Rhea

Radorth, you COMPLETELY MISSED my ENTIRE POINT.

And that was: It is historically not the actions of the oppressed alone which releases the oppression (at least without violence). Peaceful change REQUIRES the alliance and participation and support of those in the camp in power. In my experience.

RBAC was claiming that it was right for him to sit on the sidelines while non-christians battle the fundies for BASIC RIGHTS.

I am claiming that it is not the ethical and right thing to do to sit and watch a WRONG just because you are not personally the one being wronged.



(wwhhhooooooossshhh)


also, RBAC, if I mixed you up with another poster, I humbly apologize for false accusation!!! I will go look and see what my memory was reporting incorrectly.

Rational BAC

No problem Rhea.

I definitely remember those words being posted, word for word as you stated--------but I am almost sure it was a different poster and not me.

And try to remember that I did learn quite a bit from that thread. I had no idea at the beginning that so many atheists were so surrounded by so many Bible thumpin' Christians.

We all tend to think that where we live is how the whole country lives. Not true at all of course. I do have a lot of sympathy for Goliath and others who related their unfortunate experiences.

blackhawk

Okay can you give me some of these? Remember that they must be quoted in context and that the Bible is not a science textbook and is written for specific purposes. Aso you can't prove that something was not supernatural just because you could find that there is possibly a natural explanation for it. Also remember how we speak in todays society. It is not always scientifically 100% correct. But we find that to be okay if it is not in a science textbook. So please enlighten me on where the Bible is flat out wrong.

Radorth

LOL!!! The Quakers, Finney and Oberlin College were left wing?

You might want to read up on the "left-wingers" who got the English child labor laws passed, as well. I'm afraid the "left-wingers" were a hindrance. And the plain fact is, even the "leftist" 19th century activists found inspiration in Jesus, as did the atheist Wells in the 20th century.

Snap out of it man!

Re: Rhea

I did not. You were clearly asserting that Christians would not fight against injustice and oppression of other "Christians." That WAS the point, now well refuted. You are not being honest here IMO.

Rad

lpetrich

Radorth:
LOL!!! The Quakers, Finney and Oberlin College were left wing?

... And the plain fact is, even the "leftist" 19th century activists found inspiration in Jesus, as did the atheist Wells in the 20th century.

Some of Jesus Christ's teachings are rather communist, and in Acts, we find that Peter was something of a Stalinist, with Ananias and Sapphira as pesky kulaks.

As to H.G. Wells, he may have been regurgitating the usual Xtian view of JC at the time.

Also, Radorth has yet to explain why he rejects the Bible on slavery and the curse of Ham.

Rhea

I was clearly drawing a parallel between various social changes and highlighting the OPPRESSED group and saying that they were not the ones who were able to effect change alone.

I clearly didn't mention christians at all, except in the context of RBAC being one and the oppressors also being ones.

MEANING that if RBAC is part of the opressing group and does not agree with them then he is in the position of all of those people in the past who were also part of the oppressing group and fought against oppression. The WHITE Quakers who chose to fighht against slavery. The WHITE christians (and non) who joined King's marches and helped fight for racial rights and the MEN who fought to help get the right to vote conferred upon women. All of these people fought someone else's fight which RBAC said he didn't have to do, and I was pointing out that someone (from the oppressing group) had to or the WRONG would never be righted.


My WHOLE POINT was that if non-violent change is to occur, an ALLIANCE must be shown between those being oppressed and those with the capability of oppressing and choosing not to, which, RBAC has claimed as his position.

Do you see what I mean? (No statement whatsoever about christians not being willing yadda yadda yadda not my statement at all. Clearly.)

Starboy

Blackhawk, adherents claim that the bible describes reality so it is a science book. It becomes a science book when you use it to claim anything is real or “true”, such as god, heaven, hell, sin, soul and angels and so forth. The bible makes claims on reality and posits constructs to explain reality in the very same way that a Chemistry book makes claims there are atoms, electrons, valence shells and then uses those constructs to explain reality. It just so happens that god, demons, hell, heaven and so forth are the constructs of the first century and in this day and age atoms, genes, forces, quarks and so forth is how we explain reality. Today natural explanations are the explanations of choice. No one thinks that someone gets ill because they have committed a sin. No on thinks that they got into a car accident because an evil demon was up to some mischief. Yet in the bible this is how things are explained. In this day and age when there is a question if something is real we do not ask a priest we ask a scientist. Science is the standard of reality for this time and place not the bible. The bible is a throwback to another age and is wrong for this time. It is so out of sync with reality as we currently understand it that it is impossible to take it seriously, so you end up cherry picking it. You get people who ignore the crazy parts like genesis or claim it is metaphor. The funny thing is that they are right in claiming it is metaphor, but metaphor of the first century. Today we have different metaphors for reality, we no longer use genesis we use the big bang. We no longer explain illness with sin we use biology. We no longer explain natural events as punishments we now look at them as natural processes. We no longer understand the difficulty of life in terms of original sin, we now understand it in terms of natural selection. It is so obvious that the bible is just of another time and only has a place in the here and now as a relic.

Starboy

blackhawk

So one can only use science to gain truth? when one claims truth he is then doing science? Science can't speak about God at all so how can it come to the truth about God? And I did not know that science itself ever said anything was true. It makes philosophical assumptions that things are true but it never just assumes some things are true.

Okay answer me these questions just using science. Because as you say it is the basis of reality.

1. Can we trust our senses to give us accurate information on the real world?

2. Is there a God? And if so which who is he or is he just a force?

3. What was the cause of the civil war?

4. Was the civil war a just war?

5. Is the world around us real or not?

The Other Michael

Hello starboy and blackhawk,

You guys (and/or gals as the case may be) are straying pretty mightly from the topic of " Are Fundies a minority?". You may wish to ask the moderators to split your last couple of posts off into its own thread.

cheers,
Michael

Radorth

Well Rhea you'll have to explain the following comment then.

It seems absurd to conclude that "fundies" can count on anybody, especially when "fundies" have a history of fighting against oppression themselves. At the very least you are categorizing Christians who read and believe the NT as oppressors by definition. I've merely pointed out how ahistorical that belief is.

Re Ipetrich

Semi-relevant smoke and mirrors, and from somebody who claims Acts is a late breaking myth at that.

"Well if it did happen, Peter must have killed Ananias in the kitchen with a knife."

We've already had the "Paul promoted slavery" argument, where the skeptics took a rather severe beating as I recall. All they could muster was one verse which proved nothing, and of course we have all learned to insist on proof around here. Heh.

I'm afraid you've confused "rational thinking" with "rationalizing" again my friend. We can return to the history of Bible-totin' "fundy" oppressors like Whitefield, Finney, and the like. BTW, two of your "deist" founder slave-holding poster boys weren't even born when the Quakers came out against slavery. I wonder how long it took U of Va to graduate a black female. Its' early leaders must have thought the "fundies" down at Oberlin were destroying the gentile American way of life.

Rad