Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham

No no no no no, I LOVE the label and am going to continue to use it because it so perfectly characterizes the view from the Opposition. It also gives me a way to distinguish my group from all the other "Christians" that make up the biggest percentage of those who claim the name, without having to deal with the usual stuff I get when I call us the True Christians. So FCPFMN, that's who I am. Love it.A fundamentalist Christian adheres to the traditional orthodox reading of the Bible, which prescribes meekness and patience and kindness and dying passively for the faith and that sort of thing. Not that I'm good at it personally but that's what my Authority tells me to do. Fundamentalist Islam on the other hand prescribes killing infidels so that "moderate" Muslims who reject such teachings are like "liberal" Christians who reject a lot of the Bible, only the effect isn't the same. There really is no such thing as a "fundamentalist" mindset, all it means is adhering closely to what your religion teaches.There's no point in saying any of that though, I've said it before and all it does is bring on more objections and long arguments.

Yup, revisionist interpretation of the Bible for starters, and new invented laws that make a cause celebre out of normalizing and legalizing what used to be regarded as sin --at least a violation of Nature --, and now the legal system and all the LGBT thugs, and even Brits who have no business commenting on any of this, can persecute us to their heart's content and call it righteous and legal and good. I congratulate the devil, he's done his work well.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Yup, revisionist interpretation of the Bible for starters, and new invented laws that make a cause celebre out of what used to be regarded as sin and now the legal system and all the LGBT thugs and even Brits who have no business commenting on any of this can persecute us to their heart's content and call it righteous and legal and good.

---

In FACT, Faith, you've never come up with a Biblical justification for refusing to provide a cake for a gay wedding.The laws are NOT new, the only change is to extend their protection to gays. And you accepted that the laws are Constitutional even when in conflict with religious belief. So you've got no honest basis for complaint there either.And in reality I was quite willing to have a reasonable discussion of the rights and wrongs of the law. Which in your mind justifies calling me a "Nazi"Really, rant and rave and bully all you like. It won't help you against the truth.

quote:

---

I congratulate the devil, he's done his work well

---

Sucking up to your master won't help either.

And how does this explain this away? You seem to agree that it is a curse as much or more? than a prophecy. In any case, whoever is speaking here seems to think it is a darned good thing that these bad 'uns are going to be slaves. Does it or not say that some people should be slaves? That is why I need some help in reading the English; I read it as saying there are circumstances when a human should be enslaved you seem to be saying it doesn't say that so I am asking for help in reading the supplied English.Then you yourself point out how the NT makes suggestions( commands? prophesies?) about how to treat slaves. I'd have to see the exact quotes but at first blush that seems to me to be condoning slavery? Does it? If it doesn't why have rules about how to treat them?

Weird, I thought I had. Must be one of those things that requires Spiritual Discernment.

quote:

---

Weird, I thought I had. Must be one of those things that requires Spiritual Discernment.

---

Then please provide it. A link to the post will be sufficient.

Trying to humanize a universal practice that is embedded in the economic life of a culture and is SO universal there is no way to ask people to give it up, is not to my mind the same thing as condoning it; it's simply doing the best you can with a necessary evil. And it's the OLD Testament, not the New, that offers the humanizing rules.abe: About the cursing of Canaan the point is that it will simply happen, MAKING it happen, which is what justifying slavery on the basis of the curse would be, is something else and I don't see how it can be justified at all.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sloppy? My dear, don't flatter yourself. Your errors extend far beyond mere sloppiness. If you feel the need to lash out you might at least strive to do so accurately. I didn't twist anything you said, I only referred to things you actually said, and if I actually misread you then I apologize and request that you explain again. The original point was that you missed the irony of responding to a message pointing out that fundamentalists worldwide claim their religious texts are misused by claiming that your religious text is being misuesd (in this case about slavery).--Percy

I made some on-topic comments in the message you're replying to, and you've not touched on them at all. Has the irony escaped you of leaving questions answered while complaining that you don't want to leave too much unanswered.--Percy

Subbie explained this to you already. Why does this have to be explained again? Couldn't you at least acknowledge that what you're saying has already been rebutted, then add something more to discussion instead of just repeating your original position yet again?Anyway, repeating the rebuttal, baking is a business, not a religion. There are no First Amendment protections for bakers. Bakers are not permitted to discriminate on the basis of religious conviction. This protects everyone, including fundamentalist Christians. It doesn't matter whether you're a Christian baker or an Islamic baker or a Hindu baker or a Buddhist baker, you cannot discriminate on the basis of religious conviction. Actually, you cannot discriminate, period. Whether you're being sloppy or are just confused, you're very wrong. The bakers' First Amendment rights could not possibly have been violated. Did you perhaps mean their civil rights? No one's blind to it. What happened happened, but you want to acknowledge only half the story. The full story is that the bakers expressed intolerant anti-gay sentiments and experienced backlash for it, which I hope was prosecuted for those actions that were illegal. But you're not being consistent again. It's okay for the bakers to express messages of intolerance and hatred because the Bible says its okay, but when anyone else objects to the intolerance and hatred then it's not okay, it's hatred for fundamentalist Christians.In other words, you're saying your (the plural your) hatred is okay, other people's not so much.--Percy

You can embrace the label, or your can complain about the label, but you cannot in any rational way do both. You're making precisely the mistake I cautioned you not to make. Yes, some branches of fundamentalist Islam advocate murder. And some branches of fundamentalist Christians advocate murder, like the Ku Klux Klan and anti-abortion killings. But those are the kinds of specifics I cautioned you to avoid.What's unique about the fundamentalist mindset isn't the specific beliefs, but the raw focus on belief at the expense of almost all else. If you wouldn't keep changing your mind then this wouldn't be so difficult. First you think our interpretation of the First Amendment is bollix, then you don't. First you embrace a label, then you complain about it, then you embrace it again. Who can keep track in all your confusion? You certainly don't.--Percy

Thanks for the correction. It hints to me that some how the OT is less than the NT. I guess I am reading too much into it.So this God inspired document, (what is the expression "God breathed", God dictated, ... I dunno) is unable to be lifted above the dirt and squalor of the time of writing? So it a necessary evil to the author of the bible?To help a bit; who is the one speaking in the quotes that Percy gave?

God wisely takes people where they are. They wouldn't listen to Him if He told them to give up their slaves. The cursing of Canaan was said by Noah.

He told them to cut of their foreskin and they listened i think slaves are a bit lower on the i dont think i should listen to that scale.

All too often in the New Testament it is Paul & Peter or as more often heard, Peter & Paul. It is often interesting to look at the context of the quotes as well as just the mined part.