"Moderate" versus "Fundamentalist"

[Yogi]

Check the "degree of disbeleif" needed to be classified as a moderatem and therefore not worthy of scorn.

Note, that when you select an option, you are implying that you also agree with everything "above" that option.

[Colonel Olrik]

Arghh.. To many similarly named options. And isn't it written "believe"?

I voted in the first one, although some of the others are a bit confusing to me

[Stormbringer]

Check the "degree of disbeleif" needed to be classified as a moderatem and therefore not worthy of scorn.

Basically, beleiving that the Bible is literal. And remembers that divinely inspired or not, it was written by man. And being willing to reason and think about what is in the bible.

[Yogi]

Does not beleive All of the Bible is literal
Means you don't beleive that the Bible is the literal word of God.

Does not beleive that the historical aspects of the Bible are literal
Means you don't beleive in aspects of Creationism, the Global Flood, Moses, etc.

Does not beleive in the moral codes of the Bible
Means you son't think something is right or wrong just because the Bible says.

Does not beleive in the heiarchy of dieties described in the Bible
Means you don't beleive in the existance of a God, Jesus his son, the various Angels and Devils etc.

Does not beleive in the Bible, only an afterlife
Means you only beleive in an afterlife.

Does not beleive in an afterlife, but only some sort of divine trancendance
Means only that you feel some sort of trancendent phemomena (such as when one is meditating) or Qi Gong which you think exists, but can't be measured by Science.

Beleiving in anything that cannot be identified by Science makes one fundamentalist
Means you're Mr. Spock.

[Yogi]

To people who are checking Option #1

That implies that people can still use the Bible as a moral guide, and still beleive that Jesus rose from the dead, and not be called Fundamentalists.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

Many Americans think the Bible is the ltieral word of God, probably because they haven't read much of it. I'm sure a moderate doesn't accept the Biblical atrocities.

[Coyote]

Well, I'd love to answer it, but I can't. My belief system skits across some of those questions. I clearly do not believe in the Pantheon of the New Testamant (ie, Jesus & the Holy Ghost, the Devil, etc). I believe only in God. But in order to check that option, I have to also agree that I don't believe in the historical events in the Bible, some of which do exist. I know that Jerusalem exists, I also believe that Moses and Jesus existed as historical people but whether or not they played their roles as described I cannot quantify.

I also feel that while the basic laws of the Bible (the Ten Commandments) are essentially true, but the majority of the document is wholly allegorical. I've also explained how my halakhic Jewish views correspond closely with cosmological observance and time-crunching, and so on.

So, oddly enough, your poll is kinda, subtly, an implication that all belief mirrors Christianity in some way-- an interesting insight!

No, this is not meant as some sort of rebuke.

[Alyeska]

IMO a moderate Christian is one who is willing to bend the stories in the Bible to fit science as we know it. This does include people who believe that Evolution existed, though guided. The Fundamentalists are the ones who look at the bible litterally and refuse to accept anything else.

You can have "rational" Fundamentalists who do not push their views on others and are willing to hear arguments and reasons why they might be wrong.

You can have "irrational" Moderates who refuse to accept anything different from what they state they believe no mater the evidence. These Moderates can also be very pushy on their beliefs.

I do not dislike Fundamentalism per say, I dislike the openly bigoted Fundamentalists who push their opinions on other people. At the same time I am not all that impressed with Moderates or Atheists who also push their opinions on others.

There is a difference between teaching science and pushing an agenda. Inteligent Design is not a science and belongs in a religon class. Evolutution is science but should be taught as all other science, it is theory supported by evidence, but not fact.

[data_link]

There is a difference between teaching science and pushing an agenda. Inteligent Design is not a science and belongs in a religon class. Evolutution is science but should be taught as all other science, it is theory supported by evidence, but not fact.

Evolution is both a fact AND a theory. Haven't you read wong's creationism page yet?

[Alyeska]

There is a difference between teaching science and pushing an agenda. Inteligent Design is not a science and belongs in a religon class. Evolutution is science but should be taught as all other science, it is theory supported by evidence, but not fact.

Evolution is both a fact AND a theory. Haven't you read wong's creationism page yet?

There is evidence that supports Evolution being true. Just like there is evidence that supports Plate Tectonics to be true. We have no other theories that fit the facts. Thus they seem the most logical. However it is arogant to claim they are absolute fact.

It seems that science classes need to explain how theory and fact works in science so that idiot creationists don't not pick the titles.

[The Dark]

I personally feel a fundie is really only someone who takes everything literally. I believe some of the history in the Bible is true, but not all of it. Given that some OT books were written a few hundred years after the events they purport to portray, it's more than understandable that they not have the details right. The general moral code of the Bible is one of the most humane (the arguable "evil God" comments notwithstanding), once the OT laws are understood within context (although some are bad laws, and show that parts of the Bible were written by the prophets/rulers).

Religion and science are not always at odds with each other.Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler were all Christians, and the church did nothing against Galileo until professors argued that it violated the rational worldview they had obtained from the Greek scientific method (which was not a true science), and also parts of the Bible, which got the church involved.

There is some scientifically accurate data in the Bible, such as Numbers 19:17, which states that after touching a dead body, a person must wash in water passed through ash. While not perfect, this does tend to help kill bacteria and germs, lessening the likelihood of infecting a person with whatever killed the person they touched. 2 Samuel 22:16 and Jonah 2:6 desrcibe the ocean floor as containing "channels" and "recesses," as well as mountains. This may not seem incredible, but the cultures surrounding them all believed the ocean floor to be a curved bowl of sand, continuing the continental shelf's characteristics the entire way. Job 38:16 mentions springs feeding the ocean, while other cultures believed the oceans were filled by rain and rivers. Moses began a cycle of crop rotations among the Hebrews, something not accepted by the cultures around them. I'm not saying the Bible is entirely scientifically accurate (some of what's in it is completely wrong), but it's not completely inaccurate either. It reflects the differences between scientific knowledge today and 2500-3500 years ago.

I will admit I do believe in creation, though I believe evolution is correct in that God created from what already existed. Simple chemical bonds became more complex bonds became single-celled organisms became multi-celled organisms became plants and animals. (this is simplified and I'm pretty sure I missed a couple steps, I'm not a biologist). There is definite evidence to shows that living things change, so to continue to refute evolution is to be blind and dumb.

[data_link]

There is a difference between teaching science and pushing an agenda. Inteligent Design is not a science and belongs in a religon class. Evolutution is science but should be taught as all other science, it is theory supported by evidence, but not fact.

Evolution is both a fact AND a theory. Haven't you read wong's creationism page yet?

There is evidence that supports Evolution being true. Just like there is evidence that supports Plate Tectonics to be true. We have no other theories that fit the facts. Thus they seem the most logical. However it is arogant to claim they are absolute fact.

It seems that science classes need to explain how theory and fact works in science so that idiot creationists don't not pick the titles.

Idiot. Evolution is a fact, because we have seen it happen. Evolution is also a theory, which explains the origin of species on Earth. If you need help understanding this, let me refer you to gravity. There is the fact of gravity, which is that we see things fall toward each other. There is also the theory of gravity, which explains that gravity is a result of space being curved by the presence of massive objects. Just as the theory of gravity explains the fact of gravity, the theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution. The theory of gravity also explains the origin of planetary systems, just as the theory of evolution also explains the origin of species, but the fact that theories exist to describe each phenomenon and can be extrapolated to explain the origin of the universe as it is now does not make the existence of these phenomena any less facts. Now read Wong's creationism page and stop acting like a fundie.

[Alyeska]

Evolution is both a fact AND a theory. Haven't you read wong's creationism page yet?

There is evidence that supports Evolution being true. Just like there is evidence that supports Plate Tectonics to be true. We have no other theories that fit the facts. Thus they seem the most logical. However it is arogant to claim they are absolute fact.

It seems that science classes need to explain how theory and fact works in science so that idiot creationists don't not pick the titles.

Idiot. Evolution is a fact, because we have seen it happen. Evolution is also a theory, which explains the origin of species on Earth. If you need help understanding this, let me refer you to gravity. There is the fact of gravity, which is that we see things fall toward each other. There is also the theory of gravity, which explains that gravity is a result of space being curved by the presence of massive objects. Just as the theory of gravity explains the fact of gravity, the theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution. The theory of gravity also explains the origin of planetary systems, just as the theory of evolution also explains the origin of species, but the fact that theories exist to describe each phenomenon and can be extrapolated to explain the origin of the universe as it is now does not make the existence of these phenomena any less facts. Now read Wong's creationism page and stop acting like a fundie.

Go fuck yourself Data-Link. You have got to be the dumbest fucking idiot I have ever seen. You haven't a clue what I was saying.

[data_link]

Go fuck yourself Data-Link. You have got to be the dumbest fucking idiot I have ever seen. You haven't a clue what I was saying.

I know exacty what you are saying. You are saying that evolution is only a theory, and therefore we don't know it to be absolutely correct, and we should waste our time and confuse kids by putting stupid disclaimers before every lecture on evolution saying "it's only a theory" where these students don't know the difference between the colloquial and scientific definitons of theory, thereby teaching them that science is a BELIEF like any other. YOU are the one who doesn't know the difference between fact and theory, YOU are the one who doesn't realize that evolution falls into both categories, YOU are the one who is being an idiot, and YOU can go fuck yourself. Have a nice day.

[Alyeska]

Go fuck yourself Data-Link. You have got to be the dumbest fucking idiot I have ever seen. You haven't a clue what I was saying.

I know exacty what you are saying. You are saying that evolution is only a theory, and therefore we don't know it to be absolutely correct, and we should waste our time and confuse kids by putting stupid disclaimers before every lecture on evolution saying "it's only a theory" where these students don't know the difference between the colloquial and scientific definitons of theory, thereby teaching them that science is a BELIEF like any other. YOU are the one who doesn't know the difference between fact and theory, YOU are the one who doesn't realize that evolution falls into both categories, YOU are the one who is being an idiot, and YOU can go fuck yourself. Have a nice day.

No, I advocate proper scientific education so that people understand just WTF a theory and a scientific law mean. The problem with the creationists is they haven't a fucking clue what they are talking about when they say that Evolution is or is not fact, when it isn't a law, etc... If you teach people the proper scientific terms in late grade school or early highschool then you can leave behind the "This is only a theory" bullshit that you get in highschool and college. People will already know this and not be confused by the terms because some idiot is manipulating the system.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

My mother is an excommunicated Catholic, and she is a very mild Christian.

Basically, she just believes that God exists. And she has a Deist point of view.