Fundamentalist - Page 6 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

chilcutt · #76 10-21-2013, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

I don't think religion has any specific intended purpose. It's a multi-purpose human phenomenon which functions differently in different circumstances and people. Fundamentalism is a real a religious phenomenon as liberal religion.

I stand corrected...but still consider fundamentalist's to be persons who need to be monitored very closely.

kerry · #77 10-21-2013, 11:00 PM

I think they're authoritarian so at odds with freedom loving people and an obstacle to creating multi-cultural and multi-religious democracies.

martureo · #78 10-21-2013, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Nah, I just enjoy the moving-target aspect.

In my opinion (!) a Christian is one who believes that Jesus died on the cross as a sacrifice for the redemption of all sinners for all time, ... and succeeded.

Believing in virgin birth, resurrection, water into wine, healing the sick, etc is all gilding the lily.

IMO if you're going to have the "basics" as your metric, then you might want to get them correct to begin with.

Earliest statements are:

"Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Phil 2:5-11 ESV)

"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed." (1 Cor 15:3-11 ESV)

The "basics" include the resurrection, the full deity and humanity of Christ and the Trinity.

And btw, when you say "for the whole world, for all time" you're interpreting/exegeting the text, in other worlds your formulating theology. And if we're going to be talking about some standard, some metric to determine what is and what isn't a "Christian", don't you think it should be free of doctrinal formulations?

chilcutt · #79 10-21-2013, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martureo

IMO if you're going to have the "basics" as your metric, then you might want to get them correct to begin with.

Earliest statements are:

"Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Phil 2:5-11 ESV)

"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed." (1 Cor 15:3-11 ESV)

The "basics" include the resurrection, the full deity and humanity of Christ and the Trinity.

And btw, when you say "for the whole world, for all time" you're interpreting/exegeting the text, in other worlds your formulating theology. And if we're going to be talking about some standard, some metric to determine what is and what isn't a "Christian", don't you think it should be free of doctrinal formulations?

Perhaps you could attempt speaking for yourself instead of saturating everyone with Biblical passages. The schitck is old and tired.

kerry · #80 10-22-2013, 09:35 AM

Looks like we might have had a lurker on this thread who decided to speak up. He is a gearhead who drives a 30 yr old car.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/10/21/pope-francis-right-wing-christians/?fb_action_ids=4901435673347&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map={%224901435673347%22%3A205150089667360}&action_type_map={%224901435673347%22%3A%22og.likes%22}&action_ref_map=[]

martureo · #81 10-22-2013, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chilcutt

Perhaps you could attempt speaking for yourself instead of saturating everyone with Biblical passages. The schitck is old and tired.

Shoo fly don't bother me.

chilcutt · #82 10-22-2013, 10:14 AM

To add a few issues concerning my experience with the Christian fundamentalist's I know.

1st: they claim to be against big government. But what they really want is a powerfull dictorial government that is corporate,militaristic, "Christian", and enacts laws that support their ideology.

2nd: when confronted with facts or opposing views on any subject, they will not consider them. They will turn their head away, and their eyes glaze over.

3rd: they are self righteous but feign humility.

kerry · #83 10-22-2013, 10:52 AM

They're on the side of the biggest government of all--divine omnipotence.

martureo · #84 10-22-2013, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

It's your life experiences and your current employment situation that adds value to your opinion. I may not agree with you (ok, an understatement) but I have to give your comments weight based on those. It means that if I really want to argue with you that I have to have a good strategy in mind or you'll shred me like a Cuisinart.

Perhaps Martureo is unaware?

I am quite aware of Kerry's "employment situation." I am also keenly aware of his cutting corners and ignoring the details which, if noticed, would fray his position.

My argument with him is that his opinion, not his observance of the Fundamentalist study is what his argument is based upon. And I know too many like him, they don't like grey areas. Either you fit X category or Y category, you cannot be in between the categories and there are no grey areas, only fringes.

Furthermore I have a problem when it appears that his use of the term is not only inaccurate, but it appears that he would use the term in an anachronistic manner as well. Fundamentalists are categorized by reacting to modern society and secularization, but if someone belongs to a faith group which has always held a position which happens to be something which a Fundamentalist group more recently has chosen to support, that individual is now considered a Fundamentalist by Kerry.

Further it doesn't seem to be an issue with Kerry to shout down or demean anyone who would consider the Law of Non Contradiction to apply universally.

Those are my issues. I understand the position he's coming from and I believe it to be untenable.

kerry · #85 10-22-2013, 11:12 AM

The fact that a word is coined in one historical context does not mean it doesn't apply to earlier historical contexts. Sexism is a word invented recently. It still accurately describes ancient attitudes of men towards women. It's totally reasonable to say that Aristotle was sexist when he claimed that women were not fully human. Same with fundamentalism.

chilcutt · #86 10-22-2013, 11:14 AM

^I have read Kerry's reply's for a great deal longer than you. And to my knowledge, I have never known him to shout down or demean anyone.

Those acts on the other hand are frequently practiced by you Martureo.

Get off your high horse .

martureo · #87 10-22-2013, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

The fact that a word is coined in one historical context does not mean it doesn't apply to earlier historical contexts. Sexism is a word invented recently. It still accurately describes ancient attitudes of men towards women. It's totally reasonable to say that Aristotle was sexist when he claimed that women were not fully human. Same with fundamentalism.

True, but you've used an invalid comparison. Sexism isn't something which developed in the modern era, it's existed for quite some time. However, since the development of more egalitarian ideas is quite recent, the label "sexist" is only possible to be used of Aristotle through modern eyes.

I would agree with you that Aristotle's ideas are sexist, but I cannot agree with you that he himself was sexist as that level of thought in his culture did not exist yet.

Furthermore Fundamentalism is a modern development. It is a modern term to describe the reaction of a religious group to a secular/scientific/cultural shift. You cannot accurately use the word to pre-1800s beliefs without being either inconsistent in the application or having the term die the death of usefulness when you consider that most religions would have to be called Fundamentalism. Tannaitic Judaism would have to be called Fundamentalism, for example. As would Rabbinic Judaism.

I find it odd that you've skipped over my charge of your lack of attention to detail in your polemic. How much does one have to be similar to the full description of Fundamentalism to be a Fundamentalist? And why, if the charges were leveled at you with the same level of detail do you not qualify as a Fundamentalist?

martureo · #88 10-22-2013, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chilcutt

^I have read Kerry's reply's for a great deal longer than you. And to my knowledge, I have never known him to shout down or demean anyone.

Those acts on the other hand are frequently practiced by you Martureo.

Get off your high horse .

Shoo fly, don't bother me.

kerry · #89 10-22-2013, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martureo

I find it odd that you've skipped over my charge of your lack of attention to detail in your polemic. How much does one have to be similar to the full description of Fundamentalism to be a Fundamentalist? And why, if the charges were leveled at you with the same level of detail do you not qualify as a Fundamentalist?

That's not true. I asked you about a specific detail of your beliefs regarding the education of children and took you at your word. I don't think that's enough to disqualify you from being considered a fundamentalist. There you have it.

martureo · #90 10-22-2013, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

That's not true. I asked you about a specific detail of your beliefs regarding the education of children and took you at your word. I don't think that's enough to disqualify you from being considered a fundamentalist. There you have it.

So what of those other details?

Men are to lead and women and children follow.- I don't believe this
Wives are to be subservient to their husbands.-I don't believe this 100%
Often, this subservience applies to sisters toward their brothers.-I don't believe this.
A woman's role in life is to be a homemaker.- I don't believe this.
The rules of their religion are complex and rigid and must be followed.-I don't believe this 100%
Therefore, to avoid any confusion, children of fundamentalists must be sequestered in an environment of like-minded adherents to the corresponding fundamentalist religion.-I don't believe this.
Especially so in their schooling.-I don't believe this
There is no pluralism. Their rules apply to everyone everywhere.-I don't believe this 100%
There is a distinct group of insiders and all others are outsiders.-I don't believe this 100%
Insiders are nurtured and cared for. Outsiders are cast off and fought.- I don't believe this.
They pine for an older age and a past when their religion was pure, as largely they no longer see it as such. Often, this time never truly existed, but they have a nostalgic view of a Utopian past and they long to acquire it.-I don't believe this

So simply numerically speaking, the similarities in belief/worldview are 4 out of 11. So I'd like to know what point, what percentage makes one a Fundamentalist?

And when can I start calling you a Fundamentalist?