Best Argument Against Biblical Fundamentalism

Post Reply New Topic

I have attempted to debate fundamentalists on several occasions. I've never gotten very far because they always fall back on the argument: "Who are we to question God? If you find scripture to be inconsistent, contradictory and immoral, it's because you lack sufficient faith for the Holy Spirit to reveal the true message to you." And they often add, "I will pray for you".

It seems that once they invest in the religious lie, they become brainwashed. When you believe that scripture is the literal word of God, you've pretty much said, "I lack the ability to think critically, rationally and logically".

If their beliefs did nobody any harm, I'd just leave them to their superstitions, but when you think like a fundamentalist you support a lot of evil in the world.

Fundementalism fails because the bible consists mostly of non-facts and stuff made up by people. It is large a work of myth and fiction.

ruveyn

He was never a christian to being with if you say your a christian and stop being one you never was religious or a christian.

You don't seem to know the Bible very well, then. At worst Revelation is an expansion of Ezekiel, Daniel, and the little eschatology we get from the gospels. John is quite consistent for a madman if you think about it, and that isn't really what you expect from someone who is delusional or irrational.

Hitler was pretty consistent for a madman too. So was Edgar Allen Poe. That's the thing about madness - it's often very consistent. Doesn't mean it's not madness.

That's true but their is always a method to the maddness.

I don't mean self-consistent. I meant consistent with other writings.

Many people I know, for example, ask if I think John Lennon was smoking something when he composed "Revolution #9." I'd say, "probably, but that has nothing to do with it." Musique concrete and the tape medium had been around since the 1940s, well ahead of Lennon/Macca's active years. They were following in the footsteps of academics.

Same deal with John the Divine. He's following in the footsteps of ancient prophets. The symbols he used in writing Revelation were not all unique or even original symbols. The difference between John and the ancient prophets is the symbolism he used pointed to Jesus the Messiah. It is a completion of the work of Daniel and Ezekiel did centuries before with a Christological capstone.

The madman theory is a shaky one given that there is already a Judaic tradition of highly symbolic writing when discussing matters of eschatology. You have the two prophets, which establish an eschatological tradition. Then you have Jesus Himself discussing eschatology in the gospels. And then you have John, who plausibly could have been THE John who was one of the closest disciples to Jesus among the twelve, pastored the church at Ephesus, and wrote the gospel that bears his name--and also bear in mind that the gospel is not a Synoptic gospel like the other three AND places more emphasis on Jesus' theology rather than on witness accounts of what Jesus did (possibly presupposing at least the gospel of Mark and having thus been a later writing to fill in theological gaps).

At any rate, if the tradition exists, at worst it's just a copy/paste of Daniel/Ezekiel. But given what we can gather about John, assuming he is the apostle and the Ephesian leader, Revelation is hardly the work of a madman.

This is what is known as the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Wiki link follows: Wikipedia Article

As I understand it, they arrived after the fall of Hussein. If they did arrive earlier, it would not be the first case of following the strategy of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." At least until the US troops are gone. Then they fight amongst themselves.

This isn't the fallacy, though. The fallacy has to do with shifting unpleasant definitions. The question is whether there really is a definition of a true Scotsman.

What makes a Christian a Christian is an enduring faith. Without that, one isn't a Christian. If it is possible for someone to renounce their faith, then they never had the kind of faith necessary to correctly identify as a believer. Just because you "claim" to be a Christian doesn't make you one.

Um no this is what's known as what the Bible says' about people losing their faith'.

Yes that is what the Bible says.

Some people evolve, and some do not. Feel free to define the word however you like. What word would you give for someone who was born into a family which indoctrinated him into a belief system, and later learned enough and developed his critical thinking skills enough to see a bigger picture? "Ex-Christian" doesn't work, since that would mean he was a Christian at one point.

Your not understanding our teachings. Once a Ex-Christian like richard dawkins foresakes their faith. God already knew they were never religious or a Christian to begin with. This is a teaching that the churches teaches to Christian. It is a passage in our holy book that talks about that. Their called a false witness.

What if a Christian becomes an atheist and then switches back and remains a Christian for the rest of his life? What if a lifelong Christian doubts for a moment? Etc.? This all seems very black and white. Reality is usually made up of shades of gray.

Your stance looks, to me, like a system designed to discourage questioning, critical thinking, logic, and testing.

Last edited by Rocky on 07 Jul 2012, 7:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

When you have very strong faith in a religion and it's teachings their is no need to do those thing's. Because with Faith you can do everything Faith doesn't hold you back. We relie on God's understanding of the World and not of are own understanding. We depend on God an only God' it's how we Theists see thing's. Jesus is a shepard when the sheep leave the flow their mislead. But the bible teaches us that we all have time of dought. I do as well but that does not mean I don't have faith. It is human nature to dought even if you strongly believe something. I am sure some atheists dought their belifes just as theists do.