Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 2:53 PM
29 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, JonF, PaulK, RAZD, ringo, Tangle, Theodoric (8 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,830 Year: 9,866/19,786 Month: 2,288/2,119 Week: 324/724 Day: 49/114 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456
...
9Next
Author Topic:   soul of fundamentalism
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12445
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 16 of 135 (189742)
03-03-2005 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by working out eating chips
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 working out eating chips, posted 03-03-2005 6:54 AM working out eating chips has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by working out eating chips, posted 03-03-2005 4:43 PM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
working out eating chips
Member (Idle past 1710 days)
Posts: 1623
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 17 of 135 (189841)
03-03-2005 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by berberry
03-03-2005 12:31 AM


Thus piece of literature is evidence on God. On the ways in which men find God. Scientific evidence is also evidence on God, it is the mechanics, how God works. I find the intimate relationships and struggles between man and God more telling of who God is.


-one word to describe me, spectacular yes
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by berberry, posted 03-03-2005 12:31 AM berberry has not yet responded

  
working out eating chips
Member (Idle past 1710 days)
Posts: 1623
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 18 of 135 (189847)
03-03-2005 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Thugpreacha
03-03-2005 7:14 AM


Re: Were the Pharisees fundamentalists?
So Christ was a fundamentalist.

Why do so many christians look down upon this faith?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Thugpreacha, posted 03-03-2005 7:14 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by jar, posted 03-03-2005 5:56 PM working out eating chips has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30997
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 19 of 135 (189869)
03-03-2005 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by working out eating chips
03-03-2005 4:43 PM


Re: Were the Pharisees fundamentalists?
So Christ was a fundamentalist.

I don't think so. In fact, I would say that he was about as far from being a Fundamentalist as it was possible to get. He broke many, many of the existing rules and violated many of the basic precepts of his religion.

Did he not show that it was okay to work on the sabbath?

That was a biggie.

Did he not accept people that were considered unclean into his inner circle, didn't he welcome many that would have been excluded?

Look at his attitude towards religion. Did he ever stop being a Jew? Did he reduce all of the myriad laws down to just two?

No, I don't think I'd describe him as a Fundamentalist, but rather a Revolutionary Socialist.

Why do so many christians look down upon this faith?

My problem with Fundamentalism as it's commonly practiced is that it is exclusionary.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by working out eating chips, posted 03-03-2005 4:43 PM working out eating chips has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by joshua221, posted 03-03-2005 9:42 PM jar has not yet responded
 Message 21 by working out eating chips, posted 03-03-2005 9:44 PM jar has responded

  
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 20 of 135 (189921)
03-03-2005 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by jar
03-03-2005 5:56 PM


Re: Were the Pharisees fundamentalists?
wrong bname

This message has been edited by prophex, 03-03-2005 21:43 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by jar, posted 03-03-2005 5:56 PM jar has not yet responded

  
working out eating chips
Member (Idle past 1710 days)
Posts: 1623
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 21 of 135 (189923)
03-03-2005 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by jar
03-03-2005 5:56 PM


Re: Were the Pharisees fundamentalists?
He held a literal interpretation of the Torah.
I am content in believing as Jesus believed for I am not an orthodox jew I am a fundamentalist christian
This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by jar, posted 03-03-2005 5:56 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by jar, posted 03-03-2005 10:02 PM working out eating chips has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30997
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 22 of 135 (189927)
03-03-2005 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by working out eating chips
03-03-2005 9:44 PM


Re: Were the Pharisees fundamentalists?
He held a literal interpretation of the Torah.

Did he? If he held a literal interpretation of the Torah or Tanakh, why did he break so many of the rules as laid out in Leviticus and Deuteronomy?

There are many, many indications that he did not accept the Tanakh literally and made major changes in how it was applied. Look at the tale of his reasoning with the Literalist of his day as related in Matthew 12 (and also in Mark 3, and two versions in Luke 6 & 14). These are the responses of a literalist at all.

Here is Matthew 12:1-13

1 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat.

2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.

3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;

4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?

5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?

6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.

7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.

8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

9 And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue:

10 And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him.

11 And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?

12 How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.

13 Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other.

Does that sound like a literalist?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by working out eating chips, posted 03-03-2005 9:44 PM working out eating chips has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by working out eating chips, posted 03-03-2005 10:43 PM jar has responded

  
working out eating chips
Member (Idle past 1710 days)
Posts: 1623
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 23 of 135 (189933)
03-03-2005 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by jar
03-03-2005 10:02 PM


Re: Were the Pharisees fundamentalists?
First of all Jesus is Lord so he can do anything on any day according to the scripture you posted.

8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

Then he provided scripture of David to show the pharisees the law, did he not believe that of David and what he did?

3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;

4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?

5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?

He used scripture to show that their intepretation was wrong.

Finally he exposed the truth to the pharisees that they had misinterpretede God's words, he did not break these rules he had followed them:

"Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days."

It was under the law to do this.

In all this he never said any scripture was untrue.

This message has been edited by chris porcelain, 03-03-2005 22:44 AM

This message has been edited by chris porcelain, 03-03-2005 22:47 AM


-one word to describe me, spectacular yes
This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by jar, posted 03-03-2005 10:02 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by jar, posted 03-03-2005 11:54 PM working out eating chips has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30997
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 24 of 135 (189941)
03-03-2005 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by working out eating chips
03-03-2005 10:43 PM


Re: Were the Pharisees fundamentalists?
But the point is that Samuel, Ruth and Kings (the main places David is recorded) are not part of the Torah, not part of the Laws. They are part of the NEVI'IM and KETHUVIM (Prophets & Writings). He was telling the Pharisees that you can't take the Torah literaly, you need to go beyond the Laws, to step outside the exclusionary world of literal interpretation and live up to the spirit of the issue.

Notice when he talks to the folk he deals with concrete, real world examples. He talks about eating, he talks about the priests doing their work on the sabbath, about pulling a sheep out of a ditch. This was he constant teaching method. He did not simply recite chapter and verse, but instead brought things into the world of day to day living.

He was NOT a literalist. He was constantly showing the people, mostly the literalists of the day, how they were not DOING right. He didn't interpret the word, he demonstrated how to live. He said "You can't take the word literally." He said, "Come on now. If the sheep falls in the ditch you don't wait a day to pull it out. Forget what's in the Laws, in the Torah, do what's right."


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by working out eating chips, posted 03-03-2005 10:43 PM working out eating chips has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Thugpreacha, posted 03-04-2005 2:17 AM jar has not yet responded
 Message 29 by working out eating chips, posted 03-05-2005 10:31 AM jar has responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12445
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


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 yet responded

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

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 135 (189964)
03-04-2005 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Thugpreacha
03-04-2005 2:17 AM


The word 'fundamentalist'
I'm not sure I see your point, Phatboy, but I'm not arguing with it ('specially since it's philosophical), however unless I'm very much mistaken the genesis of the words 'fundamentalist' and 'fundamentalism' as they relate to Christianity can be traced to The Fundamentals, a series of books released in the early 20th century. These books were written as a statement of basic Christian beliefs, never to be doubted or argued against. They were a reaction to the biblical higher criticism and the theory of evolution. A 'fundamentalist', as I use the term, is one who holds views that are in general accord with those espoused by this series of books. The fundamentalist world-view has changed very little if at all over the past century.

This is not to say that I don't allow myself some rhetorical latitude in using 'fundamentalist' or 'fundie'; I'm only stating my understanding of the definition.


Keep America Safe AND Free!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Thugpreacha, posted 03-04-2005 2:17 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3992 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 27 of 135 (190145)
03-05-2005 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by berberry
03-01-2005 12:07 PM


holmes insults me:

Don't you really get why? It's because you were doing nothing but insult the OP (who was not being mean) using a rather hypocritical stance given your own statements on other issues.

Just because no one paid much attention to your thread is no reason for you to try to drag this one away from it's OP.

I certainly can allude to the existence of other threads which show your hypocrisy in blasting the OP for denial of science in favor of a priori belief. That is not tring to reopen those threads here. They stand fine just as they are... a testament that you have something in common with the OP and why you ought to cut him some slack. You know, let he who is without sin cast the first stone and all.

I'm speaking specifically about those fundies who believe every word of the bible is true and who believe they have a duty to see to it that any group of people they don't like is denied civil rights and legal protections.

Malcolm X was not a Xian so to him the Bible would not have to be infallible. If you are restricting the limits of fundamentalism to strictly Xian fundamentalism, that is fine but then it sets the frame of debate.

In any case, even the limited def does not support what you just labelled them as supporting. Were abolitionists fundamentalists? I think we both know that answer. As far as civil rights go, was Billy Graham for civil rights or not? Did he fight for them or against them? Does he support them now, or is he against them? Is he not a fundamentalist?

they have a duty to see to it that any group of people they don't like is denied civil rights and legal protections.

You can find this among all sorts of people, regardless of a belief in the literal truth of the Bible. I think fundemantalists may include such types, but not all fundamentalists are such types.

This message has been edited by holmes, 03-05-2005 05:58 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)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by berberry, posted 03-01-2005 12:07 PM berberry has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Thugpreacha, posted 03-05-2005 6:37 AM Silent H has not yet responded

    
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12445
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


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 yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by working out eating chips, posted 03-05-2005 11:07 AM Thugpreacha has responded

  
working out eating chips
Member (Idle past 1710 days)
Posts: 1623
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 29 of 135 (190161)
03-05-2005 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by jar
03-03-2005 11:54 PM


Re: Were the Pharisees fundamentalists?
"The sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the sabbath"

I don't think Jesus was saying the Torah was invalid, he was saying that you have misinterpreted it and you can do good on the sabbath.

"Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days."

He used real world examples mostly because what he was preaching was new and was never voiced in the scripture. And if he is God, why would he want to use descriptions of man when he spoke?

He believed the stories of David and of Lot, of Noah. Lot and Noah were told of in the Torah. He used them as if they happened, as if he was there, as if he read and understood these people.

He was showing the literalists of the day how they were corrupt and dishonest, not following God. How they were misinterpreting the scripture they had from righteous men that had a grasp of a God, not that they shouldn't follow the scripture or believe in what was said in the scripture.


-one word to describe me, spectacular yes
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by jar, posted 03-03-2005 11:54 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by jar, posted 03-05-2005 10:39 AM working out eating chips has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30997
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 30 of 135 (190162)
03-05-2005 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by working out eating chips
03-05-2005 10:31 AM


Re: Were the Pharisees fundamentalists?
He believed the stories of David and of Lot, of Noah.

What makes you think he believed those stories?

He was showing the literalists of the day how they were corrupt and dishonest, not following God. How they were misinterpreting the scripture they had from righteous men that had a grasp of a God, not that they shouldn't follow the scripture or believe in what was said in the scripture.

This is an important point, but let's resolve the first question and then come back to it.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by working out eating chips, posted 03-05-2005 10:31 AM working out eating chips has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by working out eating chips, posted 03-05-2005 11:08 AM jar has responded

  
Prev1
2
3456
...
9Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019