to all thiest on this forum

[Mes Tarrant]

It's probably one of the most well-known passages, Ne-yo. It's the one where two angels come to the town of Sodom (or.. I'm not sure if that's correct, but something like that), they are guests at a man's house, the village gets angry, the angels burn down the village but save the guy and his family. It's where the term "sodomy" comes from. I can't wait to hear your opinions... Edit: Wait, I'm getting the names all wrong. Just a second, I'll google it and get back to you. Oh no here, I was right.. I'm quoting this, now: "In the Tanach version, Genesis19:4-5, the final episode in the story of Sodom is described as the angels visit Lot to warn him to flee: When they had not yet retired, and the people of the city, the people of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, the entire populace from every end [of the city]. And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, and let us have relations with them." " That's the beginning of the passage I was referring to. I hope you know now what I'm talking about.

[Ne-yo]

Ah yes, I remember that passage. However excuse me if I seem slow but Im trying to get down to the brunt of your concern with this passage. From what I understand I believe that your concern is with Lots offer in regards to his daughters to the men of Sodom. If I am on the right track then it's pretty simple. Lot's apparently heartless offer to the men of Sodom of his daughters for abuse was OVERRIDDEN by the Angels. His solution was NOT acceptable to God at all, and the Angels protected them by supernatural action! If I completely missed your point then by all means elaborate for me. Thanks.

[Mes Tarrant]

I need to read the passage in its entirety. Google, here I come! I'll be back.

[Ne-yo]

I need to read the passage in its entirety. Google, here I come! I'll be back. Sweet!

[Grod]

Typical sysmtpoms of the FUNDIE disease: - Has skimmed thre bible and cherry picked what is valid and what isn't You need to read your own link bud. That's not what a christian 'fundamentalist' is at all. Actually, that contradicts entirely with the first line of the wiki link. Religious fundamentalism refers to a "deep and totalistic commitment" to a belief in the infallibility and inerrancy of holy scriptures, absolute religious authority, and strict adherence to a set of basic principles (fundamentals), away from doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life.[1][2][3][4] The other 'atributes' are arbitrary, but that is a huge misunderstanding of 'fundamentalism'.

[Needcatscan]

You need to read your own link bud. That's not what a christian 'fundamentalist' is at all. Actually, that contradicts entirely with the first line of the wiki link. The other 'atributes' are arbitrary, but that is a huge misunderstanding of 'fundamentalism'. I agree with Grod on this one Seis.

[MrDoom]

After all, if they post in a religion/spirituality thread... they're totally asking for a fight. Amirite? I'd just like to point out that atheism is not mutually exclusive to religion -- there are a few religions that have no deity figure, Theravada Buddhism for example. Theism does not have a monopoly on spirituality.

[apachama]

You need to read your own link bud. That's not what a christian 'fundamentalist' is at all. Actually, that contradicts entirely with the first line of the wiki link. The other 'atributes' are arbitrary, but that is a huge misunderstanding of 'fundamentalism'. A Fundamentalist Christian usually picks and chooses what bits of the Bible he goes with despite supposedly saying it is all the word of God. For instance, Leviticus prooves homosexuality is wrong, but dietry and justice related laws in it are invalid. As is the tiny amount it has to say on miscarriages, which shows that a man causing a miscarriage is not treated the same as a man who commits murder. They also ignore the bit about hats in the Pauline epistles, which I can search for later when I have time if you like. Its a bit fun. Most ignore the teachings on how slaves should obey their masters, which takes out pretty much the entire of the book of Philemon, in my opinion. Though I can understand alternative interpretations. They are also likely to ignore the bit where Jesus saves an adulterous woman from being stoned, in my experience. Or if they notice it living by the spirit rather than the letter of the law only serves their own purposes. Also, many seem to ignore the idea of only praying privately not in big public places where everyone can see you, giving secretly, etc.

[Sornaensis]

You need to read your own link bud. That's not what a christian 'fundamentalist' is at all. Actually, that contradicts entirely with the first line of the wiki link. The other 'atributes' are arbitrary, but that is a huge misunderstanding of 'fundamentalism'. I agree with Grod on this one Seis. A Fundamentalist Christian usually picks and chooses what bits of the Bible he goes with despite supposedly saying it is all the word of God. For instance, Leviticus prooves homosexuality is wrong, but dietry and justice related laws in it are invalid. As is the tiny amount it has to say on miscarriages, which shows that a man causing a miscarriage is not treated the same as a man who commits murder. They also ignore the bit about hats in the Pauline epistles, which I can search for later when I have time if you like. Its a bit fun. Most ignore the teachings on how slaves should obey their masters, which takes out pretty much the entire of the book of Philemon, in my opinion. Though I can understand alternative interpretations. They are also likely to ignore the bit where Jesus saves an adulterous woman from being stoned, in my experience. Or if they notice it living by the spirit rather than the letter of the law only serves their own purposes. Also, many seem to ignore the idea of only praying privately not in big public places where everyone can see you, giving secretly, etc. .

[Sornaensis]

Grod apparently has never met a Fundamentalist christian >3

[Ne-yo]

A Fundamentalist Christian usually picks and chooses what bits of the Bible he goes with despite supposedly saying it is all the word of God. For instance, Leviticus prooves homosexuality is wrong, but dietry and justice related laws in it are invalid. As is the tiny amount it has to say on miscarriages, which shows that a man causing a miscarriage is not treated the same as a man who commits murder. They also ignore the bit about hats in the Pauline epistles, which I can search for later when I have time if you like. Its a bit fun. Most ignore the teachings on how slaves should obey their masters, which takes out pretty much the entire of the book of Philemon, in my opinion. Though I can understand alternative interpretations. They are also likely to ignore the bit where Jesus saves an adulterous woman from being stoned, in my experience. Or if they notice it living by the spirit rather than the letter of the law only serves their own purposes. Also, many seem to ignore the idea of only praying privately not in big public places where everyone can see you, giving secretly, etc. You just reinerated what Seismosaur previously stated outside your elaboration, however it still contridicts with the link Seismosaur provided. So this interperation you have is not a fundalmentalism.

[Sornaensis]

You're right. And as I've pointed out in many other threads it's impossible to be a fundamentalist. Hence, fail. Tht's just what christian/islamic religious nuts (Yourself included) are called.

[Ne-yo]

You're right. And as I've pointed out in many other threads it's impossible to be a fundamentalist. Hence, fail. Tht's just what christian/islamic religious nuts (Yourself included) are called. Speculative, the funny thing is that I don't fit anywhere in "your" definition of fundalmentalism.

[Sornaensis]

No, it did not. But would you rather I just cut to the chase and call you all morons?

[Ne-yo]

No, it did not. But would you rather I just cut to the chase and call you all morons? What difference would that really make? You don't know me do you? So the names you assert on me doesn't really have any affect on me considering you're just another joe on the other end of a computer.

[Taosaur]

where did all the christians go? they got tired of all the atheists not listening to what they really believe in. very few christians actually believe in church dogma these days. the church dogma christians are the minority actually. a year ago I was getting flamed for believing in a God in the sky, of which I never believed, never have believed in. do you know how annoying it is to explain to an idiot he has no right to tell me what I am supposed to believe in? I do not believe in a God in the sky, yet I was flamed for it because some one doesn't care to listen to what others actually believe in they instead hold silly images in their minds and project it out to all believers. you can't even hold a normal conversation with someone who believes you believe in things you don't believe in there would be more christians on the forum, if more atheists are actually willing to listen to what they believe in - rather than just assuming, and holding them against a false assumption. christianity IS diverse. and we have a number of christians here, that all believe in different things. when no one listens, they leave. why? no real christian is actually out for a fight. except for the fundie. and in the end, this forum has drove away most christians but fundies. ^Juroara pretty much has it. Based on what members have said mostly outside R/S, DV has a slight majority of Christians and a good deal of New Agers, most of whom will never set foot in this forum. To the majority of the population (of DV or earth, take your pick), the atheists and the IDiots sound almost identical and equally divorced from life as humans actually live it, whether the humans in question live on a more religious or more secular basis. There's no room left in R/S for discussion of religion or spirituality with the constant quibbling over whether a narrow, literal interpretation of Genesis, Matthew and Revelations, devoid of historical context, is something to live your life for or something to live your life against. The whole discussion, as it proceeds here and across the internet, is a non-sequiter of Biblical proportions.

[Grod]

A Fundamentalist Christian usually picks and chooses what bits of the Bible he goes with despite supposedly saying it is all the word of God. For instance, Leviticus prooves homosexuality is wrong, but dietry and justice related laws in it are invalid. As is the tiny amount it has to say on miscarriages, which shows that a man causing a miscarriage is not treated the same as a man who commits murder. They also ignore the bit about hats in the Pauline epistles, which I can search for later when I have time if you like. Its a bit fun. Most ignore the teachings on how slaves should obey their masters, which takes out pretty much the entire of the book of Philemon, in my opinion. Though I can understand alternative interpretations. They are also likely to ignore the bit where Jesus saves an adulterous woman from being stoned, in my experience. Or if they notice it living by the spirit rather than the letter of the law only serves their own purposes. Also, many seem to ignore the idea of only praying privately not in big public places where everyone can see you, giving secretly, etc. It's sort of like you read my post, but it's also like you didn't read it at all. This will help you understand to what a Christian Fundamentalist is(since you ignored it the first time): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism

[Taosaur]

It's sort of like you read my post, but it's also like you didn't read it at all. This will help you understand to what a Christian Fundamentalist is(since you ignored it the first time): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism You're not that thickheaded, Grod. You're providing a definition of the professed position of fundamentalists, while apachama is analyzing how Fundamentalists actually behave. Now toss salads and make up.

[Ne-yo]

You're not that thickheaded, Grod. You're providing a definition of the professed position of fundamentalists, while apachama is analyzing how Fundamentalists actually behave. Now toss salads and make up. Well if Fundamenatalism consist of behavorial aspects of just picking one thing over another as apachama has clearly pointed out then every single person on the face of this planet would clearly fall into this category, would you not agree?

[Taosaur]

Well if Fundamenatalism consist of behavorial aspects of just picking one thing over another as apachama has clearly pointed out then every single person on the face of this planet would clearly fall into this category, would you not agree? Wow, if you ignore the substance of what he was saying and distort one detail into a meaningless abstraction, then ya, it's just like that.

[Ne-yo]

Wow, if you ignore the substance of what he was saying and distort one detail into a meaningless abstraction, then ya, it's just like that. Are you claiming that the 'subtance' of what he's implying doesn't consist of "ALL" behavioral conditions?

[Grod]

Taosaur: What you and apachampa are describing are not fundamentalists. There are probably very few true fundamentalists on the earth. I've never met a single person that follows every single bit in the bible. If one does not follow every bit of the bible, they are not a fundamentalist. It's really that simple. Though, you can call them anything you want, big guy.

[bcomp]

I'd just like to point out that atheism is not mutually exclusive to religion -- there are a few religions that have no deity figure, Theravada Buddhism for example. Theism does not have a monopoly on spirituality. Oh oh I wasn't trying to link religion with spirituality... it's just that this sub-forum happens to be called the "Religion/Spirituality" forum. Unfortunately, most atheists do feel the need to expunge all religion, whether it be theistic or not, as well as spirituality. That's what I'm talking about.