Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   soul of fundamentalism
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 3 of 135 (189378)
03-01-2005 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Trump won
02-28-2005 11:33 PM


Were the Pharisees fundamentalists?
porcelain writes:
I'd like to hear from you all, hear why, if you do, feel fundamentalism is fundamentally evil/wrong?
The very term "fundamentalist" has been synonomous with negative connotations. In Orthodox Judaism, for example, no work of any kind is permitted on the Sabbath. What of the Pharisees, however?
Remember Jesus dialogue with them?
NIV writes:
Matt 12:9-12-going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, they asked him, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?" He said to them, "If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."
It was fundamentally wrong to heal on the Sabbath yet according to Christ Himself, it was practically correct.
This is the crux of my answer...Fundamentals of belief are only good if they include real life situations and decisions made from the heart rather than from a list of rules.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Trump won, posted 02-28-2005 11:33 PM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Trump won, posted 03-02-2005 10:37 PM Phat has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 5 of 135 (189396)
03-01-2005 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by berberry
03-01-2005 2:22 AM


berberry writes:
Fundies have a history of fighting legal protections for vulnerable people.
True and ironic. A fundamentalist by definition adheres strictly to the word of their faith. Jesus declared, in effect, that His kingdom was NOT of this world. He never taught His disciples how to protest Roman oppression. Caesar could have his government....the kingdom of love was within the believer. Thus, technically, a fundamentalist should stay out of politics, IMHO.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by berberry, posted 03-01-2005 2:22 AM berberry has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by nator, posted 03-05-2005 6:05 PM Phat has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 14 of 135 (189736)
03-03-2005 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Trump won
03-02-2005 10:37 PM


Re: Were the Pharisees fundamentalists?
Porcelain writes:
I think the point is to look at fundamentalism from the intentions, the views, the beliefs, to take the good in with the bad. I believe that fundamentalism isn't evil, I believe it's the people that have misrepresented it, called themselves by it and truly echoed a perception of ignorance and hate to many, many people.
OK, Chris...lets look at four definitions:
fundamentalism \-'i-zm\ n, 1 often cap : a Protestant religious movement emphasizing the literal infallibility of the Bible 2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict adherence to a set of basic principles fundamentalist \-ist\ adj or n
pharisee \"far--'s\ n 1 cap : a member of an ancient Jewish sect noted for strict observance of rites and ceremonies of the traditional law 2 : a self-righteous or hypocritical person pharisaic \'far--"s-ik\ adj
zealot \"ze-lt\ n : a zealous person; esp : a fanatical partisan syn enthusiast, bigot
legalism \"l-g-'li-zm\ n 1 : strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral code 2 : a legal term legalistic \'l-g-"lis-tik\ adj
I won't attempt to define what a fundamentalist is, but I would think that strict interpretation of the fundamentals is what the Pharisees were guilty of...they honestly thought they were the real deal until Jesus burst their bubble.
The reason that I bring this up is because I feel that you will be anything but a strict fundamentalist as you grow up. You may end up like Goldmund...the antithesis of a fundamentalist like Narcissus. (Or kinda like Jar!) You will, however, find that the love of Christ is real and is not based on a set of rules but on a heart that is committed. God truly loves us despite ourselves rather than because of our good intentions.
Three words to describe you: Spectacular, yes..inquisitive, yes...controversial?..hmmm maybe!
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 03-03-2005 00:56 AM
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 03-03-2005 00:59 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Trump won, posted 03-02-2005 10:37 PM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Trump won, posted 03-03-2005 6:54 AM Phat has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 16 of 135 (189742)
03-03-2005 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Trump won
03-03-2005 6:54 AM


Re: Were the Pharisees fundamentalists?
Porcelain writes:
The Pharisees were guilty of being ignorant and corrupt. Not because they were strict followers of Judaism. Some were even politicians.
Many modern day U.S. evangelicals are guilty of being ignorant and corrupt. Not because they are strict fundamentalists in regards to their faith but because they do not act like a true Christian would act. Some strive to even be politicians, such as Pat Robertson. I am not judging them, Chris although many do.
No, how do you believe in a God with no faith?
I have faith in God. I know Jesus, although I could spend more time talking with Him and less time at EvC! I don't need to be a literal believer in the sense of a strict creationist such as Ken Ham in order to have faith.
Some things in life are a mystery, Chris and this does not dilute or compromise my faith. As an example, Jesus talks about a flood according to Luke.--Luke 17:27- People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.--- These words are attributed to Jesus. Many otherwise intelligent people have refuted the evidence and facts surrounding such a flood. Many others have tried to diss Luke and the authenticity of the Gospels. They say that I refuse to consider obvious logic. My response? Based on my worldview, obvious logic is anything but obvious. They refuse to consider that humanity may indeed be involved in a spiritual war. That we cannot prove God because we are internally wired so as to reject Him.
They would call me a fundamentalist. Am I? I do not believe in a word for word literal accuracy concerning the Bible. I DO believe that the thought concept behind the book is divinely inspired. Some parts of the book make no sense, but this does not mean that the book is not serving the purpose for which it was intended. I DO believe in the accuracy and identity of the character behind the book. Jesus Christ. He is alive! This much I DO know. My own internal common sense tells me that while science is to be respected, there is in fact a type of a spiritual war on the planet and within the collective consciousness of humanity.
Some would say that my type of thinking is dangerous. I do not want to be thought of this way, but this is how I honestly think and feel.
If you really want to stretch your faith and verify what it is that you believe, read the beliefs and opinions of those people who do NOT agree with you. Use common sense.
One time, an atheist came to the college campus I attended. He was there to debate the college Christian club. The Atheist was very intelligent and made a lot of sense. In the eyes of many, he won the argument. He did not impress me, however. Why? Not because I disagreed with his beliefs so much as because he was arrogant and smug in his intellectualism whereas the Christians were humble and kind even in defeat. I believe that it is possible to be technically correct yet ultimately wrong. Just like those Pharisees who did not believe in healing on the Sabbath. They were technically right yet ultimately wrong.
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 03-03-2005 05:39 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Trump won, posted 03-03-2005 6:54 AM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Trump won, posted 03-03-2005 4:43 PM Phat has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 25 of 135 (189956)
03-04-2005 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by jar
03-03-2005 11:54 PM


Jesus: A literal fullfillment.
The unique character of Jesus Christ is illuminating! He was not a word for word literalist yet He was the literal fullfillment of a law that was written on human hearts and conscience...The Word became flesh and dwelt among us...
Chris, you may see fundamentals as the key to knowing God.
What Jar is trying to clarify is that Jesus is fundamentally true and alive, yet is not bound by traditions of men or human fundamental interpretations. In other words, you are both right and I think are on the right path, as Christ walks with you.
Thus, a fundamentalist defined by human legalistic definition is not the same as a fundamental and living truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by jar, posted 03-03-2005 11:54 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by berberry, posted 03-04-2005 3:09 AM Phat has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 28 of 135 (190148)
03-05-2005 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Silent H
03-05-2005 5:57 AM


Steering back towards the Topic
Our topic, proposed by Chris Porcelain, in essence asks:
Porcelain writes:
I'd like to hear from you all, hear why, if you do, feel fundamentalism is fundamentally evil/wrong?
Holmes clarifies, despite his onrunning joust with berberry, by stating that
Holmes writes:
You can find this(prejudice) among all sorts of people, regardless of a belief in the literal truth of the Bible. I think fundamentalists may include such types, but not all fundamentalists are such types.
Chris seems to think that fundamentalism by definition is a noble adherence to literal Biblical teaching.
Jar and I attempted to point out that to be literally Christlike does not necessarily mean word for word literalism nor ideological group beliefs of a group of conservative Christians from the early 20th century.
Berberry seems irate that the Christian agenda is prejudiced toward progressive human rights.
Framing this issue as I believe Chris (O.P. author) wants it framed,
we need to collectively recognize the difference between a religious and political ideology labeled as fundamentalist( which most Bible Thumpers are classified as) and the essence of a pure and simple belief in the fundamentals of a Christian.
Let me open it up: Does a literal Christian equate to a fundamentalist (based on those fundamental books) Christian?
Further, is it required to believe in the Bible without wavering or is it possible to love Jesus and live as Jesus wants us to live WITHOUT getting wrapped up in word for word literalism?
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 03-05-2005 04:38 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Silent H, posted 03-05-2005 5:57 AM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Trump won, posted 03-05-2005 11:07 AM Phat has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 46 of 135 (190203)
03-05-2005 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Trump won
03-05-2005 11:07 AM


Three Ring Circus
Chris Porcelain writes:
If Jesus Christ respected these writings and spoke about them plainly then why can't you. What makes you think that you can question the writings of these men when Jesus Christ didn't?
I guess that I DO try and frame conversations according to an efficient method and that this "ringleader mentality" irritates some of you. Sorry, its a bad habit. My Mom does the same thing to me and I get irritated with her! Sorry,Chris.
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 03-05-2005 11:56 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Trump won, posted 03-05-2005 11:07 AM Trump won has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 48 of 135 (190205)
03-05-2005 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by jar
03-05-2005 1:13 PM


Re: Were the Pharisees fundamentalists?
Jar writes:
Is there anything that would make someone think he viewed the tales of Noah any differently then any of the other examples and techniques he used regularly?
So are you suggesting that Jesus Himself did not believe in a literal Noah and/or a literal Flood and a literal destruction of Sodom? (Hold up...I'm reading...)
Jar writes:
It doesn't matter whether the examples are real or fictional, it is the message that is important.
OK...I see your point. I am unsure where I stand in regards to word for word literalism as opposed to thought for thought literalism.
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 03-05-2005 11:18 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by jar, posted 03-05-2005 1:13 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by jar, posted 03-05-2005 1:27 PM Phat has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 50 of 135 (190207)
03-05-2005 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by jar
03-05-2005 1:27 PM


Re: Were the Pharisees fundamentalists?
A Christian who believes in Biblical Inerrency would say that Jesus knew that the O.T. was a series of literal events.
Remember, though, that there was no Bible in those days. There were scrolls of the Old Testament writings and of the prophets. How do we know what Jesus thought of word for word literalism?
NIV writes:
Matt 10:14-20= If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.
"Be on your guard against men; they will hand you over to the local councils and flog you in their synagogues. On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.
It seems to me, based on this scripture, that Jesus was not so concerned that the Disciples memorized the scrolls as He was that they knew the Father.
NIV writes:
Matt 11:27-30= "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
Notice how Jesus emphasizes knowing Him as opposed to knowing scripture(scrolls).
So guys, this IS intriguing. What do you think, Chris?
Am I on the same page with what you were talking about?
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 03-05-2005 12:03 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by jar, posted 03-05-2005 1:27 PM jar has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 51 of 135 (190208)
03-05-2005 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by jar
03-05-2005 1:27 PM


Literal truth and/or Parables
Jar writes:
I don't think Jesus assigned any significance more than story or fable to the Garden of Eden...
Although I DO believe that there was a literal Fall and a literal allowance of Original Sin and literal separation from God foreknown and correctable ONLY through acceptance of and trust in Jesus Christ. Surely He knew this.
Jar writes:
It doesn't matter whether the examples are real or fictional, it is the message that is important.
I think that a parable, by definition, is never fictional in the sense of being made up. Parables are real examples of human imperfection interacting with God.
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 03-05-2005 11:41 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by jar, posted 03-05-2005 1:27 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by jar, posted 03-05-2005 1:40 PM Phat has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 53 of 135 (190210)
03-05-2005 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by jar
03-05-2005 1:40 PM


Re: Literal truth and/or Parables
Well, we are talking about fundamentals, are we not? Plus I added to that last thread...
ChrisPorcelain writes:
There is a story within a story in scripture, and Christ knew that, and followers of Christ know that.
Yeah you are right. You are smart for your age...and I sometimes overintellectualize things...Jar knows!
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 03-05-2005 12:01 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by jar, posted 03-05-2005 1:40 PM jar has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 65 of 135 (190415)
03-07-2005 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Trump won
03-06-2005 5:35 PM


You've Got Mail!
Hey, Chris. I have read the discussion for the last few posts, and I thought that I would bring up a few points that I have been taught.
Remember that all of us are taught somewhat differently, and all of us have our belief based upon different criteria. I WILL say that there is a definite difference between those who believe and those who don't. There are some points about Bible teaching that I have been taught. They are:
C.L.Stam writes:
Bible synthesis is a systematic study of the progressive unfolding of God's revelation and of the development of His dealings with men, as well as of the unity of His purpose in those dealings...Slothful Christians often consider themselves quite spiritual merely because their emotions are easily aroused.
If I should step inside a modern United States Post Office all would doubtless seem very confusing to me. But it would be a mistake to suggest piling all the mail neatly in one corner and handing it out promiscuously to all corners as some would do with the Bible. The postal employees must rightly divide the mail so that each person receives what is addressed to him. What seems like confusion to the novice is really a simplification of the work to be done in getting each person's private mail to him.
While I am reading mail addressed personally to me, a friend may hand me, for my interest or information, mail addressed to him. His mail and mine may all prove informative and profitable, but I must still be careful not to confuse the two, expecting to receive things promised to him or carrying out instructions addressed to him.
Thus all the Bible is for us, but it is not all addressed to us or written about us.
Just a few things to think about.
Let me ask you this, Chris. Do you believe that the Earth is 6000 years old or that it is much older?
Do you believe in a literal spiritual war that exists in the realm that we live in?
I bring this all up because I want you to think about WHY you believe the way that you do.
I am not judging it as right or wrong, but I want you to ask yourself if you believe because you know in your heart that it is true, or do you believe because someone taught you and it sounds good?
Do you believe that indeed NONE are righteous and that it is totally by grace that any of us are going to make it?
If so, by what standard are we being judged?
More importantly, what standard, if any, can we use to judge each other?
Is this our job?
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 03-07-2005 01:41 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Trump won, posted 03-06-2005 5:35 PM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Trump won, posted 03-08-2005 1:21 PM Phat has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 67 of 135 (190469)
03-07-2005 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Silent H
03-07-2005 5:47 AM


Re: Were the Pharisees fundamentalists?
holmes writes:
That wouldn't even mean that Jesus was less if he was a teller of Fables, or was a fable himself (without question some of his followers did pad his resume with myths from other deities at the time).
Your religion may become more interesting an deep once you realize it doesn't all have to be literal truth.
My "religion" would not exist were its head found to be a compilation of human wisdom. By definition, Christianity is founded upon the influence of God rather than the musings of man.
Be they parables or literal truth, all stories are interactions with the perfect Spirit of God. This is not mere philosophy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Silent H, posted 03-07-2005 5:47 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Silent H, posted 03-07-2005 5:43 PM Phat has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 69 of 135 (190549)
03-07-2005 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Silent H
03-07-2005 5:43 PM


Re: Were the Pharisees fundamentalists?
holmes writes:
I think you meant to say, whether fable or literal, the source was from a God imparting wisdom, rather than humans alone engaging in sheer random speculation.
Yes, that sums up my view quite concisely! Thanks, holmes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Silent H, posted 03-07-2005 5:43 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Silent H, posted 03-08-2005 4:39 AM Phat has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 71 of 135 (190567)
03-08-2005 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Silent H
03-08-2005 4:39 AM


Knowledge: The source of it vs our perspective on it
Speaking of the source of impartation, it all must be taken in the context of the environment as well. I am happy when you agree with me, but also happy when you do not. I NEED your perspective to compare and contrast with my worldview. That is one reason why I never hang out on theological discussion boards.
There is an old Chinese proverb which says that if you want to know what water is, don't ask the fish. The reason is that the fish does not know what any other kind of existence offers because it is submerged in the monotony and single vision of a water-logged existence.
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 03-08-2005 03:06 AM

Truth is stranger than fiction because we have made fiction to suit ourselves.
-- G.K. Chesterson
It ain't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so.
-- Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Silent H, posted 03-08-2005 4:39 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Silent H, posted 03-08-2005 5:08 AM Phat has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024