Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Yellum Notnef · 02-09-2003, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth
You were pretty stingy with your choices there Fenton. There are those who believe in NT doctrines such as Jesus' substitutionary sacrifice, imputed righteousness, salvation of the soul by faith and grace, who do not hold "fundy" views that all unbelievers go to hell, and do not always vote and think conservatively.

OK so there's only twelve of us.

For you Fenton, there are only two kinds apparently.

12 of you?????

Look,I listed the two main types of Christians (those who believe the bible is factual history from cover to cover and those who pick and choose what parts to believe).
I was only interested in finding out wht position people here respected more. It`s really simple.

You can put all the colorful sprinkles on these two flavors you want,but it won`t change the ice cream any for this ice cream only comes in two basic flavors.
And when it comes to these two basic flavors,you Rad,are a picker and chooser.

Radorth · 02-09-2003, 09:20 AM

Well if you mean I don't appreciate endless pidgeon-holing, which oft shows itself here, then yes. So is one who doesn't believe all unbelievers go to hell a "liberal" or a "conservative"?

Rad

Luiseach · 02-09-2003, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fenton Mulley
You can put all the colorful sprinkles on these two flavors you want,but it won`t change the ice cream any for this ice cream only comes in two basic flavors.

lol @ the idea of gettin' religion at Baskin and Robbins... ;-)

(I kinda like that metaphor)

Yellum Notnef · 02-09-2003, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by HelenM
[B]Your original description just said 'personal preferences' - it didn't say 'personal preferences about what god does and how I think he should behave'. I was referring to your original description, not this expanded one.

I didn`t think it I needed to expand on it. Based on the OT what else could I have possibly meant by "personal preferences". This issue comes up all the time here and I don`t see how what I said would have confused anyone here.

Quote:

Although they wouldn't express it that way, that basically is the approach of those who believe the Bible is all true - if it's true they are not free to dismiss some parts just because they are bothered by them.

Agreed.

Quote:

I doubt anyone thinks their deepest convictions are based on trend or fashion, even if they are.

Agreed,but it`s still a matter of how you define trend. Is the decline (based on contrary as well as lack of evidence) in belief of the A & E and the flood considered a trend?

Quote:

There are Christians out there convinced that science, archeology and history support what the Bible says and so from their point of view, they have more reason to believe it than ever, as more and more archeological discoveries are made and as scientific research continues to teach us more and more about the universe we live in.

There will always be those who interpret the data to fit their own preconcived notions and desires. The Christians you mention here would go in my first category (if they used this data to validate their belief in the entire literal bible).

beyelzu · 02-09-2003, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by stretch
Hi Beyelzu,

I'm not sure what is considered too much thread drift around here ... is this still 'on topic', or is it best to move to another thread and not ruin Fenton's thread with such discussions?

Anyway, IMHO, I don't think that it requires me to ignore any of the Bible. Us Catholics aren't generally 'sola scriptura' types, and don't interpret everything literally.

I didnt realize that you were catholic,

this was posted by helenm in another thread.

I have a book by Pope John Paul II (Agenda For The Third Millenium) which says:

As to the eternal salvation of those who do not believe (sceptics, agnostics, atheists and people who are actually against God) and of those who do believe but not as we do, this must of course be entirely entrusted to the justice and goodness of the Most High.

If the pope allows for unbelievers to get into heaven then I guess it shouldnt be strange for catholics to do so. Protestants dont seem to be as open minded about the whole thing.

Yellum Notnef · 02-09-2003, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth
So is one who doesn't believe all unbelievers go to hell a "liberal" or a "conservative"?

Rad

Does the bible say all nonbelievers go to Hell? If it does than the Christian who has chosen not to believe it is picking and choosing.
This person would be a liberal IMO,but not because he comes across any less harsh than someone who does believe all nonbelievers go to Hell. He`d be a liberal simply because he was liberal about his biblical beliefs.

Thats how I see it anyway.
Maybe my definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" are a bit off from the norm and thats what is causing the confusion.

02-09-2003, 11:10 AM

Hi Beyelzu,

Yup. I'm Catholic.

Quote:

If the pope allows for unbelievers to get into heaven then I guess it shouldnt be strange for catholics to do so. Protestants dont seem to be as open minded about the whole thing.

Of course there are some Catholics who disagree with the Pope on what happens to unbelievers. Who knows, maybe it's because I thought that I was at least as good a person when I was an atheist that I was attracted to Catholic teachings when I started believing that maybe, just maybe, God might exist.

Psycho Economist · 02-09-2003, 12:41 PM

What do you mean respectable?

While fundy dogma begs the questions of whether their deity exists and their holy book is infallable, their arguments (premises aside) are more consistent than liberal Christian beliefs. So, on their use of logic and their personal conviction, fundamentalism is "respectable".

However, I do have more respect for the beliefs of liberal Christianity; I have more in common with them than I do with the fundamentalists. But I believe the whole construction to be an indefensible position.

Yet another atheist ex-fundy,

Psycho Economist

emur · 02-09-2003, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Psycho Economist

While fundy dogma begs the questions of whether their deity exists and their holy book is infallable, their arguments (premises aside) are more consistent than liberal Christian beliefs. So, on their use of logic and their personal conviction, fundamentalism is "respectable".

However, I do have more respect for the beliefs of liberal Christianity; I have more in common with them than I do with the fundamentalists. But I believe the whole construction to be an indefensible position.

I believe fundamentalist arguments are more consistent with a literal view of the bible, but inconsistent with reality.

Liberal arguments are inconsistent with a literal bible (thats OK, because they don't believe in a literal bible), but are more consistent with reality.

I have great respect for liberals such as John Shelby Spong and Marcus Borg. I have little respect for fundamentalists such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.

Mel

ashibaka · 02-09-2003, 03:13 PM

Liberal Christians have a belief based on what they personally have come to conclude, and usually are intelligent enough to realize that other people may come to different conclusions. I have no nitpicks with liberal Christians.

Fundamentalist Christians have a belief based on WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS. If they see a debate of common sense vs. Bible, they adjust the common sense to fit the Bible (e.g. quantum physics) or vice versa (e.g. slavery) or maybe even do away with the common sense (e.g. evolution). Plus, because the Bible says that there's no possible way they could be wrong, they try to convert people like mad. I have large nitpicks with fundies.

In conclusion, though fundamentalists make for more more entertaining Nutwatches, I'd prefer liberal Christians any day.

View Poll Results: What kind of Christian has a more respectable position?
Conservative Christian (The bible is the word of God and it`s all literally true)	21	28.38%
Liberal Christian. (I pick and choose what parts of the bible I believe based on recent trends,my personal preferences and the ever shrinking volume of stories science,history and archaeology haven`t been able to prove wrong yet)	53	71.62%
Voters: 74. You may not vote on this poll

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

02-09-2003, 09:20 AM	#42
Radorth Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,872	Well if you mean I don't appreciate endless pidgeon-holing, which oft shows itself here, then yes. So is one who doesn't believe all unbelievers go to hell a "liberal" or a "conservative"? Rad

02-09-2003, 12:41 PM	#48
Psycho Economist Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Peoria, IL Posts: 854	What do you mean respectable? While fundy dogma begs the questions of whether their deity exists and their holy book is infallable, their arguments (premises aside) are more consistent than liberal Christian beliefs. So, on their use of logic and their personal conviction, fundamentalism is "respectable". However, I do have more respect for the beliefs of liberal Christianity; I have more in common with them than I do with the fundamentalists. But I believe the whole construction to be an indefensible position. Yet another atheist ex-fundy, Psycho Economist

02-09-2003, 03:13 PM	#50
ashibaka Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Cloudy Water Posts: 443	Liberal Christians have a belief based on what they personally have come to conclude, and usually are intelligent enough to realize that other people may come to different conclusions. I have no nitpicks with liberal Christians. Fundamentalist Christians have a belief based on WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS. If they see a debate of common sense vs. Bible, they adjust the common sense to fit the Bible (e.g. quantum physics) or vice versa (e.g. slavery) or maybe even do away with the common sense (e.g. evolution). Plus, because the Bible says that there's no possible way they could be wrong, they try to convert people like mad. I have large nitpicks with fundies. In conclusion, though fundamentalists make for more more entertaining Nutwatches, I'd prefer liberal Christians any day.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.