Do you get the feeling that fundamentalist literal Christians here are frustrated and desperate answering Q ?

Question

do you get the sense that those whole believe in LITERAL translations of the Bible (the born again fundamentalist types) are overwhelmed by questions here which expose huge logic holes in their viewpoint of the world, as they try to scramble to answer the onslaught on their myopic viewpoints and opinions? Do you detect a sense that they can't deal logically with all this, so they just resort to quoting scripture when lost for an answer that makes any sense?

by the way, before I get called athiest, wacko etc by my Christian bretheren, I am a Christian, I am just not a literal fundamentalist

Answer 1

Yes, and some of them can't formulate a legit question to save their lives. Good thing they're relying on god to save them then, isn't it?

Answer 2

If you think about it, a lot of these people go to churches and live in environments where they NEVER question any of this stuff. They've just grown up their entire lives thinking that Noah really put all the animals on an ark or that Jesus really did such-and-such amazing thing 2,000 years ago. They're not used to hearing an analysis of those stories told by someone other than a parent or religious figure in their church. So it's a big shock when they come on here and read opinions from people who DON'T think that God exists and DON'T think the Bible is accurate. From the tone of some of these posts on here, you really get the idea that they just can't believe discussions like these go on. Obviously that's a generalization, but it seems to be true in a bunch of cases.

Answer 3

I LOVE your question! It shows insight and education (i'm trained in the MANY scientific methods and the evolution of those methods in becoming a Ph.D). I am not threatened by the theory of evolution. Why? The method. The method is only inductive or abductive in nature. There is NO WAY to recreate the changes and mass variables of life/evolution on this planet along the timeline to prove it is correct (experimentation). Observe a phenomenon, hypothesize to the outcome. Instead, we have observed a phenomenon, and hypothesized as to the cause. It's important to know however, despite a successful demonstration of a phenomenon, the conclusion can still be wrong. For example, early attempts at hot-air balloons used smoke, smoking rags and wet straw to lift the balloon because it was believed that smoke caused the baloon to rise. The phenomenon worked, the observation was correct that the ballons did rise with smoke coming up into them, but the cause was incorrect....it was heat, hot air, the concept of heat rising, that caused the balloons to lift. Experimentation "proved" an incorrect observation. Evolution does happen within species, we see it, but as to the origin of life, that has yet to be proven. Darwins theory of evolution was the origin of SPECIES not the origin of LIFE. Darwins theory only works if there was ALREADY life. It is a theory with too many variables, holes and unexplaineds in it to satisfactorily hold up under intense scrutiny of those familiar with scientific method and who don't have an agenda. (Scientists can be biased as well.....and just because there are scientists, they do not have to agree.....and there are scientists on every side of every issue, and science is as political and divided as religion). It may be true that evolution is the origin of life, but the theory has not satisfactorily demonstrated that this is possible to me, randomness and chance aren't a very sound theory to me, and until then, I am a creationist. *Edit* The topic is too huge for you to get a complete answer here on Y!A - but for now, this is my answer, and like all scientists who stand on an issue, if you want a snapshot summary, this is it, and it would suffice in the academic arena to defend my answer and stance in an informal setting and not simply be counted as a religious view. The beginning of my answer covers EVERY THEORY in general if you read it. Abductive/inductive method.

Answer 4

I have been called as fundamental as they get, by some people on here. I rarely resort to quoting scripture, because you will refuse to recognize it as truth, and I do not just throw insults at people. I can and do deal with things logically, you just fail to see the logic. I hold degrees from three different colleges, and come from a background that is very logic oriented.

Answer 5

This might sound condescending or insulting - I feel a bit sorry for people who insist that the Bible is literally true. I think they are missing the point.

Even though there is no arguing with some people I want to tell them what a high-school English teacher once told me, "Moby Dick isn't really about a whale."

Does anyone see what I mean?

Answer 6

I've always figured that. That's why I don't bother reading posts that are nothing but scripture.

"SMALL MINDS THAT are unconverted cant grasp spiritual things.."

Or if scripture doesn't fit, they just resort to petty insults and namecalling.

Answer 7

Some of then do answer questions. I will give them that. Its down to the individual.

Answer 8

Yes. When I get an "answer" from one, it almost always evades the core of the question, or gets the question wrong...

Answer 9

Yes. It's because it's extremely rare for a fundamentalist to actually be exposed to this kind of thing, so it's difficult.

Answer 10

why do you use that word ALL THE TIME?? im methodist and no im not desperate...just get bored sometimes...SMALL MINDS THAT are unconverted cant grasp spiritual things..