Is Fundamentalism a Religious Movement or a Psychological Disorder?

[blü 2]

Not unexplained. The Gospels provide the source:

John 14:26 (Jesus speaking) - "But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

John speaks for John. You still have four to go. Oh, and magic isn't an explanation, at least not in historical studies.

Not so. Actually, all four Gospel writers and Paul and Luke (in Acts) do believe in the resurrection – they all confirmed it.

Yes, I don't suggest they say otherwise. I only point out that the six incompatible reports amount to evidence of the very poorest kind.

It’s not the resurrection that’s in question in the Gospels, it’s events that have occurred AFTER the resurrection that skeptics question. In addition, those events are not contradictory, they’re complementary.

There are several categories of reasons why the reports of the resurrection aren't credible. (1) Assuming an historical Jesus, any explanation possible in reality ─ it's a tale Jesus' followers made up; Jesus wasn't dead, he got up and left, or was rescued; Jesus' body was removed; the searchers went to the wrong tomb; even really wild stuff like there was an earth tremor and the body fell into a crevasse that closed ; and so on ─ is many orders of magnitude more credible that any supernatural explanation. (2) Extraordinary claims require extraordinarily clear and persuasive demonstrations, and not even one of the gospel accounts is within a week's drive of that ballpark. (3) The existence of six incompatible accounts is, as I said, a forensic disaster, the clearest demonstration that whatever each author was writing, it had nothing to do with history. (4) Resurrections were as standard as miracles in the religions of former days, so no surprise if such a thing is attributed to Jesus. In the bible (leaving aside as a ghost story the dead Samuel speaking with Saul) Elijah raised the Zarephath woman’s son (1 Kings 17:17+), Elisha raised the Shunammite woman’s son (2 Kings 4:32+), the man whose dead body touched Elisha’s bones was resurrected (2 Kings 13:21), Jesus raised the Nain widow’s son (Luke 7:12+), Jesus raised Lazarus (John 11:41-44), Peter raised Tabitha / Dorcas (Acts 9:36-40) and Matthew's zombies romp (Matthew 27:52-53). Gods Osiris in Egypt and Dionysos in Greece were put to death and came back to life. In Greece, Heracles, son of Zeus, died, was resurrected and became a god. Mortal Asclepios raised Lycourgos, Capaneos and Tyndareos from the dead, and Glaucos, Hippolytos and Orion were resurrected too – as indeed was Asclepios himself. Eurydice (and Scandanavia’s Baldur) nearly made it back. Sumer’s Dumuzi and Persephone and Adonis had to spend only half their time in the Underworld. And that's just a tiny sample.

Finally, if skeptics were to really do some due diligence on the subject, they would have known about Simon Greenleaf’s “Harmony of the Resurrection Accounts,” which places the resurrection scriptures in chronological order. Specifics in the link below:

Greenleaf’s Harmony of the Resurrection Accounts

Alas, theological colleges, even those of great fame, churn out dozens of theses full of such rationalizations every year, probably each week.

Answer me this:

Who went to the tomb?

What did he, she or they see?
Did he, she or they find guards?
What did he, she or they do?
Did he, she or they find anyone else?
If so, who?
What did he, she or they do next?​

To whom did Jesus first appear?

In what circumstances?
If there were guards, what did they do?
What did the disciples do?​

To whom did Jesus second appear?

Where?
With what result?​

To whom did Jesus third appear?
To whom did Jesus fourth appear?
When did Jesus ascend to heaven?

From where?​

Not one of those questions gets a unanimous answer.

And the trouble with devising your own compatibilized version is that you end up with a seventh account that's incompatible with the other six. That is, it gets you nowhere.


PS Why does Paul think Jesus appeared to the twelve? Looks like he'd never heard of the Judas story ─ I guess because it's not invented till Mark.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You and I will never agree on anything. Please find another poster to debate with.

But we are not debating. You are making errors and I am correcting them. As a Christian you should pursue the truth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's your spin. Matthew, Mark (for Peter) and John all saw and heard the same things, which explains any commonality. Then there's John 14:26 (Jesus speaking): " "But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

You really need a lot of help with your theology, Thirza. You apparently were unaware of what's noted above.

Once again you need to study the history of the Bible. The Gospels are all anonymous and almost certainly not written by eyewitnesses.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's the liberal scholars who have their heads in their rear ends, just like everyday liberals today.

The fact that a scholar can show that you are wrong does not make him liberal. In my opinion the absolute worst Christians are biblical apologists. It is almost impossible to find one that is not a liar for Jesus.

Real scholars follow the evidence wherever it goes. They do not try to force it into a preexisting narrative.

 

[paarsurrey]

Is Fundamentalism a Religious Movement or a Psychological Disorder?

What is one's understanding of the word "Fundamentalism"? Please give one's personal understanding, not from a lexicon, for reasonable discussion.
Sorry for joining late in this thread, please.

Regards

 

[Sand Dancer]

That's your spin. Matthew, Mark (for Peter) and John all saw and heard the same things, which explains any commonality. Then there's John 14:26 (Jesus speaking): " "But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

You really need a lot of help with your theology, Thirza. You apparently were unaware of what's noted above.

Oh, the irony...So why isn't John considered a synoptic gospel?

 

[Spartan]

An independent source would be the Roman historian (I forget his name) who wrote of the emerging religion and their beliefs. Sorta like how the Tanakh is a primary text, the Talmud is an independent source of notes, interpretations, and so on. The Bible, and all contained and uncontained books related to it, are the primary texts of Christianity.

Once again, the Gospels and New Testament books were NOT part of the Bible originally. That's why they were independent of it.

 

[Spartan]

Oh, the irony...So why isn't John considered a synoptic gospel?

Why don't you do your homework and find out?

 

[Spartan]

The fact that a scholar can show that you are wrong does not make him liberal. In my opinion the absolute worst Christians are biblical apologists. It is almost impossible to find one that is not a liar for Jesus.

Real scholars follow the evidence wherever it goes. They do not try to force it into a preexisting narrative.

Which is what liberals do - they try to rationalize the supernatural, discount the historical documents, and late date books like Daniel because the liberal pin heads can't stand the thought of supernatural, predictive prophecy. That's what liberal scholars often do, along with their stiff-necked followers.

 

[Spartan]

John speaks for John. You still have four to go. Oh, and magic isn't an explanation, at least not in historical studies.
Yes, I don't suggest they say otherwise. I only point out that the six incompatible reports amount to evidence of the very poorest kind.
There are several categories of reasons why the reports of the resurrection aren't credible. (1) Assuming an historical Jesus, any explanation possible in reality ─ it's a tale Jesus' followers made up; Jesus wasn't dead, he got up and left, or was rescued; Jesus' body was removed; the searchers went to the wrong tomb; even really wild stuff like there was an earth tremor and the body fell into a crevasse that closed ; and so on ─ is many orders of magnitude more credible that any supernatural explanation. (2) Extraordinary claims require extraordinarily clear and persuasive demonstrations, and not even one of the gospel accounts is within a week's drive of that ballpark. (3) The existence of six incompatible accounts is, as I said, a forensic disaster, the clearest demonstration that whatever each author was writing, it had nothing to do with history. (4) Resurrections were as standard as miracles in the religions of former days, so no surprise if such a thing is attributed to Jesus. In the bible (leaving aside as a ghost story the dead Samuel speaking with Saul) Elijah raised the Zarephath woman’s son (1 Kings 17:17+), Elisha raised the Shunammite woman’s son (2 Kings 4:32+), the man whose dead body touched Elisha’s bones was resurrected (2 Kings 13:21), Jesus raised the Nain widow’s son (Luke 7:12+), Jesus raised Lazarus (John 11:41-44), Peter raised Tabitha / Dorcas (Acts 9:36-40) and Matthew's zombies romp (Matthew 27:52-53). Gods Osiris in Egypt and Dionysos in Greece were put to death and came back to life. In Greece, Heracles, son of Zeus, died, was resurrected and became a god. Mortal Asclepios raised Lycourgos, Capaneos and Tyndareos from the dead, and Glaucos, Hippolytos and Orion were resurrected too – as indeed was Asclepios himself. Eurydice (and Scandanavia’s Baldur) nearly made it back. Sumer’s Dumuzi and Persephone and Adonis had to spend only half their time in the Underworld. And that's just a tiny sample.
Alas, theological colleges, even those of great fame, churn out dozens of theses full of such rationalizations every year, probably each week.

Answer me this:

Who went to the tomb?

What did he, she or they see?
Did he, she or they find guards?
What did he, she or they do?
Did he, she or they find anyone else?
If so, who?
What did he, she or they do next?​

To whom did Jesus first appear?

In what circumstances?
If there were guards, what did they do?
What did the disciples do?​

To whom did Jesus second appear?

Where?
With what result?​

To whom did Jesus third appear?
To whom did Jesus fourth appear?
When did Jesus ascend to heaven?

From where?​

Not one of those questions gets a unanimous answer.

And the trouble with devising your own compatibilized version is that you end up with a seventh account that's incompatible with the other six. That is, it gets you nowhere.


PS Why does Paul think Jesus appeared to the twelve? Looks like he'd never heard of the Judas story ─ I guess because it's not invented till Mark.

I'll stick with what I previously presented.

Believe whatever you want, blu2. I won't waste my time on this. Others have tried to reason with you but you're intent on drum-beating your anti-Jesus follies.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Once again, the Gospels and New Testament books were NOT part of the Bible originally. That's why they were independent of it.

I've explained to you what makes them primary, and gave an example of what an independent source is. Your refusal to acknowledge this but insist your views are right regardless, that's a part of the RWA behavior outlined in the pdf in the OP.

 

[Milton Platt]

"Is Fundamentalism a Religious Movement or a Psychological Disorder?"

I don't see why those are mutually exclusive things.

 

[Spartan]

I've explained to you what makes them primary, and gave an example of what an independent source is. Your refusal to acknowledge this but insist your views are right regardless, that's a part of the RWA behavior outlined in the pdf in the OP.

I stand by what I previously wrote.

 

[dfnj]

Is fundamentalism a religious movement or a psychological disorder?

It's a psychological disorder. People who believe this way have very fragile belief systems. Their faith in God is very weak. So by getting someone else to believe the same things they barely believe, it strengthens their own belief. It becomes a chain event where the strength of one's convictions is buoyed by everyone else. But each person individually is very weak in their faith. Together as a group everyone's faith is strong. So when the person is not with the group their life is nothing but a sequence of break-downs, sin, and acts of immorality. It's only when the presence of the group does the individual feel morally secure, stable, and superior.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Why don't you do your homework and find out?

I know exactly why. I was a Christian for over half of my life. But do you?

 

[Sand Dancer]

Which is what liberals do - they try to rationalize the supernatural, discount the historical documents, and late date books like Daniel because the liberal pin heads can't stand the thought of supernatural, predictive prophecy. That's what liberal scholars often do, along with their stiff-necked followers.

You know that half of Christians are Democrat, right?

 

[JJ50]

Extreme Christianity, which seems to thrive in the US, has done that country no good at all. Viewing it from the British side of the pond, I think chucking Christian extremism down the sewer would be to that country's benefit.

 

[blü 2]

I'll stick with what I previously presented.

Believe whatever you want, blu2. I won't waste my time on this. Others have tried to reason with you but you're intent on drum-beating your anti-Jesus follies.

If there's anything I've said that you don't agree with, I'm happy to discuss my reasoning, and listen to yours.

If you don't wish to state your case against what I've said, that's completely a matter for you, of course.

 

[Spartan]

You know that half of Christians are Democrat, right?

You're talking about the Sodom and Gomorrah crowd now? That's real special, LOL!

 

[Spartan]

Extreme Christianity, which seems to thrive in the US, has done that country no good at all. Viewing it from the British side of the pond, I think chucking Christian extremism down the sewer would be to that country's benefit.

Flush.

The reason England is having so many problems these days is because they've largely kicked Christ to the curb.