by logansrun 53 Replies latest jw friends
Ozzie
Surley it is possible for a religion to be both fundamentalist and evangelical, they're not mutually exclusive. The JWs are fundamentalist in their acceptance of the Bible as the inerrant (not literal) word of God, and they're also evangelical. They're not the only Christian religion to share these qualities.
Well, I suppose you could be "fundamental" and "evangelical". It all depends on what you mean by the use of the words and indeed what country you hail from. Unfortunately the words have become labels and as I said before have become derogatory words, much like the WTS uses words to denigrate people it doesn't like.
Hi Ozzie
I'm not sure that I understand how the meaning of "fundamental" or "evangelist" alters with location.
ozzie,
Perhaps your advice would carry more weight with me if you told me why I am wrong in my usage of the terms instead of just telling me that I'm wrong.
Explain please.
Bradley
It's an interesting topic in itself for personal study i.e. what does it mean to be evangelical? What do people mean by fundamentalist? Is such a person one who believes only in the "fundamentals', or what?
Remember the WTS' discussions of creation and creationism? They rightly drew a distinction. I hope I do also with this idea of fundamental-ism.
It seems too that in the USA the terms fundamentalism and evangelical have taken on a totally different meaning to that still understood by other parts of the English-speaking world.
Anyway, this has side-tracked this thread too much I guess.
Rather than having little snippets, why not pick up some good books on the topic? Try Amazon.
Ozzie
ozzie,
Well, I guess you didn't really answer my question, but that's all right. I'm well aware of what the colloquial meanings of "fundamentalism" and "evangelical" are in the United States. I have read widely from many different theological viewpoints, contrary to your subtle accusation that I need to read more theology. Perhaps the terms carry a different meaning in Australia. But, if so, that does not make my posts on the topic invalid one iota.
Perhaps you're more annoyed with my viewpoint of conservative Christianity in general? (No need to answer that question, but it's just a thought).
Bradley
No Brad, I'm not annoyed! There's much more imporatnt things to get annoyed about, like the abuse of the innocents by the WTS!
Cheers, Ozzie
Ozzie
Yesterday I just finished reading Malise Ruthven's book titled Fundamentalism, published last month and he doesn't comment on any particular Americanisation of the term. The origins of the term are found in West Coast Christian American tracts of the 1920s, by Christian who believed in the fundamentals of the inerrant word of God as found in the Old and New Testaments.
What are the Australian definitions of "fundamental" and "evangelical"?
Q. When is a christian not a christian?
A. When he's a fundamentalist!
What are the Australian definitions of "fundamental" and "evangelical"?
This seems pointless to me. OK, that's my lot on it. The NT doesn't differentiate into groupings, save for the expressions "The Way" or Christians.
But would anyone consider going back.........maybe to fade away again.......just to speak to their family again ? They play games with us ....so why not play games with them ?
I have actually toyed with this idea too. But when I think it through to its logical conclusion it ends up being a non-possibility. I would have to spend hours and hours of my valuable time sitting in meetings to get reinstated. And for what?? To have the honor and privalege of associating with my mother who has rejected me and shunned me for the past 18 years. Why on earth would I would I go to any trouble at all to gain the acceptance and association of people who I have nothing in common with, who have absurd beliefs, who have abused me and hurt me, etc, etc, etc. Really it is in essence: Reason # 2 ***INSANITY*** For me, there is really NO reason to EVER go back and EVERY reason to NOT go back.
