Its official - you're an ape!

[InsaneMystic]

Clearly you don't know what fundamentalist christianity is all about and have just taken it as a negative connotation (you can't be blamed for that, since i too use it) rather than a view on Christianity.

I wont lay out my beliefs again since i've already done so here. Imo, being fundamentalist is just being consistent in your belief and your worldview. If you're a Christian, you follow the bible. You can't decide that some bits are valid and some aren't else there would be no consistency to your belief. So being a fundamentalist Christian is just being a rational Christian if anything, not an irrational one.

You can certainly be consistent without being fundamentalist. The defining characteristic of fundamentalism is to accept, without possibility of doubt allowed, what is set before you by some kind of authority (religious, political, whatever) as The Truth; in the case of fundamentalist Christianity, that every word in the Bible is the literal, inerrant and eternally true Word of God.

Unthinking obedience to authority IMO is a bad thing, and not quite a sign of intelligence either. You might be a fundamentalist who is also capable of rational thought, but being rational certainly doesn't help you in being a fundamentalist, neither does being irrational hinder you. You have all the answers put before you, so the capacity for rational thought isn't needed. If you have it, it's a wasted talent in the realm of your conviction. 😉

Besides, one could possibly say that to be a Christian, you only need to follow the double sentence that Jesus of Nazareth said encompassed the whole Law and all of the Prophets: love God with all your soul and all your power, and (the Golden Rule) love your neighbor as you love yourself. If you follow that, you don't even need to know the rest of the Bible, you will automatically follow the spirit of it without ever even knowing its letters. Or, in the great words of Saint Augustine: Ama et fac quod vis. (Love, and then do as thou wilt.)

 

[Silum]

You can certainly be consistent without being fundamentalist. The defining characteristic of fundamentalism is to accept, without possibility of doubt allowed, what is set before you by some kind of authority (religious, political, whatever) as The Truth; in the case of fundamentalist Christianity, that every word in the Bible is the literal, inerrant and eternally true Word of God.

Unthinking obedience to authority IMO is a bad thing, and not quite a sign of intelligence either. You might be a fundamentalist who is also capable of rational thought, but being rational certainly doesn't help you in being a fundamentalist, neither does being irrational hinder you. You have all the answers put before you, so the capacity for rational thought isn't needed. If you have it, it's a wasted talent in the realm of your conviction. 😉

Besides, one could possibly say that to be a Christian, you only need to follow the double sentence that Jesus of Nazareth said encompassed the whole Law and all of the Prophets: love God with all your soul and all your power, and (the Golden Rule) love your neighbor as you love yourself. If you follow that, you don't even need to know the rest of the Bible, you will automatically follow the spirit of it without ever even knowing its letters. Or, in the great words of Saint Augustine: Ama et fac quod vis. (Love, and then do as thou wilt.)

Oh dear, all you've done is google fundamentalist and then tried to make your point based on that!

No, i would argue that to be Christian, you dont just follow a single line of Jesus' mutterings. I'm going to take it on board that you are not familiar with the Christian faith so i'm certainly not going to jump all over you on this point (why would I?).

Jesus also said 'in the beginning was the word, and the word was God.' You see, the scriptures contained in the bible were continually quoted by christ as being the very essence of him. That they are him. So no, you are inconsistent in your belief if you believe you can pick and choose. (Note, im not calling you inconsistent, afterall you dont claim to be christian, im saying generally)

You seem to have this idea that being fundamental in your belief system is taking 'unthinking obedience to authority'. All it show's is ignorance. We have people classified as christian thinkers, appologists, theologans...not because they have their blinders on...but because they view and analyse the world with a 'fundamental groundwork' with which to understand it. The bible gives you that. It allows you to explain morality, human worth, explanations in how we think, logical reasoning, and indeed a universe with physical rules. Your post completely reaks of misunderstanding of the christian religion, something I'm well used to.

Capacity for rational thought as you say is not limited by a solid faith, it is utilised. I have a belief system that allows me to adequately explain my existence. Remove this groundwork and even the simplest science becomes hard to explain (the 'reason' for logic in the universe for example, entropy in an ordered universe... (the theory of evolution ties into this one...not because of how it works...but why it exists), the original matter of the universe).

The scriptures are said in Timothy to be the very breath of God, how a Christian can then decide to pick on choose scripture baffles me. But the idea that the alternative type of Christian is devoid of rational thought or incapable of understanding other positions or indeed, open enough to understand other religions...is just wrong.

 

[InsaneMystic]

Oh dear, all you've done is google fundamentalist and then tried to make your point based on that!

No, i would argue that to be Christian, you dont just follow a single line of Jesus' mutterings. I'm going to take it on board that you are not familiar with the Christian faith so i'm certainly not going to jump all over you on this point (why would I?).

Actually, Catholic R.E. was one of my four finals classes at school, and I passed the exam with 13 out of 15 points (for those outside of the German Abitur grade system, that's an A-). 😛

You seem to have this idea that being fundamental in your belief system is taking 'unthinking obedience to authority'. All it show's is ignorance. We have people classified as christian thinkers, appologists, theologans...not because they have their blinders on...but because they view and analyse the world with a 'fundamental groundwork' with which to understand it. The bible gives you that. It allows you to explain morality, human worth, explanations in how we think, logical reasoning, and indeed a universe with physical rules. Your post completely reaks of misunderstanding of the christian religion, something I'm well used to.

I strongly disagree if you want to imply that all of those Christian thinkers are fundamentalist Christians.

Capacity for rational thought as you say is not limited by a solid faith, it is utilised. I have a belief system that allows me to adequately explain my existence. Remove this groundwork and even the simplest science becomes hard to explain (the 'reason' for logic in the universe for example, entropy in an ordered universe... (the theory of evolution ties into this one...not because of how it works...but why it exists), the original matter of the universe).

I can agree to all of that, however, I do not agree that in order to be solid, a faith would have to be fundamentalist. Indeed, I consider my faith (which I do not identify as Christian, but that's not the point here) to be both solid and consistent, and I do not belong to any organized denomination, religion, church, or cult, and thus do not even have a holy scripture of any kind that I am bound to (even though I certainly agree that there is much timeless wisdom found in the teachings of Jesus as well as in those of Buddha - and most probably in other religions' holy scriptures as well, but I'm not overly knowledgable about those). I am, thus, about as non-fundamentalist as one gets, and still my faith in God as I understand him "allows me to adequately explain my existence. Remove this groundwork and even the simplest science becomes hard to explain."

The scriptures are said in Timothy to be the very breath of God, how a Christian can then decide to pick on choose scripture baffles me. But the idea that the alternative type of Christian is devoid of rational thought or incapable of understanding other positions or indeed, open enough to understand other religions...is just wrong.

As I said, you might not be devoid of rational thought, but if you have the capacity for it, you refrain from using it on the area where the answers have already been set before you. If your thoughts tell you one thing and the scripture tells you another, as a fundamentalist, you will come to the decision that your thoughts must be wrong. That is not rational, it is obedient. Rationally, you would have to be open to the possibility that it could be the scripture that's wrong, and you could be able to find flaws in its system, and come up with an consistent and solid system of your own that goes without this flaw. And in the case of the Bible, many (though certainly not all) of those "altered systems" will indubitably still be Christian in nature, even though they're, by definition, not fundamentalist.

 

[Silum]

Actually, Catholic R.E. was one of my four finals classes at school, and I passed the exam with 13 out of 15 points (for those outside of the German Abitur grade system, that's an A-). 😛

Im not quizzing you! Though throughout you're posts you crossing between treating 'funamentalist' as nothing other than 'hardcore' and then taking a definition of fundamentalist and calling it unthinking obedience!

I strongly disagree if you want to imply that all of those Christian thinkers are fundamentalist Christians.

Of course not!

I can agree to all of that, however, I do not agree that in order to be solid, a faith would have to be fundamentalist.

No. In order to be consistent with the Christian worldview, you have to be fundamentalist. Hear me out... This is an interdenominational debate, not one I would have with a nonchristian. Its a viewpoint I hold. A viewpoint that has nothing to do with salvation I might add, but on forming a worldview in line with the Christian faith and the bible. Its extremely complex...but a simple version of it is...if you're a Christian, you believe in Christ as the messiah and you believe in his teachings...He taught us quite clearly that the Word of God (scripture) IS God and that it is the very breath of him. So you take that as you're groundwork and you can describe everything (morality, logic, mortality, reasons for evil, thought, physical laws, order) from the bible. It's a Christian argument between Christians. If you decide to believe, I don't know... that Christ existed and is the messiah, but certain parts of the bible you dont agree with...you're inconsistant in your CHRISTIAN belief...not inconsistant as a person. You believe Christ is God, Christ says his Word is Him, you reject the Word.

Indeed, I consider my faith (which I do not identify as Christian, but that's not the point here) to be both solid and consistent, and I do not belong to any organized denomination, religion, church, or cult, and thus do not even have a holy scripture of any kind that I am bound to (even though I certainly agree that there is much timeless wisdom found in the teachings of Jesus as well as in those of Buddha - and most probably in other religions' holy scriptures as well, but I'm not overly knowledgable about those). I am, thus, about as non-fundamentalist as one gets, and still my faith in God as I understand him "allows me to adequately explain my existence. Remove this groundwork and even the simplest science becomes hard to explain."

Your viewpoint is about the most common one I come across... similar to the (imo) primary religion in the UK... atheism with a possibility for God. My 'problem' comes with this statement "and still my faith in God as I understand him". Because that is precisely my point which hopefully you're getting at, it is as you understand him. Their is no consistancy for a Christian (I know you're not) to make that statement yet I hear it all the time. "The way I understand God"..well God has already given us everything we need to understand him! A fundamentalist Christian only seperates himself because he's come to this conclusion. I can see we're not gonna see eye to eye on this one, you're claiming statements have to be 'as I understand them', I am saying that all that yields is a worldview without evidence.

As I said, you might not be devoid of rational thought, but if you have the capacity for it, you refrain from using it on the area where the answers have already been set before you. If your thoughts tell you one thing and the scripture tells you another, as a fundamentalist, you will come to the decision that your thoughts must be wrong. That is not rational, it is obedient. Rationally, you would have to be open to the possibility that it could be the scripture that's wrong, and you could be able to find flaws in its system, and come up with an consistent and solid system of your own that goes without this flaw. And in the case of the Bible, many (though certainly not all) of those "altered systems" will indubitably still be Christian in nature, even though they're, by definition, not fundamentalist.

We'll I have already made my point on this so I won't drag it out too much further. I'll use morality as my example. When I say I can adequately define morality because of my faith, that's not me devoid of my own rational thought process and relying on some words. I still have to come to an understanding about morality, the only difference is I have a reason for it to exist. Does that make sense? I have a reason for life to exist, I have a reason for the rules of logic in our universe. That doesn't mean I can't investigate that they are there. It also doesn't get in the way of my thoughts by overruling them as you suggest, if anything it allows my thoughts to make sense! You have a reason too, but it's based on your own opinion (again, this is your point, but its why I argue it lacks evidence).

Why I believe the bible to be the evidence to trump all other evidences is that it is internally 100% consistent and adequately describes the world I live in to the scrutiny I require.

Back on topic...err...something about apes.

 

[InsaneMystic]

As to your definition what constitutes "consistent Christianity", well, we'll have to agree to disagree there. I understand your point, but I know I'll never share it.

Your viewpoint is about the most common one I come across... similar to the (imo) primary religion in the UK... atheism with a possibility for God.

Sounds like agnosticism to me... which is a worldview I have nothing but deepest respect for, but one which I do not share myself. I find it weird to have my viewpoint be compared to atheism, because I'm 100% sure that if I were an Atheist, I would have killed myself years ago. 😉

My 'problem' comes with this statement "and still my faith in God as I understand him". Because that is precisely my point which hopefully you're getting at, it is as you understand him. Their is no consistancy for a Christian (I know you're not) to make that statement yet I hear it all the time. "The way I understand God"..well God has already given us everything we need to understand him! A fundamentalist Christian only seperates himself because he's come to this conclusion.

No offense, but IMO that makes for a faith that's dead. If the scriptures are all you need, then communication with God becomes unnecessary, you just have the book and cling to it; in effect, you make the book your God, which basically is against the Ten Commandments, btw. 😀

I firmly hold the conviction that God communicates with everyone, all the time (even if not evryone listens 😉 ), and has not stopped this communication (which, of course, leads to new revelations all the time) some 2000-odd years ago. So any holy book, no matter who wrote it and what faith's evolution is based on it, will never be the end of the story, merely a possible starting point for it.

I can see we're not gonna see eye to eye on this one, you're claiming statements have to be 'as I understand them', I am saying that all that yields is a worldview without evidence.

I'll grant you that, yes. But coming from solipsism myself, I consider it the strong point of faith/religion to give you some anchor based on nothing more than intuition as proof, since all sensory evidence can be doubted. The only thing for sure is that "thinking exists" (< which is even one step further than Descartes' "Cogito ergo sum"... I can indeed never be sure that it's "me" who does the thinking.). So a faith that is based on sensory evidence (like a book) has a more doubtful basis to me than one that is based on "pure" thought/intuition. Basically, it boils down to the question of preference between mystical and traditional religion; I see that we're "on different camps" there and I guess we'll have to pull the "agree to disagree" card again. 🙂

Back on topic...err...something about apes.

Oh, we can gladly return to the topic of the apes. 🙂

Let's take the story about Noah's Ark (which is a beautiful story I loved as a kid, mind you). If that is the literal and inerrant truth, the theory of evolution has to be wrong. Noone in their right mind can believe that all species currently on this world have evolved in some 5000-odd years from an animal population of one couple each, who altogether fit into a wooden boat whose metric tonnage is known almost exactly.

Every respectable scientist would agree that if the Ark story is true, (Neo-)Darwinism as it stands has to be a pile of bull no sane person can believe in, no matter if tons and tons of evidence support it. There's neither the time for species evolution, nor enough genetic variance to explain the multitude of genetically healthy species around if you take the Ark and Flood as fact. The ape found there is then, obviously, not a missing link, neither can it be anywhere as old as it's claimed to be. It must be either a sick chimpanzee or something (with some kind of disfiguring disease) which died around 5 or 6 millenia ago, when the world was still young... or, indeed, a false trail laid by Satan. If the Bible is correct, every other assumption would indeed be unscientific. 😉

So in order to have a consistent worldview, you can either believe in the literal truth of the Bible or in modern biology, not both. You're free to make that choice, of course, but if you choose the Bible, then I expect you to admit you're dismissing modern natural science as nonsense in order for me to be able to take your viewpoint seriously. I make no apologies for thinking that people who try to square the circle by reconciling two incompatible systems into their worldview and then consider said worldview to be consistent are involuntarily amusing at best. 😉

 

[Silum]

No offense, but IMO that makes for a faith that's dead. If the scriptures are all you need, then communication with God becomes unnecessary, you just have the book and cling to it; in effect, you make the book your God, which basically is against the Ten Commandments, btw. 😀

I firmly hold the conviction that God communicates with everyone, all the time (even if not evryone listens 😉 ), and has not stopped this communication (which, of course, leads to new revelations all the time) some 2000-odd years ago. So any holy book, no matter who wrote it and what faith's evolution is based on it, will never be the end of the story, merely a possible starting point for it.

Where you are getting that, I really don't know. God revealing a internally consistant book that allows me to understand the world has nothing (well, not nothing obviously) to do with a personal relationship with God, or him choosing to reveal more to us everyday. It dosn't make faith dead, it confirms your faith. Faith is the first step, but when God does reveal himself, I don't suddenly have a faith that is dead just because I now see evidence! But considering Jesus tells us that the Word IS God, making the book my God is the same thing! haha.

'll grant you that, yes. But coming from solipsism myself, I consider it the strong point of faith/religion to give you some anchor based on nothing more than intuition as proof, since all sensory evidence can be doubted. The only thing for sure is that "thinking exists"

You might enjoy brain in a vat theory 😉

Oh, we can gladly return to the topic of the apes. 🙂

Let's take the story about Noah's Ark (which is a beautiful story I loved as a kid, mind you). If that is the literal and inerrant truth, the theory of evolution has to be wrong. Noone in their right mind can believe that all species currently on this world have evolved in some 5000-odd years from an animal population of one couple each, who altogether fit into a wooden boat whose metric tonnage is known almost exactly.

First, 7 couples not 2 and the numbers allow for multiple's of similar species anyway. A dog may have been on the boat, but theres room for a wolf too! There are so many theories to explain this one so i'm just gonna go with the one I believe.

First, I don't reject science, in fact I have a degree in the subject. Granted not biology but just because I hold to the inerrant scripture, doesn't mean you can accuse me of rejecting science merely because you dont understand how the two can mesh. Second, I live in a world where God is the creator, the creator of the theory of evolution. You accept that for the theory of evolution to work, it takes millions of years for genetic mutations to manifest themselves until a more positive/advantageous version (say the developing of an eye) occurs. I know that God is the creator, and that nothing in his kingdom is random..including the random genetic mutations that give us such a diverse mix of animals. I see no problem with the creator, performing miracles at the genetic level any less than I have problems with him turning water into wine. Heck, I could forsee God doing this in a couple generations if He so pleased. Afterall, if we start with the 50,000 or so animals that would have been able to fit on the ark, the genetic differences God would need to have a hand in, would be minimal since we dont need to wait for random events to occur. He would also be starting with the 50,000 most genetically varied animals on the planet.

You might take this as a cop out since its all just too simple. But as I have already stated, im living in a world where I have the bible for my basis. God has complete power over his creation including the ability to change the molecular properties of H2O into Wine...why would this be any different? I believe the very laws that govern the creaton are at the will of God. Something backed up by, you guessed it.. scripture.

Of course, their are other theories, some much more complex and less unified.

The ape found there is then, obviously, not a missing link, neither can it be anywhere as old as it's claimed to be. It must be either a sick chimpanzee or something (with some kind of disfiguring disease) which died around 5 or 6 millenia ago, when the world was still young... or, indeed, a false trail laid by Satan. If the Bible is correct, every other assumption would indeed be unscientific. 😉

How so? The argument for the ape, is just that its one step closer to us genetically, and it explains something thats been missing. The argument doesn't stem from time, it stems from interpreting what God meant when he said we are created in His image. Two points on that, we can still be created from Gods image and be the result of the God created laws of natural selection, and two; this missing link still doesn't contain the tranistional structures between the two species anyway, it is just that, another missing link. Why does it matter that the ape is so old? I'm not saying the theory of evolution didnt exist back then!

So in order to have a consistent worldview, you can either believe in the literal truth of the Bible or in modern biology, not both. You're free to make that choice, of course, but if you choose the Bible, then I expect you to admit you're dismissing modern natural science as nonsense in order for me to be able to take your viewpoint seriously. I make no apologies for thinking that people who try to square the circle by reconciling two incompatible systems into their worldview and then consider said worldview to be consistent are involuntarily amusing at best. 😉

I can quite easily believe in the well proven science of modern biology and still believe in the literal truth of the bible. Even if you dont accept my reasoning...i just did precisly that.

Believe biology...check
Literal bible...check.

If you have trouble accepting my reasoning, well, that's fine, but I am consistent, both internally and externally in my worldview. I don't presume to know everything, but I wouldn't be so arrogant in calling me inconsitent before you even give me a chance to describe you're proposed 'dilemma', it's like saying 'i win, i win' at the same time as shutting off the mike. 😉

 

[InsaneMystic]

You might enjoy brain in a vat theory 😉

In fact, I have no proof that there is a brain involved; I just have to take that one on faith. (sw) For all I know, "my" thoughts might be the result of a computer program run on the laptop of an entity we could only call divine.

---

Well, I think you can guess that I continue to find your worldview unconvincing; let me just point out the redundancy of God inventing evolution, but then making it necessary for him to intervene as a miraclulous micromanager in order to achieve the same species variation for which, originally, he created evolution. What's the point in that? It seems to convoluted for me to be able to make sense, intuitively (which, as you recall, to me is the criterion for convincingness of a faith).

But I'll let it rest here. After all, if your faith gives you strength, motivation and explanation, it serves its purpose, whether or not it's able to come across as convincing to me or anyone else.

The only thing that I do contine to find wrong about your faith is your conviction that your way (Bible = literal and inerrant truth) is "the only right way" to be a Christian. If there's one categorical statement I've come to accept, then it's that everyone who says his is the only right way is wrong. 😉

 

[Silum]

In fact, I have no proof that there is a brain involved; I just have to take that one on faith. (sw) For all I know, "my" thoughts might be the result of a computer program run on the laptop of an entity we could only call divine.

---

Well, I think you can guess that I continue to find your worldview unconvincing; let me just point out the redundancy of God inventing evolution, but then making it necessary for him to intervene as a miraclulous micromanager in order to achieve the same species variation for which, originally, he created evolution. What's the point in that? It seems to convoluted for me to be able to make sense, intuitively (which, as you recall, to me is the criterion for convincingness of a faith).

But I'll let it rest here. After all, if your faith gives you strength, motivation and explanation, it serves its purpose, whether or not it's able to come across as convincing to me or anyone else.

The only thing that I do contine to find wrong about your faith is your conviction that your way (Bible = literal and inerrant truth) is "the only right way" to be a Christian. If there's one categorical statement I've come to accept, then it's that everyone who says his is the only right way is wrong. 😉

I dont think it's the only right way, only the best I have seen and one a high majority of christians hold (the sanctity of the bible, which doesnt have to be a sect or denomination btw), I think I have to hold a position that defines an adequate worldview, personally, this does that. That's why I was very quick to say it has nothing to do with salvation (ie. the principles of Christianity). I think if you dont hold that view (as a Christian, so im not going to argue that point any more) then you end up with holes in your argument that are very hard to make sense of, to you or people attacking your religion. Its the reason why so many view Christianity a bad light, their is often no consistency, and Christians included take things out of context.

It doesn't sound redundent for God to mange his creation that way, no. Like I said, if you work it out with most animals having multiple offspring, 50,000 is exponentially huge within a single generation so it wouldn't even be difficult! And to an all powerful God, the last 5000 years are when he has allowed his creation to be what it is...time works very differently for a God outside our dimension of time. So as we look at it and say, why did he start all over again and this time speed it up...well that was a nessesity for the post-flood world he imagined. He saved humanity so he kept the range of animals also. Anyway, nice discussion 🙂

 

[Lemon]

*tries extremely hard not to make a Planet of the Apes joke*
& for a Helenaist...that's hard!

Anyway! So I'm an ape? Neato!

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

Angel's vision disagrees: Is it also perfectly fine to take pot shots at atheists, and people who have evulotionary beliefs and or have other beliefs?

What on earth are you talking about?
Where have I said any of that?

 

[Angel's vision]

didn't you realise its perfectly fine to take pot shots at Christians here. You should read a Harry Potter conversation I had on these boards once.

I took it that you were serious, and not being sarcastic, hard to tell with you sometimes, forgive me.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

I took it that you were serious, and not being sarcastic, hard to tell with you sometimes, forgive me.

I was being serious.

There is a thread in the Cemetary where a number of members actually outright attack the entire Christian community based on a small number.

I have no issue with Atheists/Christians/Hindus/Charmed Fans, I have an issue with people who attack entire beliefs because of the ignorance of a few.