Some people are not willing to examine their own beliefs. Quite often, in my head, this is actually how I define fundamentalist. But then, I am a Christian, and I think I could find some people that would call me a fundamentalist. Without even breaking a sweat. I don’t know. I can’t help but to think that if we placed more of an emphasis (in school, parenting, and society in general) on teaching people HOW to think, as opposed to WHAT to think, this problem would be greatly diminished. In this thinking society, people would be more prone to questions, discussions, and debate. At least I hope.
Maybe if we passed a law requiring people to join SDMB and take part in Great Debates?
and on preview, what Zoe said is perfect. But then, most everyones comments have been beneficial.
Indeed, even the meaning of “the gift of tongues” is rather misconstrued. Acts 2:4 says that the Apostles were able to "speak with other tongues’ after the Pentacost and it’s pretty clear that this is intended to indicate that they were given the ability to speak other languages for the purpose of spreading the Gospel, not the phenomenon of glossalia now associated with it. Like you said, Paul said that it was one possible gift of the Holy Spirit, but not that it was necessary for salvation.
After the 2004 US elections, I remember seeing this cartoon, dividing The US and Canada into “Jesusland” and “The United States of Canada.” Of course, for a liberal (and who knows, perhaps for the fundamentalist, too!) this was satisfying, on a rather base level. How great it would be to have all the “Bible-bangers” just go away!
But it’s not real. Not all Christians are intolerant fundamentalists. Not all Christians are the sorts we imagine would want to live in “Jesusland”, and even if they were, would it be right to let them do so? (I sure wouldn’t want to be a woman in Jesusland.) Is it even feasible to imagine such a situation? Aren’t some of the difficulties that France is going through with its Muslim population related to a similar “segragatory” move?
Segregation? Is that the best we can do? (That sounds sanctimonious. I don’t mean it that way.) But indeed, if we cannot “dialogue” with fundamentalists to form some sort of common ground, is there another option than segregation (be it ideological or physical)? Vlad/Igor, thanks for expressing yourself so eloquently. You’ve helped me (I hope!) to better verbalize what I’ve been thinking about. I will continue to chew this over.
In that case the answer would be no. I’ve never read the Bible cover to cover. I’ve spent a lot of time in the NT and specifcially the teaching of Christ. I’ve done several subject studies on the Holy Spirit, scripture, inspiration, and relating subjects. I read some of the OT. Leviticus most recently which I saw as somewhat ridiculous and in no way profound. It was no forshadowing of Jesus.
In the past few years I’ve also educated myself on the history of the Bible and some Christian history as well. While I am far from a scholar I feel completely capable of making an informed judgement call about the meaning of scripture.
I’m not insisting that my interpretation is the only possible one, and I am always willing to learn. What I do object to is people surrendering their ability to reason for themselves to what someone else or some group is telling them. I also object to people who insist that their interpretation {or the interpretation of their denomination}is the* only* valid one when the scriptures themselves clearly show otherwise.
bolding mine
As to this OP, it seems to me that the only way to talk to someone like this is to find—if it exists—some common ground; some shared value that does have ‘meaning’ to them.
It is only through shared value, and common beliefs[as a starting point] that you will find someone receptive, or in a frame of mind where they may be reasoned with.
If no common ground exists, there is unlikely to be any basis from which to affect any positive outcome. (whether that is academic, education etc)
It seems fairly evident to me that for that to be successful you need to have the ability, the knowledge, to speak with them in a ‘language’ they understand, or to understand the basis, or bedrock of their beliefs. I would imagine that, if asked, most fundamentalists would identify the bible as the source or basis for their beliefs.
Rather than “debating” them—which would almost certainly be seen as a frontal assault on their faith and make them exponentially more intractable----it would be better to inquire of them why they believe what they believe and ask them to show you from the bible the basis of their beliefs. I would imagine that many (most?) fundamentalists would be pleased to show you. If you have the knowledge, the ability, to show them that the bible doesn’t say what they believe it says, you may open their eyes.
That may be no small task. Certainly there are fundamentalists whose beliefs are based on some level of ignorance. On the other hand, there are others have a very firm command of what the bible has to say and may be quite capable.
From my experience, bible ignorance is pandemic. I find that ignorance to be equally distributed—among theists, atheists, Christians, non-Christians, religious liberals and religious conservatives. IMO, at SDMB I can think of 4 people off the top of my head who have the ability to discuss what the bible has to say-----a real background in biblical knowledge. (I’m sure that there are others----ones I haven’t thought of perhaps, or who are not among the “usual suspects” who participtate in bible oriented threads)
My point is simply this: Any given fundamentalist may be better prepared to articulate his/her position/belief than you are. I consistently see threads here that are remarkable for how presumptuous they can be. I have no stake in this—and don’t care about the term----but I’m often puzzked at the general impression that they are described as ‘anti-intellectual’, simple minded, ignorant or well intentioned but misguided. (or described as hate filled, homophobic, or bigoted)
All from posters who couldn’t find Genesis.
So, what is your stake in this? Are you ‘stuck’ in a general kind of way, or in some specific way? How well do you know your fundamentalist? How knowledgable are you about the bible? (assuming the bible is in fact the basis of their beliefs) How good are your reasoning skills?(note reasoning skills are not the same as debating skills)
If you cannot find common ground, or if you do not have the ability (either the communication skills or the knowledge) to convince them otherwise, it is best to simply accept them for who they are.
That depends on how someone represents themselves. I would imagine that for SentientMeat the answer may be zero. (or maybe not) Of course, one not need be a deist to have an interest in what the bible has to say. Whether one’s interest be academic, religious or otherwise it seems to me that the answer to that is dependent on one’s ambitions, interests and motivation.
At any rate, the bible—no matter the motivation—is not a book that can be understood with a scattershot approach. It cannot be understood accurately without reading it. It seems absurd that I would need to italicize that sentence, or that it would need to be said at all.
Yet so many people purport to know it—and quote it with both aplomb and authority—with little or no real knowledge. It’s often amazing.
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘attacking.’ I would generally disagree with the notion that reading the bible without, “understanding any context as to history, genre, authorial intent, etc.” will give only a superficial understanding.
I would agree however, that further study as to history, genre, authorial intent, etc. will give a fuller, more thorough, accurate understanding—a more complete understanding as to what the bible really says, including intent, thrust, continuity etc. (sorry for the run on sentence)
I would add that, in my view, reading the bible throughout is not sufficient to have a deep understanding. The history of the bible, it’s characters, the background, the interplay between characters, nations, continuity are such that one could easily make a lifetime of studying it. (and many do) A better approach—after reading it throughout—is to revisit specific accounts, books, characters and specific topics as subjects of study.
A good example of that is the discussion of “Hell” that you participated in. For that specific topic (and to gain an accurate understanding) it is necessary to go to many places in the bible to see how different people over many centuries, including many characters (including God of course), and nations viewed “Hell.” Here too, understanding is deepened by considering other sources including secular history (particularly from that era and immediately after), oral traditions, and other belief systems during that time, and so forth.
And so it seems to me that the person who has, A) actually read the bible, B) has continued to study it over an extended period by focusing on specific accounts, characters or topics (like “hell”, “reincarnation” , “homosexuality” etc) which require the ‘student’ to search throughout the bible, and C) have considered other sources (particularly of that era) that add depth and background is in the best position to understand what the bible really has to say on a given topic.
I think you would agree with that.
I would agree with this.
I would simply add that, in my experience, those woefully underinformed come from all points on the theist/atheist, fundamentalist/non-fundamentalist, Christian/non-Christian, and liberal/conservative spectrum.
I don’t recall using the word debate, and deliberately. "Debate - heated discussion - really doesn’t have anything to do with my question.
As I wrote in my second post, citing Bible verses is not enough, as it is still a question of interpretation. You’re a Jehovah’s Witness, aren’t you, the raindog? So, let’s use a subject you’re familiar with: Witnesses don’t celebrate birthdays, not because there is an explicit Bible verse that says “Don’t celebrate birthdays” but because of an interpretation based on the following: Jesus said that the day of one’s death is more important than the day of one’s birth; and the two birthday celebrations mentioned in the Bible are negative (John the Baptist is beheaded at one, and I’m forgetting the other). IIRC, JW’s are the only Christian group that condemns birthday celebrations, yet all Christian faiths have access to the (more or less) the same Bible verses. So, what good will quoting Bible verses do in this situation, since the conclusion is utlimately dogmatic?
Or, I can question them on the idea of homosexuality as sinful, using specific Bible verses, as Tevildo does in post #50 in the “Ask a Seminary Student” thread. But if they are not willing to admit that the particular Greek word in question does indeed refer to a culturally-specific definition far more complex than ‘homosexuality’, my (or in this case Tevildo’s adept) use of Biblical knowledge is for naught. Again, I really don’t see why reading the Bible is supposed to help (and you brought it up, the raindog) since the belief is still informed at some level by the institution/ or dogma, be it Christianity or Islam (or any other faith, for that matter).
Given that I was a fundamentalist, I believe I have a decent understanding of their ways of thinking. As I mentioned before, being raised as a JW, I read the NWT translation several times though (I have never read any other version all the way through.)
Again, as I said in a previous post, while the more person level may be a more feasible focus for this thread, I am more interested in the idea in general, on a societal, cultural level. I am trying to ferret out a solution that isn’t some form of segregation or violent tyranny.
On preview: Sentient Meat, if I may be so bold to speak for him, has most certainly read the Bible - he used to be a devout Christian, as he has mentioned in other threads. To be frank, that you would make such an assumption says a lot more about you, the raindog, than Sentient Meat.
I think you make some pretty valuble points. When my Christian family members or freinds give me something to consider such as the book my brother just sent me or the CD lessons, I always study them. After that we can discuss them. Biblical knowledge is a good thing. Still it seems to come down to interpretation. People with plenty of knowledge still interpret it differently. I can’t count how many times I’ve heard someone say, “Well my friend so and so has been studying the Bible for years” as if that indicates they must be right.
Spiritual growth and insight is an internal and personal thing . When people become indoctrinated by a certain group think it’s a hard thing to shake. It will take generations but gradually things will change. Until then we can try to have some patience with each other and keep the lines of communication open.
In response to the answer of “with mutual respect for each other’s POV”
(Bolding mine.)
Well, we’ve left the realm of mutual respect and dialogue then. They are not respecting your POV and then dialogue ceases. Dialogue, as the op made quite clear, is not debate, heated or otherwise, it is not convincing someone else that they are wrong and getting them to see the light. If that is the mission (so to speak) for either participant, then dialogue is impossible. Dialogue is about understanding what the other person believes and why and having them understand why you believe what you believe as well. Period.
Can we foster dialogue with those who are not initially interested in such a process, with those who instead only seem interested in getting you to see the light, in saving your immortal soul?
Sometimes. But it requires stating explicitly that you are not interested in changing their POV, and meaning it, and turning away at any time that the conversation becomes one of conversion rather than one of dialogue. And while many Christian fundamentalists are not initially interested in dialogue, it seems apparent that some secularists and non-fundamentalists are also less interested in dialogue than in convincing the fundamentalist that they are wrong.
If anyone’s interested in seeing how members of this messageboard have discussed religion with Fundamentalists, you should see some if you do a search on “His4Ever” or posts by “lynn73” in Great Debates from 3 years ago or more. His4Ever/lynn73 (she changed her user name) was a particularly ardent Fundamentalist who used to post here, intending, I think to convert us to Christianity.
I used to argue Christianity on-line a lot in those days, and I found it helped to have Biblical cites for my position. Bible Gatway has already been mentioned, but I’ve found it particularly useful for finding exactly which passage I was thinking of. It also helps to have the larger context of the passage being discussed available. Take John 3:16 for example. The verse on its own reads,“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” This verse is often used to justify the notion that only Christians will be saved. The next verse, however, reads “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.” Which I’ve used to justify universal salvation. You could basically use the whole passage of John 3:16-21 to play dueling Bible verses to argue both sides of this point.
I agree that you do have to treat the views of the person you’re talking to with respect, even though that may not always easy. This isn’t just part of my take on what Christianity requires; it’s practical. People do have reasons for holding the beliefs they do and I’ve always assumed those reasons worked for them. A person may need to have the assurance that he and his beliefs are Right in an increasingly chaotic world in which it seems everything’s falls apart, just as I find hope in God’s mercy to remind me that my mistakes can be forgiven.
I’m afraid, however, my discussions with some Fundamentalists have confirmed that they prefer to pick and choose their parts of the Bible. I still remember a discussion with His4Ever in which I asked her what Jesus said to the Samaritan woman at the well. (This is in John 4.) She said that He said “Go and sin no more,” a reference to the woman caught in adultery, a passage she was particularly fond of citing.
I don’t recall you using the word either. Of course, I don’t recall saying you did. :dubious:
Apparently to you it is not enough. To many fundamentalists, I would imagine it is. It seems to me that many (if not most, best as I can tell) fundamentalists reject the notion that it’s all so open to interpretation------that while some verses are open to interpretation and some level of [required] discernment, the bible on the whole speaks with a much higher level of clarity, certainty and purpose than is generally accepted here.
My point is simply this: If you wish to reach a fundamentalist (ar anyone else) you must first meet them on their terms—or rather where there is some common ground.
I don’t speak for fundamentalists, but from what I can see it would appear that they see the bible (right ot wrong)with a high level of [perceived] clarity—and that would include both the texts that are specific and those than are based on principles. You must start by understanding this premise.
Yes I am. But I’m not sure what you’re asking vis a vis the OP. Are you asking about JWs in particular? If so, don’t you say below you have a decent understanding of their beliefs? It seems that you’ve weighed their beliefs and have chosen not to believe. It seems to me that you would not be “stuck” as it related to JWs. You know their beliefs, you know their ‘language.’ It may cause you some angst (particularly if you have close family that are JWs) but you may just have to make peace with the notion that you and ‘them’ just choose to believe differently.
It is the basis of their belief (or any other religious group for that matter) that should frame up your discussion. If you were to ask me my views about birthdays, or homosexuality, I would share them with you. If you could show me the errors in those beliefs, you may alter my views. Still, the primary basis for my beliefs on those subjects is what the bible has to say on the matter. So it is there would would have to start if you would endeavor to reach me. I would accept almost any of the 2 dozen or so major translations available, any interlinear of your choice that rendered the text into the source language, and any secular history that speaks to the matter. I would consider the texts individually, in context and within the continuity of the bible as a whole. I would imagine most JWs would feel the same. Most of the JWs that I know (and, as you requested, using them and the issue of birthdays and/or homosexuality as an example) have a very good grasp of their belief and haven’t come about it in a capricious way. They won’t be interested in debating you for the sake of debating. They would however share with you what/why they believe. Are you able to show them that they are wrong?* Even if you were, isn’t it clear to you that they have chosen to believe and practice their faith in this way?
(I don’t know for sure, and I mean no disrespect, but from the little that I’ve read here I suspect that you would be unable. Solomon, not Jesus, said the day of one’s death is better than the day of one’s birth. Further, it seems patently obvious to me that you would know these things clearly, without using Tevildo’s post as reference.)
I don’t know how to answer this question. (especially without veering into another discussion altogether) I presume that the “them” you’re referring to is JWs. I believe that they have articulated their beliefs on the issue of homosexuality many, many times. If you were raised as one, certainly you know that they have articulated their position cojently, including publishing an interlinear. I’m not sure what they have to “admit” to. They’ve laid out their beliefs. Choose to believe, or not. From what I can tell, most JWs are pretty adept at using their bible, and are able to articulate their belief. Most I’ve ever met would use another translation other than the NWT if someone had another bias. (Like the KJV) As I said, they would generally not be interested in debating you for the joy of it. (and most of the JWs I know would have have made short work of Tevildo’s post) But you know all this as it relates to JWs, right? In fact, if you really know the bible, and particularly the JW beliefs, you would already know the answer to Tevildo’s questions, right?
I don’t understand why you don’t understand. If a given flavor of fundamentalism purports to derive it’s doctrine from the bible, why would you not start from there? (as a means of challenging the validity of their beliefs) Of course, many faiths rely not on the bible but on long, rich [non-biblical] traditions. If so, you must [respectfully] go to the source of their beliefs and ask them questions to draw them out. Perhaps you may reason with them. If you (“you” being anyone) are unable, or unwilling, how is it possible to reach them?
Or maybe it says more about what you say I say about SentientMeat, huh? Frankly I don’t know much about whether SentientMeat knows about the bible. I only used him as an example as he is an avowed atheist, and well known here.
Concerning the OP. My brother in law sends me these Christian alerts from time to time about something going on. Some horrible thing the ACLU is doing etc. Several times they have been completely bogus. I’ve also been to several web sites where American history is distorted to try and establish that America was founded on “Christian Principles” How do pursue meaningful when fundamentalists are convinced that they have some sort of duty to save America for Jesus?
I think people on both sides of the arguement haven’t taken the time to really listen to those they don’t agree with. This holds in politics as well. Honing our listening skills is a step in the right direction.
I do think even if you hope to change the other persons mind it helps to go in expecting to learn something and with the idea that your position can be refined and improved. That’s happened to me quite a bit here on SDMB. There are certain Christian traditional beliefs that I sincerely see as harmful. Even in those cases I don’t realistically expect to change anyones mind through a conversation or two. I just hope to plant a seed and show that the book they revere contains other verses that deserve equal consideration and that the traditoinal interpretations may not be the only valid ones. Indeed, the idea that belief must be right since so many people believe it , should be challenged.
Did the word “dialogue” suddenly become a verb? Sometimes I miss things.
If I were forced to talk to a fundamentalist about the Bible, I guess I would try to be compassionate, since literal belief in ancient holy books seems like a form of mental illness to me. In individuals it’s usually harmless, but when a lot of people share the same delusion it can be a terribly destructive force.
I would avoid debate – pointless with somebody arguing solely from their interpretation of Biblical authority – and try to find common ground for peaceful discussion. When you get away from the creation mythology and the parts about stoning people for wearing white after Labor Day (I’m paraphrasing), there’s a lot of interesting philosophy in the Bible.
Cosmo, agreed that there are lots of good reasons to engage in discussion other than dialogues as defined in the op. Sometimes it forces us to examine the basis of our own beliefs, sometimes changing them, sometimes continuing with them but on a more solid basis for the challange. Sometimes it is for the benefit of the innocent bystanders to the discussion. Of course having a discussion with someone who is really totally uninterested in anything that is not in absolute support of the beliefs that they already hold is frustrating, but those public discussions are a necessary part of defending the basis of our modern pluralistic society.
<sigh>How clever. My point was that debate in the sense of a heated argument or discussion is precisely not what I am interested in, erm, discussing here. Hence, your discussion of debate was rather off-topic, as DSeid already brought up.
Um, thanks for the advice. The only reason I brought JW’s up is that they are the group with which I have the most direct experience, and I remembered from past threads that you are one. I was hoping to get you to comment on why it is that (for example, amongst many) JW’s choose to read those particular Bible verses and decide: “Ah, celebrating birthdays is bad” while (AFAIK) no other Christian group makes the same interpretation.
I am not interested in trying to show someone they are wrong. You asked the question about Bible reading, which sent the thread in a particular direction (and since I have a hard time verbalizing more abstract ideas like the op, it’s to be expected.) So, I gave two examples of how the Bible still just functions as the premises: the conclusion can be very different.
(And as to your correction, I have very happily not stepped foot in a KH for ten years.)
No, that was just one example that I chose in the hopes of you explaining how it is that all fundamentalists believe they have the divinely-inspired, inerrant word of God but still have different beliefs.
And what does atheism have to do with reading the Bible? Hell, I’d be willing to bet that in the US, more atheists and agnostics have read the Bible than Christians. Your “or maybe not” does not disguise your assumption - that atheists don’t know the Bible, or any other religios text, and that’s a silly proposition.
My point:I am not interested in debating the clarity or correctness of a given Bible verse. I am trying to explore how it is possible to live in a society with a group of people who prefer to believe in an ancient book rather than science. On one hand, they believe that the world cannot be saved but by God; yet fundamentalism “seems” to be becoming more vocal and active, trying to impose its viewpoint on its neighbors.
So, on a personal level, how can one move beyond silly arguments like the one you and I are engaged in to actually communicating. On a grander level, once the faith of the fundmanetalist starts bleeding over into society (in the form of legislation or violence), how can it be dealt with?
With all due respect, you have misquoted me more than once here. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re not paying attention. I never once said, or implied, that atheists don’t know the bible. In this thread alone, Diogenes has asserted that he probably is better versed in the bible than the average Christian and he is an atheist. You may have noted that I agreed with him.
My point,* then and now*, to Diogenes’s question is that the answer as to how many times someone should read the bible is dependent on a given individual’s ambitions, interests and motivations. I would submit that, on average, Jews/Christians have a greater motivation (read: reason) to read the bible than a non-believer. Does that mean a non-believer or an atheist must be, by definition, ignorant of the bible? No…and I never said it directly or indirectly.
Diogenes is a perfect example of an atheist who has the ambition, interest and motivation to become well acquainted with the bible. SentientMeat may as well; I don’t know. (reread my words again, ok?)
You misquoted me, and I actually requoted my exact words for you. (even bolding it!) Yet your response is that my words were somehow disguised, and you know my “assumption”? Frankly, I’ll speak for me, ok? You seem to have enough to think about as it is.
Speaking of silly propositions, the notion that “more atheists and agnostics have read the Bible than Christians” is absurd on it’s face.
I’m not sure how to address this. It seems to veer in different directions. I do not speak for fundamentalists. I’m not sure what you mean by “bleeding over into society”, or imposing views or the other stuff you’re alleging. I’ll take my leave and let others answer if they wish.
If we are to have an honest, open dialogue, we have to allow all points of view, and as a society decide what direction we want to go in, and how we are going to get there. I think we have that dicussion going on now, but there are some (e.g. Pat Robertson) who are more committed to their own ideas than to finding consensus through compromise.
In terms of being swayed from my own ideas toward someone else’s, I have always asked “What is it about your beliefs that should make me abandon mine and adopt yours?” I have had some puzzled looks from that question, but never an answer. They are convinced they’re right based on the force of their conviction rather than compelling reason.
In the dialogue between science and religion and their role in our society, the lines have been blurred as both sides use the other to justify their statements. In reality, we are arguing over two distinct ways of looking at the world and two separate questions: from a rational, quantifiable approach is the question “where did we come from, and where are we going?” From a spiritual approach is the question “What does all of this mean, and how do I fit in?” One is a question seeking a factual, demonstrable answer, the other seeks an unexpressible feeling of wholeness and completeness that can take a lifetime to find.
The first two stories of creation in Genesis are held out to us as proof that God created the universe and everything in it, and I see this as an attempt to justify and validate a literalist interpretation of the bible using science. In fact, the two stories establish the spiritual relationship between man, the universe and God. The second story that includes Adam and Eve are about the spiritual roots of the chosen people of God. This is the Jewish interpretation of their own scripture that long predates Jesus. A demand for historical proof of an object of faith is as irrelevant and inappropriate as demonstrating the bible holds the key to our biological origins. Faith is. And like any system of organizing thought, whether it is mathematics, biology, philosophy or theology, the core is necessarily one made by a leap of faith, expressed as unprovable core beliefs.
Unless we can regain and retain the distinction between rational and spiritual questions and discussions, and accept that no one holds the ultimate truth,
we are going to have a hard time as a society in having productive, necessary dialogues in both areas.
I think it is important to try and get people to understand the concept of mutual respect, equal rights, and tolerance {peaceful coexistence} That means vigorously supporting, free speech, separation of church and state *and * freedom of religion and realizing that in order to claim those rights for ourselves as individuals and groups we must support and defend those same rights for others whom we do not agree with.
I have a wonderful friend who is a conservative Christian. She does believe in the Bible as the word of God and it says homosexuality is a sin. We’ve had several discussions. She is also a very kind generous person who sincerely wants to have a positive influence on those around her. In one of those discussions we had a conversation that went somewhat like this.
Me; so your particular congregation broke off from the world organization somewhat because you didn’t agree with some of the changes the world church was making and didn’t believe it was God’s will?
She; That’s about right.
Me; So even though your organization had prayed and decided as a whole to make some changes they believed were God’s will {allowing female preachers was one} your congregation felt strongly that this was wrong and claimed the right to worship according to the dictates of their own conscience and what they felt was God’s will.
She; Thats sounds right.
Me; Don’t you think that imposes some moral obligation on your part to allow other people that same right?
I am consistantly bewildered by those who seem to think Christianity has some sort of spiritual dibbs on America and think that writing prefunctory worship into our laws is somehow more pleasing to God than a sincere heart. I am encouraged to see Christians and other believers who have the courage and conviction to speak up against that sort of thing.
Please, I haven’t misquoted you, and you have absolutely no respect for me. If you didn’t want to connect SM with atheists and Bible reading, then you shouldn’t have brought it up (again, which you did, and the little “or maybe not” was a pretty lame attempt to cover your butt.)
(Next time, you ought to try changing the font color.) I suppose this is part of the reason you are a fundamentalist; you don’t know how to read with a view to nuance, allegory, connotation. Here’s the key: words can carry meanings that the speaker doesn’t intend, or simply never thought of in a partcular way. So who gets to arbitrate what the meaning was? Whose meaning is more “right”, the person who utters a phrase or the person who receives it?
How do you figure? I learned a lot about the translation of the NWT and the JW’s…once I wasn’t one. But, of course, that’s all apostate, isn’t it?
I’d like to think that on an abstract, societal level I support all those rights (I may be in disagreement with the particular action, though). There are fundamentalists out there that don’t really agree with those precepts, right? How are they to be convinced? If I (in the abstract) extend them freedom to practice their religion, and they react by trying to enact laws based on their religion, then the whole exchange is unbalanced, right?
I hadn’t thought of you in those terms. I try to show respect to everyone here, even when I have little respect for their beliefs. When I have been snarky I have apologized, and that’s happened more than once.
I brought it up in response to your post, right? My point—which you seem unwillling to accept or understand—is that atheists would have, on average, less of a reason to read the bible. I used SM as an example—and nothing more than an example----and went so far as to qualify my words with “I would imagine”, “may” and “(or maybe not)” so no one would confuse my words and infer that I was saying—for example—that either SMspecifically or atheists didn’t or couldn’t be knowledgeable about the bible. I said it the first time. I had never needed to cover my backside.
Get it? I didn’t think so.
Words have no inherent meaning. None. Meaning is attached by humans. I thought my original words were sufficiently clear—clear enough that a reader would understand my meaning. Clearly you didn’t. I’ve now clarified those words twice. (and it’s worth noting that the original words were clear) If you wish to infer that I said that SM or atheists are ignorant about the bible, have at it.
FTR, I don’t consider myself to be a fundamentalist. But I’m not big on labels anyway. (It’s the whole words/meaning paradigm.) As to the whole ‘you’re a fundamentalist so you don’t know how to read’ nonsense, you just hold on to that belief, ok?
