Someone who thinks the answer to every problem is a Scripture.
What is your definition of a "Fundi" or a Fundamentalist?
by brotherdan 236 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
ProdigalSon
Someone who uses the Bible, which God did not give them, to do all their thinking, while forsaking their brain, which God did give them.
The main problem with that is that the Bible can rarely make a concrete decision.
-
BurnTheShips
A global flood has NOT been conclusively proven to have not happened.
You can't prove a negative, BrotherDan.
I tried to quickly research it and will continue, but here is something:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx
The United States is not "most of the world."
BTS
-
PSacramento
Psac, short answer: Probably the same proof that would be required for you to believe the Quran is inspired by the only true god.
Long answer: That's pretty open-ended but I'll throw you a bone. First of all, the Bible would need a huge makeover. It could not carry contradicting texts and descriptions of a self-refuting god. Let's cover some basic concepts.
That is a great list, but maybe another thread would be in order?
Don't wanna highjack this one...
-
brotherdan
Don't worry about hijacking, PSac. I think the answer has been given that a Fundy is one that believes the Bible is inerrant. So feel free to respond! :-)
-
PSacramento
A perfect creator wouldn't be obsessed with being loved or worshiped as that, by definition, contradicts perfection since it represents a fundamental need on his part.
While man wrote that God demanded worship and Jesus himself quoted the commandment, did Jesus, the Word of God, ever show obsession with it? for him or his father?
- T
here would also have to be some bridge between the gap of his superlative love and his willingness to let man suffer for the sake of his good name. (As a father, I hate to share my title with the Judeo-Christian god. Good parents don't drown their children.)
You make a valid point and Genesis does imply that the floods were sent By God, of course according to ancient man, everything was sent by God so perhaps a "grain of salt" is in order.
This divine and uber-important message would have to transcend time and language barriers with NO CHANCE for loss of quality. Everyone would understand the message the same way, as there would be ZERO room for interpretation. Human language seems ill-fitted for such a task.
True, but what other way do you think God could have sent his message WITHOUT forcing it down anyones perverbial throat?
- Sound like being forced to believe in soemthing...
ALL mankind could understand it without even learning to read and ALL mankind would have access to at ANY time.
It wouldn't be transmitted in such a way that caused geographics partiality. Citizens of country X would not be at a disadvantage (because of isolation/environment) while citizens of country Y are taught it's message from birth.
The universal truth of God is present in virtually every region, what people choose to do with is is up to them.
Evidence would be preserved for every single miracle (fairy tale). Since the "doubting Thomas" was supposedly allowed to demand evidence that he could test with his eyes and hands, the rest of us should have the right to expect the same evidence before we believe hearsay.
God doesn't need or want you to believe because of miracles, the choice is yours.
There would have to be numerous examples that the bible writers had specific fore-knowledge that ONLY a creator of the universe might have. This would be conveyed in clear, unambiguous terms. Again, no room for interpretation and no self-fulfilling prophecy.
Why? to prove what? to WHOM?
It would be clearly established and verifiable by multiple independent, unbiased sources as to the date a prophecy was conceived and also verifiable by multiple independent, unbiased sources as to the date the prophecy was fulfilled. There would be ZERO room for debate on any prophecy.
Unbiased? How?
This wouldn't prove anything but it would've been nice to have this simple idea passed on at the very beginning: "Handwashing is one of the best ways to prevent the spread of infection and illness." For bonus points, he would've given us the scientific method in Genesis.
Ok, a valid point, common sense not being very common I guess that God should have reminded people to do that, though it seems we did find without THAT "divine revelation".
The "commandments" would focus on compassion and love for fellow man instead of emphasizing devotion to a self-absorbed creator. These would also speak VERY CLEARLY against sexual or physical abuse of a child; rape; slavery; torture; kidnapping; or abuse of one's mate. (Too bad those weren't important enough to be mentioned, eh?)
WHile I agree that the commandments could have been more complete, 600 Laws came after that too and look at the mess they made.
I will give you that as I agree that they could have made more of a statement, though if they did I don't know how that would prove the existence of God.
God's voice would be audibly heard each day by everyone and a verbal answer would confirm whether or not a prayer was being answered.
- See, here is the thing, we it's fine to think about the things that would make US believe in God, the fact is that ALL those things you listed could be revelaed through personal revelation and it wouldn't matter one single bit to anyone EXCEPT the person they were revealed to.
- No one would believe them anyways, we've seen enough proof of that.
The fact is, short of God appearing and laying down the Law and Kaiboshing any and every doubt, there would always be people that don't believe.
And for GOd to do that, would make him a dictator that took aways free will.
That said, EVEN if God did that, even if Christ ruled for 1000 years of love and peace, there would still be those to rebel against God and the one thing that Revelation does hit "nail on the head" is THAT.
I submit that the very proof that most doubters WANT is the very proof that God may never gove because the he truly would be a dictator God and since God wants all to come to him with love and free choice to coem to him, that will probably never happen.
- T
-
brotherdan
Cheeze, I'd like to make a comment on one of your "reasons" for rejecting the God of the Bible:
ALL mankind could understand it without even learning to read and ALL mankind would have access to at ANY time.
According to 1John 5:1 reading the Bible is not even a requirement. It is believing that Jesus is the Christ. There were MANY that were illiterate in ancient times. Jewish tradition was passed down by word. Having a personal copy of a written Word of God is a relatively new concept.
-
Caedes
My own definition is any theist who can't admit that they pick and choose which bits of scripture they follow.
-
PSacramento
My own definition is any theist who can't admit that they pick and choose which bits of scripture they follow.
That is almost liek saying that a scientist of the 21st century is picking and choosing to believe in a modern scientific theory over an ancient one that has been made "obsolete".
To many Christians the NT "over rides" much of the OT in the things that appear to be contridictory, for example, Jesus's commandment of Love they enemy over rides "smite the caanites and smash their babies against the rocks".
Do you view that as picking and choosing?
I certainly don't.
-
Inkie
Cofty:
Not to answer for AGuest but. . . . Where have you been? Practically the entire 23rd chapter of Matthew answers your question to AGuest.
--Inkie