Re: virus: science's mememic place (was: Sexuality)
Wed, 18 Sep 1996 00:17:54 -0500 (CDT)

On Tue, 17 Sep 1996, Patricia & John Crooks wrote:

> >A real difference in science vs religion is that you may take a
> >piece of science (say newtonian gravitation) and believe it, while
> >throwing out other pieces because they are not appealing to you
> >due to lack of evidence (or whatever) (say quantum mechanics).
> >
> >Christian fundamentalists insist on taking their holy book and
> >believing it lock, stock and barrel.
> This really isn't true, or even logical. If Christian fundamentalists truly
> did this there would be no such things as denomination, sects, cults,
> schisms and so on.

Forget "logical". It's blatantly FALSE, in my experience. My single
biggest problem when dealing with any variant of Christian fundamentalists
is that they do NOT "take their holy book and believe it lock, stock, and
barrel." I wouldn't have my inventory of 'how to interpret the Bible and
evoke instant emotional overload'. [ANGER, to be specific....]

Rather, they "take their culture and believe it lock, stock, and barrel."
Since a core assumption of their culture IS "the Book is inerrant", there
is some alignment--but there are glaring first-order contradictions, and
the result of exposing these contradictions from their Book is instant
emotional overload.

One might explain denominations, etc. by noting cultural splits.


/ Kenneth Boyd