'sacred feminine', or start denying doctrines like the Trinity, Incarnation or Resurrection, that are central to the faith.

When I was using the term Traditional Christians, I was meaning those who hold to Holy Tradition, not merely members of mainstream Christianity. We cannot be either fundamentalist (by your definition) or liberal (by my definition which seems to be what most people talk about when they say 'liberal theology'). Now we, the RCs and the Oriental Orthodox may differ on some of the details as to what Holy Tradition says, but broadly we agree and we do not generally act in a way to fit in with either of your two groups. I would say we tend to be theologically much more conservative than your liberals (and often even than your fundamentalists) whilst being much more open to salvation for heterodox/non-Christians than your fundamentalists (though not your liberals - they're often way out there). Hope that makes sense.

James

 

[Pah]

I use those two terms for this reason. Either you believe (being a believer) every word of the bible is 100% accurate with no metaphors or implications, just the plain word of god (fundy) or you allow for metaphors, symbolisim and interpritation (liberal christian). I didn't use that big scary word 'liberal' with any political implications. It's possible I choose the incorrect word to use but I thought it fit with what I was trying to get across. If you can suggest another word (and I think traditionalist can still fit in either catagory) then let me know.

Acually the are more than two standards of inerrancy. Nine are listed here

 

[michel]

Yes that happens.. but if you can just detatch your bias for a second youll see that hes just neutralising the argument.. not making a case for Atheism with that particular remark. He wasnt even belittling a particular group of people.
All he was saying was is that humanity in general can be quite stupid.. so the 'majority is correct' argument is pointless. That doesnt mean theyre wrong!!! It just means theyre not necessarily correct either.

I don't think you understand, Tawn I am agreeing with "just because people choose not to believe something doesn't mean that is isn't true. The key is not to stoop to the level of Magurk's classmate by belittling people who don't share your beliefs or lack thereof."

I think CaptX is merely making the point that if, say, "if People choose Not to believe in
G-d, that doesn't mean that G-d doesn't exist. The key is not to stoop......thereof".

Nobody is talking about right or wrong; we are discussing moral attitudes.

 

[Majikthise]

I'm not sure where you guys 'dig up' your Christians from; I have never met one who has told me I would go to hell...

While stationed in Goergia at tech school I , met a girl one night .The next morning as we were leaving to get some breakfast, a guy was at the end of the walkway. He made an assumption (correctly) of what we had been doing and proceeded to lecture us and inform us that we were headed for hell if we did not accept christ and repent our sins. I didn't dig him up and I wished he would crawl back into his hole.:areyoucra

 

[Saw11_2000]

During my 6th perios at school i overheard someone talking about relegion. He said, "Im so glad Im one with Jesus and all those dirty Aetheist are going to hell." How could i not but in . I said how are you one with god?? He responded with i have accepted christ into my heart and i know he is real. I said have you seen him? This is were he started to look away. I let it slide. Then i asked So as you put it "Dirty" Aetheist are going to hell, whys that?? He said If you dont beleive in a holy one or one savoir you will got to hell. All i could say was Prove It To Me.......

Now im really upset about this. I really want to know why you beleive in something that could have been made up...please respond???

Yay! Get on the hell train! Toot toot!

Makes me feel so nice inside.

I think he needs a big hug from all of his atheist friends at RF. We care!

 

[Majikthise]

hug!!!!
​

 

[Saw11_2000]

LOL!!

Love is stronger than hate!
Now I sound like Pochahontas.

When you see the kid tommorrow, tell him we are seriously concerned about him, and we want him to know, if no one else cares about him, the atheists at religiousforums.com are very compassionate towards his situation.

 

[Dayv]

Speaking of excessive religious fervor, where I work, we always get different people coming in dropping of dumb little religious booklets. Usually they're from the JWs but I've seen a few baptist ones and maybe others. I read them when I'm bored and have a good laugh. It's funny the way they scew everything. Around Halloween there was one (probably my favorite, it was real funny) telling about how Halloween originated in england where heathens (the Druids) would dress up like animals because they were afraid that demons were going to get them, which is funny, because the holiday the celts celebrated around that time (I can't remember the name) was actual pretty holy a day for them and plus, I'm pretty sure that the ancient druids didn't believe in demons, or at least not at all in the way the booklet was meaning them.
Come on people, other than a few weirdo cults (no offense to anyone who is in a cult) all religions are pretty good, why do we have to judge each other? Where's the love?

 

[Mister Emu]

I believe it is Samhain(sp) Dayv.

I also believe the dressing up comes from Central America, where I think they believe that evil spirits come out, they dress up so they won't know they are human, and they leave gifts outside their houses so evil spirits won't inhabit them.

 

[MagickIsFun]

Halloween is fun! ::gives everyone candy of their favorite kind::