Freethought & Rationalism Archive

storytime · 11-02-2010, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesABrown

There's a lot of admiration among fundamentalists for the mid-eighteenth century American Great Plains lifestyle, as well, brought on by watching re-runs of Little House on the Prairie.

And not to forget The Andy Griffith Show and Mayberry.

bacht · 11-02-2010, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Now that you have mentioned it, what I omitted mentioning in my former post, was that fawning admiration, and even envy that my Fundy relatives hold for the Amish and Mennonites, with their wonderful simple and 'pure' Christian lifestyle.
Many of my relatives wish that they could return to a 'horse and buggy' style of living.

FWIW. I have long time Amish and Mennonite personal acquaintances to whom I resort to for a variety of goods and business services.
I have found them to be friendly, eager to satisfy, prompt, and their trade skills to be above average, and very reasonably priced.

Yes I have some "modern" Mennonite friends, all urbanized and not terribly religious. They tend to be on the political left, maybe a result of the tradition of military pacifism.

Nice people, but no more interested in reading the Bible than other Christians I've known.

then there's the Unitarians...

dockeen · 11-02-2010, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesABrown

I'd argue that Americans have the same attitude regarding the founding documents (Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc.) Ask any American if these documents are important, they'll universally say yes, and yet so few of them actually know the document's contents.

Much like Daniel Dennet's idea of "Belief in Belief," it seems as though certain concepts are to be esteemed regardless of your level of knowledge simply because everyone else esteems them.

The same people to which you refer will frequently offer strong opinons
about things based upon those very same documents - "That's
unconstitutional as hell!", or will repeat what someone made up - "You
know, the constitution recognizes jesus as the son of god"

ChristMyth · 11-06-2010, 11:55 PM

I agree that Christianity stopped being about the Bible a long time ago. To the everyday Christian, it might as well be Ulysses or Finnegan's Wake.

Eventually, Biblical Studies will be nothing more than the interest of the few eccentrics (such as myself who is considering going and getting his Master's in Theology from a seminary once he's done with his second BBA). It will be akin to studying seventh century French Poetry or some other useless topic. No practical value whatsoever, but fun nonetheless.

Toto · 11-15-2010, 12:00 PM

The debate continues

Quote:

Lemche asserts, without evidence, that the Bible is increasingly important in our modern world. Avalos, by contrast, is caught: on the one hand, he argues that the Bible is increasingly irrelevant,⁴ but on the other, he argues that the Bible is a dangerous book, so much so that its influence should be eliminated from our world.⁵ Both are correct, but not in ways they would expect. Contrary to Lemche and in support of Avalos, the Bible is far more irrelevant than many biblical scholars like to imagine, at least in places like Europe.

Compare this with R Joseph Hoffmann in his crotchety campaign against the New Atheists:

Quote:

It is hard to imagine that people like Todd Stiefel, one of those well-endowed atheists with cash to burn, are really on a rampage because of passages like the one he cites from the Bible:

“The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.” (from Hosea 13:16, New International Version).

Reassuringly if a little obtusely Stiefel says that “It [our democracy] has not been based on [verses like these] and should never be. Our founding fathers created a secular democracy….We must denounce politicians that contend U.S. law should be based on the Bible and the Ten Commandments.” I agree. Anyone who wants Hosea 13 added to our Bill of Rights should be tied to a chair, gagged, blindfolded, and made to listen to Diane Rehm read slowly through the whole Book of Leviticus. Presumably (or is it implicitly?) he is willing to throw serous money at billboards so that America does not become a country that kills babies. He will find many friends among Catholics and Evangelicals on that score.

Hoffmann is not keeping up with Evangelicals. This Sunday's NYTimes magazine had an article entitled God's Housewives, with a story about a woman Evangelical/motivational speaker who preaches wifely submission to other Evangelical women. The very idea of her preaching is still controversial.

Quote:

Roese’s critics fear that her church has misread Scripture in order to ease its accommodation to 21st-century social mores. Allowing women to preach is only the thin end of the wedge. “If the Bible is not true and authoritative on the roles of men and women, then maybe the Bible will not be finally true on premarital sex, the homosexual issue, adultery or any other moral issue,” Tom Nelson, the pastor of a neighboring church, told The Dallas Morning News. “I believe this issue is the carrier of a virus by which liberalism will enter the evangelical church.” Egalitarians argue, however, that conservatives are inconsistent, defending some biblical teachings while dismissing others as culturally relative, like Paul’s admonitions that women cover their heads in church and wear no gold jewelry.

This endless effort to divine from first-century documents a clear map for modern life, to interpret Jesus’ and Paul’s words “literally,” may seem quixotic to outsiders. It is impossible, however, to overstate how much time evangelicals devote to memorizing, reciting and ruminating on each “God-breathed” syllable of Scripture. ...

And the last election <sob> shows that Biblical literalist evangelicals are still a potent force in the USA. Sarah Palin and Ron Paul have attacked the Federal Reserve as unBiblical, based on Christian Reconstructionist thinking:

Quote:

While Paul’s anti-Fed crusade is widely thought of as economic libertarianism, the roots of this combat lie in a theocratic reading of the Bible, arising out of the nexus between Paul (and now his son, Senator-elect Rand Paul), Howard Phillips and his Constitution Party, and Gary North and the Christian Reconstructionists.

...

For North, the Bible limits the legitimate functions of civil government to punishing “evildoers” and providing for defense. Reconstructionist theocracy, based on the Reconstructionists’ reading of the Bible, gives coercive authority to families and churches to organize other aspects of life. In this view—one that also meshes with Tea Party rhetoric—the Fed’s control of monetary policy is a prime example of federal government “tyranny.”

North argues that the Federal Reserve is unbiblical because it usurps power not legitimately held by civil government (because God didn’t grant it) and it promotes inflation, which he says is nothing more than theft from those who are not in debt in favor of those who are.

Many of North’s works are popularly accessible and have made their way into fundamentalist church Bible studies, as well as homeschool and Christian school curriculum. He lectures on these issues at American Vision’s annual Worldview Super Conferences and he’s written three volumes on economics: Liberating Planet Earth: An Introduction to Biblical Blueprints; Honest Money: Biblical Principles of Money and Banking; and Inherit the Earth: Biblical Principles for Economics. At an April 2009 Rally to End the Federal Reserve hosted by the Minnesota Constitution Party, Rand Paul echoed North’s theories, with an Honest Money sign behind him.

[Gary North predicted that the Y2K computer bug would lead to the end of western civil society as we know it. He described it as a test of secular humanism, and said at the time that if his predictions did not come true, it would disprove his beliefs. It took him a few years to recover from that. He had previously predicted that the AIDS virus would trigger the end.]

And, of course, there are the Global Warming Deniers

Quote:

Global warming? “It’s a flat-out lie!” shouted the founder of the local T.P., basing his view on theologian Rush Limbaugh and “the teaching of Scripture. ‘I read my Bible. . . [God] made this earth for us to utilize.’” Lisa Deaton, a founder of Tea Partyish “We the People Indiana,” added gloss: “Being a strong Christian, I cannot help believe the Lord placed a lot of minerals in our country, and it’s not there to destroy us.”

And a potential House chair of the Energy and Commerce Committe: John Shimkus

Quote:

Rep. John Shimkus is standing by a controversial comment that global warming isn't something to worry about because God said he wouldn't destroy the Earth after Noah's flood.

The Illinois Republican running for the powerful perch atop the House Energy and Commerce Committee told POLITICO on Wednesday that his understanding of the Bible reaffirms his belief that government shouldn't be in the business of trying to address rising greenhouse gas emissions.

"I do believe in the Bible as the final word of God," Shimkus said. "And I do believe that God said the Earth would not be destroyed by a flood.

In short, we're doomed, because of Biblical literalism.

Joan of Bark · 11-16-2010, 08:09 PM

The "literalists" get away with this stuff because they know that 99% of Americans have never read the Bible. They can quote mine for whatever fits their political beliefs, secure in the knowledge they won't be refuted.

But then, everyone in this fora knows this already.

Possible solutions, anyone?

James Brown · 11-17-2010, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

Possible solutions, anyone?

More "Bible as Literature" classes?

semiopen · 11-17-2010, 07:38 AM

I've seen some amazing discussions in the yahoo group AncientBibleHitstory.

One recent example is the on the ground situation in Judah after the start of the Babylonian exile. There is a fundamentalist position that the land was totally deserted during the exile, and that the 70 years of exile made up for non-observance of the sabbath years.

This position is even dubious from reading the bible, but in fact, there is a total academic consensus that the entire population wasn't deported.

What was striking is that there are relatively intelligent, knowledgeable people who wind up taking absurd positions. The actual belief in desolation isn't that serious by itself, but the danger comes from using that as a basis for further theorizing.

Uncritical reading is the source of a lot of mischief.

youngalexander · 11-20-2010, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

And the last election <sob> shows that Biblical literalist evangelicals are still a potent force in the USA.
...
Sarah Palin and Ron Paul have attacked the Federal Reserve as unBiblical, based on Christian Reconstructionist thinking:

Gary North predicted ...

And, of course, there are the Global Warming Deniers ...

In short, we're doomed, because of Biblical literalism.

Strueth & Gorblimey!
One reason for my absence from these forums has been the 'Financial Crisis'. I know as much about Economics as I do about Biblical History, which is not much, but a great deal more than say a decade ago.

I read economic/political blogs daily. We live in interesting times.:constern02:

Palin, Paul, North, ... - hey, tell me about it?

Amazing Toto - what goes around comes around.:wave:

PS: the entire planet will be opposing the Fed before this is over.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-06-2010, 11:55 PM	#24
ChristMyth Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: US Posts: 1,055	I agree that Christianity stopped being about the Bible a long time ago. To the everyday Christian, it might as well be Ulysses or Finnegan's Wake. Eventually, Biblical Studies will be nothing more than the interest of the few eccentrics (such as myself who is considering going and getting his Master's in Theology from a seminary once he's done with his second BBA). It will be akin to studying seventh century French Poetry or some other useless topic. No practical value whatsoever, but fun nonetheless.

11-16-2010, 08:09 PM	#26
Joan of Bark Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Pua, in northern Thailand Posts: 2,823	The "literalists" get away with this stuff because they know that 99% of Americans have never read the Bible. They can quote mine for whatever fits their political beliefs, secure in the knowledge they won't be refuted. But then, everyone in this fora knows this already. Possible solutions, anyone?

11-17-2010, 07:38 AM	#28
semiopen Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Hillsborough, NJ Posts: 3,551	I've seen some amazing discussions in the yahoo group AncientBibleHitstory. One recent example is the on the ground situation in Judah after the start of the Babylonian exile. There is a fundamentalist position that the land was totally deserted during the exile, and that the 70 years of exile made up for non-observance of the sabbath years. This position is even dubious from reading the bible, but in fact, there is a total academic consensus that the entire population wasn't deported. What was striking is that there are relatively intelligent, knowledgeable people who wind up taking absurd positions. The actual belief in desolation isn't that serious by itself, but the danger comes from using that as a basis for further theorizing. Uncritical reading is the source of a lot of mischief.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.