Understanding the Mentality and World View of the Christian Fundamentalist

[Derideo_Te]

So, I would opine that it becomes illicit, from a theological perspective, when the use of fear becomes a hindrance to the development of faith or, from a secular perspective, is based on a logical, measurable, and/or observable fallacy.

Allow me to add one caveat to that. There are those people who truly believe what they are saying is the truth. They believe with 100% of their heart and soul that hell is real and you will burn if you don't follow God's law. I am not sure I am willing to say that they are using fear illicitly because they are not attempting to deceive, they are simply misguided. This is true for any category. There are those on the left that truly believe that the Republicans are waging a "War on Women", for example. They are not "bad" people. They are just idiots who have soaked up the propaganda. The same is true of some one the right so it goes both ways. Leaders like this can be very dangerous especially when they are charismatic, educated, and can speak with eloquence and command. These are the Hitlers, Jim Jones, and David Koreshes of the world. They are extremely disturbed people and not to be taken lightly. But they are, in effect, crazy, for lack of a better word. Misguided at best...crazy at worst.

Worse are those who know the truth and still peach a message of fear. A woman named Byllie Brim is a noted evangelical expert on Revelation who is a frequent contributor on several televangelist programs. Now I have watched this woman and listened to her and let me tell you....this women knows her shit on Revelation. Now as a side note, Revelation is the book in the Bible that I am strongest and most knowledgeable about by far. So when she is breaking down the Greek and discussing historical events that are applicable to Revelation, I know exactly what she is referring to. However, she still advances a futuristic, fear based interpretation of Revelation. This is critical because I know by what she is referring to that she is reporting selectively...in other words she is leaving critical things out in her teaching that there is no way possible she could not know. More importantly, to not disclose it changes the entire context of a given passage. So she is is doing the worst thing imaginable, in my mind. That is she knows good and well what the book is about, but reports it differently in order to scare people. But as I said before, that happens in politics from both sides, economics, race relations....it's not unique to Christianity, but boy it pisses me off when I see it.

To paraphrase...

...to tell the truthiness, the whole truthiness and nothing but the truthiness!

SCNR!

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

Atheists attempt to exploit fear by making up myths such as global warming.

 

[orogenicman]

Very simple. Buy a Bible. Everyone who followed Jesus Christ was a Christian fundamentalist. If you're not a fundamentalist? You're not a follower of Jesus Christ.

And if you hate Christian fundamentalists? You are an enemy of Jesus Christ.

That's a load of crap. But then, every religion believes it is the one and only religion.

If a person says they are a Christian yet refuses to take the Word of God literally and do what it says I have every reason to believe they are not a follower of Christ. Again - God is not interested in what denomination you are a member of - your church cannot save you - only His Son can save you and therein lies the redemption plan.

Well Jeremiah, here's the problem. Taking the bible literally is not what it means to be a Christian. Most Christians understand that the Bible is not the literal word of God. Most Christians understand that it was written by men who were inspired by god (or rather, claim to have been inspired by god). And in fact, most Christians understand that the new testament was written many decades after events transpired. Only fundamentalists believe in a literal interpretation of the bible. Ironically, they too don't live by a literal interpretation. I don't see any fundies owning slaves today. Do you?

Personally, I don't believe in god and subscribe to no religion. To many people have died in the name of religion for anyone to heed the call, in my opinion. It is the bane of mankind, and is killing this planet.

 

[BluePhantom]

Personally, I don't believe in god and subscribe to no religion. To many people have died in the name of religion for anyone to heed the call, in my opinion. It is the bane of mankind, and is killing this planet.

More people have died in the name of money and greed than religion. Would you throw out all manner of economics because of that? If you were walking down the street with a $100 bill in your pocket and got mugged, would you blame the $100 bill? Of course not. So why would you blame God or belief in God because of how someone has used or misused Him?

 

[orogenicman]

Personally, I don't believe in god and subscribe to no religion. To many people have died in the name of religion for anyone to heed the call, in my opinion. It is the bane of mankind, and is killing this planet.

More people have died in the name of money and greed than religion. Would you throw out all manner of economics because of that?

If I could? Yes. Alas, we are all slaves to the economy. We are not slaves, however, to a magical sky daddy because he doesn't actually exist.

 

[BluePhantom]

Personally, I don't believe in god and subscribe to no religion. To many people have died in the name of religion for anyone to heed the call, in my opinion. It is the bane of mankind, and is killing this planet.

More people have died in the name of money and greed than religion. Would you throw out all manner of economics because of that?

If I could? Yes. Alas, we are all slaves to the economy. We are not slaves, however, to a magical sky daddy because he doesn't actually exist.

Ironically, that is a statement of faith. You can disprove the existence of God no more than I can prove the contrary. Thus, your statement of an absolute ("....he doesn't exist") is actually a statement of faith. You have an absolute belief that God doesn't exist despite an inability to prove it. Welcome to the community of faith.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Personally, I don't believe in god and subscribe to no religion. To many people have died in the name of religion for anyone to heed the call, in my opinion. It is the bane of mankind, and is killing this planet.

More people have died in the name of money and greed than religion. Would you throw out all manner of economics because of that?

If I could? Yes. Alas, we are all slaves to the economy. We are not slaves, however, to a magical sky daddy because he doesn't actually exist.

Ironically, that is a statement of faith. You can disprove the existence of God no more than I can prove the contrary. Thus, your statement of an absolute ("....he doesn't exist") is actually a statement of faith. You have an absolute belief that God doesn't exist despite an inability to prove it. Welcome to the community of faith.

Nope!

Logically God cannot exist because of the Omnipotence paradox.

Logic is not faith.

 

[orogenicman]

Personally, I don't believe in god and subscribe to no religion. To many people have died in the name of religion for anyone to heed the call, in my opinion. It is the bane of mankind, and is killing this planet.

More people have died in the name of money and greed than religion. Would you throw out all manner of economics because of that?

If I could? Yes. Alas, we are all slaves to the economy. We are not slaves, however, to a magical sky daddy because he doesn't actually exist.

Ironically, that is a statement of faith. You can disprove the existence of God no more than I can prove the contrary. Thus, your statement of an absolute ("....he doesn't exist") is actually a statement of faith. You have an absolute belief that God doesn't exist despite an inability to prove it. Welcome to the community of faith.

What? Ah, no. You are correct, I cannot disprove the existence of god any more than you can prove the existence of god. But I can't disprove the existence of the tooth fairy either. That doesn't mean that my default position is that the tooth fairy exists. I don't have a belief that god exists. Which means that I disbelieve that there is a god. It is not a belief. It is a disbelief. My default position is that god does not exist because I see no evidence to convince me otherwise. You see, it is like this, I don't take life on faith. Faith is a belief in things not in evidence. And I just don't see the point of getting suckered into such a ridiculous position. Personal revelation is, by definition, 1st person in nature. As such, I am under no obligation to subscribe to your personal revelation over that of anyone else's. I did not experience it, and you can't prove to me that you did either.

 

[eots]

 

[Thunderbird]

Every single one of your posts exposes your appalling ignorance.

Eugenics was developed by Francis Galton who was a Quaker.

Galton was an agnostic according to this article: A History of the Eugenics Movement

Please provide evidence Galton was a Quaker as an adult.

According to the Encyclopædia Britannica, Galton "had little use for the conventional classical and religious teaching he received in school and church. Indeed, he later confessed in a letter to Charles Darwin that the traditional biblical arguments had made him “wretched.”

Article from Galton: Africa For The Chinese by Francis Galton

 

[Derideo_Te]

Every single one of your posts exposes your appalling ignorance.

Eugenics was developed by Francis Galton who was a Quaker.

Galton was an agnostic according to this article: A History of the Eugenics Movement

Please provide evidence Galton was a Quaker as an adult.

According to the Encyclopædia Britannica, Galton "had little use for the conventional classical and religious teaching he received in school and church. Indeed, he later confessed in a letter to Charles Darwin that the traditional biblical arguments had made him “wretched.”

Article from Galton: Africa For The Chinese by Francis Galton

There is ample proof that he was a Quaker so the onus is on you to prove otherwise.

The term "wretched" does not imply that he was not a theist. In fact it proves that he was thinking about the Bible.

And your link doesn't contain a letter from Galton to Darwin.

 

[Thunderbird]

There is ample proof that he was a Quaker

Then provide some of it! lol

so the onus is on you to prove otherwise.

You said Galton was a Quaker, so the burden is on you. Do you generally make statements without evidence? Do you usually call other posters ignorant when you correct them, even though your "correction" is not buttressed by evidence? Either retract your statement or provide evidence - unless you don't want people to take you seriously.

Please provide evidence Galton was a Quaker as an adult.

 

[Derideo_Te]

There is ample proof that he was a Quaker

Then provide some of it! lol

so the onus is on you to prove otherwise.

You said Galton was a Quaker, so the burden is on you. Do you generally make statements without evidence? Do you usually call other posters ignorant when you correct them, even though your "correction" is not buttressed by evidence? Either retract your statement or provide evidence - unless you don't want people to take you seriously.

Francis Galton - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Biography
Early life
Galton was born at "The Larches", a large house in the Sparkbrook area of Birmingham, England, built on the site of "Fair Hill", the former home ofJoseph Priestley, which the botanist William Withering had renamed. He was Charles Darwin's half-cousin, sharing the common grandparent Erasmus Darwin. His father was Samuel Tertius Galton, son of Samuel "John" Galton. The Galtons were famous and highly successful Quaker gun-manufacturers and bankers, while the Darwins were distinguished in medicine and science.

Onus remains on you to prove that he wasn't a Quaker.

 

[Thunderbird]

There is ample proof that he was a Quaker

Then provide some of it! lol

so the onus is on you to prove otherwise.

You said Galton was a Quaker, so the burden is on you. Do you generally make statements without evidence? Do you usually call other posters ignorant when you correct them, even though your "correction" is not buttressed by evidence? Either retract your statement or provide evidence - unless you don't want people to take you seriously.

Francis Galton - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Biography
Early life
Galton was born at "The Larches", a large house in the Sparkbrook area of Birmingham, England, built on the site of "Fair Hill", the former home ofJoseph Priestley, which the botanist William Withering had renamed. He was Charles Darwin's half-cousin, sharing the common grandparent Erasmus Darwin. His father was Samuel Tertius Galton, son of Samuel "John" Galton. The Galtons were famous and highly successful Quaker gun-manufacturers and bankers, while the Darwins were distinguished in medicine and science.

Onus remains on you to prove that he wasn't a Quaker.

Are you really this dense? lol Galton's family was Quaker, but this does not mean he was a Quaker. Obviously!

C'mon, just retract your statement and stop making a fool of yourself.

 

[Derideo_Te]

There is ample proof that he was a Quaker

Then provide some of it! lol

so the onus is on you to prove otherwise.

You said Galton was a Quaker, so the burden is on you. Do you generally make statements without evidence? Do you usually call other posters ignorant when you correct them, even though your "correction" is not buttressed by evidence? Either retract your statement or provide evidence - unless you don't want people to take you seriously.

Francis Galton - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Biography
Early life
Galton was born at "The Larches", a large house in the Sparkbrook area of Birmingham, England, built on the site of "Fair Hill", the former home ofJoseph Priestley, which the botanist William Withering had renamed. He was Charles Darwin's half-cousin, sharing the common grandparent Erasmus Darwin. His father was Samuel Tertius Galton, son of Samuel "John" Galton. The Galtons were famous and highly successful Quaker gun-manufacturers and bankers, while the Darwins were distinguished in medicine and science.

Onus remains on you to prove that he wasn't a Quaker.

Are you really this dense? lol Galton's family was Quaker, but this does not mean he was a Quaker. Obviously!

Ironic that call others dense after you posted this about Galton;

"conventional classical and religious teaching he received in school and church"

 

[Thunderbird]

"conventional classical and religious teaching he received in school and church"

OMG stop embarrassing yourself! People sometimes receive religious training but reject religious belief!

Please provide evidence Galton was a Quaker as an adult.

 

[Derideo_Te]

"conventional classical and religious teaching he received in school and church"

OMG stop embarrassing yourself! People sometimes receive religious training but reject religious belief!

Please provide evidence Galton was a Quaker as an adult.

You are the one alleging that Galton was not a Quaker as an adult so the onus is on you to prove it.

It has been established that he was born into a Quaker home and raised with a religious education in the church.

If you want to prove that he rejected his Quaker faith then it is up to you to provide credible evidence proving that he did.

 

[Hollie]

Thanks. It's an unfortunate waste of time and energy but you religious extremists need to be hauled into court every now and then for a smack on the forehead reminder that your various gawds have no place in the public schools.

You've heard of the constitution, right?

I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!-- Rev Jerry Falwell, America Can Be Saved, 1979 pp. 52-53, from Albert J Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom

 

[Thunderbird]

You are the one alleging that Galton was not a Quaker as an adult so the onus is on you to prove it.

Did you say Galton was a Quaker yes or no?

If you want to prove that he rejected his Quaker faith then it is up to you to provide credible evidence proving that he did.

It is up to you to provide credible evidence that Galton embraced the religion he was trained in.

Please provide evidence Galton was a Quaker as an adult.

On page 38 in Francis Galton: Pioneer of Heredity and Biometry written by M. G. Bulmer the author states Galton rejected Christianity. Stop squirming and admit your error. lol

 

[eots]

Thanks. It's an unfortunate waste of time and energy but you religious extremists need to be hauled into court every now and then for a smack on the forehead reminder that your various gawds have no place in the public schools.

You've heard of the constitution, right?

I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!-- Rev Jerry Falwell, America Can Be Saved, 1979 pp. 52-53, from Albert J Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom

religious extremists ? what the hell are you talking about ? ya I've
heard of the constitution..how you got that I supported the fox bimbos assertions out of that video I do not know ..I do not want very falwell's or anyone else religion taught in public schools