Fundamentalism and Intellectualism

Catherineanne · #**121** 3rd July 2009, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by Hentenza

As categories for what?

'Barking mad' is my category for Creationists.

'Sane' is my category for everyone else, including poor souls with genuine mental health problems.

And my rationale for saying so, is that we are commanded in the Bible to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength.

Creationists clearly have the heart and soul bit sorted, but they use their strength to close down their minds, deny the God given knowledge brought to us by our God given scientists, and instead resort to sticking their fingers in their ears, closing their eyes, going 'LALALALALALA' and then saying, 'Evidence? What evidence? I see no evidence! There is NO evidence.'

And then they construct whole castles of fantasy about embedded age, and embedded bones and fossils, constituting God bearing false witness in creation, which theories are the most gross blasphemy against a truthful, loving God that anyone was ever crazy enough to postulate.

Some even go so far as to call this 'Bible believing.' As if the Bible ever said anything about God being deceitful, or about us denying actual human knowledge and resorting to the construction of fantasy.

Which behaviour is way past Barking.

There is no human knowledge that presents a conflict with belief in a loving, rational, compassionate God. There is plenty of human behaviour which challenges us to think, and to consider, and to act, but there is nothing in creation which can contradict the Creator. If we think it does, then we do not understand it properly, and need to learn more, not close our minds.

Catherineanne · #**122** 3rd July 2009, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by Hespera

And what would be an example of evidence for a creator?

Any evidence would appear circular, again, I think.

The Creator is either a foundation for belief, or not. So if a person believes in God, then all of creation will be recognised as evidence of his existence.

On the other hand, if another person does not believe in God, there will be no evidence. How can there be evidence for something that is not?

This would appear an insurmountable problem. The question for non believers to ask is, if there were a God, what kind of evidence would I want to see of his existence? Without going into the mind numbingly tedious area of personal testimony, this is how I came to faith. I set a marker, and it was met, immediately and unequivocally.

Which begs the questions, why me? why then? why not others? To which I can only say, I haven't got a clue.

iremouth · #**123** 3rd July 2009, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by Catherineanne

Unless you are a fundie of some kind, there is no branch of human knowledge where an answer will not raise another ten questions. Theology is no different.

However, before I dig myself any deeper into the defence of the Fall, I ought to say I regard the story as allegorical, and in no way literal. The idea of a literal Adam and Eve is ludicrous in the extreme, and this is not a minority view; the vast majority of Christians accept it as story or myth or allegory. This forum is slanted in many ways towards a prevalent US theology, which is not actually mainstream. The story of Adam and Eve as a pattern for all mankind is fine. As literal truth, it is a complete non starter.

For one thing, there are two mutually contradictory creation stories in Genesis. Creationists are very keen to accept the Adam and Eve version, but quietly forget the other preceding one, which says that mankind was created in God's image, male and female. No mention of Adam and Eve. That is the creation story I go along with.

However, you are correct. Any lions around in the (allegorical) garden of Eden would not have been carnivorous. I dare say they would have resembled the cuddly toys in my daughter's bedroom; cute smiles, no teeth, no claws.

In essence we have primitive people, looking around them at their frankly dismal existence, and saying, how on earth did it get like this? The story of the Fall is one answer.

So at which point does the bible start to become believable for you? and why would you even begin to think there was a God? where did that idea come from?

redwards · #**124** 3rd July 2009, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

Well, I actually spoke too fast on that.

My mouth was engaged before my brain was.

If there were no lions present prior to the Fall, then my point stands: no carnivores before the Fall.

If there were lions present prior to the Fall, they were not carnivores: no carnivores before the Fall.

Either way --- no carnivores before the Fall.

According to the Bible, in the Millennial Kingdom and Eternity Future, the lion is going to be a herbivore.

Hearing some brands of adherents describe the biblical timeline sounds, to me, remarkably like listening to highschool kids argue over the timeline of their favorite comic book story arc.

AV1611VET · #**125** 3rd July 2009, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by redwards

Hearing some brands of adherents describe the biblical timeline sounds, to me, remarkably like listening to highschool kids argue over the timeline of their favorite comic book story arc.

That's why "highschool kids" need a good dose of Dispensation Theology, eh?

BananaSlug · #**126** 3rd July 2009, 06:40 PM

Originally Posted by redwards

Before I continue, I'll add that it is, in general, not my habit to post links or copy things from other sites in order to make a point, but as you invited me to let fly, here we go. Most of these studies were cataloged a 1986 article in the magazine Free Inquiry.
Let me know if you're interested in seeing any of the studies I omitted.

Those studies are exactly my point. I know many Christians who are very intellectual, but 0% of them are conservatives. My great uncle has a doctorate in Theology and is a very liberal man. I know it is a generalization but there are very few fundies that look up to higher education. They seem to even despise college institutions and scientific academia in general.