Double truth...

Originally posted by twhitehead
But as I have pointed out several times now (and quoted your exact words) it is you that made the claim and not me. Why do you keep saying that it was I that brought up Adamic sin as the cause of earthquakes when it was quite clearly you? We were discussing suffering and I pointed out that most human suffering was caused by natural circumstances such as d ...[text shortened]... e than willing (and still am) to try to reexplain what I was asking but you chose to exit first.

whitey my friend, its gone, i can add nothing that has not already been said, just leave it in the past, the stream of time is flowing, the future is heading towards us at present, we can influence the future by our actions at present and things may be utilized from the past to influence the present, but i think its best left there, until another time perhaps.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
whitey my friend, its gone, i can add nothing that has not already been said, just leave it in the past, the stream of time is flowing, the future is heading towards us at present, we can influence the future by our actions at present and things may be utilized from the past to influence the present, but i think its best left there, until another time perhaps.

Fine with me. 🙂

The problem with a lot of the evolution debate is that we need to first define what the point of "science" is. "Science" is an attempt to explain the world around in terms of what we can observe using our senses (or via instruments that provide data that we can sense).

Anything that operates completely beyond our ability to directly sense it is beyond the realm of "science" -- "science" can neither affirm or deny the existence of such things - nor should it try - this is where "faith" comes in. Just consider the idea of scientists subjecting God to experiments in an effort to describe Him or predict His future behavior -- how would such a venture be possible?

when "science" observes the fossils and the DNA and various other biological data, it considers various theories and considers which ones do the best job of explaining the data. Critics of the current evolution theory are free to propose a better theory - if they can produce an effective argument, they should get it published in a scientific journal and let the peer review process take its whacks at it

Given all the talk here about "missing links" - I would imagine that this new theory would include the existence of periodic "miraculous events" where a given species suddenly morphs into a new species within an extremely short period of time. But scientists generally avoid theories that fill in any gaps with convenient "miracles" -- otherwise, even the zaniest theories would have to be accepted -- so the new evolution theory would need to define "miraculous events" very specifically and the conditions under which they occured. Scientists would need to study such events in detail to understand how they came about, how long the miracle took to unfold, and how one could differentiate these miracles from normal processes.

The word Fundamentalist or 'fundy' has been changed by the secular culture to mean something entirely different. It's been 'upgraded' to mean zealous, fanatic, militant bible-thumping bible literalist.

It was a move intended to damage the reputation of Christians, not unlike the way people who allege to have had UFO experiences, are said to believe in 'little green men.'[/b]

Fundamentalism is a purely modern phenomenon which is a reactionary impulse invented subsequent to the media age by religious people fearful of losing their followers. It is a reaction to persecution, whether real or imagined. Here in the U.S., Christians are fond of imagining that their faith is under direct attack, even with their hands bloody from political meddling. It is much easier to further pervert a religious text which is already self-contradictory to begin with than to admit that your institution has become irrelevant. Thus, fundamentalists stress certain areas of their fairy tale and completely ignore others.
Whether you believe in UFOs or not is irrelevant in light of your larger mental deficiencies. Perhaps you should look inward and ask yourself why your "faith" is so fragile to begin with that you need to resort to such ridiculous measures in order to keep one little fragment of your death cult together.

Originally posted by rking00
Fundamentalism is a purely modern phenomenon which is a reactionary impulse invented subsequent to the media age by religious people fearful of losing their followers. It is a reaction to persecution, whether real or imagined. Here in the U.S., Christians are fond of imagining that their faith is under direct attack, even with their hands bloody from politic ...[text shortened]... to such ridiculous measures in order to keep one little fragment of your death cult together.

Fundamentalism is a purely modern phenomenon?

There were no fundamentalists before when? I agree that it can be a reactionary impulse, but I think there were fundamentalists before the media age.

There may not have been people other than fundamentalists or I might be misunderstanding exactly what you mean by the term, but I think there were definitely those that could be called that before the media age.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Fundamentalism is a purely modern phenomenon?

There were no fundamentalists before when? I agree that it can be a reactionary impulse, but I think there were fundamentalists before the media age.

There may not have been people other than fundamentalists or I might be misunderstanding exactly what you mean by the term, but I think there were definitely those that could be called that before the media age.

The term 'Fundamentalist' is more than 100 years old. But in those times, everyone were fundamentalists by our definition. However, nowadays we can scientifically explain much of the things that people hadn't a clue about 100 years ago. So calling the old people fundamentalists has no meaning.

A fundamentalist of today think the bible is correct in all its scientific explanations. They think the earth is young, there was a global flooding, evolution is wrong because everything was created as it is today in inly 6 days, and so forth. These beliefs are easily spread by media of today. Science gives explanations, but as they are anti-scinece, they don't want to hear about it. Their faith is weak so they don't want disturbances. They define themselves who is christians 8those who have the right beliefs, i.e. ours), and therefore who will go to hell ( them) and who wil go to heaven (us).

Fundamentaalists are basically ignorant people.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
The term 'Fundamentalist' is more than 100 years old. But in those times, everyone were fundamentalists by our definition. However, nowadays we can scientifically explain much of the things that people hadn't a clue about 100 years ago. So calling the old people fundamentalists has no meaning.

A fundamentalist of today think the bible is correct in all ...[text shortened]... l ( them) and who wil go to heaven (us).

Fundamentaalists are basically ignorant people.

That's very much what I was thinking.

There were people of varying levels of "fundamentalist" views through the ages though. For example, when the mayflower came to the "new world" there were two groups on it. One group was the pilgrims and the other were part of a group called "Merchant Adventurers" who went to make money off of the colonization - they were of less strict religiosity.

I think a lot of people see fundamentalism as partly a willingness to impose their religious views on others also, not just a description of an individual's beliefs.

Originally posted by rking00
Fundamentalism is a purely modern phenomenon which is a reactionary impulse invented subsequent to the media age by religious people fearful of losing their followers. It is a reaction to persecution, whether real or imagined. Here in the U.S., Christians are fond of imagining that their faith is under direct attack, even with their hands bloody from politic ...[text shortened]... to such ridiculous measures in order to keep one little fragment of your death cult together.

Boy, does that ever have an intellectual sound to it.

Boy, does that ever have an intellectual sound to it. - jaywill

There you go boys! There is an accurate definition of fundamentalism if I have ever heard one: "statements and beliefs that do NOT show the working of the intellect."

Originally posted by TerrierJack
Boy, does that ever have an intellectual sound to it. - jaywill

There you go boys! There is an accurate definition of fundamentalism if I have ever heard one: "statements and beliefs that do NOT show the working of the intellect."

Is this suppose to be the "direct attack" I'm to imagine Christians are under ?

Yiks, death by boredom! What a way to go.

Originally posted by jaywill
Is this suppose to be the "direct attack" I'm to imagine Christians are under ?

Yiks, death by boredom! What a way to go.

The only direct attack on christians I know of is the one they make up as an excuse for killing others.

Originally posted by TerrierJack
The only direct attack on christians I know of is the one they make up as an excuse for killing others.

=========================
The only direct attack on christians I know of is the one they make up as an excuse for killing others.
==========================================

Should I not be a disciple of Jesus because it might cause me to kill others ?

Should I be afraid that if I follow Jesus I will lose self control and become like the Spanish Inquisition and kill others ?

Give him a moment boys. Hey, I'm just a non intellectual fundamentalist. With Terrier's lightening quick intellect, he should have a response in no time.

Originally posted by jaywill
Give him a moment boys. Hey, I'm just a non intellectual fundamentalist. With Terrier's lightening quick intellect, he should have a response in no time.

Thanks, I understand blah, blah, blah now. You actually don't have to be very smart to having understanding but you need to start with at least a little humility. Unfortunately for the rest of us I'm afraid that is something that zealots can never seem find.

Originally posted by TerrierJack
Thanks, I understand blah, blah, blah now. You actually don't have to be very smart to having understanding but you need to start with at least a little humility. Unfortunately for the rest of us I'm afraid that is something that zealots can never seem find.

Okay, Let's start over again with a little humility on my part.

Sorry for a proud attitude. I really could learn something from you. I mean I regard your life experience and education as probably valuable.

Sorry.

Now, about this Christians killing people thing ...

Should I not be a disciple of Jesus because I might lose control of myself and kill people ?

I mean at least Jesus warned me up front - " ... but an hour is coming for everyone who kills you to think that he is offering service to God." (John 16:2)


So Jesus did give us a "heads up" that in the coming days there would be murderers who think that what they are doing is offering service to God. We were warned.

In light of this 2,000 year old warning of Jesus, should I be discouraged that some religious people killed thinking they were serving Jesus / God ?

Seems to me that this is not a statement on the unreality of Jesus or God. This is a statement on the depravity of man to use what is holy and noble to dignify their own evil plans.

So why should I blame Jesus for that ? He warned us, didn't He ?