Why is it that the word fundamentalist is used as a synonym for Fanatic... ? :mad:
:rolleyes:
I have the traditional beliefs in "Fundamentalist" Christianity as my faith, yet I don't go out bombing FBI buildings, or flying airliners into sky scrapers, or bombing clinics, etc.
I guess the difference between me and the groups I believe you all refer to is that I believe God is the only one who can judge, and not me/them ...
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Captain,Simmonds [/i]
[B]I hate Fundies [/B][/QUOTE]
[quote]fun·da·men·tal·ism Audio pronunciation of "fundamentalist" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fnd-mntl-zm)
n.
1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and [b]often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.[/b]
2.
a. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
b. Adherence to the theology of this movement.[/quote]
Emphasis mine.
[quote]fundamentalist
adj : of or relating to or tending toward fundamentalism [syn: fundamentalistic] n : a supporter of fundamentalism[/quote]
eh... I'm not afraid to say what I think and feel...
That definition sure has changed from the old days. Used to be a Fundamentalist Christian meant that you believed in certain theological principles about Jesus being the Christ, and God's son, etc.
Never used to be included as an adjective about nasty people...
;)
In other words, it used to define an inner belief structure rather than being used to point out colorful characters...
Definitions change over time. For example, to be "gay" or "queer" was just another way to say you were happy. Now it refers to homosexuality. That doesn't make it any less relevant. It just happens to have a different meaning now.
That being said, I'm making it implicitly clear that I'm not attacking your beliefs in any way. You could worship the vorlon god Booji for all I care. As long as you don't push it onto me or anyone else, it doesn't bother me in the least.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Random Chaos [/i]
[B].
The fact is the US Bill of Rights and Constitution gives us freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. It also does not give us the freedom to destroy other people's property. This is where the border occurs that causes the extreame levels of contention: in order to enforce law and order, to what extent is one allowed to infringe upon the inherent freedoms of society?
--RC [/B][/QUOTE] Not with the Patriot Act, they can pretty much crack down on anyone they want without due process. Although I doubt it has been used in any relation to the protests, they still can use that little piece of paper.
That is the second reason I cannot vote for Bush the other being Iraq. We are coming to a conclusion either were going to be a tyrannical dictatorship or we can hope to get back what we had pre-911.
As for religion, I used to be super religious as far as two years ago even. I wouldn't say fundamentalist because I didn't know the fundamentals!
A# do you even know NY? Have you ever been there? New Yorkers can be absolute animals not just far left, far right. DO you have idea how many times a cabby has said to me "HEY! OVER HERE ASSHOLE!" or some bum gives lip about a seat on the subway? Prostitutes with STDs? Why the fuck are the Republicans looking for prostitutes, wheres your fundamentals there? Pick pockets will have a field day! The Republicans aren't being very smart about having the convention in the City. They've been warned they wanna step in hell its their choice.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JackN [/i]
[B]eh... I'm not afraid to say what I think and feel...
That definition sure has changed from the old days. Used to be a Fundamentalist Christian meant that you believed in certain theological principles about Jesus being the Christ, and God's son, etc.
Never used to be included as an adjective about nasty people...
;)
In other words, it used to define an inner belief structure rather than being used to point out colorful characters...
:rolleyes: [/B][/QUOTE]
I agree with Jack, a better word would be extremist.
Theologically a fundamental Christian would be a loving, caring, charitable person who loves their enemies as much as they love their friends. Those are some of the fundamental principals of Jesus, on which the Christian faith is based. It takes real courage to actually take on and follow these principals.
I've found that many Christian groups seem to have forgotten those tenets of faith, rather, basing their beliefs on a structure that allows them to be angry at others, scared of the world and to exact a level of control over individuals, rather relying on obscure Old Testament passages or out-dated theologians to shape their faith. Dante's view of hell is a good example. The picture of Hades drawn in The Divine Comedy has little biblical basis, but ask many Christians what hell is like, and they will draw parallels to Dante's hell.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Freejack [/i]
[B]I agree with Jack, a better word would be extremist.
Theologically a fundamental Christian would be a loving, caring, charitable person who loves their enemies as much as they love their friends. Those are some of the fundamental principals of Jesus, on which the Christian faith is based. It takes real courage to actually take on and follow these principals.
[/B][/QUOTE]
That depends on wether youre a fundamentalist that looks to the old testament or new testament. Fundamentalist means you look at each word and dont even try to interpret the meaning of the context, just follow it blindly. If the bible says you should kill all witches (which it does), and youre a fundamentalist, you go out and kill people who practice Wicca.
If youre a christian (Im not) the new testament is where you should get your inspiration from. Jesus was a really cool guy (he probably smoked weed though ;)) (and just to emphazise, I know how people can react when you make fun of their religion, that last part was a joke)
Im glad Im a part of the Asatru (actually called forn sed, but more people know it as Asatru, so...), but there are a lot of fundamentalists here too (mostly white power assholes), so in short fundamentalists suck.
Probably not fundamentalist bhuddists, but as a whole, they suck (fundamentalists).
Hmm, interesting, I hadn't heard of Asatru before, but here is what I found on it [url]http://www.religioustolerance.org/asatru.htm[/url] , including some discussion of how its been corrupted for Arian/White Supremist justification. Are these the tenets you follow?
The more I know about other world religions, the more the Foundationists from JMS's world appeal to me. It seems that in some part that every world religion has some truth to it, but over the eons, that truth has been perverted into whatever purpose people wanted it to fill. If one goes back and looks at the fundamentals (this time the word is a good thing) of a belief system, I believe there are specific ideals, guidelines, and rules that are important, contributing to the happiness and well being of the individual and the community. It’s the layers of rules, tenets and doctrine that get layered on top that tend to twist the religion from a focus of individual fulfillment and community stability to group control and individual submission.
The idea of looking critically at all religions and belief systems and determining the most significant and worthy constructs of those systems has great appeal to me. A good example would be Christianity versus Buddhism. A basic principal of Christianity is striving to be more Christ-like, i.e. more virtuous, charitable and loving. I believe that when you find people who are authentically strive to follow those principals, you find very happy people who are at ease with themselves. An important part of Buddhism is samadhi, which means mental development, that developing ones mind can lead to a form of freedom. Either path by itself is noble and can provide fulfillment, but to endeavor to be more charitable and loving, while at the some time, striving to expand ones mind can lead to a much more enlightened and well rounded individual.
Yes, most of the information on that site is correct, we also live in close harmony with nature, and some worship nature itself.
I believe that foundationism actually exists as a religion today. Some people (who watched B5) got together and thought it was a good idea. They even asked JMS if they could call it foundationism and use some of G'kars speeches for it.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by The Cabl3 Guy [/i]
[B]What is the christ? Isnt hat just his name Jesus Christ? or does it mean son of man or somethin. [/B][/QUOTE]
It does mean son of man, to signify that while he was entirely God, he was also entirely human.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Freejack [/i]
[B] Dante's view of hell is a good example. The picture of Hades drawn in The Divine Comedy has little biblical basis, but ask many Christians what hell is like, and they will draw parallels to Dante's hell. [/B][/QUOTE]
That's so true...
The real picture of judgement in the Bible is Eternal existence without God (IE: Darkness, no help, no communion, nocomfort, etc.). The Eternal Lake of Fire (which is where the idea of a firey Hell came from I think) is reserved for Satan, False Prophet, and Anti-Christ.
The true Hell had two sides according to biblical scripture, Hades and Paradise.
But I do not want to get into a theological discussion here... ;)
I'd also add that Wetsernized Christianity is a very different creature than the original (what I consider to be true) Christianity from the earliest days.
Most American Christians for example are in it for the social benefits, but when pushed hard enough to see the real thing that they call their own, have a major traumatic experience that either strengthens them or turns them away completely... ;)
What I find rather interesting, and often disheartning, is the way that people tend to latch onto the current theology and dotrine of religion as if that's the way it was from the begining, ignoring the fact that religion is a fluid, changing, living creature, that grows, makes mistakes, matures...
A good example is the infaliblity of the bible. I have several friends who approach the bible as a perfect work, with no faults, and represented as complete fact. But if you study how the early stories were handed down, how bible itself was created, how the books that were included selected, you find that it was a lot more than just some versus that were handed down from God.
The canon version of the bible (new testiment) came about from the a letter written by St. Athanasus, Bishop of Alexandria in the 4th century namimg the 27 books of the new testiment as the "springs of salvation". It wasn't until 1546 that the Catholic church adopted them as canon.
Another example: While there are 4 Gospels in the new testement, it is thought that at one time there were upwards of 14 different gospels of Jesus.
Either show that what we beleive to be fact has changed over time...
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by A2597 [/i]
[B]It does mean son of man, to signify that while he was entirely God, he was also entirely human. [/B][/QUOTE]
The term "Christ" is a title. If you want to get semantic, think of words like "christened" to get the real meaning. Its actual inherent meaning is just "anointed" (state, not past-tense), as in "the anointed one." Within the context of Jewish or Christian beliefs, the term is reserved for a specific person, also termed the Messiah. The implication is one of a ruler figure, a leader, although it would probably be more appropriate to say [b]the[/b] ruler figure or [b]the[/b] leader.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by A2597 [/i]
[B]It does mean son of man, to signify that while he was entirely God, he was also entirely human. [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually, in the most literal sense, "Christ" comes from the Greek word "Khristos", meaning "Anointed", as in a religious ceremony.
Jesus's other title (and the one that he probably would've had around his time) is "Messiah" which comes from both the Hebrew and Aramaic words of "Anointed".
Just because I'm having fun with entomology, the modern english form of the name Jesus is Joshua. So, if you ever want to confuse and irritate a Christian, ask him if he believes in Joshua, the Anointed One. :D
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Freejack [/i]
[B]Theologically a fundamental Christian would be a loving, caring, charitable person who loves their enemies as much as they love their friends. Those are some of the fundamental principals of Jesus, on which the Christian faith is based. It takes real courage to actually take on and follow these principals.[/B][/QUOTE]
Or they just don't give damn about those principles, they just pretend to be religious to get support from people.
Little about political orientation:
[url]http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/analysis2.html[/url]
And "Political versus Economic Liberalism" part from here.
[url]http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/FreeTrade/Neoliberalism.asp[/url]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Freejack [/i]
[B]What I find rather interesting, and often disheartning, is the way that people tend to latch onto the current theology and dotrine of religion as if that's the way it was from the begining, ignoring the fact that religion is a fluid, changing, living creature, that grows, makes mistakes, matures...
A good example is the infaliblity of the bible. I have several friends who approach the bible as a perfect work, with no faults, and represented as complete fact. But if you study how the early stories were handed down, how bible itself was created, how the books that were included selected, you find that it was a lot more than just some versus that were handed down from God.
The canon version of the bible (new testiment) came about from the a letter written by St. Athanasus, Bishop of Alexandria in the 4th century namimg the 27 books of the new testiment as the "springs of salvation". It wasn't until 1546 that the Catholic church adopted them as canon.
Another example: While there are 4 Gospels in the new testement, it is thought that at one time there were upwards of 14 different gospels of Jesus.
Either show that what we beleive to be fact has changed over time...
Jake [/B][/QUOTE]
Not quite, the basic 27 books were pretty much the accepted ones from quite early on. The various orthadox churches, which many broke off quite early, or for various reasons were isolated from the rest of christendom (the ethiopian orthdox church) contain some additional books, but nothing truly bizzare.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by A2597 [/i]
[B]Just this:
The far left wants to kill those that don't believe as they. Or at the very least cause some kind of harm to their opposition.
The far right = ultra conservative people that don't curse, arn't promiscuous, and could happily live with the Amish.
You tell me what side suddenly looks better? [/B][/QUOTE]
Need I remind you of the Oral Roberts scandals, the Jim Bakker sex scandals, the bigotry/antisemitism/misogyny known as Pat Robertson or the misogynistic (1988?) Southern Baptist Convention. Those are only a small collection of the wonder that is the far right. Any extreme is bad.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]Not quite, the basic 27 books were pretty much the accepted ones from quite early on. The various orthadox churches, which many broke off quite early, or for various reasons were isolated from the rest of christendom (the ethiopian orthdox church) contain some additional books, but nothing truly bizzare. [/B][/QUOTE]
True, the books of the new testiment we have today are basicly the same collection of works the were avialable 150 years after the birth of Jesus. The point I wanted to make was that the bible was no perfect work handed down by God. It was an amalgimation of work from several different sources and traditions, that through time became the work we know today as the Bible. I have friends who treat this book as if it were a perfect icon, handed down by God himself, unblemished by human hands.
My mother likes to use this comparison, if you sculpt a statue of Abraham Linclon cutting the chain of slave, you have created work that represents truth, what you have not done is provided a factual representation. That's a good representation of how I view the Bible, its and excellent representation of the truth, but should not be presented as fact.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Vertigo1 [/i]
[B]Jack, I suggest you look up the definition for "Fundamentalist" before you go any further. :)
[url]http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fundamentalist[/url]
[/B][/QUOTE]
You might want to try a real [URL=http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=fundamentalist&x=0&y=0]dictionary reference[/URL]
[quote]
Main Entry: fun·da·men·tal·ism
Pronunciation: -t&l-"i-z&m
Function: noun
1 a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs
[/quote]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JohnD [/i]
[B]Need I remind you of the Oral Roberts scandals, the Jim Bakker sex scandals, the bigotry/antisemitism/misogyny known as Pat Robertson or the misogynistic (1988?) Southern Baptist Convention. Those are only a small collection of the wonder that is the far right. Any extreme is bad. [/B][/QUOTE]
Psst! You might want to read his apology thread. ;)
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by The Cabl3 Guy [/i]
[B]What is the christ? Isnt hat just his name Jesus Christ? or does it mean son of man or somethin. [/B][/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2003-12-12[/url]
Sorry, just had to post it. "It's the Jesus!"
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by bobo [/i]
[B]You might want to try a real [URL=http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=fundamentalist&x=0&y=0]dictionary reference[/URL] [/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah, and if I really wanted, I could dig up a couple more dictionary references to back up what I said as well. At any rate, you're just backing me up even further. I could look up the definition for a certain n word, and even then not every dictionary would agree on the definition.
Comments
[B]Wow, only seven posts until Hitler was invoked. ;) [/B][/QUOTE]
VERT DID IT!!! :D
[B]
Again, sorry guys, I came off as a total prick. :( [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually...you didn't.
You see, I used to have political discussions over lunch with a stronly pro-republican who did come off as one. You were nothing like that.
:rolleyes:
I have the traditional beliefs in "Fundamentalist" Christianity as my faith, yet I don't go out bombing FBI buildings, or flying airliners into sky scrapers, or bombing clinics, etc.
I guess the difference between me and the groups I believe you all refer to is that I believe God is the only one who can judge, and not me/them ...
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Captain,Simmonds [/i]
[B]I hate Fundies [/B][/QUOTE]
I guess by default you hate me then...
:p
[url]http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fundamentalist[/url]
[quote]fun·da·men·tal·ism Audio pronunciation of "fundamentalist" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fnd-mntl-zm)
n.
1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and [b]often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.[/b]
2.
a. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
b. Adherence to the theology of this movement.[/quote]
Emphasis mine.
[quote]fundamentalist
adj : of or relating to or tending toward fundamentalism [syn: fundamentalistic] n : a supporter of fundamentalism[/quote]
That definition sure has changed from the old days. Used to be a Fundamentalist Christian meant that you believed in certain theological principles about Jesus being the Christ, and God's son, etc.
Never used to be included as an adjective about nasty people...
;)
In other words, it used to define an inner belief structure rather than being used to point out colorful characters...
:rolleyes:
That being said, I'm making it implicitly clear that I'm not attacking your beliefs in any way. You could worship the vorlon god Booji for all I care. As long as you don't push it onto me or anyone else, it doesn't bother me in the least.
[B].
The fact is the US Bill of Rights and Constitution gives us freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. It also does not give us the freedom to destroy other people's property. This is where the border occurs that causes the extreame levels of contention: in order to enforce law and order, to what extent is one allowed to infringe upon the inherent freedoms of society?
--RC [/B][/QUOTE] Not with the Patriot Act, they can pretty much crack down on anyone they want without due process. Although I doubt it has been used in any relation to the protests, they still can use that little piece of paper.
That is the second reason I cannot vote for Bush the other being Iraq. We are coming to a conclusion either were going to be a tyrannical dictatorship or we can hope to get back what we had pre-911.
As for religion, I used to be super religious as far as two years ago even. I wouldn't say fundamentalist because I didn't know the fundamentals!
A# do you even know NY? Have you ever been there? New Yorkers can be absolute animals not just far left, far right. DO you have idea how many times a cabby has said to me "HEY! OVER HERE ASSHOLE!" or some bum gives lip about a seat on the subway? Prostitutes with STDs? Why the fuck are the Republicans looking for prostitutes, wheres your fundamentals there? Pick pockets will have a field day! The Republicans aren't being very smart about having the convention in the City. They've been warned they wanna step in hell its their choice.
[B]eh... I'm not afraid to say what I think and feel...
That definition sure has changed from the old days. Used to be a Fundamentalist Christian meant that you believed in certain theological principles about Jesus being the Christ, and God's son, etc.
Never used to be included as an adjective about nasty people...
;)
In other words, it used to define an inner belief structure rather than being used to point out colorful characters...
:rolleyes: [/B][/QUOTE]
I agree with Jack, a better word would be extremist.
Theologically a fundamental Christian would be a loving, caring, charitable person who loves their enemies as much as they love their friends. Those are some of the fundamental principals of Jesus, on which the Christian faith is based. It takes real courage to actually take on and follow these principals.
I've found that many Christian groups seem to have forgotten those tenets of faith, rather, basing their beliefs on a structure that allows them to be angry at others, scared of the world and to exact a level of control over individuals, rather relying on obscure Old Testament passages or out-dated theologians to shape their faith. Dante's view of hell is a good example. The picture of Hades drawn in The Divine Comedy has little biblical basis, but ask many Christians what hell is like, and they will draw parallels to Dante's hell.
Jake
[B]I agree with Jack, a better word would be extremist.
Theologically a fundamental Christian would be a loving, caring, charitable person who loves their enemies as much as they love their friends. Those are some of the fundamental principals of Jesus, on which the Christian faith is based. It takes real courage to actually take on and follow these principals.
[/B][/QUOTE]
That depends on wether youre a fundamentalist that looks to the old testament or new testament. Fundamentalist means you look at each word and dont even try to interpret the meaning of the context, just follow it blindly. If the bible says you should kill all witches (which it does), and youre a fundamentalist, you go out and kill people who practice Wicca.
If youre a christian (Im not) the new testament is where you should get your inspiration from. Jesus was a really cool guy (he probably smoked weed though ;)) (and just to emphazise, I know how people can react when you make fun of their religion, that last part was a joke)
Im glad Im a part of the Asatru (actually called forn sed, but more people know it as Asatru, so...), but there are a lot of fundamentalists here too (mostly white power assholes), so in short fundamentalists suck.
Probably not fundamentalist bhuddists, but as a whole, they suck (fundamentalists).
The more I know about other world religions, the more the Foundationists from JMS's world appeal to me. It seems that in some part that every world religion has some truth to it, but over the eons, that truth has been perverted into whatever purpose people wanted it to fill. If one goes back and looks at the fundamentals (this time the word is a good thing) of a belief system, I believe there are specific ideals, guidelines, and rules that are important, contributing to the happiness and well being of the individual and the community. It’s the layers of rules, tenets and doctrine that get layered on top that tend to twist the religion from a focus of individual fulfillment and community stability to group control and individual submission.
The idea of looking critically at all religions and belief systems and determining the most significant and worthy constructs of those systems has great appeal to me. A good example would be Christianity versus Buddhism. A basic principal of Christianity is striving to be more Christ-like, i.e. more virtuous, charitable and loving. I believe that when you find people who are authentically strive to follow those principals, you find very happy people who are at ease with themselves. An important part of Buddhism is samadhi, which means mental development, that developing ones mind can lead to a form of freedom. Either path by itself is noble and can provide fulfillment, but to endeavor to be more charitable and loving, while at the some time, striving to expand ones mind can lead to a much more enlightened and well rounded individual.
Jake
I believe that foundationism actually exists as a religion today. Some people (who watched B5) got together and thought it was a good idea. They even asked JMS if they could call it foundationism and use some of G'kars speeches for it.
[B]What is the christ? Isnt hat just his name Jesus Christ? or does it mean son of man or somethin. [/B][/QUOTE]
It does mean son of man, to signify that while he was entirely God, he was also entirely human.
[B] Dante's view of hell is a good example. The picture of Hades drawn in The Divine Comedy has little biblical basis, but ask many Christians what hell is like, and they will draw parallels to Dante's hell. [/B][/QUOTE]
That's so true...
The real picture of judgement in the Bible is Eternal existence without God (IE: Darkness, no help, no communion, nocomfort, etc.). The Eternal Lake of Fire (which is where the idea of a firey Hell came from I think) is reserved for Satan, False Prophet, and Anti-Christ.
The true Hell had two sides according to biblical scripture, Hades and Paradise.
But I do not want to get into a theological discussion here... ;)
Most American Christians for example are in it for the social benefits, but when pushed hard enough to see the real thing that they call their own, have a major traumatic experience that either strengthens them or turns them away completely... ;)
A good example is the infaliblity of the bible. I have several friends who approach the bible as a perfect work, with no faults, and represented as complete fact. But if you study how the early stories were handed down, how bible itself was created, how the books that were included selected, you find that it was a lot more than just some versus that were handed down from God.
The canon version of the bible (new testiment) came about from the a letter written by St. Athanasus, Bishop of Alexandria in the 4th century namimg the 27 books of the new testiment as the "springs of salvation". It wasn't until 1546 that the Catholic church adopted them as canon.
Another example: While there are 4 Gospels in the new testement, it is thought that at one time there were upwards of 14 different gospels of Jesus.
Either show that what we beleive to be fact has changed over time...
Jake
[B]It does mean son of man, to signify that while he was entirely God, he was also entirely human. [/B][/QUOTE]
Erm... [url=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=christ]not quite[/url].
The term "Christ" is a title. If you want to get semantic, think of words like "christened" to get the real meaning. Its actual inherent meaning is just "anointed" (state, not past-tense), as in "the anointed one." Within the context of Jewish or Christian beliefs, the term is reserved for a specific person, also termed the Messiah. The implication is one of a ruler figure, a leader, although it would probably be more appropriate to say [b]the[/b] ruler figure or [b]the[/b] leader.
[B]It does mean son of man, to signify that while he was entirely God, he was also entirely human. [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually, in the most literal sense, "Christ" comes from the Greek word "Khristos", meaning "Anointed", as in a religious ceremony.
Jesus's other title (and the one that he probably would've had around his time) is "Messiah" which comes from both the Hebrew and Aramaic words of "Anointed".
Just because I'm having fun with entomology, the modern english form of the name Jesus is Joshua. So, if you ever want to confuse and irritate a Christian, ask him if he believes in Joshua, the Anointed One. :D
EDIT: Huzzah for cross-posting!
[B]Theologically a fundamental Christian would be a loving, caring, charitable person who loves their enemies as much as they love their friends. Those are some of the fundamental principals of Jesus, on which the Christian faith is based. It takes real courage to actually take on and follow these principals.[/B][/QUOTE]
Or they just don't give damn about those principles, they just pretend to be religious to get support from people.
Little about political orientation:
[url]http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/analysis2.html[/url]
And "Political versus Economic Liberalism" part from here.
[url]http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/FreeTrade/Neoliberalism.asp[/url]
[B]"Messiah"[/B][/QUOTE]
Yes?
[B]What I find rather interesting, and often disheartning, is the way that people tend to latch onto the current theology and dotrine of religion as if that's the way it was from the begining, ignoring the fact that religion is a fluid, changing, living creature, that grows, makes mistakes, matures...
A good example is the infaliblity of the bible. I have several friends who approach the bible as a perfect work, with no faults, and represented as complete fact. But if you study how the early stories were handed down, how bible itself was created, how the books that were included selected, you find that it was a lot more than just some versus that were handed down from God.
The canon version of the bible (new testiment) came about from the a letter written by St. Athanasus, Bishop of Alexandria in the 4th century namimg the 27 books of the new testiment as the "springs of salvation". It wasn't until 1546 that the Catholic church adopted them as canon.
Another example: While there are 4 Gospels in the new testement, it is thought that at one time there were upwards of 14 different gospels of Jesus.
Either show that what we beleive to be fact has changed over time...
Jake [/B][/QUOTE]
Not quite, the basic 27 books were pretty much the accepted ones from quite early on. The various orthadox churches, which many broke off quite early, or for various reasons were isolated from the rest of christendom (the ethiopian orthdox church) contain some additional books, but nothing truly bizzare.
[B]Just this:
The far left wants to kill those that don't believe as they. Or at the very least cause some kind of harm to their opposition.
The far right = ultra conservative people that don't curse, arn't promiscuous, and could happily live with the Amish.
You tell me what side suddenly looks better? [/B][/QUOTE]
Need I remind you of the Oral Roberts scandals, the Jim Bakker sex scandals, the bigotry/antisemitism/misogyny known as Pat Robertson or the misogynistic (1988?) Southern Baptist Convention. Those are only a small collection of the wonder that is the far right. Any extreme is bad.
[B]Not quite, the basic 27 books were pretty much the accepted ones from quite early on. The various orthadox churches, which many broke off quite early, or for various reasons were isolated from the rest of christendom (the ethiopian orthdox church) contain some additional books, but nothing truly bizzare. [/B][/QUOTE]
True, the books of the new testiment we have today are basicly the same collection of works the were avialable 150 years after the birth of Jesus. The point I wanted to make was that the bible was no perfect work handed down by God. It was an amalgimation of work from several different sources and traditions, that through time became the work we know today as the Bible. I have friends who treat this book as if it were a perfect icon, handed down by God himself, unblemished by human hands.
My mother likes to use this comparison, if you sculpt a statue of Abraham Linclon cutting the chain of slave, you have created work that represents truth, what you have not done is provided a factual representation. That's a good representation of how I view the Bible, its and excellent representation of the truth, but should not be presented as fact.
Jake
[B]Jack, I suggest you look up the definition for "Fundamentalist" before you go any further. :)
[url]http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fundamentalist[/url]
[/B][/QUOTE]
You might want to try a real [URL=http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=fundamentalist&x=0&y=0]dictionary reference[/URL]
[quote]
Main Entry: fun·da·men·tal·ism
Pronunciation: -t&l-"i-z&m
Function: noun
1 a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs
[/quote]
[B]Need I remind you of the Oral Roberts scandals, the Jim Bakker sex scandals, the bigotry/antisemitism/misogyny known as Pat Robertson or the misogynistic (1988?) Southern Baptist Convention. Those are only a small collection of the wonder that is the far right. Any extreme is bad. [/B][/QUOTE]
Psst! You might want to read his apology thread. ;)
[B]What is the christ? Isnt hat just his name Jesus Christ? or does it mean son of man or somethin. [/B][/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2003-12-12[/url]
Sorry, just had to post it. "It's the Jesus!"
[B]Psst! You might want to read his apology thread. ;) [/B][/QUOTE]
LOL.
<-- wasn't going to say anything. :D
Actually, I'm surprised this topic is still alive....:eek:
[B]You might want to try a real [URL=http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=fundamentalist&x=0&y=0]dictionary reference[/URL] [/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah, and if I really wanted, I could dig up a couple more dictionary references to back up what I said as well. At any rate, you're just backing me up even further. I could look up the definition for a certain n word, and even then not every dictionary would agree on the definition.