why homosexualy and homosexual marriage is so wrong

[Kirran]

The extension of the term is unwarranted, and dilutes the meaning of fundamentalism. The extension to Islam is completely warranted, given the overlapping theological, historical and scriptural assumptions of Jews, Christians and Muslims.

I can certainly see the validity to these objections, what term would you recommend as an alternative?

It actually doesn't leave any room for interpretation if you think about it. By rendering the text infallible, it creates absolute certainty that the text has an actual meaning that does not vary over time. The only variance is the result of incorrect, fallible interpretations. Moreover, despite the twisting of reformers, the meaning is fairly clear in most areas.

If I was infallible, I could still speak in riddles and metaphors.

 

[gsa]

I can certainly see the validity to these objections, what term would you recommend as an alternative?

I don't know that there is any term that fits very well. Anti-theist, or anti-Abrahamic, or anti-monotheist. Perhaps "adamant anti-theists" as opposed to simply anti-theists. Part of the problem is that the definition doesn't really work conceptually, because they don't share anything in common with fundamentalists, apart from their relatively certainty that Abrahamic monotheism is false and dangerous.

If I was infallible, I could still speak in riddles and metaphors.

Maybe that can be applied to the Gita or other literary works, perhaps even parts of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures (like Job or The Gospel According to John), but not to most of it.

 

[Kirran]

I don't know that there is any term that fits very well. Anti-theist, or anti-Abrahamic, or anti-monotheist. Perhaps "adamant anti-theists" as opposed to simply anti-theists. Part of the problem is that the definition doesn't really work conceptually, because they don't share anything in common with fundamentalists, apart from their relatively certainty that Abrahamic monotheism is false and dangerous.

I suppose it's actually fair to say they're Christian/Islamic fundamentalists - after all, they're interpreting the Bible or the Qur'an along the lines a fundamentalist does. They're just non-Christian Christian fundamentalists, or non-Muslim Islamic fundamentalists.

For general use, I think adamant anti-theists is better though.

Maybe that can be applied to the Gita or other literary works, perhaps even parts of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures (like Job or The Gospel According to John), but not to most of it.

Like which? I'm curious here.

 

[gsa]

I suppose it's actually fair to say they're Christian/Islamic fundamentalists - after all, they're interpreting the Bible or the Qur'an along the lines a fundamentalist does. They're just non-Christian Christian fundamentalists, or non-Muslim Islamic fundamentalists.

For general use, I think adamant anti-theists is better though.

And not all of them accept the fundamentalist presuppositions in their entirety. Particularly when it comes to the gospel accounts, which are clearly as interpretive (really, more interpretive) in nature as they are descriptive of historical events.

Like which? I'm curious here.

Deuteronomy, Leviticus and Exodus, Joshua, the Pauline epistles...

 

[Kirran]

And not all of them accept the fundamentalist presuppositions in their entirety. Particularly when it comes to the gospel accounts, which are clearly as interpretive (really, more interpretive) in nature as they are descriptive of historical events.

True, no group is homogenous.

Deuteronomy, Leviticus and Exodus, Joshua, the Pauline epistles...

I'll see about getting in touch with the Christian Society here, see what the liberals have to say.

 

[Parsimony]

Sounds like a game of semantics to me. Doesn't really change the nature of what the words are describing.

 

[Kirran]

Sounds like a game of semantics to me. Doesn't really change the nature of what the words are describing.

Straight up yo.

 

[Riverwolf]

I don't know that there is any term that fits very well. Anti-theist, or anti-Abrahamic, or anti-monotheist. Perhaps "adamant anti-theists" as opposed to simply anti-theists. Part of the problem is that the definition doesn't really work conceptually, because they don't share anything in common with fundamentalists, apart from their relatively certainty that Abrahamic monotheism is false and dangerous.

Thing is, the mindset reminds me very strongly of the exact type that the early Catholic Church had for paganism.

 

[Kirran]

Thing is, the mindset reminds me very strongly of the exact type that the early Catholic Church had for paganism.

Do you mean the mindset that many adamant anti-theists have? Just for clarification.

 

[Riverwolf]

Do you mean the mindset that many adamant anti-theists have? Just for clarification.

Yeah. In fact, from what I can gather, a lot of the vernacular is the same.

 

[Kirran]

Yeah. In fact, from what I can gather, a lot of the vernacular is the same.

That's a really interesting comparison.

Would you mind highlighting a couple of examples?

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't know that there is any term that fits very well. Anti-theist, or anti-Abrahamic, or anti-monotheist. Perhaps "adamant anti-theists" as opposed to simply anti-theists. Part of the problem is that the definition doesn't really work conceptually, because they don't share anything in common with fundamentalists, apart from their relatively certainty that Abrahamic monotheism is false and dangerous.

Maybe that can be applied to the Gita or other literary works, perhaps even parts of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures (like Job or The Gospel According to John), but not to most of it.

If I understood correctly which people you are talking about, It seems to me that the common traits with fundamentalists are a tendency of taking scripture far more strictly and seriously than it was ever meant to be (valuing scripture over common sense and discernment) and a certain flair for uncalled generalizations.

The differences however are also very significant. Most of all, this group of unthinking critics you seem to be talking about are prone to commiting strawmans (misrepresenting the ideas they criticize for improved yet unearned effect), while actual fundamentalists seek to make those same strawmans accurate.

An even more significant difference is that the very environments both groups exist on create very constrasting dynamics. Strawmanning critics of religion tend to end up ignored due to the extent of harm they cause to their own credibility, while fundamentalists tend to gravitate towards social circles that reinforce and encourage their fanaticism and bias.

Actually saying that God is on one's side and often sincerely believing it can make a decisive difference.

 

[gsa]

Thing is, the mindset reminds me very strongly of the exact type that the early Catholic Church had for paganism.

Good, that turned out well for the RCC.

 

[gsa]

If I understood correctly which people you are talking about, It seems to me that the common traits with fundamentalists are a tendency of taking scripture far more strictly and seriously than it was ever meant to be (valuing scripture over common sense and discernment) and a certain flair for uncalled generalizations.

The differences however are also very significant. Most of all, this group of unthinking critics you seem to be talking about are prone to commiting strawmans (misrepresenting the ideas they criticize for improved yet unearned effect), while actual fundamentalists seek to make those same strawmans accurate.

An even more significant difference is that the very environments both groups exist on create very constrasting dynamics. Strawmanning critics of religion tend to end up ignored due to the extent of harm they cause to their own credibility, while fundamentalists tend to gravitate towards social circles that reinforce and encourage their fanaticism and bias.

Actually saying that God is on one's side and often sincerely believing it can make a decisive difference.

To be clear, this is not my own argument. I was just pointing to terms that were better than fundamentalist.

 

[Kirran]

If I understood correctly which people you are talking about, It seems to me that the common traits with fundamentalists are a tendency of taking scripture far more strictly and seriously than it was ever meant to be (valuing scripture over common sense and discernment) and a certain flair for uncalled generalizations.

Some very insightful points made.

But no surprises there.

The differences however are also very significant. Most of all, this group of unthinking critics you seem to be talking about are prone to commiting strawmans (misrepresenting the ideas they criticize for improved yet unearned effect), while actual fundamentalists seek to make those same strawmans accurate.

I think it could easily be said that both the fundamentalists and the antitheist 'fundamentalists' are trying to make these strawmen accurate, the latter so that the religion can be discredited. Or, they actually believe these strawmen. (Strawmen or strawmans?)

An even more significant difference is that the very environments both groups exist on create very constrasting dynamics. Strawmanning critics of religion tend to end up ignored due to the extent of harm they cause to their own credibility, while fundamentalists tend to gravitate towards social circles that reinforce and encourage their fanaticism and bias.

Actually saying that God is on one's side and often sincerely believing it can make a decisive difference.

Very true, the level of power varies. But I think as atheism becomes more entrenched in societies, its more intolerant faces will gain more legitimacy.

Good, that turned out well for the RCC.

And in such a benevolent and peaceful manner. The Catholic Church during this era is hardly a group to emulate.

 

[Kirran]

To be clear, this is not my own argument. I was just pointing to terms that were better than fundamentalist.

Terminology's having trouble keeping up with today's ideological environment. But we'll fix that!

 

[Riverwolf]

That's a really interesting comparison.

Would you mind highlighting a couple of examples?

A lot of it is from memory and personal experience. Take what I say with a grain of salt, because I don't remember many of the specific sources. (Hence why I prefaced it with "from what I can gather").

The Catholic Church's general stance on paganism (which also included non-Catholic Christianity far as they were concerned) was that it was superstition and based on blind tradition rather than intellectual pursuits. One very important thing to remember is that, contrary to what a lot of anti-religion propaganda will say, the Catholic Church actually held intellectual pursuits in extremely high regard. Take Aristotle's placement in the Divine Comedy. I see the same sorts of argumentation from many anti-theists when they talk about religion.

Again, these are general impressions that, to me, point to the same basic mindset at work. I certainly don't mean to say that they are comparable in other ways, because... well, they're not really comparable in any other way that I can think of.

Good, that turned out well for the RCC.

If we're keeping with the comparisons, are you suggesting that many anti-theists and anti-religionists aren't actually interested in truth, but in cultural power play?

 

[gsa]

Some very insightful points made.

But no surprises there.



I think it could easily be said that both the fundamentalists and the antitheist 'fundamentalists' are trying to make these strawmen accurate, the latter so that the religion can be discredited. Or, they actually believe these strawmen. (Strawmen or strawmans?)



Very true, the level of power varies. But I think as atheism becomes more entrenched in societies, its more intolerant faces will gain more legitimacy.



And in such a benevolent and peaceful manner. The Catholic Church during this era is hardly a group to emulate.

Well I certainly prefer a peaceful end to monotheism, but given its nature I'm not holding my breath.

 

[gsa]

A lot of it is from memory and personal experience. Take what I say with a grain of salt, because I don't remember many of the specific sources. (Hence why I prefaced it with "from what I can gather").

The Catholic Church's general stance on paganism (which also included non-Catholic Christianity far as they were concerned) was that it was superstition and based on blind tradition rather than intellectual pursuits. One very important thing to remember is that, contrary to what a lot of anti-religion propaganda will say, the Catholic Church actually held intellectual pursuits in extremely high regard. Take Aristotle's placement in the Divine Comedy. I see the same sorts of argumentation from many anti-theists when they talk about religion.

Again, these are general impressions that, to me, point to the same basic mindset at work. I certainly don't mean to say that they are comparable in other ways, because... well, they're not really comparable in any other way that I can think of.



If we're keeping with the comparisons, are you suggesting that many anti-theists and anti-religionists aren't actually interested in truth, but in cultural power play?

Truth and cultural dominance are not mutually exclusive in this case. Personally, I want both. Or rather, the elimination of the cultural strength of monotheism. And the best way to get that is by promoting truth, which corrodes Abrahamic claims.

 

[Kirran]

A lot of it is from memory and personal experience. Take what I say with a grain of salt, because I don't remember many of the specific sources. (Hence why I prefaced it with "from what I can gather").

The Catholic Church's general stance on paganism (which also included non-Catholic Christianity far as they were concerned) was that it was superstition and based on blind tradition rather than intellectual pursuits. One very important thing to remember is that, contrary to what a lot of anti-religion propaganda will say, the Catholic Church actually held intellectual pursuits in extremely high regard. Take Aristotle's placement in the Divine Comedy. I see the same sorts of argumentation from many anti-theists when they talk about religion.

Again, these are general impressions that, to me, point to the same basic mindset at work. I certainly don't mean to say that they are comparable in other ways, because... well, they're not really comparable in any other way that I can think of.

That really rings true. At least in that aspect. Cheers for the perspective.

Well I certainly prefer a peaceful end to monotheism, but given its nature I'm not holding my breath.

I have no issue with monotheism myself, at least not per se.

What about poly-, heno-, katheno-, pan-, panen- and transtheism, or monistic conceptions of God?