Path: g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!kcnewsm02.prserv.net!prserv.net!news.critter.net!not-for-mail
From: Patrick Elliott <shadowfy...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.lifestyle.furry
Subject: Re: Dialogue about Jesus Christ
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 19:05:17 -0700
Organization: Critter Networking Services
Lines: 134
Message-ID: <MPG.1eed3f2e5d1506a29897c0@news.critter.net>
References: <1148904560.441531.106420@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <Xns97D268B35C71Aothrsidebmtscom@216.183.128.12> <1149020248.198867.122210@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <MPG.1ee6875a8695a979897b8@news.critter.net> <Xns97D4CAD646F10othrsidebmtscom@216.183.128.12> <MPG.1ee7f2e39882aace9897bb@news.critter.net> <Xns97D53282DDE2othrsidebmtscom@216.183.128.12> <MPG.1eeaaaf192d018439897be@news.critter.net> <Xns97D7D61FBE760othrsidebmtscom@216.183.128.12>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 147.228.rrlhctnt1001.lhc.redrivernet.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: urocyon.critter.net 1149472967 42589 66.185.228.147 (5 Jun 2006 02:02:47 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@critter.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 02:02:47 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/2.70.2067

In article <Xns97D7D61FBE760othrsidebmts...@216.183.128.12>,=20
othrs...@bmts.com.netspam says...
> Patrick Elliott <shadowfy...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:MPG.1eeaaaf192d018439897be@news.critter.net:=20
>=20
> > In article <Xns97D53282DDE2othrsidebmts...@216.183.128.12>,=20
> > othrs...@bmts.com.netspam says...
> >> Patrick Elliott <shadowfy...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:MPG.1ee7f2e39882aace9897bb@news.critter.net:=20
>=20
> >> Fundamentalism is, by definition, "a=20
> >> Protestant religious movement emphasizing the literal infallibility of
> >> the Scriptures."  =20
>=20
> > See. Dictionary definitions only work if the people describing
> > themselves as such **act** like the definition. The truth is, I have
> > yet to find *any* of them that don't reinterpret their Bibles to mean
> > *exactly* what they want, ignore the historical or even linguistic
> > history, in favor of their interpretation, etc.
>=20
> I have.  Some of them, if not many, really do put their money where their=
=20
> mouth is.  $30K twice over to live in harsh conditions for a few months i=
n=20
> order to help build community buildings in South Africa, in the specific=
=20
> case I'm thinking of.
>=20
And sadly, there tend to be way too many that place building such things=20
contingent upon conversions. Africa is the new heathen landscape to be=20
converted and the only people making bigger inroads over there than=20
Christian evangelicals are, unfortunately, Muslim extremists. Such help=20
should "never" be about conversion, it cheapens the achievement and just=20
proves that they wouldn't have done it without having some ulterior=20
motive.

> > The dictionary definition is **only** accurate if you change it to say,
> > "a Protestant religious movement emphasizing the literal infallibility
> > of the Scriptures, as described by their own interpretation of what
> > literal, infallible or even "is" means (to quote someone who is
> > ironically not a fundamentalist."
>=20
> In some - maybe most - cases that may be... arguably true.  It does,=20
> however, lend a kind of legitimacy to those actions when we accept them a=
s a=20
> valid definition of that group.  It's unfair to the ones who don't fall i=
nto=20
> your definition, and denies the hope for a different future.  And frankly=
, I=20
> remember a time when we - ALF and 'furry lifestylers' - were regarded by =
a=20
> certain organization in a similar manner.  It's not something most of us=
=20
> remember fondly.
>=20
Ok, fair enough. But lets say some huge movement in the furry community=20
started a movement to make people wear furry costumes. Well, you get what=
=20
I mean, forcing a view on others that is contrary to both the majority of=
=20
the furry community and especially those that are *not* furries. Then=20
lets say "we" just shrugged our shoulders, made occasional vague=20
protests, but 95% of us said *nothing* about what that group was doing.=20
Words are defined by how they are used, not by what people "want" them to=
=20
mean. Fundamentalist can be far more readilly described in the terms "I"=20
have given, than the terms the half way rational fundamentalists (if that=
=20
isn't an oxymoron) "want" it to mean.

Why? Because to far too many of them, anything that achieves the goal of=20
making this world (or just the US) more Christian surmounts the negative=20
consequences of allowing some other people to make grandiose ridiculous=20
and dangerous statements. Its not enough to tell someone that stands face=
=20
to face with you, "Well... Not all of us believe that.", you have to be=20
willing to stand up and say, "There is an entire subgroup among us that=20
**isn't** reasonable or possible even sane." There is no incentive for=20
them to out each other for their foolishness or self imposed ignorance,=20
unlike say scientists, who could be made famous by disproving each others=
=20
theories. In religion, defense of the foundation means you overlook,=20
ignore, or make excuses for "minor" mistakes. Only, minor could be=20
anything from, "I once saw him steal a french fry from someone else's=20
plate in a restaurant.", to, "He has never actuallt **said** that he=20
wants everyone that isn't religious to be killed, just that the world=20
wouldn't miss them if they all died."

No critical thought goes into the distinctions for too high a percentage,=
=20
and even the ones that *do* recognize the distinctions are more worried=20
that someone might remove the Ten Commandments from a court house than=20
the lunatic ramblings of some nut that has 10 million followers. What=20
have any of them done to suggest that my definition is less accurate than=
=20
the one they want me to use for them? And no, finding a half dozen that=20
actively appose the nuts does not count when there are 5,000 nuts and=20
close to 3 billion people who are more willing to listen to them talk=20
about wars on religion, than someone telling them that the politician and=
=20
priests babbling that are ignoring constitutional law, and making up=20
things they want us to believe the founders said.

An article I read recently on the subject quotes Thomas Jefferson - "it=20
does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God.=
=20
It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Jefferson was both naive=20
and short sighted. People act on those beliefs, not merely sit around=20
thinking about them in their heads. Get the right circumstances and even=20
the most supposedly pious person will find justification in their belief=20
for not just picking you pocket, after breaking your leg, and the only=20
real justification most are able to give is, "I didn't *techinically*=20
break your leg, just limit where you can walk. Nor did I *truely* pick=20
you pocket, I just encouraged you to be charitable." Gosh!! I feel so=20
much better....

But still, this conversation isn't likely to go much farther. I think we=20
can both agree that "soft" fundamentalism isn't worth much, since it=20
doesn't try to force people to their side, nor, sadly, does it speak out=20
any where near enough against those that do. Its like complaining that=20
the term Nerd doesn't *always* refer to members of the AV club who have=20
never had dates. Maybe not, but its what people "think" it means from=20
long observation that counts, not what it "should" mean. And what do you=20
see today, in "all" parts of the world, when the term "fundimentalist" is=
=20
used?

--=20
void main () {
  If Schr=F6dingers_cat is alive =20
    call functional_code()
  else
    call crash_windows();
}