What is your definition of a "Fundi" or a Fundamentalist? (page 18)

PSacramento

On the one hand it's admirable because you're good people who are basically atheists who have invented your own church for your own selves and still want to believe in sweet baby Jesus. Which is totally cool. On the other hand it makes you impossible to talk with on things like theology, because your theology is an amorphous blob of things you've cherry-picked to believe because they make you feel good. When a topic about Christian dogma comes up and freethinkers find themselves alternately discussing with the Church of PSac, the Church of Perry, the Church of BTS, the Church of Tammy (none of which can agree on even the most basic of doctrines), they feel like they're trying to nail down a piece of silly putty.

Just an FYI, I am finishing my second year of a university degree in Theology and have these and other discussions with my professors and fellow students and NOT ONE has ever said what you just said, so perhaps YOU may need to have a close look into theology, you may find some stratling surprises.

I assume by the way you just vented that it frustrates you that you can't "pigeon hole' all christians into fundis because that would certainly make things easier for you and I can appreciate that.

You are quite incorrect in that Christains can't agree on BASIC Christians Doctrines because we ALL do, way may disagree on some man-made doctrines but those are minor compared to Our Love and Accepteance of Jesus Christ as our lord and saviour.

I don't know how to react to being called an atheist though, LOL !

Thank you?

brotherdan

That's one thing I don't think anyone (well almost everyone apparently) would say to PSac! :-)

You're definitely not an atheist. I think you act "more" Christian than most people on this site (including me). You're a good guy to have around PSac.

PSacramento

But the most basic logic tells me that a superhuman, omni-everything god should be capable of conveying his message clearly, transcending time and language barriers without room for contrasting metaphorical interpretations.

Perhaps but we are dealing with humans here, right?

Clear communication does not seem to be the Bible's strong suite when you consider tens of thousands of denominations exist, all of which cannot be right.

A solid point, though the bibel was never designed from the very beginning for ALL people.

One can arge that through out the centuries God has spoken to many people and they have understood God in their own unique way, some perhaps more correct than others.

Coudl God have made it 100% clear to all people, at all times regardless of everythign else and NOT effected their free will or their own understanding of things?

Maybe God is subject to the prime directive of Start Trek ;)

superpunk

I assume by the way you just vented that it frustrates you that you can't "pigeon hole' all christians into fundis because that would certainly make things easier for you and I can appreciate that.

In discussions where specific things are brought up, absolutely. It would be nice if you could all actually agree about anything with regards to your amorphous faith. Instead, if a freethinker brings up a problem with a scriptural or theological idea, they first have to wade through an infinite number of different interpretations by different Christians (who claim to have all prayed to Jesus to enlighten them on this particular topic, and - BIG SURPRISE - Jesus told them all different things) before they can even begin to address what has now become a completely different issue.

Frustrating? You betcha. It makes us suspect you're all just making it up as you go along.

I am finishing my second year of a university degree in Theology

My condolences. ;)

BurnTheShips

That outlook is also what keeps us "cherry pickers" from being close minded, intolerant, egotistical, arrogant

You mean like some of the posters on this here thread?

As your previous post elucidated, fundamentalism isn't confined to religious people.

BTS

unshackled

Superpunk FTW

superpunk

You mean like some of the posters on this here thread?

Well that's a little vague.

In any case I feel you may be mistaking plain and pointed speech for arrogance and egostistical closed-mindedness. Trying to discuss theology with amorphous Christianity is frustrating, because the second you feel you've developed a reasonable argument they change their doctrine and pretend that's what they always believed. Therefore you can see that frustration come out in some people's blunt responses.

In any case I don't feel anyone in this thread has been rude, egotistical or arrogant.

BurnTheShips

If your amorphous Christianity criticism is pointed at me (whatever THAT means), it is misplaced. I am not an "amorphous Christian." I am a Catholic.

BTS

brotherdan

PSacramento

In discussions where specific things are brought up, absolutely. It would be nice if you could all actually agree about anything with regards to your amorphous faith. Instead, if a freethinker brings up a problem with a scriptural or theological idea, they first have to wade through an infinite number of different interpretations by different Christians (who claim to have all prayed to Jesus to enlighten them on this particular topic, and - BIG SURPRISE - Jesus told them all different things) before they can even begin to address what has now become a completely different issue.

I am sure that if you ask a JW or a fundi that they wil be able to tell you EXACTLY what you want to hear.

And now you have a partial understanding of why some do become fundmentalists, because they WANT the answers GIVIN to them in a noce, neat package without doubts and issues and conflict and most of all, any owrk on THEIR part.

Frustrating? You betcha. It makes us suspect you're all just making it up as you go along.

Funny, as any historian will tell you, when EVERYONE is in agreement is when historians and historical researches start to doubt the "story".

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

Share this