Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian!!!

[Job]

Big Al wrote:

<quoted text>
1. You believe that your “God” demands worship, is jealous of rivals, rewards “sucking up”, meats out punishment for anything that displeases or offends “Him” and is prone to fits of anger. I think that’s a pretty good description of just about any medieval tyrant you would care to name.
<quoted text>

2. You and I are talking about two different things. I’m talking about the possibility of an indescribable force or consciousness or intelligence that is responsible for the laws that govern nature and the universe, not a personal god with anthropomorphic (human) characteristics. You have to remember that I don’t accept your concept of “God”.
<quoted text>

3. You seem to suggesting that the people that wrote editorials in that journal need to unnamed for fear of physical retribution by the science community.

1. Medieval tyrants were generally impatient, and unforgiving. The God of the Bible is extremely patient, when considering the many years that have gone by before judgments were pronounced. Tyrants don't really care if those he rules over love others. God's command is to love one another. The problem with not worshiping God is that if we don't, we will worship something else. Often, ourselves. And that's what causes a lot of problems in the world. The more wealth one has, the more he is afraid of losing it. As far as obligation to 'love', you don't think we have an obligation to love? We 'are' obligated. We are obligated to love our wives and children. We don't 'have' to, but we are obligated to. Take a parent who refuses to love his/her children, we have someone who is in violation of an ethical/moral law. And that law comes from God.

2. I know you don't. You supposedly embrace the possibility of Thomas Paine's God. I say 'supposedly', because Paine's god, although not the God of the Bible, at least not by his understanding, made personal decisions. We were created by the 'choice' of a creator. And possessed a concept of morality.

"The Almighty Lecturer, by displaying the principles of science in the structure of the universe, has invited man to study and to imitation. It is as if He had said to the inhabitants of this globe that we call ours, "I have made an earth for man to dwell upon, and I have rendered the starry heavens visible, to teach him science and the arts. He can now provide for his own comfort, and learn from my munificence to all to be kind to each other." - The Age of Reason, Part 1, 1793

3. Not at all:

The co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, 83, was menaced by protesters yesterday in Greece, while giving a lecture at Patras University. A group of 20 protesters shouting "Racist!" burst into the lecture theatre, and a young man - wearing a hood, naturally - approached Watson brandishing a flag.

The dangers could come from anyone(s) offended. They may not even have the slightest interest in science. Anyone(s) were offended by his conclusions, and deemed him a 'racist'.

[Job]

Big Al wrote:

<quoted text>
1. Do you recall that I told you that the entire Western World was controlled by the Church and the Church’s official position was that the Earth was the center of the universe? It was only because men like Copernicus and Galileo dared to accept scientific evidence rather than religious dogma that they arrived at the correct conclusion.
They did not allow the religion of that time to interfere with their scientific endeavors.

2. Galileo said the same thing then that Dawkins is saying now.

1. Yes, I sure do. But you also seem to relate geocentricism to revelation. And again, it's not a revelation. Religious dogma has nothing to do with revelation. Copernicus and Galileo would probably have dared to accept scientific evidence if they lived in China where geocentricism was embraced (by non-Christians), and in ancient Greece where Christianity was seen as a strange new teaching.

2. Even modern 'deists' have a problem with people like Dawkins, let alone a 'theist' like Galileo.

[Job]

Big Al wrote:

<quoted text>
1. Not only me and Hawking may very religious people understand that also.
“I take the Bible too seriously to read it literally.”- Karl Barth, Swiss Reformed theologian
<quoted text>

2. Scientists do welcome criticism but not from every fanatic with some wild idea based on some holy book or extraterrestrial theory. They welcome criticism based on scientific evidence and rational thought.
“Advocates of the ideas collectively known as “creationism” and, recently,“intelligent design creationism” hold a wide variety of views.… No scientific evidence supports these viewpoints.”– U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
<quoted text>

3. You see he’s not so bad.
<quoted text>

4. There is no difference between…
“can a God who created the Universe cause one of his creations (an animal or reptile) to talk “
and…
“is it possible for a God who created the Universe cause one of his creations (an animal or reptile) to talk”

1. First off, bringing a theologian into the picture doesn't take away your contradiction of the claim of admittance to "not knowing". Secondly, Karl Barth grew up in the 'liberal' teaching of theology. He also experienced a change in his views:

Together they struggled to find a new basis for Christian theology.“We tried to learn our theological ABC all over again…by reading and interpreting the writing of the Old and New Testaments, more thoughtfully than before” and “they began to speak to us.” A return to gospel basics was needed.“We must begin all over again with a new inner orientation,” he concluded,“recognizing God once more as God.”

2. Although socci and dollarsbill already been covering these areas involving evolution, I'd be interested in you telling me exactly why you think the universe cannot be 6,000 or so years old....'without' quoting anyone.

3. From strictly a human perspective, he wouldn't be such a bad guy if I compared him to Pol Pot or Hitler.

4. Then why won't you answer it (without suggesting God is a part of nature that does not act on intelligent decision)?

[Job]

Big Al wrote:

<quoted text>
1. Scientists do welcome criticism but not from every fanatic with some wild idea based on some holy book or extraterrestrial theory. They welcome criticism based on scientific evidence and rational thought.
“Advocates of the ideas collectively known as “creationism” and, recently,“intelligent design creationism” hold a wide variety of views.… No scientific evidence supports these viewpoints.”– U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

2. <quoted text>
Theories (hypotheses) based on holy books are not scientific theories (hypotheses). A scientific theory (hypothesis) must be based on real world observations or scientific evidence. If a scientist wants to place his faith in an ancient manuscript he can do that but he can’t expect other scientists to accept his hypotheses simply on the basis of that ancient text. Scientists are not going to accept every creation story in the world as evidence. He has to go to work, do some research, and produce valid scientific evidence.

1. Although socci and dollarsbill already been covering these areas involving evolution, I'd be interested in you telling me exactly why you think the universe cannot be 6,000 or so years old....'without' quoting anyone.

2. Isn't creation observable per Thomas Paine?

&#9668; Romans 1:20 &#9658;

New International Version (©1984)
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

3.

[Jazybird58]

dollarsbill wrote:

<quoted text>
Which God? You don't even know.

FSM, the only true god, dummy

[Jazybird58]

Job wrote:

<quoted text>
1. Although socci and dollarsbill already been covering these areas involving evolution, I'd be interested in you telling me exactly why you think the universe cannot be 6,000 or so years old....'without' quoting anyone.
2. Isn't creation observable per Thomas Paine?
&#9668; Romans 1:20 &#9658;
New International Version (©1984)
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
3.

Look to the stars, and light years, get back to us, Mk

[dollarsbill]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>FSM, the only true god, dummy

Which one is that? You don't even know. If you did you would know He will burn you in Hell forever.

[dollarsbill]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>Look to the stars, and light years, get back to us, Mk

Total ignorance. You're a loser forever in Hell.

[Thinking]

The FSM and the IPU trump your god.

dollarsbill wrote:

<quoted text>
Which one is that? You don't even know. If you did you would know He will burn you in Hell forever.

[Jazybird58]

dollarsbill wrote:

<quoted text>
Which one is that? You don't even know. If you did you would know He will burn you in Hell forever.

The FSM, dummy, god. Are you a tard?

[Jazybird58]

dollarsbill wrote:

<quoted text>
Total ignorance. You're a loser forever in Hell.

Wait, did you even understand my post. Lets try again, look at the stars. Now how far is the closest star, besides our sun??? 26 million light years. OK now how long does it take for the light from that star to reach us??? Do the math. Speed of light =? Lets see if the bible has an answer.

[dollarsbill]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>The FSM, dummy, god. Are you a tard?

You don't even know. Are you a "tard"?

[par five]

Thinking wrote:

The FSM and the IPU trump your god.
<quoted text>

May you be touched by His Noodly Appendages and bathe in the glow of Her Sacred Hooves!

[one way]

Truth is of no private interpretation. Therefore if ignorant people choose to believe that they came from a monkey, or that their ancestors were some guppies from the water, or some protozoan amoebae or some other sludge, than that is their own foolishness. But wise people believe the recorded and proven truth which is manifested for all flesh, from the first man Adam which was made by the Creator and made according to the Creator's own shape, up to the present day people's which populate the earth also created by the Creator to be inhabited.

[dollarsbill]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>Wait, did you even understand my post.

Yes I did. It was Biblically illiterate.

[Thinking]

Ramen and May Her Hooves Never Be Shod.

par five wrote:

<quoted text>
May you be touched by His Noodly Appendages and bathe in the glow of Her Sacred Hooves!

[Jazybird58]

dollarsbill wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes I did. It was Biblically illiterate.

Lets try again, look at the stars. Now how far is the closest star, besides our sun??? 26 million light years. OK now how long does it take for the light from that star to reach us??? Do the math. Speed of light =? Lets see if the bible has an answer.

[dollarsbill]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>Lets try again, look at the stars. Now how far is the closest star, besides our sun??? 26 million light years. OK now how long does it take for the light from that star to reach us??? Do the math. Speed of light =? Lets see if the bible has an answer.

You should focus on the eternal Hell. Which is more important to you?

[Jazybird58]

dollarsbill wrote:

<quoted text>
You should focus on the eternal Hell. Which is more important to you?

umm reality, you know real stuff. Not fiction, you know factual stuff. Are you playing dumb?

[Cisco Kid]

dollarsbill wrote:

<quoted text>
You should focus on the eternal Hell.
Which is more important to you?

Focusing on eternal hell is the stuff of demons.

As a Catholic, I focus on the love preached by Jesus Christ.
This is more important to me.

St.Paul states it well at 1 Cor 12:31—13:13;

"Strive eagerly for the greatest spiritual gifts.
But I shall show you a still more excellent way.

If I speak in human and angelic tongues,
but do not have love,
I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal.
And if I have the gift of prophecy,
and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge;
if I have all faith so as to move mountains,
but do not have love, I am nothing.
If I give away everything I own,
and if I hand my body over so that I may boast,
but do not have love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind.
It is not jealous, it is not pompous,
It is not inflated, it is not rude,
it does not seek its own interests,
it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury,
it does not rejoice over wrongdoing
but rejoices with the truth.
It bears all things, believes all things,
hopes all things, endures all things.

Love never fails.
If there are prophecies, they will be brought to nothing;
if tongues, they will cease;
if knowledge, it will be brought to nothing.
For we know partially and we prophesy partially,
but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.
When I was a child, I used to talk as a child,
think as a child, reason as a child;
when I became a man, I put aside childish things.
At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror,
but then face to face.
At present I know partially;
then I shall know fully, as I am fully known.

So faith, hope, love remain, these three;
but the greatest of these is love."