What is your definition of a "Fundi" or a Fundamentalist?

by brotherdan 236 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  brotherdan

  I mean, if you don't believe in a literal six day creation... but that that story was a simple way of explaining the depth of creation/progression/evolution... then perhaps some of these others stories are as in depth as that, yet relayed in simpler terms.

  But isn't that a slippery slope? When you say, "Well the Bible DID say that, but I don't think it REALLY means what it says. Yeah it says that the Stars were created AFTER light, but it really doesn't mean that."

  Or

  "The Bible says that all flesh was destroyed by God during the flood...but it doesn't mean ALL flesh. It just means the men in the local area."

  Can you see how slippery that is? You then have cause to put your own interpretation on to any story in the Bible that you want. Kaballah does much of that. They take the Torah and apply a mystic symbolism to every part of it so that NONE of it means what it actually says.
• 

  brotherdan

  I meant that believing that only JESUS is the truth. If that is what makes you a fundamentalist then you have to include all Christians.

  I don't think ANY group or person has all the truth. I think there are Christians in MANY groups and denominations. Does that disqualify me from fundamentalism?
• 

  cofty

  when I read the opposite side of things, I find myself disagreeing with much of it.

  Depends what sources you are reading. I didn't find truth through internet forums or apologetic websites. I had to commit a huge amount of time and effort to read and study some really difficult stuff. That included not rushing to seek succor from AIG etc to find easy but shallow rebuttals. It took a long time but since we are talking about really big questions it is worth the effort.
• 

  satinka

  Christians believe in some extreme stuff, like the murder of Jesus Christ. Sounds like God by whatever name is a horrible father. Christians might be said to have a punishing belief system. And each time the bread and wine are passed, it could be likened to re-killing Jesus.

  Gnostic Christians, on the other hand, believe that Jesus survived the crucifixion and raised a family with Mary Magdeline --- far away from the would-be murderers.

  satinka
• 

  brotherdan

  That included not rushing to seek succor from AIG etc to find easy but shallow rebuttals.

  They do have some good points sometimes though...I know i'm in the minority when I say that. I don't like a lot of the approaches Ken Ham makes, but I like Gitts arguments.
• 

  cofty

  They do have some good points sometimes though

  No I'm sorry they really don't. Its exactly like a JW who thinks the Reasoning book has some really good points that answer all sorts of theological questions.

  Have you ever compared a serious Systematic Theology like Wayne Grudem's to the kind of glib, ill informed platitudes in the Reasoning book? Its just the same with websites like AIG. Once you understand real science their clever arguments are so transparently facile its frusrtrating beyond description.

  I'm not being arrogant but you are not qualified to judge that AIG has some good points, neither are the rest of their readers - that's exactly what they depend on for survival
• 

  tec

  You then have cause to put your own interpretation on to any story in the Bible that you want.

  Well, I'm not actually putting an interpretation on anything. I can just see other possibilities. The one I gave above could be true, or the stories could be 100% literal, or we misunderstand because we could have lost what they actually considered the story to be relaying a few thousand years ago... such as if the Jews at that time did not believe in a literal flood, but rather in a myth with a moral - > then Jesus wasn't lying, he was just speaking truth to them through stories/myths they already knew. And if little old me can think of these three things, then there are other possibilities that I haven't even considered.

  What's most important is what we do with our faith... in the love and mercy that we show others... through our faith/hope/trust in Christ. For me, I think we all have some or many of the details wrong. All of us. But we can all share one Truth, and that is Christ.

  You could be a literalist fundamentalist and show nothing of the love of Christ. You could also be a liberal new age-ist and reflect the love of Christ. And vice versa. I don't think you disagree with any of that Dan. I think you agree that the love of Christ is the most important thing as well. I also know that you accept me despite our difference on the 'details' and I accept you as well. I think I 'see' you, Dan... and I consider you a brother in Christ.

  I don't think ANY group or person has all the truth. I think there are Christians in MANY groups and denominations. Does that disqualify me from fundamentalism?

  It does, according to my thoughts on fundamentalism. I didn't look up the dictionary definition as you asked, mind you.

  Tammy
• 

  brotherdan

  I've read "In the beginning was information" by Gitt and if you have, even if you are an evolutionist, you HAVE to acknowledge the compelling points. Am I an expert in genetic information systems? No, but you don't have to be an expert in a field to recognize valid arguments.
• 

  brotherdan

  When it comes down to it we all pretend to be experts in things that it is impossible to completely know.
• 

  unshackled

  For example if you can go on believeing in a global flood you are obvioulsy unaware of the weight of unassailable evidence against it.

  
  
  For this reason I find it difficult to even bother trying to convince someone who believes in a global flood otherwise. IF they want to believe it, they're not going to accept logic. It's like trying to convince someone gravity is real, or that earth is not flat. Just seems pointless.

  They believe because they WANT to believe. Don't want to let go of their brain blanket.