Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because people that lived 2000+ years ago on the other side of the world in a culture that not even their own descendants completely grasp should not hold sway over our ability to read scripture and interpret it in light of how morality has grown and how our culture differs.
Man has always been in difficult times---for as far back as history goes. It's what man does that affects how he understands those difficulties, and its what he does with it internally that determines his spirituality. Crying, "Woe is me, the end is near," serves no purpose. Working to be a servant to others is the ONLY purpose for us in God's eyes. He'll figure out the end AND the judgments in His own time frame.
If you've never been inspired by a great sermon, a wonderful Christian song, or the beauty of God's world then you aren't aware of God's fulness. If He is stuck in the book, what good is that? The entire book is full of stories of how God worked through flawed men for His purposes. But then along come a significant group of people that say God is not able to work through flawed scripture. I guess they don't believe what God did IN the Bible, so they aren't able to see how God works THROUGH the Bible.
Read up on what used to be a cardinal doctrine among many conservative Christians. It's called the Priesthood of the Believer. Way back then we used to all believe that we could read the Bible for ourselves and though we might come to different conclusions, no one was excluded from fellowship. As fundamentalism became more militant and divisive, it drove PofB out of the picture and defined for everybody what one HAS to believe.
It's really Protestants falling back on the Catholic Church of the medieval era. And it in no way reflects the life and teaching of Jesus.
So the quarrel is with the extreme improperly educated fundamentalist view and not really the peace and unity which the Bible encourages in things like do not judge, turn the other cheek and charity through the neighbour. It may be an idea to read some of the reasoning behind virtue by those who you . may think are fundamentalists. Or consider that as long as there are extremists who would be ardent materialists there will be the pronounced extreme fundamentalists echoing the extreme in argument, its just the nature of the world and how it works. Trying to bash and obliterate either is their doing not the believer or thinking atheist who represents the majority. Most believers and atheists in every sense of it are very calm people , if its handy to believe they are not then its just brainwashing which is over heard in the garble of it. People have work to do , lunchs to pack and laundry to do all over the world.
Last edited by Sophronius; 04-02-2015 at 01:23 PM..
Actually we can, since we have no evidence that he did anything good, or bad. Believing in a character in an ancient text is not a requirement for doing good and treating everyone the way they should be treated. Pretending to be that character or emulating the actions of that character does not prove his existence or the validity of the claims in the text. Faith is not a pathway to truth.
I didn't claim faith to be a pathway to truth. I claimed it is a motivating factor for ME! I have no idea what motivates you, and have no desire to impose on you what I believe. What I do believe is not founded in empirical logic nor in any fact that can be "proven."
But if my faith leads me toward kindness and mercy and acceptance of my fellow man, why would you stand in opposition to that? To be "right?" I don't understand that. My purpose is to be effective in terms of my beliefs, and that is the only effective empirical evidence of spiritual change in ME, anyway. Most likely I'm wrong about plenty on a spiritual level just because their is no empirical evidence.
Neither do I view you as "enemy of my enemy is my friend." I know you're not. But neither do I require your affirmation. What I do hope to accomplish is to let agnostics/atheists know that not every Christian proposes to cram beliefs down their throats.
And when you post something that is of importance to my spiritual life, I'm going to weigh it very carefully without consideration of the source, something I'm not sure you are capable of reciprocating. I don't mean that negatively, I mean it is the very nature of your own unbelief. You've made a conscious decision to accept nothing but empirical evidence. That's why I don't offer you any. It's not about empirical evidence to me.
Where the fundamentalists get clobbered by atheists/agnostics is that they really believe they can take something of a spiritual nature and make logical sense of it. That's why they have to start with the foundation of an idol, the Bible which becomes their lens for viewing everything in the world and making judgments about those things. I trust in a revelatory experience to which the Bible is a sometimes faulty witness. I don't have any need to judge others about their lack of belief, but I will take on people who CLAIM to know God and then do everything in their power to deny the efficacy that God should be about love, forgiveness, and acceptance.
So the quarrel is with the extreme improperly uneducated fundamentalist view and not really the peace and unity which the Bible encourages in things like do not judge, turn the other cheek and charity through the neighbour. It may be an idea to read some of the reasoning behind virtue by those who you . may think are fundamentalists. Or consider that as long as there are extremists who would be ardent materialists there will be the pronounced extreme fundamentalists echoing the extreme in argument, its just the nature of the world and how it works. Trying to bash and obliterate either is their doing not the believer or thinking atheist who represents the majority. Most believers and atheists in every sense of it are very calm people , if its handy to believe they are not then its just brainwashing which is over heard in the garble of it. People have work to do , lunchs to pack and laundry to do all over the world.
I've got a book right now on the life of F.F. Bruce, a very conservative scholar but by no means an inerrantist. I also subscribe to Dr. Dan Wallace's blog, the most well known uber conservative out there and he is no inerrantist either. Fundamentalism is first focused on the sacred texts:
Quote:
fundamentalism, [a] type of militantly conservative religious movement characterized by the advocacy of strict conformity to sacred texts.
In that way, they resemble the Pharisees of Jesus' day. And Jesus spent a good deal of time correcting their views of scripture with both His words and His life.
I would agree with your last sentence. That's what LGBT people want to do as well--marry one another, pack lunches, get their adopted kids off to school, and do the laundry---without worrying whether the corner bakery will prepare a cake celebrating their tenth anniversary. But that appears to be something most, if not all, fundamentalists are unwilling to do.
The Bible on its best day is a complex work that will never be completely comprehended by the 21st century mind. But getting back to culturally context is a start. And that's why I read scholars who are experts in Greek and Hebrew. Doesn't necessarily mean they are always correct, but it does show I'm seeking the truth rather than stating I've found it.
Would you agree W, the definition of fundamentalism is contrived out of a very transitory and limited opinion ? In support of the question here is the definition of fundamental,
forming a necessary base or core; of central importance.
"the protection of fundamental human rights"
synonyms: basic, underlying, core, foundational, rudimentary, elemental, elementary.
So where does the definition of christian fundamentalism you provided find its grounds for merit ?
Would you agree W, the definition of fundamentalism is contrived out of a very transitory and limited opinion ? In support of the question here is the definition of fundamental,
forming a necessary base or core; of central importance.
"the protection of fundamental human rights"
synonyms: basic, underlying, core, foundational, rudimentary, elemental, elementary.
So where does the definition of christian fundamentalism you provided find its grounds for merit ?
Umm, how about Encyclopedia Britannica?
Quote:
fundamentalism, [a] type of militantly conservative religious movement characterized by the advocacy of strict conformity to sacred texts. Once used exclusively to refer to American Protestants who insisted on the inerrancy of the Bible, the term fundamentalism was applied more broadly beginning in the late 20th century to a wide variety of religious movements.
-----------
some scholars have argued that the negative connotations of the term aptly characterize the nature of fundamentalist movements, many of which seek the violent overthrow of national governments and the imposition of particular forms of worship and religious codes of conduct in violation of widely recognized human rights to political self-determination and freedom of worship.
-------------
Belief and practice, however, do not always coincide. Starting in the late 1970s, many premillennialist fundamentalists embraced the political activism traditionally associated with postmillennialism,
-------------
The Christian Right that emerged with the formation of Falwell’s Moral Majority in 1979 was a response to transformations in American society and culture that took place in the 1960s and ’70s. Fundamentalists were alarmed by a number of developments that, in their view, threatened to undermine the country’s traditional moral values. These included the civil rights movement, the women’s movement (see alsofeminism), and the gay rights movement; the relatively permissive sexual morality prevalent among young people; the teaching of evolution; and rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court that banned institutionally initiated group prayer and reading of the Bible in public schools and that affirmed the legal right to abortion (see alsoRoe v. Wade).
So it has stood in opposition to civil rights, in opposition to women's rights, and in opposition to gay rights, none of it acceptable if one studies scripture critically and within the cultural context of its time.
It's when fundamentalism decided to have an "agenda" outside the realm of the spiritual that this nation began its slow fall away from faith. It's been another, albeit significant, nail in the coffin of at least Christianity.
It's when fundamentalism decided to have an "agenda" outside the realm of the spiritual that this nation began its slow fall away from faith. It's been another, albeit significant, nail in the coffin of at least Christianity.
Well, then I suppose this would be a view which describes a persecution of the faith which is fine and there wouldn't be that much company because the majority of all are programmed to work, know its good for the soul however they understand or relate to that word and are more inclined to get at providing for others either in the charity or with friends and relatives.
So this has to do with obliterating the concept of the model and virtues in the belief system. That's ok and don't forget there is nothing which can be done about an opinion to ardent and impassioned self centred materialism , alongside the nature of human existence, which is also very seldom but exists.
Christian fundamentals are clear, charity can only be achieved through the neighbour, turn the other cheek , do not judge the soul and a few others.
If a view wants to make a collection and gather as much as possible to suggest the belief is grounded in things which are not directives then that would be selective and limited.
So whats left is very understandable, extremism, because the research has gone to extremities on one very un popular end of the system and tried to suggest knowledge. Everyone is different and all that, forming up a wall has nothing to do with peace at all. The properly educated youngsters are taught this very agreeable understanding in keeping with enjoying the day. If for some reason it doesn't happen that has nothing to do with this concept of obscure generalities.
Last edited by Sophronius; 04-02-2015 at 03:03 PM..
Barry Goldwater, certainly a conservative, warned about the Fundies taking over the Republican party.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
