Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I suppose when you consider that which is not a sin as sin, just as you did, it would be hard to see anything other than negativity regarding marriage equality.
Meanwhile, a church that sincerely acknowledges that Love is Love and that marriage between gay partners is Just Marriage, is thriving as a result.
I have got to consider that same sex -rulings in themselves are not behind the apparent decline in some religious attendance. A general and increasing realization of the inadequate reasons for religious belief are behind it.
The same -sex thing has not done religion any favours, whether they opposed it or got on the bandwagon. Religion, either way, it is the secular humanists and critics of the tenets and moral codes of religion who were the movers of recognition of same -sex rights and is just one of the many knocks that religion has had to its claims to the best and most reliable worldview and mindset.
I look to see the process continuing and faster than anyone guesses. Fifty years before irreligion outvotes religion so much that politicians have to rethink their strategy, somebody mentioned? It may be nearer five.
What you've outlined here cuts especially against the grain of millennials and subsequent generations. So while it has the impact you're alluding to alienating current SBC members, these changes if not reversed predestine a religious institution to increasing irrelevance as time goes on.
Your suggesting that the SBC leadership interest in political influence is not sitting well with the millennialist flock who think that is pointless when Jesus will be coming to refribb the whole of creation any day now?
Incorrect, again. Posting self-ratifying definitions and self-ratifying explanations is not proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Don't blame me.
I do indeed blame you for attacking my use of a very appropriate characterization for something very much related to the core discussion of the thread, and then not letting any other discussion go on because of your antipathy for the characterization.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
I have got to consider that same sex -rulings in themselves are not behind the apparent decline in some religious attendance.
It surely is not one thing or another. Fundamentalist churches are going to be adversely affected significantly only by all of these things taken together.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
The same -sex thing has not done religion any favours, whether they opposed it or got on the bandwagon.
Who knows? It just finished. Only a fool writes the history book on the day the history takes place. The point isn't that this or that will cause religion to recover, but rather what we're probably seeing is one more detriment being brushed aside. Will it be enough? Who knows? It'll be a while before we can write the history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
I look to see the process continuing and faster than anyone guesses. Fifty years before irreligion outvotes religion so much that politicians have to rethink their strategy, somebody mentioned? It may be nearer five.
Let's stick with fifty, but I doubt fundamentalist atheism will prevail. Rather, I think religion will simply be put in its proper place, away from matters of governance or interaction in secular society.
Incorrect, again. Posting self-ratifying definitions and self-ratifying explanations is not proof.
If the definitions confirm the way I use the term, I must be correct, no? I know what you are getting at - translation -shopping for definitions that fit the way I use the term. But are there any dictionary definitions that fit yours?
Quote:
I do indeed blame you for attacking my use of a very appropriate characterization for something very much related to the core discussion of the thread, and then not letting any other discussion go on because of your antipathy for the characterization.
I know you do, but if you just agreed that the use of the term applied to atheism is nonsensical at best and pejorative at worst, we could let the matter drop.
Quote:
It surely is not one thing or another. Fundamentalist churches are going to be adversely affected significantly only by all of these things taken together.
Who knows? It just finished. Only a fool writes the history book on the day the history takes place. The point isn't that this or that will cause religion to recover, but rather what we're probably seeing is one more detriment being brushed aside. Will it be enough? Who knows? It'll be a while before we can write the history.
Let's stick with fifty, but I doubt fundamentalist atheism will prevail. Rather, I think religion will simply be put in its proper place, away from matters of governance or interaction in secular society.
I agree. There are surely a lot of factors involved. And we shall have to wait and see. Religion being put in its proper place will do fine.
If the definitions confirm the way I use the term, I must be correct, no? I know what you are getting at - translation -shopping for definitions that fit the way I use the term.
Precisely my point... Posting self-ratifying definitions and self-ratifying explanations is not proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
But are there any dictionary definitions that fit yours?
Yes. The one you posted, if read for meaning instead of read intending only to see what you want to see, supports my use of the word.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
I know you do, but if you just agreed that the use of the term applied to atheism is nonsensical at best and pejorative at worst, we could let the matter drop.
In other words, the only way you'll let the discussion continue unimpeded by your badgering is if I set aside my perspective and goose step in line with your opinions and attitudes. No thanks. How about you post your comments, and let other people post their own comments?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
I agree. There are surely a lot of factors involved. And we shall have to wait and see. Religion being put in its proper place will do fine.
Precisely my point... Posting self-ratifying definitions and self-ratifying explanations is not proof.
Yes. The one you posted, if read for meaning instead of read intending only to see what you want to see, supports my use of the word.
In other words, the only way you'll let the discussion continue unimpeded by your badgering is if I set aside my perspective and goose step in line with your opinions and attitudes. No thanks. How about you post your comments, and let other people post their own comments?
Why are you avoiding reference to dictionary definitions (1) and harping on personal usages of 'Fundamentalism/ist? You must know that you are in the wrong here and are trying to ignore the evidence that you are.
Quote:
I'm glad we can agree on something.
So am I.
(1)
Definition of FUNDAMENTALISM
1
a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching
b : the beliefs of this movement
c : adherence to such beliefs
2
: a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles <Islamic fundamentalism> <political fundamentalism> (Merriam -webster)
fun·da·men·tal·ism (fŭn′də-mĕn′tl-ĭz′əm)
n.
1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
2.
a. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 1800s and early 1900s in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
b. Adherence to the theology of this movement.
fun′da·men′tal·ist adj. & n.
fun′da·men′tal·ist′ic adj. (Oxford English dictionary)
fundamentalism (ˌfʌndəˈmɛntəˌlɪzəm)
n
1. (Ecclesiastical Terms) Christianity (esp among certain Protestant sects) the belief that every word of the Bible is divinely inspired and therefore true
2. (Islam) Islam a movement favouring strict observance of the teachings of the Koran and Islamic law
3. strict adherence to the fundamental principles of any set of beliefs
ˌfundaˈmentalist n, adj ˌfundaˌmentalˈistic adj
fun•da•men•tal•ism (ˌfʌn dəˈmɛn tlˌɪz əm) (Collins English dictionary)
This has nothing to do with atheism which has no basic principles to be literal about and doesn't even endorse the bad usage of 'extreme. vociferous, strident' that is the only way that 'Fundamentalist' can be applied to atheism.
Now, stop trying to evade the issue, admit that you are wrong, learn something and let's get on with more useful matters.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 07-28-2015 at 06:03 AM..
Why are you avoiding reference to dictionary definitions
Quite the opposite. I'm saying that you're cherry-picking portions of the definitions and thereby ignoring the actual meaning of the definition. However, I respect your right to do so as long as you don't presume that others will follow you down that path.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
You must know that you are in the wrong here
You must know that you are committing the Appeal to Trust logical fallacy here. /sarc It's time to start respecting perspectives other than your own, and again, I'm saying that to both fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist atheists. I'm not going anywhere and you're not going to be able to browbeat legitimate perspectives that you don't like away with such rhetoric.
It's time to start respecting perspectives other than your own.
No it is not. I acknowledge perspectives other than my own, and I respect the right of others to have those perspectives, and the right of others to exist independent of their beliefs and whether or not I share them. But I do NOT afford respect to perspectives or beliefs, that have not earned my respect.
Believing something without a requirement of evidence to substantiate that belief is a failed epistemology that does not and inherently cannot lead towards what is actually true. I disrespect it on that basis and assert that it is a harm to society on that basis. I decline to afford my belief to it on that basis. This does not make me a fundamentalist, no matter how much you stretch the meaning of the word. Quite the opposite.
What you are insisting on is unearned deference and respect for any and all beliefs, or at least you are making a special pleading for beliefs that are "spiritual" or "religious" in nature. I do not grant that. This does not at all mean that I don't have compassion for people caught up in such thought patterns, particularly in that I once was myself, or that I can't get along with them just fine in Real Life. All it means is that if they want to sell their beliefs to me, they have to substantiate them. Nothing more nor less.
Until you change your attitude, I will regretfully no longer be able to look at a reply you make to Jeff as anything other than hypocritical.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
