Forget what you’ve heard.
Fundamentalists aren’t so bad.
In their own stubborn, angry kind of way, they can be sort of charming.
This is a decent definition of fundamentalism:
“The interpretation of every word in the sacred texts as literal truth.”
If you’ve ever been scolded for suggesting the Earth might be more than 6,000 years old…
…chances are it was a fundamentalist finger wagging in your face…
…questioning your depth of faith and devotion to God.
FUNDY: “Bible says that God made the universe in 6 days!”
UN-FUNDY: “How do you know they were 24-hour Earth days?”
FUNDY: “Repent!”
There is a fundamental problem that is immediately evident to everyone…
…except Fundamentalists.
Every word of sacred texts is NOT literally true.
For example:
“The one who loves me is like a small bag of myrrh resting between my breasts.”
There is literally no way to interpret that literally.
So a good Fundamentalist categorizes texts like this as ‘non-essential’ or ‘trivial’.
It’s adorable.
Here’s something you may not know:
…not every Fundamentalist believes in God.
Atheist Fundamentalists exist!
Literally!
Suggest that there is archaeologically verifiable content in the Bible and they’ll say stuff like:
“Archaeologically verifiable? Well, in many of the trivialities, yes, and also some of the more modern historical figures… very similar to Harry Potter references to real places and people.”
Fundamentalist Atheists are mirror images of Christian Fundamentalists.
They insist that every word of sacred texts is literally NOT true.
…So any verifiable history contained in the Bible is unimportant.
It’s adorable.
Here’s a quick and easy way to flush out a Fundamentalist.
Agree with them and watch what happens.
Exhibit 1 from this conversation. I said:
“I accept everything on your list of transitional species. It’s settled. Evolution happened exactly how you say it happened.
I am unconvinced that such evolution took place via purely natural means.”
I conceded, with considerable amiability, that the entire evolutionary narrative…
…in whatever manner the Fundamentalist chose to describe it…
…is true.
Period.
The response was textbook Fundamentalist dogma:
“It matters not if you ‘accept’ evolution any more than it does ‘gravity’. What matters is that you understand the mechanism…
You didn’t show any understanding of evolution…Because evolution means unguided, natural processes,… trying to insert some god at some point without any evidence whatsoever to do so. In addition, it’s not ‘my’ understanding. It’s called ‘science’.”
Notice that evolutionary theory is equated with gravity.
…so if I reject evolutionary theory I am also rejecting physics.
Notice the word ‘unguided’ is inserted into the meaning of evolution.
…so the definition of evolution prohibits the possibility of intelligence or intention even though the theory itself suggests that things evolve and adapt for a reason.
Notice that this is not mere opinion but ‘science’ itself.
…so any disagreement is a denial of science.
So. There.
Another good way to flush out a Fundy is this:
Admit that you don’t know everything.
Let’s look at Exhibit 2.
The Fundy said:
“You have your cosmogony laid out in black and white in Genesis. That is your Creation story. How does that cosmogony fit with the 13.8 billion year evolutionary history of this universe?”
Notice the word ‘cosmogony’ is used instead of ‘theology’ for discussing Genesis.
…so the Fundamentalist can now demand literal, scientific explanations.
Notice that Genesis must be made to fit with evolutionary history.
…so evolution is assumed to be true from the outset.
Now the fundamentalist waits, arms folded, for me to defend beliefs that I don’t actually hold.
So I said:
“No. My cosmogony is not laid out in black and white…”In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth” is as far as I go…”
That is, of course, not good enough.
The Fundy responded with:
“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth” is wrong. In the beginning, and for the first 400 million years, there was nothing but hard radiations. Light didn`t even exist, and it wouldn`t exist until the beginning of the age of the stars. As for the earth, it`s 4.5 billion years old. The universe is 13.8 billion years old.
Your cosmogony is wrong from the first sentence.
…Sorry, John, but you are tied to that cosmogony for just as long as you say, Yhwh.
Notice that Genesis is wrong from the first sentence.
…so there was no chance of it ‘fitting into the 13.8 billion year evolutionary history’.
(Fundies don’t ask questions because they want conversation.)
Notice the precise, historical detail given about the beginning of the Universe.
…bearing in mind that this Fundy is nowhere near 13 billion years old.
Notice that I am ‘tied’ to that cosmogony faith statement.
…even though I didn’t actually make the statement.
I’ve no excuse for any uncertainty because the Fundy has complete knowledge about how the Universe works, which he has freely shared!
Adorable.
Hopefully, this article will help you spot Fundies in the future.
It can be kind of fun.
Like birdwatching.
If you don’t let the squawking bother you…
81 Responses
Genesis? I HIIIIGGHLY recommend watching the debate between Hugh Ross (astronomer) and Kent Hovind. Hugh Ross simply destroys everything and everyone whilst simultaneously proving the Bible is true.
I’ve seen it.
Do you agree Ross nails the coffin?
Yeah. But JZ never realizes when his argument is dead.
JZ? Who is JZ?
JZ is “John Zande.” He’s the person we’ve been talking with in the most recent blog post. John Branyan is out of town right now and probably didn’t notice on his phone that you’re commenting on an older post. 🙂
(But if you want a taste of what it’s like talking with JZ, he commented quite a bit up-thread on this post, too.)
Eh — I wont be looking at him. I have my own Christian blog to take care of and post on.
You’ve seen one; you’ve seen them all.
Oh come on friend, join the fun around these parts; it’s better than a barrel of monkeys, I promise!
🙂
Better than a barrel of monkeys? Do you have any idea what you can do with a barrel of monkeys?
Better than a barrel of monkeys? Do you have any idea what you can do with such a treasure?
🙂
Bit late to this post, but you do have some rather interesting things on your blog, and this particular comment fascinates me.
As the Pentateuch is regarded as myth (Historical Fiction) except by religious fundamentalists/biblical literalists (YECs e.g.) and evidence has demonstrated this beyond doubt, on what grounds do you base your Christian faith upon?
I knew you were fascinated!
It’s pretty great have actual substance to discuss. Stick around and maybe you’ll even have a new question yourself! Inspiration is sometimes contagious.
You’re gonna have to move your conversation to the current posts so as not to waste my time.
Are you suggesting I copy and paste your comment in your new post?
Or would it not be better if YOU copy and pasted the comment and began a separate, dedicated post?
Thanks for at least making an effort to make some sort of reply as I wouldn’t want you to waste your time .
You need to post comments under the most recent posts so that other readers will be able to discern the strength of your doctrine. I’ve already figured you out.
It’s a waste of my time to return to old posts in order to respond the one, solitary question that you ask.
fair enough.
First of all “religion” is man’s initiating efforts to approach God, while Christianity is God initiating a relationship with man, via Jesus Christs His son and the second person of the Trinity. Then the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, works in man’s hearts to give him the understanding of what the Gospel is all about. So, without the ‘calling’ from God, first, you’re dead in the water or rather in your trespasses and sin. If you are one of the ‘called’, then you are ‘saved’ and the Holy Spirit gives you the understanding, Since your understanding is obviously not the Gospel truth, then guess which one you are? I won’t bother you with scripture references because they are apparently beyond your understanding.
I was going along with you for the first part of your comment. Then, without warning, it got kinda smug and mean.
Your calling from God has apparently endowed you with the wisdom necessary to say ‘my understanding is not the Gospel truth’ even though I never actually stated my gospel interpretation.
A few questions if it’s not too far beneath your dignity:
1) If I’m not one of the ‘called’ why tell me? It’s seems a bit like yelling, “You can’t see me” at a blind man.
2) If we’re ‘dead in the water’ without the calling, how did man initiate religion to approach God?
3) From which teaching of Jesus do you justify not ‘bothering me with scripture references because they are beyond my understanding’?
For ALL the doubters…there is only one interpretation of scripture, but many applications. Scripture interprets scripture. So….READ the Bible. And (unless you are completely void of reading comprehension)…you will find this to be self explanatory.
What a load of sanctimonious crap.
I have read many bibles, studied, compared, and contrasted them. I have spent much time with people who have gone into seminary only to emerge later as an atheist for just this reason: for the first time in their lives they’ve had to actually study the bible (which is why it’s called biblical scholarship and has nothign to do with some religious spoon-fed interpretation. Most people who actually do read different versions of the bible realize just how different they are and it from this knowledge that they then understand why most literalists are nothing but pious bottom feeders. And I have yet to meet a religious person who identifies with a particular religion who isn’t a literalist in some regard, which is why scripture is such a problem for the religious when it’s studied outside the bounds of a particular religious interpretation. It’s full of contradictions, of errors, of historical sloppiness and highly dubious claims. Only pure deists are exempt from this charge and they are a rarity indeed.
http://www.mememaker.net/static/images/memes/3578399.jpg
How do you get pictures to show up in a post? Whenever I try to do that it doesn’t work…
When I find one on google, I click “view image,” which gives you a URL for the picture all by itself…
And if you paste the URL into your comment, it automatically shows up in the thread.
It doesn’t work when I’m on other blogs. Probably has something to do with my level of approval…
Yeah, I think it depends on the security settings. With some blogs, any link will automatically send the whole comment to moderation.
(Also, I can’t figure out how to include a picture from my hard drive. I can only post from a URL.)
In light of new information provided by a credible source, I’ve adjusted my beliefs and opened a photobucket account.
My openness to new ideas pays dividends daily!
http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/3a/3a83c30decc05e7b0ab95177b375722cf33f7051d7ccdf7b83474a100ed39239.jpg
Oh, wait, JZ just answered my question! (Or at least gave me a workable solution.)
https://www.dynadot.com/community/image?image_id=253
This one didn’t work! It’s just a URL. So we’ve still got variables unaccounted for…
ERMAGHERD!!!!!
http://www.relatably.com/m/img/thor-another-meme-generator/21136344.jpg
Get a photobucket account, upload your pics, and you paste the url’s to the comment… let’s you do this:
http://i1027.photobucket.com/albums/y336/johnzande/Creationist_Meme_3_zpsotlpdifx.png
Thanks! I appreciate the help:
http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah110/John_Branyan/Creationist_Meme_3_FIXED_zpsl08dc0fs.jpg
We all stick with the fundamentals (or non-negotiables) of what we believe. This includes those who are fundamentalist about “creation in six 24 hour days”, “creation in several non-24 hour days”, and “no creation, just happened”. If you have a belief that you won’t negotiate on because of what the biblical text says, or what Hugh Ross says, or what Lawrence Krauss says, then you are a fundamentalist. We all have beliefs that for some reason we will not negotiate on even if we don’t know the reason. So we are all fundamentalists, therefore calling people that name is quite meaningless.
And “This is a decent definition of fundamentalism” is the sand on which you built your structure.
“We all have beliefs that for some reason we will not negotiate on even if we don’t know the reason.”
I disagree. I’m willing to negotiate ANY belief. In fact, that’s precisely how I test the veracity of my faith. The Bible tells believers to be prepared to ‘give a reason’ for what we believe. If I can’t explain why I believe something, then I don’t really believe it.
So we are NOT all fundamentalists. But even if we were, calling people that name wouldn’t be ‘meaningless’. It would be the correct usage of that word.
If the fundamentalist label is unappealing then quit being a fundamentalist.
Sure, the virgin birth, resurrection of Christ, and his flying off into heaven are all in the biblical text. And since “science” tells us these things are not possible you must allow that (like Genesis), they might not be actually true, the author’s plain intention not withstanding (like Genesis). If you can’t explain why you believe something, then I guess you don’t really believe it. Right? 😉
Oh, and if you really want a decent* definition of fundamentalism, ask a fundamentalist, don’t make stuff up. (A *decent* definition would be one that applies to more than just a few irrational fringe dwellers). If that was a quote cite your source. If it came from Walter Krause he would not know a fundamentalist if it stepped on his toe.
The truthfulness Biblical texts is precisely what these discussions are about. Of course I allow that Genesis might not be actually true. This is why we’re having the discussion! I’m sorry, but I don’t understand what point you’re making here.
And I’m happy to accept a more robust definition of fundamentalist. My intention here was simply to describe a type. I’m not willing to let an atheist formulate my ‘cosmogony’ for me and then belittle me for that ‘superstitious’ belief. This is ONE characteristic of fundamentalist thinking. Please notice I didn’t say THIS IS ALL fundamentalists think.
A friendly piece of advice I will offer you is to avoid ad hominem arguments in general but especially in discussions of fundamentalism unless you acknowledge that you’re aware of the irony.
Because mrsmcmommy didn’t have the intestinal fortitude and intellectual integrity to step up to the plate and deliver an answer to my simple question – by what method she uses to determine which claims about reality are literal and which are metaphorical – I’ll ask you. After all, you say Of course I allow that Genesis might not be actually true. So I’m curious, John: HOW do you determine which claims are true and which are not, by what method you ‘allow’ a truth claim to be believed as literal and which should be understood to be metaphorical?
Note that I am not referring to your rewriting of the question (literal vs. figurative literary styles); I am referring to actual truth claims.like those found in Genesis. How do you know which bits are to be literally understood and which are to be figuratively understood? I want to know how YOU determine the DIFFERENCE.
I answered that question. It’s down post somewhere.
But I take exception to the notion that you asked a ‘simple’ question. A simple question is something like, ‘What time is it?”.
Your question is profoundly difficult and I suspect that it why you asked it. There is no way to answer it without exposing a lack of ‘intellectual integrity’. That’s why I didn’t ask you for your method after I made my post. I don’t think it’s fair to ask you to give me a scientific method for processing literature.
“I disagree. I’m willing to negotiate ANY belief. In fact, that’s precisely how I test the veracity of my faith.”
That’s not exactly true, John. On the last thread I showed you that Jesus did not know basic regional history, therefore striking him out as a credible witness. Your response? You withdrew to “faith:” belief WITHOUT evidence.
Right on cue, my Fundy friend!
The only way I can avoid a charge of ‘not exactly true’ is to affirm every word of John Zande as undeniable fact. I’m beginning to think you’re trying to HELP me here…
Faith is NOT belief without evidence. That is a good definition of atheism though.
Faith is belief in something that you cannot prove.
Fundamentalism is term used to describe “strict literalism as applied to certain specific scriptures, dogmas, or ideologies,” Respecting reality’s arbitration of claims made about it does not fit the term ‘fundamentalism’ unless you can show how reality itself is a scripture, is a dogma, or is an ideology.
Failing this, look at non belief and please point out its ‘fundamental’ principles. You can’t. There are none. It is an empty set because it is an absence of belief. That’s what the ‘non’ bit is all about… in case you missed it earlier. Non belief is a lack,/i> of belief, and a-theism is a lack of belief in gods or a god. It is not a substituted belief. It is an absence of a belief. A non fish is not another kind of fish. A non bicycle is not another kind of bicycle. A non belief is not another kind of belief. Again, that ‘non’ bit is the clue you seem determined to continue to avoid recognizing.
Now, I understand the frustration theists must face trying to foist a set of superstitious beliefs about reality that reality itself has arbitrated to be very unlikely – so unlikely that it obviously cannot be deduced from evidence reality offers to us but has to be imposed on it – and so it’s very difficult to appear reasonable and rational while doing so. In any other area of human concern, turning away from reality’s right to arbitrate claims made about is considered not a vice, not a character flaw, not a militant action, so much as it is recognized to be a mental condition in need of therapy. Of course, religious belief enjoys a very significant privilege from this usual treatment and that itself is rather fascinating. That’s why it’s so interesting to have reality’s facts presented – as JZ and I have touched upon – in contrast to religious claims made about it and see the theists scramble to try to utilize so many tricks and diversions and excuses and rationalizations and even exercise the urge to vilify those who bother to raises the incompatibilities and compelling contrary evidence in order to not face up to seeing these religious claims in an honest light. If seeking what is true in such a light really mattered to the theists, then religious beliefs would wither up and die a natural death because they are not adduced from reality at all but imposed on it and then privileged to the cost of some. What is really being sought by the theists are rationalizations for the privilege o harm others in the name of piety… hence the silly word games, the diversions, the painting of honest inquiry as another kind of religion we see exercised here.
For any other claim about reality, those of us who successfully navigate it usually ask ourselves two very simple questions: is the claim likely true, and how can we know? Without the second part established, the first part has no justification. And beliefs about reality without justifications from reality are considered superstitious nonsense, fuzzy thinking, woo, magical thinking. And that’s the core problem of all religious beliefs: the theist is unwilling to admit they have no way of knowing if their superstitious claims are the case but they refuse to admit it and so present the first as if justified. When challenged, the theist does what we see in such ample evidence here: blame the person who points out this disconnect between the beliefs held and the justifications from reality used for them. But that’s merely a holding tactic that accomplishes two things: it demonstrates how the beliefs themselves cannot withstand reality’s scrutiny of them, and its supporters care more about defending their beliefs than showing respect for the dignity of those who question their veracity. And this is why the internet is seen by the younger generation as where religions come to die.
Thanks for doing your part in this process, John.
Let me make sure I understand, Dear Leader, your description of reality is the only rational one?
Faith is indeed belief without proof. Look it up.
Now, you said, “I’m willing to negotiate ANY belief. In fact, that’s precisely how I test the veracity of my faith.” This is evidently incorrect. You admitted the Pentateuch is myth, proving Jesus didn`t know basic regional history. So, it seems you’ve accepted this truth, but then failed entirely to apply it to your belief. You were therefore either lying to Dale, or simply exercising a level of intellectual dishonesty that you might not even be aware of.
I admitted that the Pentateuch could be myth. I also admitted that I’m not qualified to render an authoritative opinion about archaeological findings. I also admitted that I wasn’t around at the beginning of the universe.
So for the record: If the entire Pentateuch is literally myth, then John Zande’s point about Jesus being wrong about history is absolutely correct. And if Jesus was wrong about history, he certainly couldn’t be God.
Is that intellectually honest enough?
Sure, but we weren’t even talking about god-claims, rather credibility as a witness. If Jesus is not credible, then…
The same applies to Muhammad. He made the same bumbling mistake Jesus did.
On a more profound note, the fact that the Pentateuch is known geopolitical myth (historical fiction, as recognized by Jewish rabbis today) then both Christianity and Islam are raised on a historical cartoon. These “revealed” religions are lacking the “revelation.”
(I’m not including Judaism here because all but orthodox movements have accepted the archaeological consensus and have, or are in the process of, adjusting their beliefs to reflect reality. I admire them for that. )
Sorry, I guess I still didn’t express it satisfactorily. I thought the god-claims were what mattered.
The important thing is that I’ve admitted the possibility that you could be right!
I know, I’m not questioning that, just the fact that you haven’t applied this to your belief… as you implied you do.
If it all comes down to faith (belief without evidence) then fine, just be honest about it, and that includes being honest about ignoring contradictory evidence. Don`t pretend to be all open and rational when you’re not. It will only get you into awkward situations.
Faith is NOT belief without evidence.
It’s belief without PROOF.
How is it possible for me to admit that you could be right while simultaneously not ‘applying it to my belief’? That admission is now part of my schema. I believe you could be right.
What specific phrase do I need to utter that will demonstrate my openness and rationality?
(And isn’t it at least a little ‘awkward’ that I’m asking this question of you in the midst of a conversation about fundamentalism?)
No, not at all. Like your other attempts at defining “atheism,” this one has failed, too. You create nonsense pantomimes, so I’m not even entertaining the ramblings of this post.
Bye, John. Thanks for the photobucket suggestion.
See you next time.
…I forgot this…
I said Faith is belief without proof. You said is was belief without EVIDENCE.
Look it up.
Nah, JB. You’re not REALLY willing to “negotiate” your beliefs unless you arrive at the same conclusion as one Fundamentalist or another. (Either a Christian or an Atheist one.) You HAVE to pick a side, or you’re not being intellectually honest!!!!
#BlackOrWhite #ChooseOne
Where’s Allallt when you need him?
(See, Allallt, I told you that Naturalists make lousy philosophers…. And apparently they are terrible literary critics, too.)
Wow John to think all this time you had a Fundy Fan in me. I’ll admit I’m a little angry at your snide post, but you’re free to have your opinions as I am free to have mine. If you feel the need to demean people in the body of Christ with whom you disagree instead of opening dialogue, I feel the need to go elsewhere for my comedy.
If we can’t laugh at ourselves and our own inconsistencies, then I think we’re taking ourselves far too seriously.
http://i1027.photobucket.com/albums/y336/johnzande/AampE_zpsjrbqhx9l.png
Very good, JZ! This is exactly the type of thing Fundamentalists complain about!
They SAY things like, “Of course fiction can contain truth!”
But, whenever people start discussing the nuances of HOW different parts apply to life, the Fundies get upset that there’s no flow chart or formula they can use to control others.
You’re good at this!
I’m sure you’ll enjoy this piece by Ken Ham. “You CAN’T take the Bible seriously without taking it literally!”
The two of you seem to agree that if you have to do much reinterpreting and critical thinking, you might as well throw the whole thing out. Two peas in a pod.
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2015/10/18/can-we-take-bible-seriously-not-literally/
Speaking so clearly about how non believers do such a terrible job interpreting your scripture, would mind terribly explaining HOW – meaning by what method – you come to know which parts to take literally and which to take figuratively?
I’ll wait…
You mean give you a flow chart?
No. Simply state your method. I’m curious.
I’m curious what your method is for determining which is truth and which is fiction in Harry Potter.
Sure. I’ll answer your question… but only after you answer mine.
I’ll wait…
You see the problem you’ve created for yourself, right?
How can you explain a “method” for interpreting ANYTHING without giving some type of flow chart? I literally don’t know how answer your question–regarding the Bible OR Harry Potter….
If you can’t demonstrate with an example, how am I supposed to?
…I suspect your critique of HP and my critique of the Bible are VERY similar…
Curious… Does it bother you in the slightest that you never answer simple questions put to you? Everything has to be a song and dance, a cat and mouse game of evasion and avoidance.
Doesn’t this make you embarrassed with yourself?
If you can`t answer a question, just say so.
The question is simple, and I’d like to hear your answer, too.
The bible claims to be god breathed. It claims to be entirely correct. It even says that anyone who alters or INTERPRETS a single word will be punished.
Yet here you are, interpreting it.
So, given there is no narrative note as to what is historic, what is allegorical, what is poetic in the bible, how do you determine what is what? Clearly you don`t think it’s all “true,” you`ve said as much, so, without an author’s note, how do you differentiate?
Please don’t evade Tildeb’s question again…
Nope. Doesn’t bother me to avoid stupid, vague questions.
Thanks for asking.
Are you going to let JB get away with his blasphemy down thread? He just said there’s no formal method involved with his interpretation of Scripture.
Maybe inform him that you CAN’T discover truth apart from a scientific method? That’s really, fundamentally obvious, right?
So you say you don’t know how (without a flow chart) and yet you’ve supposedly done it successfully enough to know I haven’t. Is that what you’re suggesting is your ‘answer’ to my very straightforward question… offering none but allusion?
Game over, Dear Leader.
I’m as certain that there’s truth in the Bible as you are that there’s truth in Gone With the Wind.
Wow. You can’t even admit you don’t know what you don’t know. That’s just pathetic.
I admit, I haven’t read Gone with the Wind. But I bet there’s truth in it. 😉
I can’t submit a formal method for determining literal vs. figurative literary styles. I have to consider each case individually. There are too many variables to consider. (context, author style, literary theme, cultural background, etc.)
Just like the woman clinging to her Bible in a bunker with her sister wives, Liberal Fundamentalists can’t see the many problems with their worldview.
https://culturesatwar.wordpress.com/2015/05/29/breaking-the-chains-of-a-fundamentalist-cult/
You forget to insert the hater part. Atheist fundamentalists have to hate… it’s part of the contract you have to sign.
You guys do realize that you’re just giving John more material for his blog by your arguments, right?
We’re on a retainer.