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

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

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

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

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

Well, mostly we know it from the stories themselves. For example Genesis begins with an impossibility, two entirely different versions of creation. The Flood myth was just a retelling of a tale most everyone would have been familiar with, and again, in Genesis there isn't one flood myth but two distinct and mutually exclusive tales. Others were idiomatic and racist jokes poking fun at furners, stories like the Tower of Babel. Fortunately, the Bible isn't the only writing from the period. There are lots of other documents that can give us some insight into the era. I'm sure there are quite a few folk that take the Bible Literally, but not as many as you might think. In addition, it's very much a modern phenomenon. Mostly it's the modern Evangelical, Fundamental movement and not the vast mainstream of Christianity. They seem far move prevalent because they are the biggest adopters of the Theological Infomercial. Networks like TBN are big commercial enterprises selling their product just like a slice-n-dice.If you attended a Jesuit College, today or even hundreds of years ago, you'll find very few literalists. You'll find the same thing in most every other religious Higher Education EXCEPT, as mentioned, for the Evangelical and Fundamentalist Sects.But you need to understand that a Literal Interpretation of the Bible is still the exception as opposed to the rule.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

let's take the story of the Conquest of Canaan as an example. At the time that Joshua and his armies are supposedly rampaging across Canaan, taking City after City, the Folk living in and ruling the cities of Canaan are busily writing letters back and forth and don't seem to be aware at all of any Israeli Army.Other examples are that the Flood story is just about a direct copy of the Gilgamesh Saga. The patriarchs also seem to be directly copied from the Babylonians, except that the Hebrews didn't have the nerve to claim that their Patriachs lived anywhere near as long as those of Babylonians.Why don't yoou start by reading the The Armana Tablets and then read the Gilgamesh Saga.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Why wouldn't someone making a literal reading believe that the part you quoted in white means just what it says and not as interpreted in your yellow portion?When you add material that is NOT in the initial letter, how can you say you are reading it literally?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Bravo. Correct. Very little of the Bible was written to us...today.The Epistles are nothing more than letters. They were letters to a church with the intent that they would be read to the congregation. Paul was not writing to us, in fact Paul was pretty sure that the end of the world would come within his lifetime. If someone had told him that folk 2000 years later would be reading his letters his reaction would have been "Aw, go on!". It certainly would have lead to major changes in his Epistles.The Epistles were not even broadsheets like the Gospels. They were meant for specific audience and dealt with specific people and specfic local issues. One of the most misunderstood and misquoted verses from the Bible. Start a thread sometime on John 3:16 and let's discuss it. I think it's important because so much of the bigotry and exclusionary practices are based on John 3:16 by folk that simply misuse it.But there is a different reason.The Gospels are an entirely different form of communication than the Epistles just as Acts is an entirely different type of communication. The Gospels are broadsides, they are public documents, not addressed to a specific small community but to a body at large.You cannot compare the Gospels to the Epistles or to Acts. They are three entirely different types of writing for three entirely different audiences and three entirely different purposes.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

There seems to be a couple questions so bear with me as I try to sort it out.Earlier you use the salutation from one of Paul's letters. In that one example you add several pieces of understanding.

• that it was not a letter simply written to a specific congregation and that either Paul's and/or GOD's intended audience were future people.
• If you are not seeking to know Christ in faith, none of this will make any sense to you at this moment.

Is that an accurate summary of your position?On to questions two.In this message you again add a question that's somewhat hard to answer. To answer that we will have to resolve the issues above. But again, there are several major asumptions in your question.

• That it's possible to have an informed understanding of the Bible without considering other sources.
• That looking at other unnamed sources will somehow keep you from arriving at some as yet undertermined viewpoint.
• That the other yet unnamed sources are not insired by GOD.

Once we get the former issue resolved then we can tackle the later ones.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

So would you agree that it's okay to add meaning not in the original?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

A very, very good question.Is there any difference between two forms of communication, one a letter sent to you and the other a message posted here at EvC?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I don't think there would be much question on that. If it was addressed to you, it was meant for you.That does not mean that others might not benefit from reading a private comminication. We often find that letters from an individual can help understand an issue, a time, or a culture. No, not suggesting. I think it quite clear that all of Paul's Epistles were personal communications between Paul and either an individual or specific communion. For example, Romans was written to the Christians in Rome; The Epistles are just as they are named, letters. They are not general broadsides like the Gospels or Historical summaries like Acts.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You have to remember that there is nothing even similar to that passage outside John. In fact, much of John seems designed to place the Jews in as bad a light as possible.This is one of those passages. The incident, even though you might think something like this might be noted, is not mentioned anywhere else. In addition, it stands in stark contrast to how everything is shown in EVERY other book of the New Testament.But even considering all of that, I don't see where you get your interpretation. In this passage I don't see any signs of the protagonists taking GOD seriously, but rather their prerogatives and prejudices. It's not that they take GOD seriously but rather they see man as restricted.But the question was on how Jesus took the passges and there, every indication is that he used the stories just as he did the tale of the houses, the good steward or the prodigal son.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

What possible relationship does that have? As individuals? Don't know. It's possible they existed as individuals but more likely as composites. We're having an interesting discussion related to them in Message 1. Come on over.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion