Another Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[TheSpacePope]

The term Fundamentalist is really misused these days. Those the media(or culture, whatever) describes as "Fundamentalist Christians" really aren't, because their beliefs, which lead directly to the actions they take that tick off the rest of the country, are not the Fundamental beliefs of Christianity. Fundamental Christianity would lead one love your neighbor, be kind to strangers, treat others as you'd want to be treated, all that stuff.

NOw that I agree with that.

However, It is a fine line that you come to as far as evil goes, I mean, what separates those people from the Woodsboro baptist church?

[Frostatine]

what precisely is a "fundamentalist" christian?

Are we talking mormons and the Ahmish?

Or something else entirely...

Anyway the very first christians were very different from how we are today, and that is simply because religion is a product of man; Meaning that as men change the religion itself will change. You may say that we have been reading the same bible for thousands of years, but the interpretation has changed, also parts of the bible that were quoted much before, may take second stage to a passage that works better for the moment.

[Gorefiend]

I'd say that Fundamentalist Christians are those who attempt to use the Bible and (older*) traditional morality to guide their daily lives, and want to act in as many circles as possible (including politics, or academia, or other non-religious grounds) to make everyone else live as they do. The first half of the sentence needs to be clarified a bit as well; I don't mean to say everyone who uses religious values to guide their morality, as that would be a hell of a lot of people (arguably everyone). I mean the folks who 1) would self-reportedly cite these as their sources, and 2) would therefore not be willing to compromise these given any situation. The second half of the sentence I hope is straightforward enough.

Hopefully this definition will exclude groups like the Amish (who keep to themselves) or Mormons (who have compromised some of the original teachings (polygamy), and who (I think, as I could be very wrong, and if I am I apologize) look as much, if not more, to their own text as to the Bible).

Originally Posted by Frostatine

Anyway the very first christians were very different from how we are today, and that is simply because religion is a product of man; Meaning that as men change the religion itself will change. You may say that we have been reading the same bible for thousands of years, but the interpretation has changed, also parts of the bible that were quoted much before, may take second stage to a passage that works better for the moment. (emphasis added)

Actually, a much better definition for Fundamentalist Christians (and Fundamentalist anything who have a text or doctrine they adhere to) would be those who would categorically reject that statement, and argue that religion is constant and that people have been practicing it since antiquity just as they are practicing it here and now.
_____
*With respect to our current values, not to the Bible.
**Which can range from "as long as people have been around" to "since the foreseeable beginning of the religion/ideology" (Jesus' death, the move back into Mecca, the first publication of the Communist Manifesto, etc...)

[Ryanderman]

Originally Posted by Archbio

The media or society?

Society, thank you. The media was the first term that came to my mind, and I couldn't quite think of the right term. I don't know why. My mistake.

Originally Posted by Archbio

You do go to some lenght to avoid one very obvious complication to your statement. They disagree with you on what the fundamentals are*. My experience is too limited to allow me to recall if they still use the term fundamentalism to describe their religious doctrine, but it seems to me that they did and that it's possible that they might be credited with the invention.

Quick consultation of a Webster dictionary reveals that the first definition has to do with the literal interpretation of the bible, which is most often believed to include the Old Testament. By experience, a lot of Christians find it convenient to cite the Old Testament in order to deflect things implied by the New Testament*, that you think they are true fundamentals or not.

Using the Old Testament to trump the New Testament is going about things completely the wrong way. 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. Which means that condemning people because of their actions & lifestyles, trying to "force the Bible down their throats," and "making everyone else live as they do" directly contradicts what should be Fundamentalist doctrine.

Originally Posted by Archbio

Or that they call themselves fundamentalists or not. In essence, they are.**

The second set of definitions is a general one. That is, generalized to any movement or attitude. It seems that 'true Christian fundamentals' are even less relevant there.

I wonder if your statement doesn't fall under the No True Scotsman fallacy.

I've never heard of the "No True Scotsman fallacy." I looked it up, and I can see how it would appear to apply here. But I don't think it does. I think the problem is a case of two competing definitions. Mine, and the rest of the world's. I've always considered myself & my church to be Fundamental Christians. But we aren't at all like what the rest of the country views as Fundamentalists, which as Gorefeind describes is:

Originally Posted by Gorefiend

I'd say that Fundamentalist Christians are those who attempt to use the Bible and (older*) traditional morality to guide their daily lives, and want to act in as many circles as possible (including politics, or academia, or other non-religious grounds) to make everyone else live as they do. The first half of the sentence needs to be clarified a bit as well; I don't mean to say everyone who uses religious values to guide their morality, as that would be a hell of a lot of people (arguably everyone). I mean the folks who 1) would self-reportedly cite these as their sources, and 2) would therefore not be willing to compromise these given any situation. The second half of the sentence I hope is straightforward enough.

So while I still believe everyone else is wrong on this, I will not protest the prevalent use of Fundamentalist Christian, and retact my previous statement that I am one.

[Mesden]

Originally Posted by Ryanderman

Using the Old Testament to trump the New Testament is going about things completely the wrong way. 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. Which means that condemning people because of their actions & lifestyles, trying to "force the Bible down their throats," and "making everyone else live as they do" directly contradicts what should be Fundamentalist doctrine.

Huh?

Matthew 5:17-20
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

[Ryanderman]

Originally Posted by Mesden

Huh?

Matthew 5:17-20
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

...Yeah, we had this discussion already. In essence, the entire point of the Law was to point out to humanity how imperfect we are. The Law was designed to be that no one could possibly follow it completely. And if you break one part of the Law, it's a bad as breaking all of it. If someone could follow the Law completely their entire lives, they'd be perfect & would not need Christ. Chirst came and fulfilled the Law, by providing a way for the rest of us imperfect people to go to heaven. We are no longer commanded to follow the Law of the Old Testament, but rather we are to believe in Christ, and then live according to his Teachings in the New Testament.

[Mesden]

See, that seems to be stretching what is apparently the direct word of Christ, which is to follow the Law.

If we're supposed to follow the old law, then that includes all those bad old laws. This encompasses the Pick-And-Choose problems with Deuto and Levi...

[Ryanderman]

But there are other direct words of Christ which explain what he meant here, and how the Law is over. Words that are quoted extensively somewhere in this thread. I suppose I'll try to find them again. Trust me, this is one of the central tenants of Christianity. It's something that's been studied and analyzed a lot. I'm not pulling this out of my ass.

EDIT:
Darnit. I can't find the posts I thought were in here. Maybe they were in the old thread, though I had thought that discussion was kinda recent. Anyways, here's a couple articles from a website called gotquestions.org. It's a Christian website that tries to answer this sort of thing. I've found it to be useful on several occasions. These columns say pretty much what I was trying to, in a much clearer way.

Question: "What does it mean that Jesus fulfilled the law, but did not abolish it?"

Answer: In Matthew’s record of what is commonly called, “The Sermon on the Mount,” these words of Jesus are recorded: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished" (Matthew 5:17-18).

It is frequently argued that if Jesus did not “abolish” the law, then it must still be binding. Accordingly, such components as the “Sabbath day” requirement must be operative still, along with perhaps numerous other elements of the Mosaic Law. This assumption is grounded upon a misunderstanding of the words and intent of this passage. Christ did not here suggest that the binding nature of the law of Moses would remain forever in effect. Such a view would contradict everything we learn from the balance of the New Testament record (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15). Consider the following points.

Of special significance in this study is the word rendered “abolish.” It translates the Greek term “kataluo,” literally meaning to “loose down.” The word is found seventeen times in the New Testament. It is used, for example, of the destruction of the Jewish temple by the Romans (Matthew 26:61; 27:40; Acts 6:14), and of the dissolving of the human body at death (2 Corinthians 5:1). The term can carry the extended meaning of “to overthrow,” i.e., to “render vain, deprive of success.” In classical Greek, it was used in connection with institutions, laws, etc., to convey the idea of “to invalidate.”

It is especially important to note how the word is used in Matthew 5:17. In this context, “abolish” is set in opposition to “fulfill.” Christ came “...not to abolish, but to fulfill.” The meaning is this. Jesus did not come to this earth for the purpose of acting as an opponent of the law. His goal was not to prevent its fulfillment. Rather, he revered it, loved it, obeyed it, and brought it to fruition. He fulfilled the law’s prophetic utterances regarding himself (Luke 24:44). Christ fulfilled the demands of the Mosaic law, which called for perfect obedience, or else imposed a “curse” (see Galatians 3:10,13). In this sense, the law’s divine design will ever have an abiding effect. It will always accomplish the purpose for which it was given.

If, however, the law of Moses bears the same relationship to men today, in terms of its binding status, as it did before Christ came, then it was not fulfilled, and Jesus failed at what he came “to do.” On the other hand, if the Lord did accomplish what he came to accomplish, then the law was fulfilled, and it is not a binding legal institution today. Further, if the law of Moses was not fulfilled by Christ, and thus remains as a binding legal system for today, then it is not just partially binding. Rather, it is totally compelling system. Jesus plainly said that not one “jot or tittle” (representative of the smallest markings of the Hebrew script) would pass away until all was fulfilled. Consequently, nothing of the law was to fail until it had completely accomplished its purpose. Jesus fulfilled the law. Jesus fulfilled all of the law. We cannot say that Jesus fulfilled the sacrificial system, but did not fulfill the other aspects of the law. Jesus either fulfilled all of the law, or none of it. What Jesus' death means for the sacrificial system, it also means for the other aspects of the law.

Question: "Do Christians have to obey the Old Testament law?"

Answer: The key to understanding this issue is knowing that the Old Testament law was given to the nation of Israel, not to Christians. Some of the laws were to make the Israelites know how to obey and please God (the Ten Commandments for example), some of them were to show them how to worship God (the sacrificial system), some of them were to simply make the Israelites different from other nations (the food and clothing rules). None of the Old Testament law applies to us today. When Jesus died on the cross, He put an end to the Old Testament law (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15).

In place of the Old Testament law, we are under the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2) which is to, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments” (Matthew 22:37-40). If we do these two things, we will be fulfilling all that Christ wants for us to do, “This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome” (1 John 5:3). Technically, the Ten Commandments are not even applicable to Christians. However, 9 of the Ten Commandments are repeated in the New Testament (all except the command to observe the Sabbath day). Obviously, if we are loving God we won't be worshipping other gods or worshipping idols. If we are loving our neighbors, we won't be murdering them, lying to them, committing adultery against them, or coveting what belongs to them. So, we are not under any of the requirements of the Old Testament law. We are to love God and love our neighbors. If we do those two things faithfully, everything else will fall into place.

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Originally Posted by Frostatine

First of all the role of a priest is not simply a job, becasue you literally hold the faith and principles of life of many of your followers in your hands.

Most jobs have very little effect on how you spend your eternity.

Actually I could say both all jobs and no jobs have an effect on how you spend eternity. First of all, being a priest has no more an effect on eternal life that being a sanitation engineer. In the end, both are equal.

In the same thought, how both the priest and the sanitation engineer conduct themselves in their job may have an effect. If either are embittered towards society, place their employment above their faith (yes, ministers can ignore God for the sake of the job), or are constantly losing their temper with people they interact with, it can play a negative role in their spiritual lives. Also, if both tackle their jobs with love and put 110% into everything they do while maintaining a Christian attitude might enrich their spiritual lives.

So all in all, being a priest has no more an effect on eternity than any other job out there. The major difference is that a priest/minister's responsibility is to other Christians, where the other Christians responsibility is to everybody else. I'd actually say the regular old Christian has the harder task.

If we have to compare and contrast everything a pastor says on the pulpit to what is in the bible, why even bother listening to him at all?

Because the pastor might know a lot of stuff that you don't. If he's a good pastor, he'll be able to challenge you with insights that you were not capable of alone.

It just seems to me that it would waste a tremendous amount of my time if I ran a check on everything I've ever heard from a holy man.

Welcome to Christianity. Nobody said walking the walk was particularly easy. But seriously, you don't have to scrutinize every little word, but you're supposed to be careful because the ministers can make mistakes and say wrong things just like anybody else can. The whole point of personal devotions is take make you more self-reliant so you don't have to take everything you're told as gospel truth.

Not only is it the scripture itself, but how you interpret it, meaning that although what a priest says does check in with the scripture, it may be entirely different from how you interpret it.

Totally. Interpretations of scripture even change over time. Thats exactly why you should be reading and questioning, because you might disagree with what the priest says about a certain passage. Usually the little details don't matter a whole lot or make you more or less a Christian, but you've got to go with what your conscience says is right rather than what a minister says is right. Or at least I do.

You can't really make any ground aside from saying "hmm I see your point, maybe Jesus wasnt really the son of god in a literal sense" but what someone else says isnt really going to have any bearing on your own personal faith.

One man of god to 30-100 christians is the only thing preventing the christian faith from turning into wicca.

And i mean that as in a primarily privately practiced religion.

You just contradicted yourself there with your earlier point, and made mine. Christianity IS a privately practiced religion, and the one man of God is simply to serve as a guide and an advisor, not a Word of Law. What he says may or may not have any bearing on your own personal faith, but he might be able to offer some assistance in the areas you struggle with, because nobody has a perfectly complete personal faith. We all have issues.

Though in all honesty I think if a minister stood up and said Jesus wasn't the son of God in my church, he'd be booed off the stage.

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.

[Gorefiend]

On the subject of the law, I believe this was another distortion that the later Christians threw in for convenience, only this may have been very, very early on.

See, before Christianity, many non-Jews believed in the God of Israel and worshiped in synagogues and acted very much like Jews, but decided not to keep to all the 613 mitzvot (laws) set out in the Torah. Some were squeamish about circumcision, and others about dietary customs or social mores, and others wanted to worship God alongside their own gods (many Greeks fell in this category during Alexander's period (the Hellenistic period?), when contact between Jews and Greeks grew). They were referred to as Godfearers, and though they weren't fully converted Jews they were allowed access to the community and stuff. However, when Christianity came about, it appeared to be a sect of Judaism; one that was more liberal to the sensibilities to the Godfearers than real Judaism, so many converted. I would not put it beyond the early apostles to have deliberately tailored Christianity to those sensibilities, to earn more converts, though whether they changed any doctrines to accommodate the Godfearers we may never know.