Genesis is describing historical fact. This I accept thoroughly and wholeheartedly (as you knew.) I am a parent and school teacher. I believe in transmitting truth to the next generation.

Are you calling me a liar and child abuser? (Apparently you are, but I just want to give one more chance to clarify.) 

In think it might be time for me to be charitable, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Genesis is describing historical fact. This I accept thoroughly and wholeheartedly (as you knew.) I am a parent and school teacher. I believe in transmitting truth to the next generation. Are you calling me a liar and child abuser?<<

As a gesture from the deeply forgiving side of my nature, I would only accuse you of being deeply mistaken in your beliefs.

Primarily because thus far you have not confessed to teaching young-earth creationism as fact. Instead, you dissemble with generalizations, hoping that I might react by calling you a liar and a child abuser, simply so that you can react with righteous indignation.

And in doing so, once again, avoid the real questions..

You accept Genesis as "describing historical fact".

I understand that.

But do you, specifically, teach Genesis as fact to your pupils? Yes or no?

You believe in "transmitting truth to the next generation". But is that truth the fact that "this is what I believe", or do you teach it as "this is actually what trooly-rooly happened"?

If you do, in actual fact, stand up in front of a bunch of naive souls and instruct them to believe in young-earth creationism, then I fear that you are indeed leading them astray.

But frankly, I don't believe for one moment that you do. Kids these days are far less gullible than they were when you were their age.

Pericles,
So to be clear, when you say creationists are promulgating lies, you didn't really mean that, or what?

To say that I'm mistaken is one thing. To say that I'm lying (intentionally saying something false) is something of a completely different nature.

I'm often mistaken. Sometimes the person I'm speaking to is mistaken. It doesn't mean one of us is lying. I find it hard to understand why someone of your intelligence can't see what a difference that is, and why such slander or mistrust is so contrary to any type of useful discussion. I cannot speak meaningfully with someone who thinks I'm lying. I don't know why he'd want to talk with me if he did.

I don't expect people to always agree with me. Difference is part of the beauty of life. That's why we come here to OLO, to interact with people of other viewpoints. But It's rude to accuse the other person of lying simply because you see things differently.

I wasn't trying to generalise. I don't know how more clearly I can say it. Genesis describes factual history. It's part of the Biblical narrative. As a parent and teacher I constructively aim to impart such truth to the younger (or any) generation.

Your questions in your last post seem to have come from a spirit of genuine enquiry. However, to answer them requires discussion, which requires levels of common decency and respect. 

So far recently, you've called me 'liar', 'child abuser', motivated by fear 'like the Taliban', 'paranoid', 'perverse' and 'grumpy'. I think I have reason to be grumpy, and little reason to want to talk to you at all. You say you have a problem with name calling (?!?). Yes, I think you do. I know I'm very busy at work next week. But I'll hang around on this thread a little longer and see if you can clean your tongue. 

Meaningful conversation requires mutual respect and a belief that the other is speaking in good faith.

The terminology is clearly important here, Dan S de Merengue. As is context.

>>Pericles, So to be clear, when you say creationists are promulgating lies, you didn't really mean that, or what?<<

I am saying that creationists may well believe that what they are saying is the "truth". In much the same way that 9/11 conspiracy theorists are convinced that what they believe happened that day is the "truth". No amount of evidence to the contrary, or indeed contrary to their baseline (God's word for the creationist, CIA malfeasance in the case of the conspiracy theorist) will persuade them to examine their position objectively. Or, to be even more exact, what the vast majority of their peers believe to be "objectively".

So yes, we do have a problem if you instruct young minds to accept your version of the truth as, let's call it, a universal truth. If you are simply offering an alternative approach, justified by your personal belief that the Bible is some kind of accurate historical narrative, then "liar" is indeed inappropriate. You are simply stating what you understand to be true, which falls outside the ambit of "intentionally saying something that is false". Because in your own lights, it is not a falsehood.

But of course there's much more to it than that, is there not.

The original discussion (oh, so long ago) was to do with the force-feeding of Biblical-truth-based views to impressionable minds. While you may see this as perfectly normal behaviour, based on your personal conviction that it is true (i.e., not lying), it is equally reasonable that the majority of people, who do not in fact share that conviction, find it of concern.

As to the strong language involved, I believe that I covered that in some detail in the same post that you found offensive.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15642#272168

Instead of personalizing the objective observations, as you have, it might take us further if you address the issues, accepting that I am engaging in the discussion in good faith.

So to speak.

Pericles,
I appreciate you offering to discuss matters in good faith. I hope we can establish some base rules for discussion, in particular, that it's rude to accuse the other of lying simply when one sees a difference of opinion. And that name calling is not conducive to productive conversation. 

That, hopefully out of the way, we might have a chance to address issues more interesting. For me, the main issue was Burrowes poor attempt at defining what he calls "fundamentalism". I think the term, or at least the way he uses it, is too loose and woolly to be useful or meaningful. I think generally the term is too vague. Like 'peace' or 'freedom', what is he even talking about? For example, if I said 'Australia is at peace right now', that phrase could be interpreted a dozen different ways. Perhaps you have a more clear or tight definition of 'fundamentalism'. If so, fine. But the way the word is often used, I would not apply to myself or any Christians in circles in which I mix.

If the issue is to do with 'force feeding truth onto impressionable minds', then we're all guilty of that. We all want our kids educated. We send our kids to school and teach them at home, imparting truths we believe are enlightening and empowering.

And I take issue with some things in your last post. Twice you spoke of being guided by 'the majority'. Majority opinion isn't the basis for how I conduct my life. My primary school teacher used to say, 'If the majority of people said to put your hand in the fire would you do it?' Of course not, was the correct response.

And you used the words 'objectively' and 'objective' to apply to yourself, as if you're somehow seeing matters on some higher 'objective' plain than myself. Yet I don't see you or anyone else as being truly objective. We all have our leanings and biases.

If you see any real merit in Burrowes article, then good luck to you. I couldn't. 

The author, Robert Burrows, is clearly onto something.. Yes fundamentalists stick rigidly to a doctrine and are closed to any other view. The question that Robert attempts to give an answer to is “Why?”: Why do some people behave in this way? The reason he offers is simple: “Psychologically, a fundamentalist is a person with an intense fear of being 'wrong'; that is, an intense fear of being judged to hold the 'wrong' view or to engage in the 'wrong' behaviour.”

Foyle objects to the very notion of “secular fundamentalist”. “A secularist in a person who seeks evidence to support his or her philosophy and only forms a firm view when the evidence provides strong, almost overwhelming, support.”

Of course it doesn’t follow that a person claiming to be a secularist actually practices what they preach, just as is the case with those who claim to adhere to other ideologies and religions.

For example, last year we learned that the man who penned "The God Delusion” and has been so vociferous in his condemnation of Islam, HASN’T ACTUALLY READ THE QUR’AN! (see article here*)

Furthermore, according to fellow-atheist, Nathan Lean, post 9-11 “Conversations about the practical impossibility of God’s existence and the science-based irrationality of an afterlife slid seamlessly into xenophobia over Muslim immigration or the practice of veiling,” wrote Lean. “The New Atheists became the new Islamophobes, their invectives against Muslims resembling the rowdy, uneducated ramblings of backwoods racists rather than appraisals based on intellect, rationality and reason.”*

In other words, a very influential group of secularists spurned their own principles in the name of secular fundamentalism

*http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/atheists-richard-dawkins-christopher-hitchens-and-sam-harris-face-islamophobia-backlash-8570580.html