Fundi vs. Fundamentalist - T/J

by Georgiegirl 22 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Georgiegirl

  Will you really accept it? I wonder..... I think if it doesn't match what you believe fundamentalism to be, you will disgard it. And secondly, he was teaching the history of fundamentalism and what it originally meant. I can't see how in the world defining it as "something that could be documented" means he was being dishonest.

  The FACTS are that "fundamentalism" as an organized movement began in the early 1900's. Again, whether or not that is its meaning in pop culture today, is not what I am saying. Many Muslims are called "fundamentalists" in today's pop culture and they certainly do not believe in that Jesus died for their sins.

  Nevertheless, here are some links for you to read (besides the one I already posted). http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=230

  http://www.fpcbozeman.org/Adult%20Class/Jan%2016%20Fundamentalism%20Session%201.pdf

  http://www.religiousrightwatch.com/2006/10/fundamentalist_.html

  If you want to do your own research into the history of fundamentalism, then I would suggest you start with Luther and the Five Solas. Google "five tenets of fundamentalism" for good place to start.

  By the way, if you read anything of what I've posted here, you will see that inerrancy didn't mean everything in the bible was taken perfectly literally, but I'll leave you to find that little gem.

  I'm not even sure what we are arguing about - I think it is two entirely separate things. I am presenting the history of a movement called Fundamentalism, and it appears to me as if you are arguing what it means now in today's culture and to you personally. And that I'm not going to argue.
• 

  TD

  Dan,

  How are any of these things contradicted in the Bible?

  I wouldn't say contradicted so much as open to interpretation. Take #3 for example:

  3. Jesus died in substitution of our sins

  As a former Witness you probably remember the mischaracterization of the disagreement between Russell and Barbour. --Russell advocated Atonement; Barbour advocated Substitution. The question of whether Christ died for you (Atonement) or whether he died in place of you (Substitution) is a question that generates disagreement among religious people even today. And to be fair, the Bible is not clear on how the Ransom actually works.
• 

  brotherdan

  Will you really accept it?

  If you give me a credible source, Yes.

  what it originally meant

  From WHO? If you are in college and learning critical thinking skills then you need to not do we all did at the Kingdom Hall. Where is his source?

  Many Muslims are called "fundamentalists" in today's pop culture and they certainly do not believe in that Jesus died for their sins.

  And that is my point. But there ARE fundamentalist Muslims.

  The point is, if you want to have a very liberal definition of fundamentalism, then you can inlude EVERYONE that holds to a belief system and believs it to be correct.
• 

  Georgiegirl

  Oh. My. Goodness. Ok, I'm done. I've just given 3 credible sources. You have missed the point of every single post I've written here - not sure if it's deliberate or not. Come back when you've done some real research and I'll play.
• 

  brotherdan

  For the majority of Christianity, it is not open to debate, TD. The denial of Christs propitiatory sacrifice is not a historically biblical belief. Of course there are going to be people that believe what they want about Christianity. But the idea that Jesus did NOT die for our sins is not upheld in the Bible.

  In 1 Cor. 15:3-4 Paul writes, "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures."
• 

  brotherdan

  I have read your sources, and they just don't add up. They seem to be written by non-christians. So of course they are going to state a very liberal view of fundamentalism. Your source said that a fundamentalist was on that believed in:

  1. The virgin birth
  2. The satisfaction theory of the atonement
  3. The bodily resurrection
  4. The miracles of Jesus
  5. Biblical inerrancy

  But that definition is required to include almost all Christians. Like BTS said, 90%.

  It seems like you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder. I wasn't trying to have a heated debate but to speak with reason. You can send me websites all you want. But that doesn't make them reasonable.

  you will see that inerrancy didn't mean everything in the bible was taken perfectly literall

  Um...when did I say that inerrancy meant that everything in the Bible was to be taken perfectly literal? It sounds like I touched a sensitive spot on you and you can't handle it. Sorry. Thought we could talk rationally.
• 

  Georgiegirl

  Wow...seriously? In 13 minutes you read four different sources (ok, 3, because I will stipulate that wikipedia is not a true source), thoughtfully evaluated and analyzed them, and blew them off? Really, you should go to college, if you haven't already, because you are more brilliant than anyone I've ever met. I mean, really, considering that just one of the articles was written by a Christian professor at Princeton and quoted in one of the more well-known and respected collections of religious literature out there...well, I can see that where that wouldn't possibly be considered credible.

  As far as the chip on my shoulder, yep. When you attacked someone you don't know and implied deception and lying was involved, I call that offensive. I didn't come into this discussion being offended. I was actually really excited about something I had learned last night and wanted to post it.

  Again, there is a difference between THE HISTORY OF A MOVEMENT CALLED FUNDAMENATALISM and how THE WORD IS USED IN POP CULTURE TODAY. I don't know how to make that any clearer.

  Now. I am walking away because I believe in my heart that you truly do not have any idea how offensive you can be and I choose to believe you have good intentions. That's ok - we are all in different stages of growth. I wish you much success in your endeavors to find an explanation for which you are comfortable. Good day.
• 

  TD

  For the majority of Christianity, it is not open to debate, TD. The denial of Christs propitiatory sacrifice is not a historically biblical belief. Of course there are going to be people that believe what they want about Christianity. But the idea that Jesus did NOT die for our sins is not upheld in the Bible.

  Neither view denies propitiation. In fact, if you look the word, "Propitiation" up in a dictionary you will see that Atonement is usually a defining term.
• 

  Ding

  I don't think those 5 points are the sum total of fundamentalistic doctrine.

  What about the Trinity, for example?

  I don't think a person would be considered a fundamentalist if he believed those 5 points but all believed that Jesus is the archangel Michael.
• 

  mindmelda

  There are plenty of Christians, or at least those who define THEMSELVES as such who would not accept ALL the fundamental tenets listed above.

  I've seen plenty of online debate about substitution, for instance, on Christian discussion sites like "Ship of Fools" for instance, all by various members of different faiths.

  I live in what people call the Buckle of the Bible belt in the US and even here, where fundamentalism is both a return to literal interpretation with out higher criticism or comparitive religion, and a political stance, you will still find religious debate on some of those fundamentals by Christians.

  I guess some of you who think most Christians believe fundamentalist tenets have never met Unitarians or Universal Unitarians, many liberal Lutherans or Presbyterians, and Episcopalians, all of whom indeed deem themselves "Christian"?

  Why do you think there are so many sects of Christianity in America?It's because at some point, they have parted ways on some doctrinal matter, no matter how slight to someone for whom it seems inconsequential.

  Baptists and Methodists may seem much the same to someone not in the faith, for instance, but a Methodist does not hold with the idea that total immersion baptism is necessary for salvation.