Yes, those, and all the others I cited.
And they look to be ridicule in response to their own interpretations of what is in the Bible.
Please see the examples I’ve cited of posters here on CAFs that limn the SAAFAF meme.
And if the responder was well versed in the Bible he might quote Isaiah, Luke, Matthew, Paul and Peter to refute the “learning too much was a sin”.
It’s unknown. Did the author of them live in a community of people that had that interpretation of the bible? I don’t know that they came to that interpretation on their own or if it was already present in their community.
After I found out about their position on learning I minimized my interaction with them and contained my curiosities. I didn’t care to see their response if they found out I was doing such sinful things as finishing a masters degree. From a brief conversation with an someone that left the congregation I can tell you that Genesis 2-3 was a factor in their position.
Either. Or. Both.
Genesis 2-3 was a factor in the dissenter’s position or in the church’s?
The church.
It’s relevant, unless you wish to paint with a wide brush those that have criticism of an interpretation irrespective of where that interpretation came from. People do sometimes encounter the interpretations of others and respond to them. That comes with living in a world where people exchange ideas with each other. I think you are already familiar with an expression of one interpretation of the story within the bible of the great flood. There are also some that have ridiculed what they have found within this expression. Note that someone can be a Christian and have ridicule for this interpretation.
Fundamentalists, then.
I don’t see how any thinking person can read those memes without coming up with an objective judgement: the author of this meme has a fundamentalist paradigm.
But if you did, I would know that you are a fundamentalist, too.
How did she manifest this criticism?
My source for the SAAFAF meme:
The existence of many people called Jesus is not under questioning. There were many men called Jesus during the times. It was a very popular name. Undoubtedly some might have been crucified. Unfortunately it was common and barbaric way of execution. The mythology concerning Jesus’ alleged actions are being questioned. There is no evidence for the “miracles” allegedly performed by any one of the multitudes of Jesus’s.
How do you explain the fact that His example and teaching have survived for over two thousand years, extend to the far corners of the earth, are accepted by one third of the world’s population who are still increasing in numbers and are the basis of modern civilisation with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and tprinciples of liberty, equality and fraternity? Sheer chance? Or are most people as gullible as you imply?The existence of many people called Jesus is not under questioning. There were many men called Jesus during the times. It was a very popular name. Undoubtedly some might have been crucified. Unfortunately it was common and barbaric way of execution. The mythology concerning Jesus’ alleged actions are being questioned. There is no evidence for the “miracles” allegedly performed by any one of the multitudes of Jesus’s.
What evidence do you have for walking on water? For feeding a crowd with a few fish? For resurrecting Lazarus? For the resurrection of Jesus? Beside the Bible, of course. As the saying goes: “Bring them on!”… Hmmm? Nothing? Why am I not surprised?
Where does this come from? As I posted earlier, if I’m in discussion with any given Christian, then I am responding to their particular beliefs and their understanding of scripture and their concept of God. Otherwise…well, we’d just be talking past each other.
What is atheism supported by? As Lear pointed out, nothing shall come of nothing…
The poll did not use the term fundamentalist. They simply askd if the respondant took the bible literally. The term has been used by everyone in this discussion as shorthand for those that do. And they are using it in a perjorative sense.
Interesting, you apply the label to both someone that holds the interpretation and someone that responds to another that holds the interpretation. That broader usage is separated from the view that the person may actually hold.ThinkingSapien:
But if you did, I would know that you are a fundamentalist, too.
That might be what you infer, but not my implication or position. Knowing that someone is a Christian does not itself inform me of their stance of knowledge acquisition. Any criticism of that view would only be a criticism of that view. A Christian could be equally critical of it.
Also, if someone told you that you are going to hell for being an atheist, you could correctly label that person as a fundamentalist.
Well they’re usually not reading the Bible. To have the status of a Fundamentalist you actually have to read and study at least. They’re just attacking Christian fundamentalists. If a person’s primary argument about anything is “the Bible says” whatever, then they’re open to that kind of attack. In the U.S., the term “Christian” means Protestant, in the minds of most people. Atheists encounter Protestants (many fundamentalists) on the web far more than Catholics. That’s why we see these characterizations of the Bible.
Yes, agreed. We can find just about anything on the internet, but I think it’s pretty rare.