soul of fundamentalism

Very interesting and I also think pertinent to the question you asked Holmes. As an example, let me quote two definitions of Truth from different philosophers. Those are very different ways of looking at an ideal. I think that might also be part of the differences in how various folk read the stories in the Bible or between Fundamentalists or literalists and those who see the Bible as containing a very important message but not literally true.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yeah, That theologian told me that "Fundamentalism was created in the 1920's." Maybe that's why I was unaware of what some ppl feel it is.

It was. There are some very specific features to Fundamentalism (frankly you don't fit most of them) and it would probably be a good thing for you to look over some of the basic sources. It first showed up in the US back in the 1890s and continued up until the 1920s. It kinda disappeared for a while but has resurfaced as a major branch of Evangelisim over the last 30 years or so.The primary source is a series of pamphlets that were published between 1910 and 1920 called "The Fundamentals". They would be a great place for you to begin your examination. You can find online copies (although not broken down into the four volumes as originally published) at this site.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Man! Between you, Prophex, and Jar, I am kept scrambling to think about what I believe and why! Thats what I like about this forum, however! Never a DULL moment. It had been awhile since i had heard of existentialism. I scrambled for a minute to look it up and get a handle on it. Basically, I went to this webpage:
Existential Primer: Definitions
I'll have more to say in a few, as soon as I read a bit and form an answer/opinion...but for now I just want to watch jar and you discuss it.

quote:

---

(frankly you don't fit most of them)

---

why not exactly? Who created fundamentalism in Islam? Fundamentalism has been around right? Just the dawn of christian fundamentalism was during that period.This message has been edited by chris porcelain, 03-08-2005 15:35 AM

Let's come back to that later and get some of the basics out of the way first. Islamic Fundamentalism is actually only slightly older than Christian Fundamentaism. Most of the early sects in Islam split over political issues rather than over theology (although they were always couched in theologic argument.). For example the split between Sunni and Shia came over the issue of succession and whether the secular head would be the arbiter or the theologian. It was the rise of Wahhabism (which takes its name from a theologian who lived in the late 1700's) in the late 20^th. Century that brought Islamic Fundamentalism to a position of notice. Wahhabis consider all of the other Islamic sects as heretical. The basic belief stems from an assertion that anything added since around 300 of the Muslim Era is false and so should be left out. In particular it tries to set the laws and practices to be those in use at that time. It would be comparable to a Christian or Jew trying to live under the laws as laid out in Leviticus. Yes and no. For example, it would have been reasonable practice at the time Leviticus was written to apply the punishments included. But by the time of Christ, many of those laws were being challenged and that continued throughout history. For example the issue of slavery was only settled during the 19^th. Century for most of the world but still exists even today.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well how would an Israelite question genesis, we have modern science, what did they use? Or did they just question the laws?
They believed it was God's words right?

---

-one word to describe me, spectacular yes

If they automatically believed in "gods word", Moses would not have needed to do the whole coming down from the mountain bit. Its quite clear in the old testament that the Israelites took some persuading to worship god.

Let's try to separate that into several points of view.First, let's look at Joe Israelite. Like many today, he has no science training or comprehension. Everything that happens is due to the influence of GOD or GODs. If someone gets sick, they offended GOD. If there is an earthquake, GOD is angry. Given their limited knowledge of how things work, that's about as good an explanation as anyone can give.For Joe, the tales in the Tanaka are most likely seen a literal. They are as believable as Washington chopping down the Cherry Tree or Tossing the Dollar.There's a second POV. We'll call him Saul and he's slightly better educated but still has none of the knowledge of how things work that we've so painfully gathered over the last 2000 years. He's worked with the originals of the Tanaka, seen the edits and redations that have gone on, may even have been involved in some of the debates on what parts meant or how they should be interpreted. He is part Priest, part Politician, part Godfather. He is familar with other cultures and probaly speaks more than one language.It's likely that his view of Scripture is slightly different. He will still believe that what happens is the Act of GOD, there is simply no other explanation available. But he will likely question some of the other tales. He will likely see stories such a the Flood or GOE as illustrative and informative, but not necessarily literal. For him, the lesson is more important than reality.Finally there is Jesus. He, being GOD, knows the truth. But there are limits on what his students could understand, it would be impossible for him to explain lightning without first teaching everyone basic electronics. He will know there was never a Flood, no GOE, that the Exodus was really a few families and that there was never a conquest of Canaan. But they are great teaching tools, just like the parable of the sower, the good master, the good Samaritan, the Two Houses or the Unjust Judge. It doesn't matter whether there was ever a widow who came before an unjust judge, it is a situation that his listeners could envision and understand. And so he used the tales, whether they were true or just made up.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You can read more about what religion meant, and how myths were treated by those in the ancient world by reading texts on that subject. And it is not just theorizing, but includes documentation from people during the times. Remember there were plenty of big writers before Jesus' time and we still have their works.This was a time before clocks and even before the concept of 0 (or let's say a decimal system). Exactness and literal truth was hard to come by and not always treated as necessary. It is with the increase in methodological naturalism (the scientific method) where we began to expect more truth out of statements about the world.I suggest you check out histories and writings about gods from back then, especially those philosophizing about gods and their natures.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

Indeed, they were so hesitant to accept what he said that Moses felt justified in commiting genocide to purge the Israelites of all men women and children who might disagree with him. That says quite a bit in and of itself.This message has been edited by holmes, 03-09-2005 12:40 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

Why wouldn't God want to say what he did, why wouldn't he speak against what was said of him, him killing all those babies. I mean that didn;t happen right?

Can you give me a few references?

The answer depends on what you're talking about. If you're talking about the Flood or Sodom or Egypt, then it's unlikely that the more educated folk took those as literal anyway. They knew they were folktales in the first place. It would be like saying "You know, the Pied Piper never REALLY took the children?" His audience fully understood that it was simply a morality tale.A second point is that such stories were quite common in all cultures. There were LOTsof stories about cities and people getting wiped out. In many cases they werereally embelishments of what really happened. In others, it was just plain humor, making fun of da furners. Others, like the Babel tale were a combination of 'Brer Rabbit' and Just So Stories.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

how do we know this? How do we know how the people felt? I mean it seems like the exact opposite is how ppl feel now.