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

by brotherdan 236 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  brotherdan

  I know atheists disagree with me on this, but I think the leaps of faith it takes to accept NO GOD are greater than the leaps of faith it takes to believe in God. I don't want to get into the whole "Atheism does not require faith" argument. By faith I mean the gaps across what is not known.

  Using a painting analogy:

  Theists belive in a painter and a painting. The painter painted the painting

  Pantheists believe that the painter IS the painting

  and Atheists believe that the painting did not have a painter and that it was always there.

  Which one sound most reasonable?

  I know we were talking about the Bible here, but once you can accept that there MUST be a God, then you can investigate if he actually revealed himself.
• 

  PSacramento

  Ah, I see.

  I made that statement to show that the apostles didn't JUST rely on the written word, and not even on their OWN understanding of it, but that they discussed these things and followed the HS where it lead them, in this case it lead them to NOT applying a Law supposedly given directly by God.

  There were over 600 Laws that were supposedly given to Isreal by God.

  When we take ALL of the bible literally then we are aking not only what was inspired By God, like the teachings of the Prophets, but what was written by Man in his view of the history that was happening around him at the tiem of writing.

  And I am sure that we would agree that, in terms of history, the writers and editors of the various books were probably a tad bias at times.
• 

  brotherdan

  OK! I see what you were saying. I know that I defend the Bible alot on the board, but I DO realize there is more to faith in God than just the Bible.
• 

  SweetBabyCheezits

  Theists belive in a painter and a painting. The painter painted the painting

  Pantheists believe that the painter IS the painting

  and Atheists believe that the painting did not have a painter and that it was always there.

  Hang on, Dan. Please tell me you can identify your bias in the above analogy.

  It's only fair that you note the Theist painter "was always there" as well. You left out a rather significant point. It changes things a bit when you add that concept. Makes it much harder to accept.

  But, again, you exclude deism. Just because a person doesn't accept the Bible doesn't not mean he rejects the possibility of a creator in whatever form that might take. The deist would fall into the theist category in your illustration.

  Also, what about agnostics? Don't forget about them! They've earned their place in hell, too!
• 

  brotherdan

  It's only fair that you note the Theist painter "was always there"

  Acknowledged. I thought it was a quite appropriate analogy. Deists would be included in the theist category. And agnostics...well they aren't sure if there is a painting with a painter or not.

  I wasn't being biased. I was showing that there are basically 3 world views that are popular.
• 

  brotherdan

  Makes it much harder to accept.

  Also, how is it harder to believe in a painter (who was always there) that painted a painting than a painting (that was always there) that has NO painter? It sounds like LOGIC would point to the first conclusion. Yes?
• 

  Mad Sweeney

  Using a painting analogy:

  Theists belive in a painter and a painting. The painter painted the painting

  Pantheists believe that the painter IS the painting

  and Atheists believe that the painting did not have a painter and that it was always there.

  To me, this analogy doesn't accurately represent any of the three: theists, pantheists and atheists. Here is how I would portray the different views on deity (I've changed painting to film/movie, and of course this is just my view at the present):

  A deist believes in a spirit* filmmaker and a movie. The filmmaker made the movie, pressed play, and sat down to watch.

  A theist believes in a spirit filmmaker and a movie. The filmmaker made the movie and is still making edits and additions even while it plays.

  A pantheist believes in a filmmaker that is a consciousness of energy* that made itself into a motion-picture.

  A panentheist believes in a filmmaker that is a consciousness of energy that made part of itself into a motion-picture leaving a piece of itself behind to observe as the film unfolds.

  An agnostic knows there is a movie playing and believes that's all he is able to know.

  An atheist knows there is a movie playing and observes that there are natural laws inherent in the film itself that control its development and may even take into account its origin.

  (*Note: to some, the spirit and the consciousness of energy may be synonymous depending on one's personal definition of each; both are kind of hazy concepts that are usually defined on a personal level.)
• 

  satinka

  Fundamentalists are fanatics.

  There are many of them around and they all think they have the Truth TM and the only Truth TM .

  Fanatics do crazy things because of their wonky belief system; that is, the closed mind.

  I believe that JWs fall into the Fundamentalist category. Even upon leaving, often they will slip into another funadmentalist belief system.

  For some, Religion is like an addiction---"the opium of the people."

  "By their fruits you will know them."

  satinka
• 

  brotherdan

  I was trying to keep it simple, Mad!
• 

  SweetBabyCheezits

  And what proof would be enough for you? what evidence would be enough for you?

  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.

  • 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.

  • There 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.)

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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?)

  • 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.

  So much could be said but I guess that would be a good start...