Alas, religious fundamentalists

Thistle

Well-known member
And?
The OP was about christian fundamentalism, and islamic fundamentalism, and jewish fundamentalism. Not christianity.
Just a reminder. Alas, someone has removed some wrds, to help add confusion to the thread.
When you are banging the drum "christian fundamentalism, and islamic fundamentalism, and jewish fundamentalism" you leave out naturalism, existentialism, post-modernism, utopianism like Marxism. All of these have implications for how people live their lives see the world, and ideas about what people need to be saved from. Each suggests some blessings for the adherent. Each suggests a main problem that people need to resolve. Of the lot Christianity simply makes more sense.

When you accuse Christians of being hypocritical you are proving the Christian case. Hypocrisy is an example of a larger issue called sin. That is exactly what Christianity says is man's primary problem. Judging from your argument you would appear to agree with that. The solution Christianity offers is two fold. Forgiveness for the sins that are over and done with which you can't correct, and power to free yourself from future sins.

If by fundamentalism you mean you hold your view on the ground of actual belief, then you need to realize, people ultimately believe what they do. If you really want people to have power to over come sins like hypocrisy perhaps a little fundamentalism is in order.
 

Mr Laurier

Well-known member
When you are banging the drum "christian fundamentalism, and islamic fundamentalism, and jewish fundamentalism" you leave out naturalism, existentialism, post-modernism, utopianism like Marxism. All of these have implications for how people live their lives see the world, and ideas about what people need to be saved from. Each suggests some blessings for the adherent. Each suggests a main problem that people need to resolve. Of the lot Christianity simply makes more sense.

When you accuse Christians of being hypocritical you are proving the Christian case. Hypocrisy is an example of a larger issue called sin. That is exactly what Christianity says is man's primary problem. Judging from your argument you would appear to agree with that. The solution Christianity offers is two fold. Forgiveness for the sins that are over and done with which you can't correct, and power to free yourself from future sins.

If by fundamentalism you mean you hold your view on the ground of actual belief, then you need to realize, people ultimately believe what they do. If you really want people to have power to over come sins like hypocrisy perhaps a little fundamentalism is in order.
When I am banging the drum, I'm drunk at a jam session.
Naturalism is not a religion, It is the study of nature. Existentialism is not a religion. Post-modernism is not a religion. Utopianism is not a religion. Marxism is not a religion. I leave none of them out. They are merely not relevant to the discussion. Please stop trying to change the topic to christianity... which BTW makes no more sense than any other religion, and less than some.


When I accuse A christian of being hypocritical, I accuse only that one christian. And not all christians. I differentiate between a christian who also is a hypocrite, and another christian who is NOT a hypocrite. Notice that a christian who is NOT a hypocrite, is automatically, and by default , NOT accused of being a hypocrite. If I accuse a christian of being a hypocrite, it is because that one christian has demonstrated that he/she is indeed a hypocrite. And has done so as an individual who's actions are NOT shared by all other christians.
There are no "sins".


Big "if". I dont mean any such thing. There is no "sin" to overcome.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
When I am banging the drum, I'm drunk at a jam session.
Naturalism is not a religion, It is the study of nature. Existentialism is not a religion. Post-modernism is not a religion. Utopianism is not a religion. Marxism is not a religion. I leave none of them out. They are merely not relevant to the discussion. Please stop trying to change the topic to christianity... which BTW makes no more sense than any other religion, and less than some.
Whether a world view happens to be a religion is almost irrelevant. The demands of whether or not that view is coherent are identical. It must answers the questions of origin, meaning, morals, and destiny in a way that can be lived out.
When I accuse A christian of being hypocritical, I accuse only that one christian. And not all christians. I differentiate between a christian who also is a hypocrite, and another christian who is NOT a hypocrite. Notice that a christian who is NOT a hypocrite, is automatically, and by default , NOT accused of being a hypocrite. If I accuse a christian of being a hypocrite, it is because that one christian has demonstrated that he/she is indeed a hypocrite. And has done so as an individual who's actions are NOT shared by all other christians.
I got a different impression from your video blog. I have no problem with this position.
There are no "sins".
Big "if". I dont mean any such thing. There is no "sin" to overcome.
Well, I'll point out something you probably already know. Sin is an archery word for the distance between where an arrow lands and the target. It's actually a pretty forgiving analogy. The picture evoked in the minds eye, of this analogy, we at least get an archer facing the target. He is not pointing 180 degrees away. So the question posed by the analogy is this, do you believe there is a target, respecting moral behavior, that people should be shooting for?
 

Mr Laurier

Well-known member
Whether a world view happens to be a religion is almost irrelevant. The demands of whether or not that view is coherent are identical. It must answers the questions of origin, meaning, morals, and destiny in a way that can be lived out.

I got a different impression from your video blog. I have no problem with this position.

Well, I'll point out something you probably already know. Sin is an archery word for the distance between where an arrow lands and the target. It's actually a pretty forgiving analogy. The picture evoked in the minds eye, of this analogy, we at least get an archer facing the target. He is not pointing 180 degrees away. So the question posed by the analogy is this, do you believe there is a target, respecting moral behavior, that people should be shooting for?
And since naturalism is not a "world view"... All it needs to do, is be.
 

Mr Laurier

Well-known member
I mean philosophical naturalism. [link]
You ought to specify that detail.
A pretentious term for "reality". And still not a "world view. Just a pretentious exercise on trying to swath observable reality in verbiage.
You do seem to be a basically decent person. Having a solid moral and ethical foundation under all that religious superstructure.
May I suggest a few books?
 

Thistle

Well-known member
You ought to specify that detail.
I put it in the context of other philosophical systems, but your point is noted.
A pretentious term for "reality". And still not a "world view. Just a pretentious exercise on trying to swath observable reality in verbiage.
You do seem to be a basically decent person. Having a solid moral and ethical foundation under all that religious superstructure.
May I suggest a few books?
Sure.
 

Mr Laurier

Well-known member
I put it in the context of other philosophical systems, but your point is noted.

Sure.
The Callahan series, by Spider Robinson.
Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy, by Douglas Adams.
The Hobbit, By J.R.R.Tolkien.
Tom Sawyer, by Mark Twain.
The Happy Hooker, by Xaviera Hollander.
The Flashman series, by George M Fraser.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
You ought to specify that detail.
A pretentious term for "reality". And still not a "world view. Just a pretentious exercise on trying to swath observable reality in verbiage.
You do seem to be a basically decent person. Having a solid moral and ethical foundation under all that religious superstructure.
May I suggest a few books?
He is a CPA. We have a PROFESSIONAL ETHICS EXAM. Inhabitants in your worldview don't know what that is.

Example is Russian atheists raping German womens.

You haven't read a fraction of what Thistle has.
 

Mr Laurier

Well-known member
He is a CPA. We have a PROFESSIONAL ETHICS EXAM. Inhabitants in your worldview don't know what that is.

Example is Russian atheists raping German womens.

You haven't read a fraction of what Thistle has.
Lol. Given that my "worldview" remains a figment of your imagination.... But what does someone being an accountant, have to do with anything?


So fantasy then, Got it.


Are you sure? You better provide some numbers.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
The Callahan series, by Spider Robinson.
Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy, by Douglas Adams.
The Hobbit, By J.R.R.Tolkien.
Tom Sawyer, by Mark Twain.
The Happy Hooker, by Xaviera Hollander.
The Flashman series, by George M Fraser.
Okay, I've read 2, 3 and 4, I'll check out 1, 5 and 6. You might look at some of these if you haven't already.

The Man Who Was Thursday: A Nightmare - G. K. Chesterton
The Universe Next Door - Hugh Ross
Finding Darwin's God - Kenneth R. Miller
Orthodoxy - G. K. Chesterton
The Abolition of Man - C.S. Lewis
The Pilgrim's Regress - C. S. Lewis
 
Last edited:

Mr Laurier

Well-known member
Okay, I've read 2, 3 and 4, I'll check out 1, 5 and 6. You might look at some of these if you haven't already.

The Man Who Was Thursday: A Nightmare - G. K. Chesterton
The Universe Next Door - Hugh Ross
Finding Darwin's God - Kenneth R. Miller
Orthodoxy - G. K. Chesterton
The Abolition of Man - C.S. Lewis
The Pilgrim's Regress - C. S. Lewis
I will look into them.
 

Mr Laurier

Well-known member
Sorry that Hugh Ross book above is titled "Why the Universe Is the Way It Is." I've read too many books with the word universe in the title.
I hope Pilgrim's Regress is better than The Screwtape Letters. That was painfully unreadable. And was the first book that really pushed me to doubt the validity of christianity.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
I hope Pilgrim's Regress is better than The Screwtape Letters. That was painfully unreadable. And was the first book that really pushed me to doubt the validity of christianity.
I would read that one last. Lewis had a photographic memory so he could literally tell you every word and punctuation mark on every book he ever read. That sounds like an exaggeration but it's literally true. He didn't realize that everyone didn't have this gift when he wrote this book, so it contains allusions to other works that to this day no professor at Oxford can figure out. I'm assuming you've read Pilgrim's progress. It would be good to read that one before Pilgrim's Regress.
 
Top