Are You a Fundamentalist?

[evenifigoalone]

Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were listing those fundamental beliefs of Christianity, although most fundamentalists are likely to believe them as well. Not to mention it seems that many fundamentalists subscribe to the error of KJVOism.

One of the reasons I stopped considering myself fundamentalist...too associated with more extremists. I guess by the doctrinal definition I'm still a fundamentalist, but it...depends on what people mean when they say it, I guess. Most, especially those outside of Christianity, tend to mean extremists. I guess arguably there could be some effort to try to claim the term back, but IDK.
I don't really identify with the historical definition either, I think...not sure.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

One of the reasons I stopped considering myself fundamentalist...too associated with more extremists. I guess by the doctrinal definition I'm still a fundamentalist, but it...depends on what people mean when they say it, I guess. Most, especially those outside of Christianity, tend to mean extremists. I guess arguably there could be some effort to try to claim the term back, but IDK.
I don't really identify with the historical definition either, I think...not sure.

You made me a fundamentalist.
Now you have to stay one with me.
Are the John Birch Society members considered fundamentalists?

 

[smaller]

One of the reasons I stopped considering myself fundamentalist...too associated with more extremists. I guess by the doctrinal definition I'm still a fundamentalist, but it...depends on what people mean when they say it, I guess. Most, especially those outside of Christianity, tend to mean extremists. I guess arguably there could be some effort to try to claim the term back, but IDK.
I don't really identify with the historical definition either, I think...not sure.

It's somewhat strange that most of us take "foundation" Christian matters from past religious organizations that we now reject, in part, from older orthodoxy. But they obviously had some "issues" even having a good foundation.

Early orthodoxy was good in foundational matters of christianity. They were bascially 'forced' into their determinations, by competitions that were not so foundational.

BUT, the result for them was somewhat disastrous, because in that quest they forgot a lot of other "foundational" matters of fact, such as: "we all see only in part" therefore constructing any kind of "foundation" apart from Christ Alone, by "OUR" nature, is somewhat impossible. Christ is not constructed of "foundation" concepts that are piece mealed together by any compilation of "partial sights." And I believe Paul himself bowed to this reality himself, when he said he too saw only in part.

Any foundational concept is seen, factually, only in part. And that itself is somewhat foundational. Keeps us from exalting a concept rather than a Living Christ.

The early churches "foundation" really went astray on this count. They took this line of reasoning: "Jesus gave us ALL TRUTH, therefore we have ALL TRUTH, as only we alone determine."

Uh, yeah, but you forgot that we all see only in part, so that got left out of their equations. They exalted a bunch of PART SEERS over Christ Himself.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

it seems that many fundamentalists subscribe to the error of KJVOism.

'Taint that the truth.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Are the John Birch Society members considered fundamentalists?

First it's the 'Church of the Enlightened Ones'.
Now it's the 'John Birch Society'.
Where do you come up with these?

 

[childeye]

I can never be sure what someone means when they say fundamentalist. My fundamentals are God is good. Now I only need argue with the devil what the terms God and Good mean, when in fact they kind of mean the same thing with one extra o.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

First it's the 'Church of the Enlightened Ones'.
Now it's the 'John Birch Society'.
Where do you come up with these?

I'm a former member of the Moral Majority.
The John Birch Society at that time in the 90's solicited me for membership.

 

[KevinK]

For the purpose of this thread, fundamentalist = literalist (interpretation of scripture).

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

For the purpose of this thread, fundamentalist = literalist (interpretation of scripture).

One can only take literal interpretation so far.
I was taught to always take the Bible literal.
If I could not understand something, then look for the figurative or symbolic meaning behind it.

I don't question this, I just do it.
If all we do is question everything, we stay stuck in neutral and go no where.

 

[KevinK]

OK, folks, you knew this was coming. Another famous Biblical contradiction is 1 Samuel 17:50-51.

50 So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand of David.

51 Therefore David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head therewith. And when the Philistines saw their champion was dead, they fled.

So how could David have slain Goliath twice? Is there a fundamentalist explananation for this contradiction?

My personal answer is that it doesn't matter that there's inconsistencies in the Bible. The main messages of the Bible are still intact, for example salvation through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and in the end that's all that matters.

 

[smaller]

For the purpose of this thread, fundamentalist = literalist (interpretation of scripture).

I doubt you'll find many of this understanding here or anywhere, where scriptures are taken seriously.

 

[smaller]

OK, folks, you knew this was coming. Another famous Biblical contradiction is 1 Samuel 17:50-51.

50 So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand of David.

51 Therefore David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head therewith. And when the Philistines saw their champion was dead, they fled.

So how could David have slain Goliath twice? Is there a fundamentalist explananation for this contradiction?

My personal answer is that it doesn't matter that there's inconsistencies in the Bible. The main messages of the Bible are still intact, for example salvation through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and in the end that's all that matters.

Don't know how you would see that as a contradiction or inconsistency.

Did David whack G with a stone, THEN cut off his head? Yeah. There is zero reason to see it one or the other way. It was both. That is just the way some read it, looking for holes where there is none except by imposition. David cut off G's head with G's own sword.

There are vastly more interesting "surface" contradictions than that pittance.

 

[childeye]

I'm a former member of the Moral Majority.
The John Birch Society at that time in the 90's solicited me for membership.

AH, semantics. So what? Now you're a member of the immoral minority? And many of the first shall be made last, and many of the last shall be made first. What a crazy race we run.

 

[KevinK]

Don't know how you would see that as a contradiction or inconsistency.

Did David whack G with a stone, THEN cut off his head? Yeah. There is zero reason to see it one or the other way. It was both. That is just the way some read it, looking for holes where there is none except by imposition. David cut off G's head with G's own sword.

There are vastly more interesting "surface" contradictions than that pittance.

The contradiction is the word "slew". Slay means "to kill". The two passages read that Goliath was killed twice. There's no problem with the order of events; David went to meet Goliath without a sword of his own, but ended up decapitating him with his own sword. But that would be the second time he killed him in back-to-back passages. It's either a contradiction or the first true account of resurrection in the Bible.

I am intentionally focusing on the more trivial inconsistencies, as in the camel through the eye of a needle passage. I think it prudent to avoid the major ones, such as evolution or the true age of the earth; I think these topics have had more than sufficient airtime here.;)

 

[turnorburn]

The contradiction is the word "slew". Slay means "to kill". The two passages read that Goliath was killed twice. There's no problem with the order of events; David went to meet Goliath without a sword of his own, but ended up decapitating him with his own sword. But that would be the second time he killed him in back-to-back passages. It's either a contradiction or the first true account of resurrection in the Bible.

I am intentionally focusing on the more trivial inconsistencies, as in the camel through the eye of a needle passage. I think it prudent to avoid the major ones, such as evolution or the true age of the earth; I think these topics have had more than sufficient airtime here.;)

Seems your taking this out of context, what was Goliath's challenge?

tob

 

[KevinK]

Seems your taking this out of context, what was Goliath's challenge?

tob

Not sure exactly what you mean, but the triviality is in how Goliath was killed (once or twice doesn't matter, the point is he was killed and thus defeated). The subjectification of the winning side to the other (Israel vs. Philistines) is not what I was referring to.

Put it this way, does it matter whether one bullet or two from an HK416 actually killed Osama Bin Laden? Not really, unless you work for H&K maybe. The point is, he died.

 

[turnorburn]

Not sure exactly what you mean, but the triviality is in how Goliath was killed (once or twice doesn't matter, the point is he was killed and thus defeated). The subjectification of the winning side to the other (Israel vs. Philistines) is not what I was referring to.

It matters a great deal, what was Goliath's challenge?

tob

*edit: i should have added Gods stories are never trivial there is a reason why it was worded this way..

 

[KevinK]

This is blowing the thread way off topic. I'm not going to answer any further (actually I already did, but this is enough).

 

[smaller]

The contradiction is the word "slew". Slay means "to kill". The two passages read that Goliath was killed twice.

Uh, no. He cut off his head and slew him. Both transpired.

"and slew him, and cut off his head"

 

[turnorburn]

This is blowing the thread way off topic. I'm not going to answer any further (actually I already did, but this is enough).

Your the one that said it was trivial and a contradiction..

tob

This is why we don't understand by our own understanding..

Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.