Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist...
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#805 May 21, 2013
Punisher wrote:
1. <quoted text>But that doesn't mean the claims are factual. What is reality is that a message was received, nothing more. Same with Democracy. We're watching that right now - people, groups and communities receiving the messages of Democratic ideals thru social networking, etc...does that mean an entity is "in there"...?
If technology had developed with an aura of mysticism surrounding it, with quasi-religious overtones (as depicted in many good and bad sci-fi fictions) whose to say that's not what people newly exposed to "technology" would believe is at work...?
Just because people get a "message", receive it and then adopt a new way of looking at things does not mean a God is behind it. Many people are receiving for the first time the messages that they are not alone in their disbelief...that being an atheist in a Religious, in this case Xtian drenched society they are not alone, and that they can speak out, be what they want to be, whats genuine for them in this regards.

2. By your account that's probably Satan at work. using technology to his advantage. That he runs a Spam center sending out his messages.

3. If you/others would seriously look at what you're saying about these matters you might (I say with caution) See how absurd it is.
1. I personally am not in any way attacking the questioning of the involvement of a God. I understand the idea of offering alternative possibilities. It's not the proposal that maybe God has nothing to do with any of this I question, so much as the absolute 'insistence' that God has 'nothing' to do with social media. Or that the God of the Bible does not exist for that matter.

2. I honestly don't know what Satan's involvement is. I personally believe that there is spiritual involvement from both God and Satan. But this just goes back to the original question as to whether or not God and Satan exist. If they do (as I believe they do), is there any reason to believe they are not involved in social media? Is there a reason to believe that Jesus doesn't use social media as a tool to reach individuals? Is there some reason social media and technology would be off-limits to God?

3. What exactly is absurd? That the God of the Bible exists? Or that the God of the Bible would use technology? Would things be less absurd if the God of the Bible existed but had no involvement with technology? Would it be too carnal?
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#806 May 21, 2013
Punisher wrote:
<quoted text>But jumping to conclusions is not the answer either.
While Religions have historically been making claims for a long F'n time now - they have also not provided any real proof for as long a time.
Religious beliefs have to be rejected by the sciences - because to date no one can test them. No one can work them into the equations, because they have no measurable value (mathematically). Even the notion of God has not been settled by Religions or the Believers among them all.
"Godditit!" - just isn't something we can work with when doing scientific research. Its a dead-end.
Student; (holding an object) "Professor how did this happen?"
Prof; "Oh that...?? Goddidit!"
Student; "Oh." (Puts down whatever the "this" was and walks home. as all the work and the point of being there, in a lab or field, is done.)
I don't think the issue is so much whether or not "Goddidit", as it is whether or not the "God if the Bible did it". The fact that we cannot explain our existence (beginning) renders the notion that an intelligent designer is not implausible. As far as I know, very few seem to rule out "intelligent design" as a possibility (although the term I used has negative political implications for many). It's not until one points to the God of the Bible when references to 'mythology' spring up. Not when referencing an intelligent designer (again, realizing the political implications of this term).
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#807 May 21, 2013
Punisher wrote:
<quoted text>
2. As non-believers there is much we admit we humans dont know. Yet. That we will - or never will - is what makes the journey and investigation so F'n fun and interesting...!
I'm not claiming that the journey is not fun and interesting. But the question I would ask, would the reality of the God of the Bible somehow reduce the interesting and fun element of the journey? If so, why?
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#809 May 21, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I didn't say "personal". I know Paine did not believe God interacts personally with man. What I stated was that he believed that God was a distinct personality. He was a separate entity with intelligence. He acted with purpose.
Only a personal “God’ could have a “distinct personality”.
A personal god is a deity who can be related to as a person instead of as an ‘impersonal force’, such as the Absolute,‘the All’, or the Ground of Being’".– Wikipedia
Job wrote:
2. On the contrary many Christians find purpose in life, and live life to the fullest. These particular deists are making a very broad generalization.
As far as the idea that there would be no Christianity if there was no promise of Heaven has it's flaws as well. What the Bible focuses on concerning Heaven is being with Jesus for eternity. This really only becomes attractive to one who loves Jesus while on Earth. Heaven appears to be very boring to many people because there are no Earthly sensual pleasures promised in eternity. Islam makes certain promises that convey Earthly pleasures in the afterlife. So does Mormonism.
The central concept of Christianity is that Jesus was crucified as atonement for sin so that believers could go to heaven in the afterlife. If there is no heaven or hell there is no need for atonement and there is no need for Jesus.
And Thomas Paine did not accept the idea that he may have been a sinner in need of redemption. He claimed that God had no position or right to proclaim him a sinner. He believed God would treat him justly in similar fashion to the employee who states that the boss, who he treats to dinner every weekend will be just in determining who will get the promotion (provided that he is the one chosen).
Job wrote:
3. That last part is true. We all stand in the same position. We humans have a concept that crime needs to be paid for. If a relatively good man j-walks and gets a ticket, he is obligated to pay it. We are held accountable for our actions on Earth. Do you think Paine disbelieved in divine judgment? Do you think Paine believed that we are not held accountable in the afterlife?
Thomas Paine thought any idea about “God” other than the idea that “God” was the creator of all things was pure human speculation.
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#810 May 21, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Like who? Who became a Christian because they celebrated Christmas and Easter? Who decided they may as well become a Christian since they celebrate these 2 holidays? Or...who decided that Christianity must be the way because they were so infatuated with these 2 holidays?
2. Even in your highly questionable scenario, you only stated that 'many' westerners become Christians due to said holidays. I assume that this means there are exceptions?
The statistics say that if you are born in a Christian country you will tend to become a Christian and if you are born in a Hindu country you will tend to be a Hindu. It’s not that difficult.
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#811 May 21, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
Ironically, during this time the Bible was restrained from the general public. It was church doctrine they were ordered to believe. In addition, this doesn't answer for the free-world, and historically non-Christian nations.
Bibles were few and far between until the printing press was invented in the 15th century by Christians. Predictably the first book printed was the Gutenberg Bible. If Christianity had never become the only official religion of the Roman Empire you probably would never have even heard of the Bible.
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#812 May 21, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I didn't say "personal". I know Paine did not believe God interacts personally with man. What I stated was that he believed that God was a distinct personality. He was a separate entity with intelligence. He acted with purpose.
Only a personal “God" has a “distinct personality”.

A personal god is a deity who can be related to as a person instead of as an ‘impersonal force’, such as the Absolute,‘the All’, or the Ground of Being’".– Wikipedia
Job wrote:
2. On the contrary many Christians find purpose in life, and live life to the fullest. These particular deists are making a very broad generalization.
As far as the idea that there would be no Christianity if there was no promise of Heaven has it's flaws as well. What the Bible focuses on concerning Heaven is being with Jesus for eternity. This really only becomes attractive to one who loves Jesus while on Earth. Heaven appears to be very boring to many people because there are no Earthly sensual pleasures promised in eternity. Islam makes certain promises that convey Earthly pleasures in the afterlife. So does Mormonism.
The central concept of Christianity is that Jesus was crucified as atonement for sin so that believers could go to heaven in the afterlife. If there is no heaven or hell there is no need for atonement and there is no need for Jesus.
Job wrote:
And Thomas Paine did not accept the idea that he may have been a sinner in need of redemption. He claimed that God had no position or right to proclaim him a sinner. He believed God would treat him justly in similar fashion to the employee who states that the boss, who he treats to dinner every weekend will be just in determining who will get the promotion (provided that he is the one chosen).
3. That last part is true. We all stand in the same position. We humans have a concept that crime needs to be paid for. If a relatively good man j-walks and gets a ticket, he is obligated to pay it. We are held accountable for our actions on Earth. Do you think Paine disbelieved in divine judgment? Do you think Paine believed that we are not held accountable in the afterlife?
Thomas Paine thought that any idea about “God” other than the idea that “God” was the creator of all things was pure human speculation.
little lamb

Australia

#813 May 21, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
Only a personal “God" has a “distinct personality”.
A personal god is a deity who can be related to as a person instead of as an ‘impersonal force’, such as the Absolute,‘the All’, or the Ground of Being’".– Wikipedia
<quoted text>
The central concept of Christianity is that Jesus was crucified as atonement for sin so that believers could go to heaven in the afterlife. If there is no heaven or hell there is no need for atonement and there is no need for Jesus.
<quoted text>
Thomas Paine thought that any idea about “God” other than the idea that “God” was the creator of all things was pure human speculation.
Are you saying you have never done anything wrong ..ever?
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#814 May 22, 2013
little lamb wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you saying you have never done anything wrong ..ever?
Of course I have done many things that I consider to be wrong and have tried to learn from those mistakes. There is also no doubt in my mind that I have done many things that you would consider to be wrong and things that Muslims and Hindus consider being wrong. I eat beef a big no-no for Hindus. Right and wrong is a relative thing.

I do not believe that there is an invisible man in the sky who is so insecure that he could be offended by any of my actions. The closest thing I have found to a universal morality is the Golden Rule. It is taught by just about every belief system but seldom followed.

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty.”- Albert Einstein
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#815 May 23, 2013
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
Only a personal “God" has a “distinct personality”.
A personal god is a deity who can be related to as a person instead of as an ‘impersonal force’, such as the Absolute,‘the All’, or the Ground of Being’".– Wikipedia

2. <quoted text>
The central concept of Christianity is that Jesus was crucified as atonement for sin so that believers could go to heaven in the afterlife. If there is no heaven or hell there is no need for atonement and there is no need for Jesus.
<quoted text>

3. Thomas Paine thought that any idea about “God” other than the idea that “God” was the creator of all things was pure human speculation.
1. I think you're trying to go where it's unnecessary to go. I never used the term "personal god". I also didn't refer to Paine's creator as 'having' a personality. I stated that Paine's creator is a distinct personality which can include a force. All I meant by personality was that the creator is a distinct intelligent force. If you have a problem with that term, I won't use it, as there's no reason to side-track to "Personal Creator". Paine's creator evidently acted with purpose. I don't think that Paine viewed the creator as being one and the same with his creation, in that this would entail the creator creating himself. Do you think that if there were a (possible) creator (Paine's), that he created himself?

2. Not sure what you're getting at here. This sounds something like "If there was no U.S. presidential office, there would be no need for Washington, Lincoln, Obama, etc".

3. Why wouldn't the concept of God "creating all things" be merely speculation?
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#816 May 23, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
The statistics say that if you are born in a Christian country you will tend to become a Christian and if you are born in a Hindu country you will tend to be a Hindu. It’s not that difficult.
I agree, it's not. The term 'tend' is indefinite. You/we/they also need to specify what is meant by "Christian". Since 'you' celebrate Christmas (I assume), are you in a sense "Christian" (since you don't celebrate Hindu or Muslim holidays)?
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#817 May 23, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
Bibles were few and far between until the printing press was invented in the 15th century by Christians. Predictably the first book printed was the Gutenberg Bible. If Christianity had never become the only official religion of the Roman Empire you probably would never have even heard of the Bible.
This doesn't make any sense, considering that the law makers at the time banned the bible from the public. I can thank folks like Wycliffe for my knowledge of the existence of, and legal status to read the Bible today.

When you said "probably", I assume you are not sure?
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#818 May 23, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I think you're trying to go where it's unnecessary to go. I never used the term "personal god". I also didn't refer to Paine's creator as 'having' a personality. I stated that Paine's creator is a distinct personality which can include a force.
I think I understand. You find it difficult to conceive of a “God” that does not have any sort of human characteristics such a “distinct personality”,“intelligence” or “purposefulness”. Try to think of “God” as a natural force such as gravity. Gravity simply does what gravity does it doesn’t need a “distinct personality”,“intelligence” or “purposefulness”.
Job wrote:
All I meant by personality was that the creator is a distinct intelligent force. If you have a problem with that term, I won't use it, as there's no reason to side-track to "Personal Creator". Paine's creator evidently acted with purpose. I don't think that Paine viewed the creator as being one and the same with his creation, in that this would entail the creator creating himself. Do you think that if there were a (possible) creator (Paine's), that he created himself?
"The only idea man can affix to the name of God is that of a first cause, the cause of all things.”- Thomas Paine
Job wrote:
2. Not sure what you're getting at here. This sounds something like "If there was no U.S. presidential office, there would be no need for Washington, Lincoln, Obama, etc".
Your analogy is not analogous. If there were no U.S. there would be no need for a U.S. president. If there were no heaven or hell there would be no hell to be redeemed from.
Job wrote:
3. Why wouldn't the concept of God "creating all things" be merely speculation?
It is not mere speculation because he based his “God” concept on the real world evidence that the world exists and the logic that the law of cause and effect would indicate a cause.

“Since we know we did not create the creation or ourselves, yet we and the creation do exist, it is logical to believe that God, or an Eternal Cause or Creator created us.”- Bob Johnson, World Union of Deists

"It is only by the exercise of reason that man can discover God.”– Thomas Paine

This may or may not be correct but it is it is a reasoned argument based on real world evidence.
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#819 May 23, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree, it's not. The term 'tend' is indefinite. You/we/they also need to specify what is meant by "Christian". Since 'you' celebrate Christmas (I assume), are you in a sense "Christian" (since you don't celebrate Hindu or Muslim holidays)?
India is not 80% Hindu because each and every person sat down one day and gave careful consideration to which belief system he/she would choose. India is 80% Hindu because if you are born in a country that is predominantly Hindu you tend to become Hindu. It’s not that difficult.
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#820 May 23, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
This doesn't make any sense, considering that the law makers at the time banned the bible from the public. I can thank folks like Wycliffe for my knowledge of the existence of, and legal status to read the Bible today.
When you said "probably", I assume you are not sure?
Absolutely correct! For 1,300 years the people of the Western World were required by law to believe the stories of the Bible. However since Bibles had to be copied by hand for most of that time they were scarce. Not only that; most of the people could not read.

"Only ten percent of people in the Roman Empire could read...and those were generally in the wealthy upper classes." - Gregory J. Riley, Ph.D.- Harvard University, Professor of New Testament

The Bible was never banned. The Council of Toulouse prohibited the possession Bibles by the laity because the existence of what they considered inaccurate translations which were being used as a tool for the promotion of the Albigensian heresy. Since most people couldn’t read it wasn’t that big a thing. None of this has anything to do with the fact that belief in the stories of the bible was required by law for 1,300 years.

Again, had the Roman Empire adopted one of the many other belief systems you probably would never have heard of the Bible.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#821 May 24, 2013
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
I think I understand. You find it difficult to conceive of a “God” that does not have any sort of human characteristics such a “distinct personality”,“intelligence” or “purposefulness”. Try to think of “God” as a natural force such as gravity. Gravity simply does what gravity does it doesn’t need a “distinct personality”,“intelligence” or “purposefulness”.
<quoted text>

2. "The only idea man can affix to the name of God is that of a first cause, the cause of all things.”- Thomas Paine
<quoted text>

3. Your analogy is not analogous. If there were no U.S. there would be no need for a U.S. president. If there were no heaven or hell there would be no hell to be redeemed from.
<quoted text>

4. It is not mere speculation because he based his “God” concept on the real world evidence that the world exists and the logic that the law of cause and effect would indicate a cause.
“Since we know we did not create the creation or ourselves, yet we and the creation do exist, it is logical to believe that God, or an Eternal Cause or Creator created us.”- Bob Johnson, World Union of Deists
"It is only by the exercise of reason that man can discover God.”– Thomas Paine
This may or may not be correct but it is it is a reasoned argument based on real world evidence.
1. I think I have a pretty good imagination, and could easily 'imagine' such a thing. However, human traits have nothing to do with the issue at hand, unless we think of 'creating' and 'intelligence' as a human trait. Paine was not suggesting we use our imagination. Thinking of gravity is irrelevant in that gravity itself obviously cannot create life. I don't think Paine was suggesting that an unconscious force like gravity created us. The one trait we can utilize for this scenario is "intelligent". This is all we really need. We can really leave out everything else. Do you think that the force/entity that Paine referred to is unintelligent?

2. This quote doesn't answer the question. If you allow for the possibility that a creator somehow created himself, this is probably more preposterous than life coming into existence from nothing. We have 2 issues for you to consider. One, do you really think Paine had that in mind, and two, do you think a creator could create himself?

Basically, your quote is not a representation of Paine's thought process on the matter of a creator, unless maybe you can provide other quotes to suggest such a thing. I think it's key that the time-period of Paine was before the New Age teachings (eastern religion influence) in the west, which eventually did make it's way into the west in the 1800s. I say that because a lot of the ideas like "we are all one with god and universe" originate from eastern religion.

3. I was more curious over your comment about there being no need for Jesus as if He wouldn't exist if man had not fallen as described in the book of Genesis. Heaven and Hell are created locations. The White House is a created location for a purpose, as well as prison cells.

4. The proper way for him to have phrased that would have been "the only evidence 'I' have", which would remove him from the error of claiming no one had an experience with the creator outside of his experience. He was obviously suggesting, for instance, that George Washington did not have the experiences he maintained that he had.

But Paine also claimed that there was only "one god" who "created all". Wouldn't the idea of "one god", and "created all" be mere speculation? How would we know there is only "one god", and "all" was "created by one god" by mere observation?
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#822 May 24, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
India is not 80% Hindu because each and every person sat down one day and gave careful consideration to which belief system he/she would choose. India is 80% Hindu because if you are born in a country that is predominantly Hindu you tend to become Hindu. It’s not that difficult.
That doesn't answer my question though. You're leaving out the obvious problem that there are different types of Hindus just as there are different types of Christians. Or more accurately put, different 'levels' of each. I was once acquainted with a Bangladeshi who was certainly influenced by his Hindu upbringing, but was by no means a 'practicing' Hindu. I don't recall him celebrating Hindu holidays once he moved to America, but I'm sure he did when he lived in Bangladesh. Sometimes religions are literally ethnic groups like "Muslims" in the former Yugoslavia who decided to change the name of their ethnic group to avoid the confusion. Mormonism and Amish bear very strong similarity to ethnic groups.

The question again is, are you in a sense a Christian because (again I assume) you celebrate Christmas?
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#823 May 24, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely correct! For 1,300 years the people of the Western World were required by law to believe the stories of the Bible. However since Bibles had to be copied by hand for most of that time they were scarce. Not only that; most of the people could not read.
"Only ten percent of people in the Roman Empire could read...and those were generally in the wealthy upper classes." - Gregory J. Riley, Ph.D.- Harvard University, Professor of New Testament
The Bible was never banned. The Council of Toulouse prohibited the possession Bibles by the laity because the existence of what they considered inaccurate translations which were being used as a tool for the promotion of the Albigensian heresy.

2. Since most people couldn’t read it wasn’t that big a thing. None of this has anything to do with the fact that belief in the stories of the bible was required by law for 1,300 years.

3. Again, had the Roman Empire adopted one of the many other belief systems you probably would never have heard of the Bible.
1. You're only referring to the first canon. It was not only the 'laity' that was prohibited:

The Council of Tarragona of 1234,
in its second canon, ruled that:

"No one may possess the books of the Old
and New Testaments, and if anyone possesses
them he must turn them over to the local bishop
within eight days, so that they may be burned..."
- The Church Council of Tarragona 1234 AD;
2nd Cannon - Source : D. Lortsch,
Historie de la Bible en France, 1910, p.14.

I don't know where you get the idea that it wasn't banned. There were people put to death for possessing Bibles:

grass-roots spread of Wycliffe's Bible resulted in a death sentence for any unlicensed possession of Scripture in English

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tyndale

2. Wasn't a big thing? The reason most could not read the Bible is because the Bible was on produced in Latin, and most Europeans could not read Latin. By law they were not required to believe everything in the Bible, because portions of the Bible were hid from the common man. And there were additional teachings they were exposed to that were not ever in the Bible like "purgatory", paying the church to receive forgiveness of sins, etc. When the Bible was translated into other languages, people were exposed to what the Bible actually read, which did not work in favor for the repressive church piety.

3. Meaning that you're not that sure?

“Maiden of Mayhem”

Since: May 08

OMFUG

#824 May 24, 2013
Reason no: 1 Your post scored the highest on the WTF Fundie Index on http://www.fstdt.com
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#826 May 24, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. You're only referring to the first canon. It was not only the 'laity' that was prohibited:
The Council of Tarragona of 1234,
in its second canon, ruled that:
"No one may possess the books of the Old
and New Testaments, and if anyone possesses
them he must turn them over to the local bishop
within eight days, so that they may be burned..."
- The Church Council of Tarragona 1234 AD;
2nd Cannon - Source : D. Lortsch,
Historie de la Bible en France, 1910, p.14.
I don't know where you get the idea that it wasn't banned. There were people put to death for possessing Bibles:
grass-roots spread of Wycliffe's Bible resulted in a death sentence for any unlicensed possession of Scripture in English
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tyndale [QUOTE who="Job"]
Are you suggesting the Christian Church of that time did not base its beliefs on the Bible? That’s absurd. The Church's understanding of the Bible may not have agreed with your understanding but that's beside the point. The Church's purpose was to stop beliefs about Christianity and the Bible they considered heretical.
[QUOTE who="Job"]2. Wasn't a big thing? The reason most could not read the Bible is because the Bible was on produced in Latin, and most Europeans could not read Latin.
They couldn’t read any other language either, 90% of them were illiterate. I suppose you think every peasant went home after work and read the Bible to his family after dinner?
Job wrote:
By law they were not required to believe everything in the Bible, because portions of the Bible were hid from the common man. And there were additional teachings they were exposed to that were not ever in the Bible like "purgatory", paying the church to receive forgiveness of sins, etc. When the Bible was translated into other languages, people were exposed to what the Bible actually read, which did not work in favor for the repressive church piety.
There were laws prohibiting heresy and heresy was any belief contradictory to the Church’s understanding of the teachings of the Bible, such as the Albigensian heresy. Again you may disagree with the Church’s understanding of the Bible but the laws of heresy were based on the Church’s understanding of the Bible.
Job wrote:
3. Meaning that you're not that sure?
Meaning that if Theodosius had chosen Zoroastrianism in 380 rather than Christianity you would be much more likely to know about the Denkard rather than the Bible.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Are Your Beliefs TRUE? 48 min Ben Avraham 399
jesus will never return 1 hr Ben Avraham 159
Why has God stop communicating with man? 3 hr Divine Intervention 139
Early Christianity (Dec '16) 3 hr Big Al 2,687
Why did Christ come to Earth? (Oct '16) 4 hr Natalie 1,398
Help Me Send Bibles To The Dominican Republic! Wed Natalie 5
breath of god, and how we come to light. Wed Natalie 240
More from around the web