by brotherdan 236 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
A fundi, to me:
Believes the entire bible is written by God or inspired to be written, by him. Therefore, each and every thing it says is true. A fundie can be Muslim, believing the Koran to be completely true. Either kind of fundi is potentially very dangerous.
Thanks for supplying the passage, Villabolo :)
If the bible is not inspired, and its not, then how can anybody make any assertions that Jesus ever said anything in particular?
I would be remiss if I did not first say that you should ask Him yourself, first and foremost, and perhaps also ask for faith... and then 'keep knocking' as it were. I understand that you might not be willing or able to do this, though.
As for what to believe just based on what is written and not the Spirit, well, you can decide for yourself. Do you think it was all a hoax? I think that's elaborate and self-defeating, since those at the head of the hoax died for what they themselves perpetuated. What about for gain? First few century Christians/leaders of their faith had little to gain (wealth-wise) and much to lose (life-wise). Lots of letters and reports and stirrings lend credence, as well, imo. Coherency between those letters - love, mercy, forgiveness. Serve others. I'm not seeing a down-side... and the men who later took and twisted the words and teachings are to blame for creating just another organized religion.
I think there is enough historical evidence for Christ having existed. I think we also know enough about Him to know that we should a) go to Him in spirit, and b) live according to the mercy, love for others (golden rule), and forgiveness.
Tammy
ask for faith... and then 'keep knocking' as it were. I understand that you might not be willing or able to do this, though.
I was an evangelical for a decade after leaving the borg. I eventually concluded that facts and feelings didn't coincide and that facts were a better guide to what is true
This topic has all the ingredients that have made it a long and interesting thread. The elastic Bible is once again stretched in every direction, allowing it to be both errant and inerrant depending on the believers need.
Fundi" or Fundamentalist can be summed up in one word: Perry
Apparently according to - Perry Fundamentalism, anyone who does not believe his extreme views, must by default believe them-self to be god. Whether this opinion is viewed as errant or inerrant depends on what conclusion other believers want to arrive at.
As for me, I threw the the Bible the baby and the bathwater out a long time ago. There are many better books to read now that we are in the 21st century. And for those of you who have not been told - electricity is now available.
My own definition is any theist who can't admit that they pick and choose which bits of scripture they follow.
That is almost liek saying that a scientist of the 21st century is picking and choosing to believe in a modern scientific theory over an ancient one that has been made "obsolete".
To many Christians the NT "over rides" much of the OT in the things that appear to be contridictory, for example, Jesus's commandment of Love they enemy over rides "smite the caanites and smash their babies against the rocks".
Do you view that as picking and choosing?
I certainly don't.
Emphasis added for clarity. In the particular example given of the old and new testament I would say that Jesus didn't appear to view the old testament as obsolete.
Matthew 5:17-20 (New International Version, ©2010)
The Fulfillment of the Law
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
However that is a theological argument that doesn't interest me. I have no doubt that for a lot of christians the majority have chosen to ignore large swathes of the OT for the very good reason it is no longer relevant. Personally, I have no problem with which parts of your scripture you choose to follow. The important point as far as I am concerned is whether you are honest enough to admit that is what you do. If you can't admit that you pick and choose which parts are relevant in the twenty first century then you are a being intellectually dishonest. There is a fundamental problem with your comparison to science, a scientist will happily admit that his views will change if a theory were to become 'obsolete' this is at complete odds with my assertion that what marks out a fundamentalist is an unwillingness to admit that their belief in scripture is at the mercy of the cultural zeitgeist of their time.
The important point as far as I am concerned is whether you are honest enough to admit that is what you do. If you can't admit that you pick and choose which parts are relevant in the twenty first century then you are a being intellectually dishonest.
There is a fundamental problem with your comparison to science, a scientist will happily admit that his views will change if a theory were to become 'obsolete' this is at complete odds with my assertion that what marks out a fundamentalist is an unwillingness to admit that their belief in scripture is at the mercy of the cultural zeitgeist of their time.
The thing is, your view of "pick and choose" seems to imply a "salad bar" type of theology, take what you like and disregard the rest. That is not the case. When one views the bible as part of God's progressive revelation of His Divine Plan written by Man with his limited understanding then it is quite logical to view certain parts as obsolete, other parts as constant and other parts as in line with historicla, albeit incorrect, thinking. I don't choose to ignore or disregard Pslams 137:8-9 for example, but I take it based on the WHOLE of what is revealed in the OT and NT and in the world around us, then and now and taking that into account I see a bitter and spitful writer praying for vengence against his enemies, I do NOT see the word of God, but a falliable Man that has not yet see God's revealed Word in Christ. While that MAY seem like "pick and choose" to you, I assure you that it isn't.
There are some proselytizers here that seem to have a vested interest in getting some of us to jettison the entire book.
What they do not realize is that much of it has been interpreted metaphorically for thousands of years.
Also, whether they know it or not, they have Watchtower blinders on. Witnesses and fundies in general are Sola Scriptura (Bible Alone) types in theory, if not always in practice. This was an innovation of the Protestant Reformation.
Those here that think that you are either Sola Scriptura or hypocritical have a very narrow and inaccurate perception. It is conditioned by their Watchtower past. It is a false dichotomy. It shows a dim understanding of Christianity in its totality.
The great majority of Christians today and throughout history have not been Sola Scriptura. The Bible is not their sole guide.
There are different definitions for "inerrancy," as well. Literal, historical, inerrancy is only the most extreme form.
BTS
One can't ignore the revelation of God in the world we have, nor can one ignore the revelation of the HS that speaks to us.
If we did christians would be get circumsized, we would all be eating kosher and genocide would be acceptable, we would think the world is flat, the reformation would never have happened, etc, etc.
Origen took the Bible so literal that he castrated himself, Augustine remind us to NIT take it all literally because nature could reveal the it wasn't so, that and the fact that the way the bible is writen at times shows it to be more "story telling" than a science listen.
Add to the fact that there are warnings about Man taking the word of God for his own and what we have is the resposibility to God and to the writers of the bible to study and research and decide what was written, why and how and to whom.
Psac,
To me, it seems only rational and logical for modern christians to interpret the bible in the context of the world we live in as opposed to the one that the bible writers lived in.
As far as I am concerned if you choose to reject the biblical rules on wearing mixed fibres then you are picking and choosing. How do you differentiate between the parts of scripture you follow and which you don't? For example how do you know that Matthew 5:17-20 doesn't apply
any more?
