MovieChat Forums > End of the Spear (2006) Discussion > You know you are a Fundamentalist Christ...

You know you are a Fundamentalist Christian When.....

posted 18 years ago by MercuriusW
53 replies | jump to latest

10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."

3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.

[–] achays-1 18 years ago

LOL!

[–] TheSolarSailor 18 years ago

My personal favorite...

"3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity"

* * * *

OK, so what's the speed of dark?

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Darkfin 18 years ago

7 - ...and trees!

LMAO

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MercuriusW 18 years ago

I have a question. What if you die and there is an afterlife, but there is no judgement. What if we could have done whatever the hell we want and ended up in the same damn place. Would you be dissapointed?

Also. Are you a chrsitan simply because you fear eternal damnation. I mean eternity is a long time and a lake of fire is going to be not nice. However dont' you think that its just a little stupid to "hedge your bets" by being christian. What if the muslims are right? I mean then you're totally screwed (so am I). And if the Hindu's are right then we're all ok, though I'll probably be an ant and you'll be a donkey.

In any case I don't think I made any bigoted statments. I dislike any fundementalist relgion. We are in America (well I am) and we have fundementalist christians. They bother me because they impose their religion on the public square and try to bring down science in favor of bronze age mythology.

If I were in a muslim nation I wouldn't be allowed to say it because most of those nations are totalitarian states with very not nice people in charge. We in america are not a religious theocracy (thankfully) and we should keep it that way. We could do this by not limiting marriage to heterosexuals (there is no non-religous reason to do so), by removing under god from the pledge of alegience (a phrase added in the 1950's at the behst of joe maccarthy and the Knights of Columbus), and by ensuring that georgia governors don't plop replicas of the ten commandments wherever they want.

[–] BilligerVogel 18 years ago

They bother me because they impose their religion on the public square...

No different than political activists...

Because the world is rushing toward entropy. What's your excuse?

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TheSolarSailor 18 years ago

Why don't you address the rest of Mercurius's post?

"Sen. Joe McCarthy is an American hero. He was right -- there WERE communists under every bed"

McCarthy was a paranoid fool from American history, and you have been exposed as an idiot poster for the above comment. No wonder you didn't address the meat of the earlier post.

* * * *

OK, so what's the speed of dark?

[–] MercuriusW 18 years ago

McCarthy was an idiot. The vast majority of conservatives have distanced themselves from him realizing that his delusional quest to violate the civil rights of anyone he didn't like/though was a communist was highly immoral. The only person who publically states an affection for mr. McCarthy is Ann Coulter. Congratualtions you have a certifiable nut job in your camp.

In a democracy, the majority rules, and if the vast majority wants religious moral values as public policy, they should not be over-ruled by athiests and agnostics.

No. This is just wrong. It also doesn't make any damn sense. This is not a Christian Nation, if it were we would be a theocracy like the Iranians. Pushing for organized prayer in the public schools, the teaching of mythology as science, the erection on government property of religious symbols, and the enforcement of one religious moral values pertaining to sexuality, is a clear attempt to RAM god down everyones throats whether they like it or not. Just because A LOT of people are christian doesn't mean that we have make christianity our state religion.

and think, for a minute or so (it might be difficult), if the gays get married are they going to force you to be gay? Is it really going to demean or ruin the sanctity of your marriage. I mean I though Britney Spears' just for fun 55 hour marriage voided any sanctity that was left. Also if prayer isn't organized into your kids day is that preventing you from praying at home, at church? Its not.

However for a kid who is being raised as an atheists being placed in a situation where the school as an institution is advocating for prayer would be extremely uncomfortable.

The evolution issue is different because it could be argued that it would be uncomfortable for the kids of christians to hear that the bible is wrong. However I feel that because evolution is the best scientific theory we have to explain the rise of species (note evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the universe, just the diversification of species) it should be taught. If ther ewas one OUNCE of scientific evidence for creationism it would have a place in schools. However as of now it doesn't, and your only champion is "Dr." kent hovind, who holds his PHD in theological studies, not any form of science.

Also I didn't mention abortion because I feel that it is a distinctly non religious debate. The idea of when the fetus is alive is one that lies outside of the bible or any other religion.

[–] skiop 18 years ago

Try going to a Muslim country and mocking them in a similar fashion

Is that one of those Christians are better than Muslims because there are no longer Christian theocracies arguments?

Hey pal, go ahead and worship your golden calf, it doesn't outrage me in the least. However, I will pray for you that you see the light.

But we all know the success rate (or lack thereof) of praying, and worshipping anything for that matter. Ah, we all know "I'll pray for you" is just condescendation and not meant literally.

you're going to wish you had some ice cubes and an air conditioner when judgement day arrives

Ditto. But what makes you think there are no air conditioners in Hell? Sure some nut... I mean, son of God said that there's eternal fire, but a lot of advancement can happen in 2000 years.

[–] frank_luvs_danielle 17 years ago

"You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God"

God answers all prayers. Sometimes His answer is "no." Don't think because you prayed and didn't get something that God didn't answer your prayer. It was answered...God's answer was no. God has that right as God is God and not a genie in a bottle.

[–] TheSolarSailor 17 years ago

"God answers all prayers. Sometimes His answer is "no." Don't think because you prayed and didn't get something that God didn't answer your prayer. It was answered...God's answer was no. God has that right as God is God and not a genie in a bottle"

That's along the same type of mentality that points fingers at fortunate events and proclaims "it was a blessing by god", while in the same instance pointing at unfortunate events and proclaiming "well, it was god's will". No matter what, you all have a way of molding any given event to god. The same applies to prayer, but it doesn't make it any more real that any other coincidence, rather it just seems that way because you want to believe it. It's all about perspective. I mean, those who believe in the horoscope see truth in it as well!

* * * *

OK, so what's the speed of dark?

[–] MercuriusW 17 years ago

Wow there is still activity on this thread?!?!?!

And yeah I guess in retrospect that last one about prayers doesn't make any sense seeing as you can honestly never tell if god just simply didn't feel like fulfilling the request. However this also brings into question the idea of putting a great deal of faith in god. I mean if he's going to answer no then shouldn't you have a contingency plan?

[–] Bulletcatcher 17 years ago

MercuriusW, I promise to keep this thread active. It's a good thread. One that simply states logic wrapped in humor.

Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

[–] ohmandylicious 17 years ago

The fact that you gravitated to a board that is obviously going to be frequented by people who claim Christianity is "proof" that you think there is something to "Jesus Christ." I mean, I'm not on the "Monsiuer Ibrahim" board arguing against the existence of "Allah" because I don't think it's worth my time, and I don't think any such deity exists.

My question to you, Bulletcatcher, DoubleFacedJanus, and MercuriusW, is why in the hamburgers are you wasting your time on this board, making these arguments and accusations, if you truly believe there's nothing to Christianity?

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] juhadley 17 years ago

You can only look at this ridiculous list and laugh at the people who think about you that way.

[–] sapphire29874 17 years ago

"1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian. "

I assume that you're one of them, then?

Because I have been studying quite a bit about "the Bible, Christianity, and church history", and I've come to find that these "athiests and agnostics" know how to mention things that are awfully convenient to their own cause....

The sources I've been taught from, however, usually (yes, let's admit it -- not all books will, and this applies to both sides) mention both arguments. And they still win out.

[–] Bulletcatcher 17 years ago

A lot of us atheists/freethinkers are former "christians," so we know what we are talking about. You just have to have "faith" in what we say... That's not beyond your grasp, right?

By quoting your "bible," you are taking the easiest of easy (meaning: no thought or actual work is required) roads. Your "bible" says it is the word of "god," so it must be true.

Please, what are these "sources" you refer to? You know, the ones that "still win out"?

Circular reasoning still, still, still doesn't work.

Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

[–] schultzclan6 17 years ago

Believing in the Bible depends on your trust. There are no real sources that exist today because, well, any witnesses are dead today. We have to put our trust in God in order to believe him...if you can't trust him, you can't believe in him.

"It's like bringing a knife to a gun fight."

[–] Bulletcatcher 17 years ago

Exactly. There are no witnesses, no evidence, no nothing.

Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

[–] sapphire29874 17 years ago

No evidence! You apparently haven't read "Case for Christ"!
It was written by Lee Strobel, a very well-known (former) reporter for The Chicago Tribune. He used to be an athiest, but began looking into the vast ammount of evidence (which he very interestingly chronicles in the book) for Christ and the reliability of the New Testament. You should give it a read!

[–] Bulletcatcher 17 years ago

It is possible that someone named "jesus christ" actually lived. Was this person "divine" in nature? Prove it - the burden is yours.

Mr. Strobel is a journalist by trade. No scientific background whatsoever. Someone who manipulates words for a living can believe anything they want by "poring through 'evidence'" without actually understanding that evidence.

Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

[–] ohmandylicious 17 years ago

[–] Bulletcatcher 17 years ago

We're just pointing out the illogical nature of blind devotion to an archaic concept ("god," etc.).

Why are you wasting your time telling us we're wasting our time?

Accusations? Arguments? The burden of proof is on those who believe a "god" exists, not the other way around.

Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

[–] ohmandylicious 17 years ago

*****Why are you wasting your time telling us we're wasting our time?*****

On the contrary, Bulletcatcher, I think this is a most useful discussion. If a foundation of beliefs cannot stand up in the face of logical thought, it is merely a house of cards and will eventually collapse. Therefore, for many, the idea of God is not archaic at all, because it has endured.

But logical thought does not go very far when you answer a question with a question (especially one that has nothing to do with reason).

*****The burden of proof is on those who believe a "god" exists*****

The burden of "proof," in fact, is on God alone. I can no more prove to you that God exists than you can prove to me that He does not exist.

[–] Bulletcatcher 17 years ago

Just because an archaic notion has endured does not mean it has merit. The beauty of science, and logical thought process in general, is that it builds upon itself. Knowledge builds upon knowledge.

Theories get stronger and stronger based on increasing evidence. Sometimes they change a little, here and there, because of new technologies (Hubble, for example). Sometimes they change radically because of completely new evidence (death of the dinosaurs, for instance).

Your "bible," and religion in general, are unchanging, and are resistant to change. Time keeps on slipping, slipping, slipping into the future, but the concept of "god" is stuck in the past.

I have no need to prove that "he" (or... "she"...?) exists because it is your responsibility (not "his" or "hers") to prove the existence of "god."

In fact, I beg you to disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Zeus, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, Shiva, and the Sober Irishman.

By following your logic, the existence of these magical beings can not be disputed.

P.S. My edit was to correct a spelling error, not to change the content.

Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

[–] ohmandylicious 17 years ago

Bulletcatcher-- I thought I recognized you. I just responded to another post you made on another thread, but I'm just gonna throw this in:

By following your logic, the existence of these magical beings can not be disputed.

The only argument I had presented thus far was that atheists who seek out Christian movie boards must think there's something to Jesus and the system of beliefs that He established.

I don't argue for or against the existence of any of the "magical beings" you mentioned because I know that I know that I know they do not. It's worse than useless to spend time (which you cannot get back) arguing about something one believes is so preposterous.

Like I said before, I wish I could give you the proof you seek. I can share my experiences as the proof that convinced me, but that's all I can give you.

Well, I can quote a lotta scripture, but based on your previous statements, I don't think you care to hear Biblical evidence.

[–] sapphire29874 17 years ago

I don't feel like rewriting "The Case for Christ".

"Someone who manipulates words for a living can believe anything they want by "poring through 'evidence'" without actually understanding that evidence."

Then why don't you give it a shot?

[–] Bulletcatcher 17 years ago

I was referring to the journalist's inability to understand physical and scientific evidence when it slaps him in the face.

Having a basic understanding of physics, chemistry, and other physical scientists is a big plus when debunking scientific research.

Go to school.

Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

[–] sapphire29874 17 years ago

Oooook. Then, as I said before, give it a shot yourself. Go read the book.

[–] ohmandylicious 17 years ago

I was referring to the journalist's inability to understand physical and scientific evidence when it slaps him in the face.

Having a basic understanding of physics, chemistry, and other physical scientists is a big plus when debunking scientific research.

Go to school.

Actually, I believe he interviewed many scientists when he was doing the research and based each chapter on the interviews. That's what he did in The Case for a Creator.

[–] Bulletcatcher 17 years ago

He had no first-hand experience with the subject matter, so as a journalist, his opinion is just that - an opinion.

Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

[–] ohmandylicious 17 years ago

He had no first-hand experience with the subject matter, so as a journalist, his opinion is just that - an opinion

It's an educated and informed explanation of the understanding that he came to, personally and professionally. He was convinced, and he was capable of communicating that in his 9 books.

[–] Bulletcatcher 17 years ago

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_doland/strobel.html

http://goosetheantithesis.blogspot.com/2007/04/darwin-vs-design-lee-st robel.html

http://home.ca.inter.net/~oblio/CTVExcerptsIntro.htm

http://goosetheantithesis.blogspot.com/2007/04/darwin-vs-design-lee-st robel.html

http://home.ca.inter.net/~oblio/CTVExcerptsIntro.htm

Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

[–] Diaboyos 16 years ago

I like #5.

[–] sapphire29874 17 years ago

Read anything by Ravi Zacharias.
(ex. "Why I'm not an Athiest")

But of course...we take the Bible as the authoratative Word of God.
I'm very sorry you don't....:/

[–] Bulletcatcher 17 years ago

Read anything by Carl Sagan, Arthur C. Clarke, and Kurt Vonnegut, especially Sagan and Clarke. These guys actually have credibility and credentials.

Yes, you take the "bible" as the "word" of "god." I'm so very sorry that you do.

You use the word "we," as if you are calling yourself part of a larger group. Which group, specifically? What "flavor" of "christian" are you? There are lots and lots of cliques out there, so you should be more specific, you know. Are you one of the "correct" ones? Or are you one of the groups that is "wrong"? It just gets so confusing.

Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

[–] sapphire29874 17 years ago

"These guys actually have credibility and credentials."

Excuse me, but Ravi Zacharias most certainly has as much credibility & credentials as any of those three. I think the difference between you and me is that I'll actually give them a try.

I meant Christians in general. Those who believe that Jesus, the Son of God, died on the cross as the perfect sacrifice for our sins.

I refuse to answer you question as to my "flavor" (I assure you, my more specific set of beliefs is much more than just a "flavor"). I have no control of the groups that form (I agree that it is unfortunate that there are so many), and I will not go along with your cocky attitude.

[–] Bulletcatcher 17 years ago

Excuse me, but Ravi Zacharias has:

"...received honorary Doctor of Divinity degrees from Houghton College, NY, and from Tyndale University College and Seminary (the renamed Ontario Bible College). He also received an honorary Doctor of Laws degree from Asbury College in Kentucky." - Wikipedia article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravi_Zacharias

That means nothing.

By "flavor," I mean are you "baptist," "mormon," "presbyterian," etc.? You can see how there are so many "shades" of "christian" belief, and that it is confusing as to which one is "right."

Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

[–] sapphire29874 17 years ago

http://www.rzim.org/ravi/

"At the invitation of Billy Graham he was a plenary speaker at the International Conference for Itinerant Evangelists in Amsterdam in 1983, 1986, and 2000. Mr. Zacharias has been a visiting scholar at Cambridge University, where he studied moralist philosophers and literature of the Romantic era. While at Cambridge he also authored his first book, A Shattered Visage: The Real Face of Atheism (Baker Book House, 1994, 2nd ed.), which in 2004 was updated and republished by Baker as The Real Face of Atheism. His second book, Can Man Live without God (Word Publishing, 1994), was awarded the Gold Medallion for best book in the category of doctrine and theology. Deliver Us from Evil (Word, 1996) followed with an accompanying video series. Cries of the Heart (Word, 1998) was his fourth book. His first children's book, The Merchant and the Thief (Chariot Victor), was released in 1999, followed by The Broken Promise (Chariot Victor, 2000). Jesus Among Other Gods (Word, 2000) was nominated for a Gold Medallion. The first in a series of great conversations, The Lotus and the Cross: Jesus Talks with Buddha was released by Multnomah in 2001, and the second, Sense and : Jesus Talks with Oscar Wilde, in 2002. Mr. Zacharias' very personal response to the September 11th tragedy is Light in the Shadow of Jihad (Multnomah, 2002). Recapture the Wonder was released by Integrity Publishers in 2003 and I, Isaac Take Thee, Rebekah, a book on marriage, in February 2004 by the W Publishing Group. His latest work is Walking From East to West: God in the Shadows (with R.S.B. Sawyer) published by Zondervan (2006). Several of these books have been translated into many other languages including Russian, Arabic, Korean, and Thai.

Mr. Zacharias is listed as a distinguished lecturer with the Staley Foundation and has appeared on CNN and other international broadcasts. His weekly radio program, "Let My People Think," is broadcast over 1500 stations worldwide, and his weekday program, “Just Thinking,” began airing in November 2004. He is president of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, with additional offices in Canada, India, Singapore, the United Kingdom, and the United Arab Emirates. Mr. Zacharias and his wife, Margie, have three grown children."

I think that counts for something. Really, he is one of the best Christian apologists ever.

What do your authors bring to the table?

I knew perfectly well what you meant by "flavor", so again:

"I refuse to answer your question as to my "flavor" [denomination] (I assure you, my more specific set of beliefs is much more than just a "flavor"). I have no control of the groups that form (I agree that it is unfortunate that there are so many), and I will not go along with your y attitude."

If you're going to reply, please at least read what I type.

[–] Bulletcatcher 17 years ago

What do your authors bring to the table?

What do Carl Sagan and Arthur C. Clarke bring to the table?

If you have to ask, you are unworthy of the answer.

(Hint: they're both far more than just authors)

[edit follows]

You did a cut-and-paste from Mr. Zacharias' own website. That makes you an advertiser. His "credentials" are worthless when dealing with scientific issues.

Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

[–] sirgeoffgassy 16 years ago

You know you are and atheist/ new ager when.....
10) You feel your neighbors are pushing religion on you when they put up a nativity in their yard for Christmas.
9) You get offended when a sales clerk says "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays", so you demand to see the manager to tell him/her you will no longer shop at this store for offending you and forcing religion on you.
8)You ridicule Christians for using the Bible as a basis of faith, yet have no problem having a library written by scientists who sometimes counterdict each other as a basis to prove your belief in no God.
7) You blame all wars on religion, yet in human written history the athiest USSR has killed the most people (including during WWII.)
6)You can't stand it when Christians try to "cop-out" of atrocities done in Crusades, or to native Americans, etc...by saying people who did it wern't "real" Christians, but have no problem saying the USSR was "not" athiest despite being an athiestic state was one of teir tenents.
5)You have no problems labeling all Christians one way, yet despise racists who label all minorities one way.
4) You love to point out hypocrisy in Christians, yet ignore hypocrisy by rock-stars, movie/t.v. stars, new age gurus, politicians, and scientists.
3)You think it's ironically funny when Christians get killed or die of disease because "their God" failed them, yet see no irony in all the rock/movie/t.v. stars who died living by their own rules and lifestyles that contribute to their overdoses, deaths, crimes, etc.....
2)You waste time on internet sites ponificating against a God/Savior you don't even believe in, but at least it makes you feel smart and superior to other people.
and the number one reason you know you're an athiest.......
1)You get all angry and bent out of shape when someone dare posts a rebuttal to your post!!

[–] Bulletcatcher 16 years ago

8)You ridicule Christians for using the Bible as a basis of faith, yet have no problem having a library written by scientists who sometimes counterdict each other as a basis to prove your belief in no God.

Obviously you do not understand science in any way, shape, or form. Science is awesome because you can present an idea (backed up with evidence) which can either be supported or refuted by other scientists. If something contradicts your findings, it is up to all parties to defend their positions through rigorous testing, evaluation of evidence, and math.

On the other hand, religion does not... evolve. It is static. Any changes are due to the "faithful" trying to jump on the bandwagon of scientific progress (i.e. "intelligent design") in order to ride its coattails.

3)You think it's ironically funny when Christians get killed or die of disease because "their God" failed them, yet see no irony in all the rock/movie/t.v. stars who died living by their own rules and lifestyles that contribute to their overdoses, deaths, crimes, etc.....

Quite the contrary. In these cases, it's all "free will." I laugh at/have no sympathy for rock stars who die of drug overdoses. They're just people, and the masses think they're something else, which makes the rock stars think they're more than just people.

As a "christian," you sure exhibit a lot of traits unbecoming of your so-called code of ethics, as laid out in your "bible" (whichever version you pretend to follow).

If you set yourself up on a pedestal, be prepared to be a target for the trash you throw down on others.

Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.