Clouseau

No, unless you have been told to read it.

Toto

You can quote the Bible to them:

Matt 5:22 ... but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

In general, you have two choices. You can learn to out-Bible them, by learning more about the Bible than they know (which will not be hard.) Or you can smile and ignore what they have to say, mumble something about how you'll have to check that out, and plan on moving to California or New York.

If you prefer the latter, you might want to ask this question in the Secular Lifestyle forum.

aa5874

Luke 12.20, "But God saith unto him, "Thou fool......"

God is in danger of hell fire for saying the "f" word.

karlmarx

The other question to ask is that even if there *is* a god, why on earth would he want you to believe that some person was resurrected 2000 years ago in the middle east? What sort of god would be such a cultural chauvinist? How can you be sure he wouldn't want you to believe in an Arabian prophet, or an Indian mystic, or a Persian mythological figure, or a spaghetti monster? The whole thing is rather arbitrary, with xians providing no reason for their beliefs, other than the fact that they believe.

In fact, there'd be little reason to think that a "god" (if he existed) would care in the slightest what you believe in.

But this is all hypothetical, assuming that a "god" does exist. There is no evidence for his/her existence in the slightest.

Clouseau

Only if there is no such thing as a fool. If the deity can say, "You fool!" and of course the 'you' would then be truly a fool, then it is simply a matter of accurate description. The same can apply to humans. There is nothing wrong with soberly describing anyone as a fool if he really is one, including oneself; and the word probably justly applies to us all at some time or another. It is much the best thing if we come to realise our folly ourselves, but there are times when we need to be told that we are fools, so that we can mend our ways. However, if a person is a 'permanent' fool, the deity can surely say so before despatching to the final destination for permanent fools.

There is danger of being too literal here, I think. Condemnation does not come from the actual words used- I think any strong pejorative would have sufficed in this case- but from the attitude in which they are used, which must not be in unrighteous anger. It's similar to the old chestnut about "Do not judge," when a better verb would be 'find fault'. Cold judgement must be made, i.e. assessment with the correct attitude. The correct attitude is always to seek the best interests of the person addressed or considered. Jesus was here dealing with the attitude that can lead people to murder; now we may not actually commit murder because we are afraid of societal sanctions, but the anger and hatred that festers still causes psychological damage, to ourselves if not others.

Jesus described the problem, before providing the remedy; Paul reminded of both the problem and the remedy:

'Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.' Eph 4:31-32 NIV

OneInFundieville

I've responded to that one with a simple one-liner. "Raca."

neilgodfrey

I'm sure the Koran says something similar about those who do not believe its claims.

The idea that you can "point out" rationality to someone who is only interested in using rationality as a tool to further some "nonrational" agenda is false. It can't be done.

It's sometimes called "the Enlightenment" error. This assumes that people are basically rational and can be persuaded to improve their minds and lot by reason. Unfortunately it's not the way people work, as advertizers and propagandists and public relations spin professionals have learned well.

Studies in education (my post-grad speciality) have major subdivisions for educational psychology. Even teaching students whose job is to learn takes more than just reasoning and explaining facts.

You may also find a point or two to help understand your situation with your family in a work by Marlene Winell. I have compiled notes from one small section of one of her publications that relates specifically to issues faced by fundamentalist families. These notes include links to her book and website. They can be accessed here (same as the Marlene Winell link above).

Neil Godfrey

http://vridar.wordpress.com

neilgodfrey

But some ignorance has more devastating consequences than others and that's what really hurts.

I submit that the real damage to peoples is done by the ignorance of religious fundamentalists (Moslem, Jewish, Christian and other less easily defined "spiritualist" type positions). A few nonbelievers scoffing at the faith of believers is inconsequential by comparison.

It really does matter -- lives and mental health are often at stake for both believers and their nonbelieving fellows -- when we hear from the ranks of these people who "have no real grounding in Biblical studies and don't know what they are talking about when they make claims about what NT authors say and yet go on to assert, as they do, that anyone who doesn't accept their claims are fools (and worse)."

I respect Spong for the reason that he accepts that his more advanced learning brings a social responsibility to better inform his "fellow believers" about what the Biblical authors really do say. I amateurishly attempted to raise this issue recently under the title keeping biblical scholarship from the people.

Surely it goes with the territory that biblical scholars have as much responsibility to be working against biblical ignorance amongst those whose ignorance does the most real damage as imams have towards their less enlightened fellow-believers.

I'm also sure that attempting to enlighten believers would be far more costly than bothering with scoffing nonbelievers -- as Spong has also learned through numerous death threats.

Neil Godfrey

Ray Moscow

As others have said, you have to get the discussion/argument on rational ground. Calling each other "fool", "idiot" or whatever doesn't progress anything.

Always try to keep a reasonable conversation going, or else just avoid discussion if you can't.

mountainman

A Roman one obviously - they controlled the land
in which the god of the observable cosmos (within
the Hubble limit) purportedly incarnated.

The fundamental question involves chronology:
when did they create this god.



Best wishes,



Pete Brown