What are the Degrees of Fundamentalism?

Well, you definately are demontrating one thing. There ARE degrees in fundamentalism. Some fundanmentalism is more extreme than others, but none of it is very pretty at all.

Abortion is in the bible in numbers 5, as a test for fidelity. The procedure is the high priest gives the woman some 'bitter water' when she is pregnent. If she aborts, she was unfaithful.

The 'swelling' that the woman experiances is pregnancy.If you are having trouble understanding it.. ask your local orthodox, conservative or reform rabbi, and they will explain it to you.The problem is that you are not understanding the eupphemism of the time period. For example 'thigh' is almost certainly a euphemism for the vulva.

Well, according to the talmud commentary, it is describing a miscarriage.I will trust those rabbi's living in the 2nd century and spoke hebrew much better than the evangalistic christians that were working off a translations of a translation any day.

Well, that is not what the interpretation of that is by the religious Jews. It is interpreted as there are reasons that we (as humans), can make life and death decisions. This is just a specific case that is discussed, and the concept of a husband subjecting a wife to the procedure is definately obsolete by modern standards.Now, if you noticed, the christian commentary for this passage is entirely different than the jewish one. It shows on how a passage can be interpreted with a preconceived bias. This bias changes the translation. As someone I know keeps stressing, translation is interpretation.One big difference between the 'Fundamentalist' mindset and the Jewish thought is that Fundamantlist christians seem to think there is only one correct interpretation of any specific passage (theirs of course), while one method of teaching Torah is to argue what the passage means, and to back up that viewpoint with various different commentaries by various rabbi's, who are often in disagreement about it. When the study method is arguing about what a specific passage means, it tends to reinforce the idea that there is just one viewpoint about any specific passage. The fundamentalists lack that flexibity.

Except, of course, that the concept that the flood was 'world wide' has a lot of evidence against it, and as it is described in the book is physically impossible.But, other than that, let's see.. a 'world wide' flood' reaching to the highest mountains.. very grandiose to be sure. Historical account?? Nope.. not on that scale.

Gosh.. God loves everyone equally, as long as they use the proper words to worship him, else he sends them to hell. He also sends natural disaster, disease, hurricanes , earthquakes, tsunami's.. but he watches every sparrow fall.Somehow, there seems to be some actions that are in conflict there.

Thank you Faith, for providing such an excellent example of fundamentalist binary thinking, and some of the implications.The binary thinking 'right/wrong', 'True/false', 'saved/damned'. The implcations is the notion that is the fundamentalist is 'right', and everyone who disagrees is 'wrong.Noticed the implied contempt of 'liberal thinking, and the refusal to get into a dialog with those that have different interpretations. There also is the stated concept that 'those who see god differently than I do deny scripture' attitude.This inflexibilty is what drives the various degree's of fundamentalism. The more inflexible, and 'me vs world' attitude, the more 'fundamentalist' the individual.I think people will notice this pattern amoung the more conservative christians on the board. The ones that are willing to engage in dialog
and dicuss things tend to lose that 'binary thinking/right-wrong' mindset.

Personally, I don't think the bible says what you think it says.You are not putting your trust in God, or in the bible, but rather you are putting trust in your infallibility and how your put your concepts into the bible.

Of course, 'witch' is a poor translation.It is refering to someone who 'Deals with the spirits of the dead'. Such people would be those who channel, and those folks on the sci-fi channel that 'talk to the dead'.. those are the kinds of people they are talking about (John Edwards was one of them).

Well, I have to point out Isaiah 45:7 So, according to the writer of second part of isaiah, god did create evil. However, that is a big difference between the concept that GOd created all things (including the opportunity for man to do wrong), and the sending of divine retribution.As for blasphemy, one man's blasphemy is another man's theology. To say one is right and the other is wrong you have to be God.. (and it doesn't matter one bit if God doesn't exist). I certainly don't think the concept of 'divine retribution' is very meaningful. On the other hand, I am not 'God' and neither are you or faith, (unless you want to take the quote attributed to Jesus of 'you are all gods' literally).

Well, technically, the Christians believe that Jesus is risen from the dead. So , in their mind, they are not doing so.However, that is a very good point.

That is , again, an interpretation of the passage that I do not feel is justified by the words in the passage. You are reading a lot of bias INTO the passage rather than reading what the passages actually says.

This is one case where not understanding the hebrew can show errors in
thinking.THe term 'Evil' in Isaiah 45:7 is the exact term that is used in Genesis for the 'tree of knowledge of good and evil'.Again, your interpretation is reading into the words, rather than reading the words that are written.

RIGHT.So, rabbi's are 'amature steudent's of hebrew'. I get it.The Jewish people don't know their own scripture, they have to go ask an evangalistic Christian.The term used in Genesis 2;9, in Isaiah 7:15, and in Isaiah 45:7 all is the word 'ra'. It means 'moral evil'. If you are honest, you can use the information I provided to confirm what I said is accurate. Somehow, I don't think that will happen.Edited by ramoss, : No reason given.