Another Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Fifthfiend]

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

all this

That's interesting, but none of it really seems to reflect on my point that a position of "the Bible is perfect because God wouldn't let it be perfect" is an essentially lazy approach to faith.

...I don't mean to sound snide, it actually was pretty interesting, I just don't see it as relating to the point I was making.

And I'm with Ryanderman... I fit my own personal definition of fundamentalist (as in believing the fundamentals of faith) even if I don't fit the societal definition of a fanatic, which is where the problem lies. Society believes fundamentalist=fanatic, but thats not really true. Its just a connotation, not a solid definition.

From what I took from Ryander / Archbio's exchange that pretty much is the definition. Hell, I'll look it up.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fundamentalism

fun�da�men�tal�ism
–noun
1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.
2. the beliefs held by those in this movement.
3. strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives.

fun�da�men�tal�ism (fŭn'də-měn'tl-ĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

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.

It seems to me that fanaticism pretty much is right there in the definition, at least to the extent as you're using fanaticism to refer to what anyone else might refer to as fundamentalism. This seems especially inasmuch as the definition relates back to the movement which put itself forward under the name of Fundamentalism in the first place, which was basically a fanatical movement focused on rigid orthodoxy and anti-modernism.

I'm just saying, if you have a problem with how "fundamentalism" is used in our society, your argument isn't with society, it's with, well, fundamentalism, and the religious movement which originally put itself forward under that term. To argue about the usage is to complain that the term Nazi isn't used as a description of socialist workers movements or that Communism should actually be used to describe a deep belief in the need for people to have really meaningful conversations with each other.

While Fundamentalism does relate very strongly to a literal interpretation of the Bible, a literal interpretation does also bring into account the fact that the New Testament & Christ's actions therin do away with the Old Testament Law.

I think you're conflating two separate things, the point about Christ's pronouncements re: Old Testament law would be an issue of interpretational accuracy, rather than the issue of whether the events in the Bible as a literal transcription of historical events. I mean whatever Jesus meant by his statement on Old Testament law nobody's arguing that the passage is not actually about Jesus saying something, but rather about Jesus as a figurative conception of the idea of someone saying something.