4 ms·

The reason fundamentalists are so appealing is because they at least try to maintain some level of consistency. How does one know which parts of the bible to a

The reason fundamentalists are so appealing is because they at least try to maintain some level of consistency. How does one know which parts of the bible to accept or which parts are metaphor and which parts are literal or which version of the bible to believe? At least the most literal interpretation always tries to be consistent. What makes any interpretation better than scriptural literalism? Is it the fact that some happen to agree with current social trends? Seems like the source material is flawed and unnecessary in the first place.

randcraw 6y ago
I think fundamentalists care less about consistency than closure. They want to minimize mystery and unknowns by insisting that even some very implausible parts of the Bible are expressly and unquestionably true. Similarly, Catholicism seems also to be quite formal about Biblical interpretation, but willing to let the church decide which tenets should be explicit vs metaphor. In contrast to both, I understand that Orthodoxy is less concerned about closure and more willing to leave 'lesser' questions unanswered or remain ambiguous. Religious truth isn't decided only by scripture or church hermeneutics. Sometimes it's just what your community chooses to care about (or not).
- hajile 6y ago
  The whole implausible argument always struck me as lacking. You accept the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent god, but then say they couldn’t possibly do anything supernatural because that would go against the science they created.
billti 6y ago
Totally agree. I'm not religious at all, but at least being a "fundamentalist" seems intellectually honesty. If you believe your religious text is the true word of an all powerful God, surely it's infallible? What gives you the right to pick and choose which parts to take literally or not? Would an all powerful God who wants "true believers" to find salvation leave them for thousands of years muddling through with just an ambiguous and inconsistent book to live by?

randcraw 6y ago

I think fundamentalists care less about consistency than closure. They want to minimize mystery and unknowns by insisting that even some very implausible parts of the Bible are expressly and unquestionably true. Similarly, Catholicism seems also to be quite formal about Biblical interpretation, but willing to let the church decide which tenets should be explicit vs metaphor. In contrast to both, I understand that Orthodoxy is less concerned about closure and more willing to leave 'lesser' questions unanswered or remain ambiguous. Religious truth isn't decided only by scripture or church hermeneutics. Sometimes it's just what your community chooses to care about (or not).

hajile 6y ago
The whole implausible argument always struck me as lacking. You accept the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent god, but then say they couldn’t possibly do anything supernatural because that would go against the science they created.

billti 6y ago

Totally agree. I'm not religious at all, but at least being a "fundamentalist" seems intellectually honesty. If you believe your religious text is the true word of an all powerful God, surely it's infallible? What gives you the right to pick and choose which parts to take literally or not? Would an all powerful God who wants "true believers" to find salvation leave them for thousands of years muddling through with just an ambiguous and inconsistent book to live by?