Yellum Notnef

But what about liberals who believe in a literal resurrection? Why aren`t these people also insane? I`m not saying this is what you`re saying,but why is it insane to believe in a literal Adam & Eve, parting of the sea and a global flood but not insane to believe Jesus is a divine god who rose from the dead?

All these things are FUNDAMENTALS of the Christian faith and I`d think that Jesus` resurrection is perhaps the most fundamental part of all.

Are liberals less annoying and less scary than conservatives? Sure they are. Are they any less insane? I don`t think so.
I think religious insanity is cured as evidence is piled up against religious claims. It hasen`t quite piled high enough against the claims of Jesus` divinity yet,but it`s getting there.


WAIT!!!!!
Before all the typing starts let me make it clear that I am NOT saying people should not be friends with biblical literists or anyone else for that matter. I just quoted what Lisarea said and I doubt thats what he/she meant either.

stretch

Hi Fenton

Duh ... that's like saying there are only two types of agnostics or there are only two types of atheists or there are only 2 possible reasons why somebody would or wouldn't believe in God.

I don't buy that.

lisarea

Well, now we're talking about degrees of insanity. If sanity consists of having the same diseases as one's neighbors, though, then it's the fundamentalists who are insane. Usually.

The thing is, I have never been religious. To my knowledge, nobody in my immediate family has really been religious. The whole idea of religion is foreign to me. So yes, the truth be told, I do think religion is insane. I try to be tolerant and understanding. But the best I can do is simply accept that others have different perspectives from mine, and take it at that. I cannot truly understand them, no matter how liberal their belief system. Yes, at the core, it seems pretty insane. And I'm sure they think the same of me.

However, I have often seen liberal-type Christians blend quite well into society. I've known such people for a long time without ever noticing their Christianity. So, while I don't consider them entirely sane, they seem easily mainstreamed and are far more tolerable on a personal level. Fundamentalists, IMO, are less so. Real frothing at the mouth fundies don't pull off the 'wear a hat and have a job' thing too well, as they're always frothing at the mouth and all.

As far as simple respect, though, it seems that, more often, the literalists are at least facing what are, to any marginally reasonable person, the ugly parts.

That is not to say they are automatically more respectable, though. There are far too many gray areas to make a sweeping pronouncement like that. Some fundies are that way because they're scared or just conformist. And some liberal Christians take their religion as the analogy it was probably intended to be, and have very good, defensible personal reasons for their belief systems. I do not automatically discount those who use what feels right as a basis for belief. That is a perfectly respectable position, IMO, as long as it's sincere.

It still comes down to this: If they truly believe what they claim to believe, and reached their belief through honest assessment, well, then, mad props to them. But I still don't believe that the conclusion they reach is a clear indication of how they got there.

JEST2ASK

This Poll demonstrates why I hate labels .... as so many have pointed out how can anyone define for someone else what a word (group id) means. :banghead: :banghead:

There is too much diversity / complexity to think that "Sound-Bite" definations are accurate.

Even the broad Sane / Insane thrown ... I find distasteful.

Stretch "Duh ... that's like saying there are only two types of agnostics or there are only two types of atheists or there are only 2 possible reasons why somebody would or wouldn't believe in God.

I don't buy that."

I didn't vote, and can't honestly pick one.

(Lisarea) My respect is based more on the path one took getting there than the ultimate conclusion.

That is, I have a basic respect for anyone who has honestly assessed their ideas and come to an understanding based on a fundamental intellectual integrity.

I do NOT respect those who make their choices based on fear, laziness, or convenience, and you just can't tell based on the conclusions alone.

lisarea

Allow me to define sanity:

Me = Sane

You* = Insane

* This is the universal 'you.' Meaning you, you, you, and everybody else, too.

By this, I mean to illustrate that I am using the very broad and very personal definition of 'insane,' and don't mean to indicate that there is any real, identifiable pathology involved. It's all just an issue of granularity, with an individual's relative insanity measured by the degree to which they differ from me.

The scale goes something like this:

Me (Sane) |----------------------------------------------------------| Oh, I dunno. Say, John Travolta or something. (Insane)

hinduwoman

The type of Christian who believes that every good person, irrespective of their religion and even rejecting Christianity, can go to heaven.

Rare breed, but I did encounter two online.

Amos

Now you're dreaming. Buddhist in heaven? Rare breed indeed to think that heaven is a place where all nice people go someday.

stretch

Hi Hinduwoman,

Maybe now you've met 3 of that rare breed online.

Bumble Bee Tuna

Both views are respectable and unrespectable at the same time. they are unrespectable, but then you remember how emotional an argument religion is and that people don't believe on a basis of intelligence.

In the end, I have to choose Liberal. I could not stand to be around a fundy. But even more so that that, I think the liberal position, while still irrational, is at least at the point where you don't really hold outright contradictory beliefs (because a lot of your beliefs are "I don't know about that"). Fundies, on the other hand, hold outright contradictory beliefs, so that knocks them down a few notches on the respect-o-meter.

-B

beyelzu

atheists and agnostics dont have a cannon or holy book.


which is the difference. if you are a christian you either believe that alll of the bible is true or only some of it is true, if you believe that none of it is true(the only third option) then you arent a xian.



as to the op,

I respect fundy's more, as much as I despise them they are pretty consistent. Take ed for example, he makes some incredibly stupid arguments to keep the bible literally true but he doesnt quibble and say that just because somone is an atheist doenst mean they will go to hell.