Inkie - AGuest says - "Fundies give great credence to what is written in the Bible;" then she makes a claim about what is written in the bible. Can't you see the irony?
What is your definition of a "Fundi" or a Fundamentalist?
by brotherdan 236 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
mamalove
I did not read all the responses. My answer is not exactly on topic. Rather, I have observed that many people who might be classified as fundamental in thinking generally conform to a more conservative, theocratic, sometimes dogmatic view and oppose more liberal thinking. I think it is a small portion of ubber relgious folks who are truly fundis.
So Dan, I do not consider you a fundamentalist.
Putting on my flame retardant suit here.....ducking a little, JMHO, that I think you are born with the hunger to believe a certain way. Almost how your brain is wired.
So for people who cling to Jesus, God, and a more regimented view of morals, rules, lifestyles, and books that surround such views, I think you either want to believe that way or not. If you do, it could be because it brings you comfort, makes you feel like you live an acceptable way of life, maybe some pride in the morality professed and the respect it might bring from society. I say this because I know certain people that just crave the routine, crave the belief system laid out for them that is extremely acceptable in the world today. Crave that respect of association with a faith. Now I am not saying that it is fake at all, they definitely believe it with all of their hearts. The questions that don't seem to have crystal clear answers for, they don't worry about it too much because thinking the way they do is still a good thing to do.
Then I think there are people who the above type of life is oil to water. They need proof, more logic, less warm fuzzies and more clarity. This is the way their brain is wired. It likely has made sense to think this way for most of their lives, even if it was masked with parental influence or similar.
I equate it to type A, type B, personality traits, etc. I do find this topic interesting and mean no disrespect to any certain belief. I freely admit I am unclear on my exact beliefs and they are still evolving.
-
PSacramento
Here is an interesting view:
snip:
In his practice, Dr. Sohail has come to realize that people's belief systems may not be realistic reflections of their lifestyles, and he started exploring the relationship between people's ideologies and attitudes, their philosophies and personalities. He realized that ideologies are like book covers and we all know that books should not be judged by their covers.
Dr. Sohail has a long and interesting essay on this subject which you can read here but I will try to summarize his thoughts:
Four groups of People
Each human being has a unique personality and lifestyle but it is useful to look at two aspects of people:- Ideologies can be Religious or not
- Life philosophies or personalities can be Fundamentalist or people oriented (which we'll call Humanist in this discussion).
We can then divide people into four broad categories:
- Religious Fundamentalists…People with a Religious Ideology and Fundamentalist Personality
- Atheist Fundamentalists…People with an Atheist Philosophy and Fundamentalist Personality
- Secular Humanists…People with a Secular Humanist Philosophy and Humanist Personality
- Religious Humanists…People with a Religious Ideology and Humanist Personality
-
tec
Cofty - Shelby does not hold the bible as inerrant. But for those people who do so, they are not listening to what it says when it a) describes the lying pen of the scribes, and b) Christ says woe to the scribes (or teachers of the law depending no your version).
So if the bible is inerrant, then those sayings have to be true... but then that makes the bible NOT inerrant.
Unless someone thinks those verses refer to something else.
Tammy
-
cofty
I don't think that works Tammy. Those who believe in biblical inerrancy would not accpet that either the old or new testaments were written by scribes. In any case Jesus never condemns them for failing to be good scribes but for hypocrisy and for ignoring the more important things like mercy. Where does it refer to a "lying pen"?
If the bible is not inspired, and its not, then how can anybody make any assertions that Jesus ever said anything in particular?
-
BurnTheShips
Here is an interesting view:
That's fascinating, Psac. I can live with 3&4, but 1&2 get on my nerves.
BTS
-
villabolo
Tec: " But for those people who do so, they are not listening to what it says when it a) describes the lying pen of the scribes..."
Cofty: "Where does it refer to a "lying pen"?"
Jeremiah 8:8-New International Version
8 “‘How can you say, “We are wise,
for we have the law of the LORD,”
when actually the lying pen of the scribes
has handled it falsely? -
villabolo
Brotherdan: "I've rejected theories of men that constantly change. A global flood has NOT been conclusively proven to have not happened."
I haven't read this thread so if I'm repeating something someone else mentioned, sorry.
First, brotherdan, the burden of proof is on someone making the statement. Certain absurd things, like the existence of fairies, cannot be disproven. The Biblical account of a global flood can be disproven but it requires a broad knowledge of Geology. So if a Creationist claims that there was such a flood, he should set forth the claims of evidence and then it can be either verified or nullified.
An excellent book to read on the subject of Creationism from a scientific point of view is the book Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy.
This book has over 500 oversize, small print pages dealing with every aspect of the subject including Noah's Flood.
As far as men's "theories" changing, correction is a necessary part of all scientific endeavor. First the basics and then the details have to be ironed out as new facts come to light. The basics of Evolution haven't changed since Darwin, with the exception of his Gradualism versus Stephen Gould's Punctuated Equilibria.
If the basic teachings were never to change, all scientific progress would come to a permanent halt. Keep in mind that it is the so called changing theories of man that have allowed for all the technological gadgets we have. The Bible, on the other hand, is not supposed to change (At least in the past 1800 years.) but that does not make it true.
Villabolo
-
SweetBabyCheezits
Psac, I'll go ahead and I'll start a new thread to address your replies to my issues with the Bible god(s) .
-