The impact of fundamentalism

[Cootie Brown]

CR. I will address one of the points you noted. Sin is defined as the breaking of a law, rule, or command found in the Bible. It also extends to rules,laws, traditions etc. that the church imposes on their members. Sin only exists within the religious realm. In the secular world what you call sin is the breaking of a law or ordinance established by local, state, & national legislatures.

Serious offenses are called felonies & the punishment is more severe for those, but no one will be burnt alive forever as Christians loving God promises to do.

[Cootie Brown]

CR, l'll respond to your question about hell. You pose Pascal's wager to me as your defense. That's not a defense that is just silly. Heaven & Hell are fictional places created as a way to control adherents. In order for religion to survive there has to be both rewards & punishments to induce people to adhere to the dogma & to control them.

These rewards & punishments have to be both desirable & terrifying in order to be effective, but they also must be somthing that cannot be proven to exist or not exist. What a brilliant plan. And then to top it off make it a sin unto death & eternal torture for not believing everything the church tells you. Absolutely brilliant.

And lastly there is absolutely zero chance that either God, heaven, or hell exist.

[flawed]

Ummmm y'all are gonna get in trou-ble, this is a support only thread.

[CbroX27]

CR, l'll respond to your question about hell. You pose Pascal's wager to me as your defense. That's not a defense that is just silly. Heaven & Hell are fictional places created as a way to control adherents. In order for religion to survive there has to be both rewards & punishments to induce people to adhere to the dogma & to control them.

These rewards & punishments have to be both desirable & terrifying in order to be effective, but they also must be somthing that cannot be proven to exist or not exist. What a brilliant plan. And then to top it off make it a sin unto death & eternal torture for not believing everything the church tells you. Absolutely brilliant.

And lastly there is absolutely zero chance that either God, heaven, or hell exist.

[quote="Cootie Brown"]CR I was a devout Christian for most of my adult life. I taught Bible classes for 30 years, served as a deacon numerous times and an Elder once in the c of c & once in an independent community church. While in the c of c I was trained as an evangelist. I conducted numerous bible studies. I don't believe I ever lead anyone to Christ, but I converted a lot of Baptist to the c of c. Oh yeah, and I did a little preaching on the side too.

Thank you for sharing. I have read many of your posts. It is obvious you are a well seasoned, brilliant man. I guess I don't understand your logic by the statement above. You are using years of experience teaching a lie about a person as the reason why you know that that person doesn't exist? If your version of what you taught as Christianity was a lie that you assert it to be, then that would mean you didn't hear the truth nor teach the truth but are using it now as evidence that you know the truth. It doesn't make a logically coherent argument. I am not questioning your devotion. But devotion to a lie that does not tell the true nature and person of Christ is not a very good argument for a defense in your worldview of Christ being not true. It shows there is some confusion possibly, or maybe some emotional hurt, but not a logical reason. To put it another way, what if I used your language with some paraphrase and ask if it sounds logical.

I was a devout "ELVIS FOLLOWER" for most of my adult life. I taught the "Elvis Bible" classes for 30 years, served as an "Elvis Deacon" numerous times and an "Elvis Elder" once in the "church of Elvis" and once in the "independent Elvis Church". While in the "church of Elvis" I was trained as an "Elvis Evangelist". I conducted numerous "Elvis Bible Studies". I don't believe I ever lead anyone to "Elvis", but I converted a lot of "the Hippie Elvis Church" to the "church of Elvis". Oh yeah, and I did a little preaching of "Elvis" on the side too. What are you going to tell me about "Elvis" that I don't already know...I mean I'm from Mississippi the home of Elvis "supposedly". What argument do you think that I haven't already heard (that Elvis existed)? I know Elvis didn't exist.

Confused? You should be. It makes you ask questions. Who is this Elvis you speak of? Are you talking about Tupelo, MS Elvis Presley? What did you teach about him and what did you believe? Did the church of Elvis teach a different Elvis that the independent church of Elvis? Why did you change? Did these teachings consist of teaching about Elvis's anger and rage and if the Elvis church believers have any unconfessed sin in their life they were going to go to hell away from Elvis where all day long you have to listen to nothing but Michael Bolton songs. That doesn't sound like the Elvis that I know, and you taught, and now you don't believe in?


At the risk of being arrogant, which I am, what do you think you're going to tell me that I don't already know?
Well Cootie, I struggle with pride myself...and that is the problem with being arrogant....I can't possibly teach someone who knows it all. It would be illogical for me to think I could do so.

What argument do you think you can make that I haven't already heard?
I don't know. It sounds to me like if you spent 30 years being taught and teaching a close minded lie, it is bound to leave the residue of confusion and arrogance. It seems even though you have separated from the coC's judgemental legalism, its far reaching effects are evident in you placing yourself in intellectual superiority over me while touting your many years of false teaching in a very small "Christian sect" as evidence as to why you are superior. There is definitely no denying either one of our coC backgrounds...touché?

You want to discuss (debate) from a faith/apologetics position, but that would be pointless.


Why is that pointless? I asked some simple questions that you dodged, then you spoke of your arrogance and then you judged. You are not being intellectually honest by being dismissive and it doesn't sound very intellectual.

An apologist job is to defend the faith.

I would say a Christian's job is to defend the faith, and apologetics is a strategy to use logic and reason to defend a certain worldview. You could be an "Atheist Apologist", just not a very good one. If a worldview is illogical and incoherent it must be rejected as being a valid worldview. If a worldview is logical and coherent it "MIGHT" be a valid worldview. I stated my worldview from the beginning and will answer any question that you have and I will not dodge it. All you have done is cherry pick what questions you want to answer like a coC legalist does the Scripture.

I compare them to defense attorney's. Apologist use words to defend their position not evidence because they don't have any evidence.

Yes Cootie, they are like defense attorney's....and what evidence is it that you have? Pot...kettle? Logic is part of evidence. If you were accused of a crime that you were innocent of, would you want a defense attorney that used a logical and coherent argument and language that could be observed and used as evidence that you did not commit the crime....or would you want a defense attorney that just got up and said "Cootie didn't do it, I started thread that talks about how Luke made up the story about Cootie as evidence," And then he went and sat down. I don't know about you, but I'm going with the guy that can string together words that are logically coherent to defend me. Yes a "Christian Apologist" uses words and sentences to defend a position. It is a part of the language arts in communicating ideas, and sometimes lies, but also in defending truths.

[color=#FFFF40]I left the faith when I saw the inconsistencies, contradictions, & outright absurdities in the Bible for myself.
[/color]I have no doubt that 30 years of coC teaching could possibly lead in that direction.

[color=#FFFF40]At that point I became a serious student of religious history.
[/color]That's awesome! What do you mean by serious student? Have you published any scholarly articles and research on any specific subject matter? Where can I find your work?

For more than a decade I've been studying & researching the origins & evolution of both the Bible & the Christian faith.
That's awesome as well! I have been too! The many years of coC teaching that left me hurt and confused lead me to intense study of the history of the church and religious history as well. I'm working towards my PhD on Philosophy/Theology....my Masters will be a Church History cognate...only 2 more semesters!!!!! Yeah for me!


History puts both the Bible & the Christian faith in a very different light & context. In a nutshell, it simply isn't true...none of it.
Not a great argument just because you said it and that argument is not logically coherent. The Bible is about the Christian faith...that would be the Christian Faith that sprang from Jewish backgrounds and initially began as a sect within Judaism out of the 1st century. If you are talking about the Christian faith as viewed from the context of the coC that began out of the Second Great Awakening til the present...then yes very different indeed. That is why many of the coC teachings are out of bounds, because they are being read and interpreted with western eyes and taken out of context.

Historians have yet to find any evidence of a historical Jesus, which leads to the obvious conclusion there never was such a person.
Nope, that's not true at all. There are historians that state that, but this historian doesn't. And I don't know what your definition or litmus test is regarding "historical" evidence. Whatever it is, to reach that conclusion "there never was such a person as obvious" is not logically coherent and must be rejected. There is much more evidence for a historical Jesus than say a historical Alexander the Great. Is your obvious conclusion that Alexander the Great did not exist?

While there is little secular sources or accounts that mention Jesus, they are there. Josephus, Pliny the Younger, The Talmud... and there are many extra-biblical sources as well that give veracity to the gospel accounts and the timeline within which they were written. The fact that there are few secular accounts from the first century would make since. Christianity began as very small sect within Judaism, and compared to the size of the Roman Empire there was little attention paid to what would seem to be a very small localized event in the beginning. But we know that changed. S

The only place Jesus can be found is in the gospel story.
Nope, not true...see above...or go to Google university....or Bart Ehrman perhaps, because he would disagree with you.

History provides evidence that dieing rising demigods are found in many cultures. In other words the gospel story isn't unique.
Ok, your first statement is true but your conclusion is not logical but the stories that you are speaking of are still much different. Just because there are stories of rising demigods, and many other similar Biblical stories that line up with even older texts than the Bible, that does not make the Bible not "possibly" true and that conclusion is not a logical one. Science doesn't work that way. Every historic civilization has the story of a flood account...now does that mean they are not true, or could that fact bring more veracity to it being a true event? Certainly it seems more logical and plausible that the event happened rather than that all the accounts are not true because they are the same.

No one knows who wrote any of the bibles stories. Bart Ehrman, a noted religious historian, notes the bible has been edited, redacted, & sections completely rewritten more times than there are even words in it. In other words, present day bibles are forgeries.
Bart Ehrman is brilliant and has done some wonderful historical work. Ehrman does not claim that no one knows who wrote any of the Bible stories. He claims that on some texts. I do not agree with some of his conclusions and many other historians disagree with him as well. Yes the Bible has been edited, redacted, and rewritten....that does not take away from it's veracity and in many ways it added to it. How so? As older texts were found they would have been more reliable, then added or corrected errors in spelling and syntax. But these additions that you speak of as "rewrites" make it sound as if someone just randomly wrote their own story and threw out the previous one. This is not true at all and it is not honest scholarship. No true textual critic would claim that who works in that field. Errors in copying the text, syntax errors etc are what were corrected and never took away from the communication of what the original author intended to communicate.


There is a thread I stared providing evidence that the book of Acts is pure fiction, but so is the entire bible for that matter. Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John didn't write one word of the gospels that are named for them.
A thread isn't evidence, nor is the statement "Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John didn't write one word" even though it is obvious you do believe that.

The emerging Catholic Church assigned those names to unnamed but popular manuscripts of the gospel story as a way of identifying them & to give the allusion of their authenticity. I could go on for hours but I think you've got my point by now.
This is not historically accurate and sounds more like Dan Brown historical scholarship of conjecture and misrepresentation, and not actual historical scholarship. I could go on for hours too, and I probably will....because the truth is important and deserves a thorough investigation.

I do not claim to have all the answers either.


Obviously after investigating Christianity & the Bible from a historical perspective my faith evaporated & it simply isn't possible to resurrect it again.
I am sorry for your experience. If you have been a devout Christian at one time and know something of the truth, and claim to have searched for historical evidence...what historical evidence would change your mind now? Or is your mind made up and your search over because you have all the answers?

Oh yeah, I have also studied the psychological reasons for why people are religious.

I actually wrote a research paper on this as well. One of the main sources I used was an atheist neurologist that wrote a book of their research on the Theory of the Mind. The science pointed for him to conclude that belief in a god was an actual trait that is possessed in all man kind but that it developed in the brain through evolutionary processes. I find that funny and very intriguing at the same time. I will look up that PhD's name when I get back in town...I can not remember it off hand but it was some really good work.

That is also a really interesting study too. I don't try to deconvert people, because that generally isn't possible, but I do try to educate them in the hope a few will stop taking the Bible literally & avoid becoming indoctrinated fundamentalists zombies like I once was.[/quote]

Yeah I don't know that it really makes since that one could be "deconverted". I have many, many atheist and agnostic friends whom I love dearly and they have never tried to deconvert...they just want to be right. Why would someone want to be right about that I do not know. Eternal bliss sounds better to me than eternal non-existence. When someone says that they take the Bible literally ask them "So when Jesus said I am the bread of life he meant that he was bread?" Then take a bite of your sandwich!

[Moogy]

Off topic. Please don't use yellow text. It is illegible on my iPad. Thanks.

[Cootie Brown]

CB the word you are searching for is indoctrination. I believed what I was teaching was true because I'd been indoctrinated. I never fact checked anything I was told. I simply accepted it was true, until the day came when I stopped accepting what I was told & started fact checking the Bible.And you know the result of that.

I can't read your yellow text either.

[CbroX27]

CR, l'll respond to your question about hell. You pose Pascal's wager to me as your defense. That's not a defense that is just silly.

I never used any language to communicate a defense of anything. I asked straight forward questions that you dodged. I think it's silly you think it is a defense. They are just questions brother Cootie.

[CbroX27]

CR. I will address one of the points you noted. Sin is defined as the breaking of a law, rule, or command found in the Bible. It also extends to rules,laws, traditions etc. that the church imposes on their members. Sin only exists within the religious realm. In the secular world what you call sin is the breaking of a law or ordinance established by local, state, & national legislatures.

Serious offenses are called felonies & the punishment is more severe for those, but no one will be burnt alive forever as Christians loving God promises to do.

I find I interesting how you think you know how I define things.

[CbroX27]

CB the word you are searching for is indoctrination. I believed what I was teaching was true because I'd been indoctrinated. I never fact checked anything I was told. I simply accepted it was true, until the day came when I stopped accepting what I was told & started fact checking the Bible.And you know the result of that.

I can't read your yellow text either.

Yeah, sorry about the yellow text...that was a disaster. So would you say indoctrination is not really conversion? Because I was indoctrinated, as a child but not converted. I converted later when I found the same logical inconsistencies you did. I just came to a different conclusion than you did.

[CbroX27]

CR. I will address one of the points you noted. Sin is defined as the breaking of a law, rule, or command found in the Bible. It also extends to rules,laws, traditions etc. that the church imposes on their members. Sin only exists within the religious realm. In the secular world what you call sin is the breaking of a law or ordinance established by local, state, & national legislatures.

Serious offenses are called felonies & the punishment is more severe for those, but no one will be burnt alive forever as Christians loving God promises to do.

No you haven't addressed the questions that I asked, you are bobbing and weaving like Ali.

So you believe in a moral law? So the government sets the bar on what is moral and what is not moral?