What is your definition of a "Fundi" or a Fundamentalist?

by brotherdan 236 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  lisaBObeesa

  So, Lisa, what percentage of the time could I lie to you or misguide you, yet still maintain your trust? 25%? 50%? 95%?

  SBC, there is more than one way to look at the Bible. There are many, many ways to look at the Bible.

  Only fundamentalists say there is only one way (the literal way) to look at the Bible.

  I look at it from a very liberal view. I have thrown all fundamentalism away.

  I don't see that this book has lied to me or misguided me. I don't believe that most of it should be taken literally, and I don't believe that every part of the bible agrees with every other part and I don't believe that it must in order for it to be a book of God.

  Of course I also believe there is more than one way to God.

  Like I said, I look at it from a very liberal view.
• 

  PSacramento

  The commonly accepted creationist date for the flood is 2304 BC

  There are no dates in the bible, where did that date come from?

  How is it explain that a GLOBAL flood during that time, would NOT be mentioned by other cultures outside the "middle east"?

  1. The city of Ur of the Chaldees (ancient Sumer, location of the "plains of Shinar", hangout of Noah) was the leading city from about 2400 BCE until about 2,285 BCE and its history is not broken by any flood in this period.
  2. Babylon was rising to power from about 2,400 BCE on and reached a great height of civilization under the famous King Hammurabi, who would have been a contempory of Hebrew patriarch Abraham (about 2,250 BCE), and again there is no break in this history due to a flood.
  3. In Egypt, the 5th Dynasty, which began to reign about 2,465 BCE, was followed by the 6th Dynasty (2,323 BCE), which ruled to about 2000 BCE. This time-period is very well-documented and there was no disruption during the 5th Dynasty at the time of Noah's flood, 2,345 BCE, with the nation remaining strong and powerful throughout these dynasties.
  4. The Harappan Civilization(2300 - 1900 BCE) in India shows no disruptions at the time of the Flood and, ironically, appears to have ended because of a region-wide drought! (some used to think that an invasion was the cause, but the evidence points away from this earlier scenario).
  5. Chinese history begins nearly 3,000 BCE. The Shu-King historic record of China, shows that King Yao came to the throne in 2356 BCE and ruled China for many years after the alleged flood. Incidentally, durring the reign of Yao, the Shu King reports that the Hwang Ho River flooded on a number of times, for three generations, again with NO break in history. Please consult the History of China or THIS timeline. The only place you find these early rulers listed are at Chinese sites (spelled Tangyao, Westerners shorten this to Yao).
  6. Ancient civilizations in India which predate the Bible entirely and shows no evidence that such an event ever happened ( appearance of the oldest book of the Hindu religion, the Rig Veda pre-dates the Bible considerably, according to astronomical dating provided by astronomical events listed in the Rig Veda)
• 

  brotherdan

  PSac, you can look it up if you want to see why creationists came to that date. I'm not a chronologist.
• 

  SweetBabyCheezits

  I don't care what modern Jews think. They don't take Jesus as being real either.

  Dan, you "know" Jews are wrong in their beliefs. After I'd left the WT (mentally), but still considered myself a Christian, I "knew" they were wrong as well. But I'd been reading a book chapter on intellectual empathy, which caused me to consider the Jewish (and Muslim, Mormon, etc..) viewpoints when sorting things out for myself.

  Specifically, I had to ask some introspective questions:

  • What do I have that an otherwise brilliant Jew or Muslim lacks, that causes him to maintain the wrong faith? He is as certain of his faith as I am. He also truly thinks he has completely solid reasons to believe as he does. If both of us are basing our beliefs on faith, neither can be proven wrong. So how can I be so sure that my views are the only right ones in something subjective as faith?
  • I was sooo wrong when I was a JW but there was a time I KNEW I was right. Could I still be wrong and not realize it?
  • Why do I accept the Bible as an inerrant authority? Am I partial towards it? Have I ever stepped back and judged it consistently with other ancient writings?

  I still have to ask similar questions about my own biases but I've stopped buying things on faith so that changes the application a bit.
• 

  PSacramento

  I have Dan, it is very similar to the way the JW's came up to their dates - bias and selective interpretation, which we are all guilty of anyways.

  My point is that there is no reason to view the flood as a Global flood when there is not only no evidence for it, though there is evidence for a very bad flood in tha area, as well as others over the centuries, and not viewingit as such would NOT effect the bible at all.

  Historical writing lends itself to certain ways of writing/speaking, just as Roman ruled the world and Alexander conquered the world, so the flood covered the world.

  The facts would be that there was a HUGE flood, that Noah was warned about it by God, they he saved his family and many animals.

  There are many reasons why I don't believe in a Global Flood, but the biggest would have to be that God didn't NEED a flood to remove the wicked from the earth, the flood is a really crappy and kind of lousy way for Our All Powerful father to "make a statement".
• 

  brotherdan

  The argument that it is not global is not the entire argument of the matter though. I see your point that it would be unnecessary for it to be global. But there are other problems with a local flood. All humans were killed by it, or at least the Bible says so. So that still would cause a problem for civilizations that apparently show no sign of a flood that wipped out all civilization.
• 

  brotherdan

  Ok...so I'm reading Age of Reason...and it's not adding up so far. If he finds all religions thought so "laughable" (Christian, Muslims, Jews, etc...) then why does he keep talking about "the Almighty" and his belief in God.

  To anyone that has read the entire thing, does he eventually discuss why he believes in God at all?
• 

  PSacramento

  The bible does say that all humans were killed by it, but we know that is not the case so either the bible is wrong or WE are wrong in interpreting it THAT way.

  While God does accomodate "himself" to Us and our Understanding, we must also take an active step in see what is, not only in the bible, but in how God reveals His Word to us in nature and history as well, after all, he made ALL of this and His Word is represnted in ALL of the universe.

  If the writer of Genesis was wrong about what he wrote ( which I don;t think so, I think he was just writing in the style of his time for the people of his time) then we have to find the truth, IF we are wrong in our interpretation of Genesis, like Augustine warned Us about, then we need to correct OUR misunderstanding.
• 

  sir82

  He made it clear when He was using parables.

  Oh?

  Every time?

  And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it

  So Jesus (or Peter if you are Catholic) was literally a rock?

  I don't see Jesus saying

  And I tell you that you are Peter, and [[WARNING WARNING the following 8 words are a figure of speech]] on this rock I will

  build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it
• 

  brotherdan

  See, PSac, that just doesn't fly with me. If the writer of Genesis says that all flesh was destroyed, then when I find out that NOT all flesh was destroyed, why believe ANYTHING he says? Why am I the one that misunderstood? If the Bible says that the universe was created in 6 days and is confirmed even more clearly in Exodous 20:11 - For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy" ....then why am I the one that misunderstood the word "Day"?

  That sounds like a cop out to me. If something is shown to be false then why do I have to figure it out to make it fit when it goes against what was actually said?