Fundamentalism and Intellectualism

Originally Posted by Nathan Poe

Hey, AV -- why not just do the honest and honorable thing and admit that when the Bible tells people to kill witches, it's wrong?

No --- you guys are the ones who say the Bible says to kill witches.

We say the Bible said to kill witches.

We're not on a witch-hunt today like you guys are.

__________________

we simply state whats written in the bible. It says to kill witches. YOU GUYS have already shown that you are willing to act on such passages and carry it out.

Show me what changed in the bible from 1600 to 1800 in relation to now? ah yes, it was secular morality. The bible says the same things it has always said, Your just projecting secular morality on the bible.

Please cite were "we" are on a witch hunt? we have simply shown the bible calls for oneo. Your displacing and twisting our criticism of the bible, and twisting it to say that we are somehow bad for pointing out whats already written. that's dishonest.

Its akin to someone saying that the Koran is immoral because it promotes revenge against enemies (which it does) and some Muslim claims that this someone is exacting revenge against their enemies or at least promoting it, when in reality its criticism against the Koran.

Your demonizing those who are criticizing passages in the bible rather then address the criticisms themselves. That's fine but know that this is the tactic of those who have no argument.

Ok, I think we understand the deal now. Anything that you dont feel comfortable with, you just change it from "says" to "said". Its just the jots and tittles that you cant change?

That is quite the "interpretation". You should have just said this in the first place.

Ah, well then, that explains it! The Bible's not wrong, just outdated. Guess that makes Isaiah 40:8, Matthew 5:18, Luke 16:17, and 1 Peter 1:23 wrong then.

Is the clock ticking on the rest of the Bible as well? Do the 10 Commandments come with an expiration date?

__________________
To them, you're just a freak, like me! They need you right now, but when they don't, they'll cast you out, like a leper!
You see, their morals, their code, it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They're only as good as the world allows them to be. I'll show you. When the chips are down, these... these civilized people, they'll eat each other.

See, I'm not a monster. I'm just ahead of the curve.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

So much for literal reading of the bible. If witch killing is wrong, when it says to kill witches, I wonder if its possible that parts of genesis is wrong? After all the bible is supposed to be infallible. Instead it makes makes major mistakes. i wonder if we looked at genesis and compared it to the empirical date, what kinds of inconsistencies we can find.

I'll tackle that by talking about the opposite position; From a scientist's/intellectual's perspective, its about confessing to/embracing one's own ignorance, and attempting to replace that ignorance with useful knowledge. This often (but not always) leads to skepticism... and if the person has good critical thinking skills, they tend not to accept any 'tribal knowledge' on its face.

Compare that to fundamentalism, where its all about the tribal knowledge. A 'good' fundamentalist accepts and trusts what they are told by other fundamentalists, to the exclusion of outsider opinion; dissension is discouraged, as is independence.. That plays out on the political side of fundamentalism, too. John McCain comes to mind, here... he's the Republican party "maverick"..? Really? The label alone suggests that a person with so much in common with Republican core gets 'outcast status' for what would be considered minor variances in opinion across the aisle. Contrast that with Joe Liebermann who, despite a strong pro-war stance, and an independent streak, caucuses with Democrats and is hardly considered "mavericky" in any sense, despite the fact that he is further from Democratic party's core than McCain is from the Republican core.

It seems like a leadership eyebrow is raised whenever a fundamentalist expresses an opinion contrary to the accepted position. There is a certain strength in that; fundamentalists do have a very cohesive unity of purpose. But that kind of organization, absent earnest leadership, can be very easily misguided. This is what you see happening with the mass-exodus of scientists; they value results honestly researched, even when those results don't help to reinforce the party line. If you want the scientific process to be made subservient to political (or religious) ideology, a scientist has to abandon what he knows makes science work, if he is to continue in his political affiliation. No true skeptic is willing to abandon wholesale his ability to question in such a fashion.


Dissension is more or less a part of a skeptic's everyday life. S/he is questioning jsut about everything, so there's no big deal when other people do the same... and I'd hate to be around when someone tries to tell a skeptic that he's got no business questioning tribal knowledge. They tend to blister the paint on the wall with the verbiage they use in telling you just where you can put your traditional, populist, tribal notions.

Accepting and organizing a spectrum of ideas from among a group of individual skeptics is a necessity if you hope to get anything done as a group. Still, all ideas should expect to be defended with facts and evidence, at the same time. Without evidence and a logical argument, your curious notions aren't worth the beer coaster they're written on to a skeptic.

Well as I am understanding it, it DID say to kill witches, but at some point that got dispensated. Amended i guess would be another way to put it.

I dont know how that fits with the bit about not changing a jot or a tittle, or how a person is supposed to know when some prohibition or command got dispensated.

I ask YOU. I ask YOUR knowledge of the Bible.

Do you deny that the Bible - your beloved KJV - tells us not to suffer a witch to live? That is a rather absolute command, don´t you think?

So why does the infallible word of God fail to provide us with a method to FIND a witch?

Do YOU think that the Salem Witch Trials were wrong? Not because your hindsight tells you so, but considering the knowledge of that time.

__________________
Hier sitz´ich, forme Menschen
Nach meinem Bilde,
Ein Geschlecht, das mir gleich sei,
Zu leiden, zu weinen,
Zu genießen und zu freuen sich
Und dein nicht zu achten,
Wie ich!

(Johann Wolfgang von Goethe: Prometheus)

Originally Posted by MoonLancer

If witch killing is wrong, when it says to kill witches...

That's the point --- it wasn't wrong at the time.

Which, by the way, was BC 1491 --- not [AD] '1600 - 1800'.

__________________

Originally Posted by Hespera

Well as I am understanding it, it DID say to kill witches, but at some point that got dispensated.

Mamma mia!

I underestimate you, Hespera --- and I do apologize for that.

QV my last post.

I like that word 'dispensated' ---

__________________