Spirituality
07 Nov 12
08 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageAccepting the fundamentals of the faith does not make one a "fundamentalist" within the meaning you present here. Extreme fundamentalism is possibly a clearer definition. I see a few in here and know a few in real life. The ones I know in real life are good people trapped in a paradigm of ever decreasing [thought] circles which can lead to them exhibiting a somewhat misanthropic and even aggressive demeanor. If I ever come across this way, it's because I'm a being miserable git, not because I'm an extreme fundamentalist (which I’m not).
The type who don't take the Word at its word. Who might find the idea of doing so ridiculous. Are there any on this board?
08 Nov 12
Originally posted by divegeesterHere's the thing: the possibly total untrustworthiness of the Bible was not considered incompatible with the fundamentals of the faith until advent the Gutenberg era. With print came a shift from negative to positive theology that has had the undesirable result of fostering wide-spread idiocy among semi-literate believers.
Accepting the fundamentals of the faith does not make one a "fundamentalist" within the meaning you present here. Extreme fundamentalism is possibly a clearer definition. I see a few in here and know a few in real life. The ones I know in real life are good people trapped in a paradigm of ever decreasing [thought] circles which can lead to them exhibiti ...[text shortened]... cause I'm a being miserable git, not because I'm an extreme fundamentalist (which I’m not).
08 Nov 12
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYou're starting your argument with a false statement, thus rendering it all false.
Here's the thing: the possibly total untrustworthiness of the Bible was not considered incompatible with the fundamentals of the faith until advent the Gutenberg era. With print came a shift from negative to positive theology that has had the undesirable result of fostering wide-spread idiocy among semi-literate believers.
Just saying "total untrustworthiness of the Bible" makes me stop listening. Even with the pansy modifier "possibly".
Add in "idiocy" and "semi-literate" and your ignorance is complete.
08 Nov 12
Originally posted by Suzianne1) Christians are dumb.
You're starting your argument with a false statement, thus rendering it all false.
Just saying "total untrustworthiness of the Bible" makes me stop listening. Even with the pansy modifier "possibly".
Add in "idiocy" and "semi-literate" and your ignorance is complete.
2) Jesus loves the dumb.
Therefore...
3) Jesus loves Christians.
Is everything in the above argument false, because it starts with a false premise? Right. So that's a brief lesson in logic. You're welcome.
08 Nov 12
Originally posted by SuzianneMy post is a condensed summary of historical opinions held by various Christian thinkers and recorded in Karen Armstrong's book The Case For God.
You're starting your argument with a false statement, thus rendering it all false.
Just saying "total untrustworthiness of the Bible" makes me stop listening. Even with the pansy modifier "possibly".
Add in "idiocy" and "semi-literate" and your ignorance is complete.
There was even a spiritual exercise that consisted in bringing to mind all the patent flaws and absurdities that the Bible contains, the better to enter the 'cloud of unknowing'.
Idolatry of the Bible is one of the more pitiful dispositions of semi-literate idiots.
Anyhow: a thought experiment: imagine all the Bibles in the world burnt up in a flash, every one of them, digital versions, paper versions, clay versions, the lot. Would your faith go up in smoke along with it? Or would you discover that you didn't need the Bible all along?