How can you possibly be religious

and not be a fundamentalist?

If you don't take the scripture word for word, how can you call yourself a Christian, or a Muslim, etc.

Scripture is the only "proof" of your Gods, so if you aren't a fundamentalist believer, how can you call yourself a believer at all?

Or is it justifiable to believe in your religion while not fully believing in your scripture?

Discuss.

This is why I just don't believe in anything.

That way, no one can actually question anything other than my lack of belief in anything.

And then I just direct them to nonsense like this.

Religious people have lost sense of reality, i think

Don't force your views on other people?DroidPhysX

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]Don't force your views on other people?LiftedHeadshot

Once you start to believe in God all sorts of miracles occur where you can actually have a conversation with him.kulmiye

I believe in the Ghost of Abraham Lincoln.

Sometimes I pray to him,and about half the time, he answers my prayers. The other half he doesn't.

Sometimes assumption is easier than logic.

You can still be smart and sensible if you're religious.

[QUOTE="kulmiye"]Once you start to believe in God all sorts of miracles occur where you can actually have a conversation with him.-TheSecondSign-

I believe in the Ghost of Abraham Lincoln.

Sometimes I pray to him,and about half the time, he answers my prayers. The other half he doesn't.

It can be interpreted in many different ways... I don't think there's any such thing as a "fundamentalist"...

Religious people have lost sense of reality, i think

Zurrur

I'm not religious at all, but I don't get how people, especially atheists, say "buh-buh-but the Bible is clearly full of nonsense. Snakes can't talk!" and then applaud the symbolism in another innane piece of literature. What I'm trying to say is that fundamentalism is a stupid way to view something that is so open to interpretation.

And people who have a obsession with proving or disproving the existence of a giant space wizard known as "God" are quite annoying as well. They miss the fact that there are rules to live by in the Quran, Torah, Bible, etc. which is a big reason as to why people follow those religions.

[QUOTE="Zurrur"]

Religious people have lost sense of reality, i think

Verge_6

Religious people have lost sense of reality, i think

[QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="Zurrur"]

Religious people have lost sense of reality, i think

kulmiye

[spoiler] Case in point [/spoiler]

I refer to it as a community. A community that tends to take itself more seriously than it should. Problem?

I refer to it as a community. A community that tends to take itself more seriously than it should. Problem?Verge_6

[spoiler] I take this real serious to point of breaking peoples necks around here bro [/spoiler]

[QUOTE="SilverSignal"] Your the one sounding a bit too serious. :)kulmiye

and not be a fundamentalist?

If you don't take the scripture word for word, how can you call yourself a Christian, or a Muslim, etc.

Scripture is the only "proof" of your Gods, so if you aren't a fundamentalist believer, how can you call yourself a believer at all?

Or is it justifiable to believe in your religion while not fully believing in your scripture?

Discuss.

LiftedHeadshot

oh and WOLOLO WOLOLO WOLOLO

I think there are multiple interpretations of religion and only the most die hard anti deist would be a big enough jerk or ignorant to not consider these notions.

I think of the stories in the Bible as ones that are more like moral tales to give people guidance, some might be true some might not and some might be exaggerated. Whether or not you believe Jesus had powers or was real, its hard to argue he wasn't a good influence in his selflessness, and calling yourself a Christian doesn't mean you take every tale as a fact that must be followed to the letter.

i dont know if any religion exists, so i cant exactly beleive in it. im not going to deny it as in 100% for sure because you never know

before i was thinking how could GOD actually exist. it makes no sense how he could but then i thought how can any of this exist and make sense? where does this come from. people talk about the big bang but where did that very small thing that turned into the universe come from? confusing :(

and not be a fundamentalist?

If you don't take the scripture word for word, how can you call yourself a Christian, or a Muslim, etc.

Scripture is the only "proof" of your Gods, so if you aren't a fundamentalist believer, how can you call yourself a believer at all?

Or is it justifiable to believe in your religion while not fully believing in your scripture?

Discuss.

LiftedHeadshot

The Bible is a book that covers the most important values of life, so of course people would interpret some things differently.

and not be a fundamentalist?

If you don't take the scripture word for word, how can you call yourself a Christian, or a Muslim, etc.

Scripture is the only "proof" of your Gods, so if you aren't a fundamentalist believer, how can you call yourself a believer at all?

Or is it justifiable to believe in your religion while not fully believing in your scripture?

Discuss.

LiftedHeadshot

everyone is human enough said

My religion agrees with science for the most part, so I'm not a fundamentalist. Way to generalize all religious people. In fact, I believe in science and find it very interesting, and I am religious. Problem?

I posted this in my alt account on The Atheism Union board. Seems like a good place to repost it as I'd like to hear thoughts from the OT crew:

This has kind of been bugging me lately, and I would like to hear yall's opinions on it.

All too often I hear the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally, some say it is and live their lives as such. But many interpret its teachings to fit better with their life, picking some things to follow and others to disregard. For example, my father's a Mormon. He LOVES beer. Has two kegs in an outside reefer. Of course, Mormons don't drink alcohol and consider it a sin, and I've confronted him with this and asked him what his justification is, and he explains that there's some loophole in the teachings that can be interpreted in different ways.

My point is, what is the point of having any faith at all if it can be modified and seen in any light one chooses? Doesn't that fundamentally defeat the purpose of believing, period? If you're not going to strictly adhere to a certain ethical, moral, spiritual code or whathaveyou, it essentially falls apart and breaks down, and while doing so also potentially invalidates or weakens all other tenants in that system as they are all dependant on one another to some extent. Just like how words are defined by other words. You change one definition and it will affect the other.

We live in a world of laws, laid down by courts and society. These are not flexible nor open to interpretation (as much as can be helped), so why should faith be given a free pass? I heavily disagree with fundies, but I have to admit I admire their discipline and loyalty to what they believe, no matter how absurd it may be. In my eyes, you either believe in your faith entirely, or you don't. There is no agnosticism.

I posted this in my alt account on The Atheism Union board. Seems like a good place to repost it as I'd like to hear thoughts from the OT crew:

This has kind of been bugging me lately, and I would like to hear yall's opinions on it.

All too often I hear the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally, some say it is and live their lives as such. But many interpret its teachings to fit better with their life, picking some things to follow and others to disregard. For example, my father's a Mormon. He LOVES beer. Has two kegs in an outside reefer. Of course, Mormons don't drink alcohol and consider it a sin, and I've confronted him with this and asked him what his justification is, and he explains that there's some loophole in the teachings that can be interpreted in different ways.

My point is, what is the point of having any faith at all if it can be modified and seen in any light one chooses? Doesn't that fundamentally defeat the purpose of believing, period? If you're not going to strictly adhere to a certain ethical, moral, spiritual code or whathaveyou, it essentially falls apart and breaks down, and while doing so also potentially invalidates or weakens all other tenants in that system as they are all dependant on one another to some extent.

We live in a world of laws, laid down by courts and society. These are not flexible nor open to interpretation (as much as can be helped), so why should faith be given a free pass? I heavily disagree with fundies, but I have to admit I admire their discipline and loyalty to what they believe, no matter how absurd it may be. In my eyes, you either believe in your faith entirely, or you don't. There is no agnosticism.

MirkoS77

How can you possibly be religious and not be a fundamentalist?

That's easy:

Step 1:

1. Be religious.

2. Don't be a fundamentalist.

In seriousness, religion, atleast in secular countries, has long since entered a phase in which religion is more self-defined, and that why people can interpret in such a way to avoid fundamentalism, and that is a good thing.

First off OT define "fundamentalist". I want to see if we share the same definition.alexside1

I think the TC is talking about people that take religious books very literally.

That being said, some aspects of religious texts are so amibiguous that fundamentalist will end up inserting their own interpretations anyway.

and not be a fundamentalist?

If you don't take the scripture word for word, how can you call yourself a Christian, or a Muslim, etc.

Scripture is the only "proof" of your Gods, so if you aren't a fundamentalist believer, how can you call yourself a believer at all?

Or is it justifiable to believe in your religion while not fully believing in your scripture?

Discuss.

LiftedHeadshot

I believe in a Christian God and I do not agree with everything in the Bible...sue me..

Seriously though if your topic was correct then you could not possibly be a liberal and be a christian because of christian ideology sometimes going in a different direction..now does that make sense

[QUOTE="LiftedHeadshot"]

and not be a fundamentalist?

If you don't take the scripture word for word, how can you call yourself a Christian, or a Muslim, etc.

Scripture is the only "proof" of your Gods, so if you aren't a fundamentalist believer, how can you call yourself a believer at all?

Or is it justifiable to believe in your religion while not fully believing in your scripture?

Discuss.

sirkibble2

I don't think there is a justification for people who believe but don't walk it out. If they truly believed, they would walk it out. I'm not saying they may not struggle with it or have questions but they would be walking it out in some form or fashion consistently.

It's not since scripture is not proof of God at all.

It's not since scripture is not proof of God at all.

GreySeal9

How is it not proof? That's what I'm not understanding?

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

It's not since scripture is not proof of God at all.

sirkibble2

How is it not proof? That's what I'm not understanding?

Because proof establishes something to be true.

For instance, how does the Bible prove that God does indeed exist?

Eh I had a discussion like this with my mum the other day. She believes in God and certain Roman Catholic things, but I asked her how/why she doesn't believe in miracles or has the same zealousness as a few people she knows (she knows a few people who I think have psychological problems that show up as religious zealousness).

Anyway, her response was simply "I just don't," which I found to be just a tad hypocritical; but it seems to be a reccuring theme with religious folk to just take what parts they want and ignore the rest. I just don't understand it. Is it not an all or nothing thing?

[QUOTE="sirkibble2"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

It's not since scripture is not proof of God at all.

GreySeal9

How is it not proof? That's what I'm not understanding?

Because proof establishes something to be true.

For instance, how does the Bible prove that God does indeed exist?

*face plam*

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="sirkibble2"]

How is it not proof? That's what I'm not understanding?

msfan1289

Because proof establishes something to be true.

For instance, how does the Bible prove that God does indeed exist?

*face plam*

Is that facepalm meant for me?

If so, why?

Eh I had a discussion like this with my mum the other day. She believes in God and certain Roman Catholic things, but I asked her how/why she doesn't believe in miracles or has the same zealousness as a few people she knows (she knows a few people who I think have psychological problems that show up as religious zealousness).

Anyway, her response was simply "I just don't," which I found to be just a tad hypocritical; but it seems to be a reccuring theme with religious folk to just take what parts they want and ignore the rest. I just don't understand it. Is it not an all or nothing thing?

DigitalExile

People are not forced to believe in everything in the koran, bible, etc. to believe in their religious entity. Just because you do not agree with her does not mean shes wrong.

Read the thread we already answered this its not...

People are not forced to believe in everything in the koran, bible, etc. to believe in their religious entity. Just because you do not agree with her does not mean shes wrong.

fueled-system

I never said she was wrong, I said she's being a hypocrite believing in a divine being, but not adhering to the rules and practices of the religious group she claims to be a part of. Furthermore, her friends/people she knows, believe they have divine experiences on a regular basis, but she thinks they all have psychological issues. It's okay for her to believe in a divine being and divine events (she believes major natural disasters are god "taking back the planet") but not for others to have regular divine experiences.

Well, to answer your question in clarity the bible isn't the only proof but it's among them to answer your question. Well, the bible says that the word was inspired by the Holy Spirit. The bible also says that proof is clear in creation--the world, us, etc. It's complexity, it's beauty, etc. So, there's written proof and there's actual proof also. It's just a choice of believing or not.sirkibble2

Just because the Bible says it was inspired by Holy Spirit doesn't mean it was.

How in the world does the complexity and beauty of the world prove God?

If it's a matter of believing or not because God hasn't been proven. If he had been proven,his existence would be as undeniable as the sun rising in the east.

[QUOTE="sirkibble2"]Well, to answer your question in clarity the bible isn't the only proof but it's among them to answer your question. Well, the bible says that the word was inspired by the Holy Spirit. The bible also says that proof is clear in creation--the world, us, etc. It's complexity, it's beauty, etc. So, there's written proof and there's actual proof also. It's just a choice of believing or not.GreySeal9

Just because the Bible says it was inspired by Holy Spirit doesn't mean it was.

How in the world does the complexity and beauty of the world prove God?

If it's a matter of believing or not because God hasn't been proven. If he had been proven,his existence would be as undeniable as the sun rising in the east.