[BRussell]

Fundamentalism has a bad name, I think. It should just mean "based on the fundamentals," i.e., the original, important stuff. The basics. But it's somehow been equated with radicals and literalists and violence and other distortions of the fundamentals. Bin Laden is anything but a fundamentalist Muslim. Bush isn't a fundamentalist Christian either.

In Christianity, fundamentalism should involve a reliance on the basic teachings of Jesus. Jesus didn't say anything about abortion. Jesus didn't say anything about gay marriage. Strangely enough, those two issues seem to define the boundaries of Christian fundamentalism today, despite the fact that Jesus' teachings - the fundamentals - contain no references to those issues.

We do know that the primary concern of Jesus' ministry seems to have been the underclass and the stigmatized. And Jesus didn't say "help the poor, but only if my taxes are low."

Fundamentalism is different from literalism. One can believe that the teachings of Jesus should define Christianity, while not relying exclusively on the canonical Bible to determine what those teachings were. The Bible isn't necessarily a fundamentalist document. To the extent that the Bible distorts what Jesus said and did, and I believe it does to some extent, it does not represent the fundamentals. Here's an example of an attempt to get at the true Jesus by using historical scholarship to examine the canonical Bible as well as other non-Biblical writings. That's true fundamentalism, IMO, and yet the approach is severely criticized by those who call themselves fundamentalists.

Fundamentalism is also different from certainty. One can admit to some uncertainty about exactly what Jesus' teachings were, while still being a fundamentalist Christian. We don't know for certain what Jesus did and said, but we can muddle through as best we can, making educated guesses, and admitting that we don't know for sure.

Any other fundamentalists out there?

[Logic]

I'm trying my best to be a fundamentalist. I've never seen a problem with being one. And at the same time I'm fed up with the media and how they say that OBL is a fundamentalist or that any other idiot who claims to do something in the name of a religion(be it Islam, Christianity, Judaism and the list goes on). It's simply wrong and gives the wrong impression of the religion they are trying to follow.

[MacGorilla]

Yes the term "fundamentalist" has been misused, along with "liberal".

[BlackGriffen]

I think that the term fundamentalist is less about the beliefs the person holds and more about whether they believe that everyone else should believe the same - even if by force/enforcement. IMHO, you can't get any more anti-Christian than that.

In fact, I just had an interesting side thought. The Judeo-Christian-Islamic God is said to have created man "in his image." Under the definition I've given, a fundamentalist is a false god/someone with a god complex who seeks to remake mankind in his own image.

God would not be pleased, I think.

BlackGriffen

[Cohiba]

The problem is that it is almost impossible to be a true fundamentalist, especially with the bible as it is very vague in many things.

Indeed, the Bible says nothing about Gay marriage, but if nothing is said, then people normally fill in the missing sections. It has come to mean for many the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of producing children. They believe that because two men cannot create children, marriage has no purpose. Does the bible say anything about this, no, but the bible does not say any homosexuals were married either.

Homosexual marriage, can indeed be debated, but saying that the bible allows it is the same as saying the bible does not allow it. There is nothing there, so both ideas are correct. Being a fundamentalist means strictly following what is there, not what is not there. It is impossible to be fundamentalist with homosexual marriage, as there is no fundamental rule to go off of.

Abortion on the other had goes under the �Thou shalt not kill� thing. As even an embryo is alive (must be while dividing), so the embryo cannot be dead. As the embryo is a human embryo, the embryo is a human. Sperm or eggs are not humans, because of their basic make up. But, even if a human is inside your home, or inside your womb, it is wrong to kill that person, which is exactly what abortion is doing. A fetus, and a embryo is indeed a human, but some people do not believe that human is a �person� because they are not developed enough.

Abortion is pretty cut and dry in the Christian relation. It is better to die, then to kill another person to live, so even abortion to save your live is wrong. Some counties do not think that a fetus deserves rights, as he or she is inside their mother. But, the fetus or embryo must be a human as how can a human grow from something that is not a human? Remember, a human does not grow from a sperm, egg, or piece of muscle tissue, but from an embryo. However that embryo is made, does not matter. Immaculate conception would technically count just as much as fertilization.

Just because the bible does not say �thou shalt not get abortions�, does not mean that getting an abortion is okay. It would be the same as �thou shalt not perform infanticide�, which is also covered under the kill thing. Abortion is just the name for killing a human inside of a woman, as many governments say that the woman�s right to her body supercedes the right of that human inside of her to live. So if you are a fundamentalist Christian, you have no choice but to believe that abortion is murder, and is wrong, unless you think that a fetus is made out of potatoes until they are completely removed from the woman.

The �thou shalt not kill� idea is a very blanket term. Killing any human being, at any point of their life, is wrong by this idea. But yeah, human embryo, human fetus, human infant, human teenager, human adult, human�. All of these things have something in common as they are stages of human life, and by the commandment, it is wrong to kill a human being in any stage of life, for any reason. The death sentence and euthanasia are also wrong too by this commandment. That is however, if you believe you are a Christian fundamentalist.

Technically, abortion is also against the Declaration of Independence and in the United States, it is your constitutional right to kill immigrants, and steal their property. You can argue many things, but that "abortion is okay by bible" thing, is sadly wrong.

Just wanted to point that out.

[DBursey]

I'm a fundamentalist existentialist, with nihilistic and hedonistic tendencies.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Cohiba:
Indeed, the Bible says nothing about Gay marriage, but if nothing is said, then people normally fill in the missing sections. It has come to mean for many the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of producing children. They believe that because two men cannot create children, marriage has no purpose. Does the bible say anything about this, no, but the bible does not say any homosexuals were married either.

Homosexual marriage, can indeed be debated, but saying that the bible allows it is the same as saying the bible does not allow it. There is nothing there, so both ideas are correct. Being a fundamentalist means strictly following what is there, not what is not there. It is impossible to be fundamentalist with homosexual marriage, as there is no fundamental rule to go off of.

Oh sure, I'm not arguing that the text of the Bible promotes gay marriage. I'm not aware of anyone who has. On the other hand, "fundamentalists" do argue that their Christianity disallows it, and they do so all the time and as their primary reason for being against it.

Abortion on the other had goes under the �Thou shalt not kill� thing. As even an embryo is alive (must be while dividing), so the embryo cannot be dead. As the embryo is a human embryo, the embryo is a human. Sperm or eggs are not humans, because of their basic make up. But, even if a human is inside your home, or inside your womb, it is wrong to kill that person, which is exactly what abortion is doing. A fetus, and a embryo is indeed a human, but some people do not believe that human is a �person� because they are not developed enough.

Abortion is pretty cut and dry in the Christian relation. It is better to die, then to kill another person to live, so even abortion to save your live is wrong. Some counties do not think that a fetus deserves rights, as he or she is inside their mother. But, the fetus or embryo must be a human as how can a human grow from something that is not a human? Remember, a human does not grow from a sperm, egg, or piece of muscle tissue, but from an embryo. However that embryo is made, does not matter. Immaculate conception would technically count just as much as fertilization.

Just because the bible does not say �thou shalt not get abortions�, does not mean that getting an abortion is okay. It would be the same as �thou shalt not perform infanticide�, which is also covered under the kill thing. Abortion is just the name for killing a human inside of a woman, as many governments say that the woman�s right to her body supercedes the right of that human inside of her to live. So if you are a fundamentalist Christian, you have no choice but to believe that abortion is murder, and is wrong, unless you think that a fetus is made out of potatoes until they are completely removed from the woman.

The �thou shalt not kill� idea is a very blanket term. Killing any human being, at any point of their life, is wrong by this idea. But yeah, human embryo, human fetus, human infant, human teenager, human adult, human�. All of these things have something in common as they are stages of human life, and by the commandment, it is wrong to kill a human being in any stage of life, for any reason. The death sentence and euthanasia are also wrong too by this commandment. That is however, if you believe you are a Christian fundamentalist.

Technically, abortion is also against the Declaration of Independence and in the United States, it is your constitutional right to kill immigrants, and steal their property. You can argue many things, but that "abortion is okay by bible" thing, is sadly wrong.

Just wanted to point that out.

You're saying that "thou shalt not kill" covers abortion, but there's no reason to believe that, that I can tell.

In the US and most other countries, murder is illegal but abortion is legal, for example. You'd have to argue that "thou shalt not kill" was very absolute, which it was not. The Mosaic laws require the death penalty for all kinds of petty crimes, like in Exodus 21 it says

Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death.

That doesn't say "abortions are OK," but it does suggest that killing is OK under some circumstances, which shows that "thou shalt not kill" is not absolute. On that same page it indicates that if you hit your slave and he or she dies from the injuries a few days later, that's not a problem in the eyes of the law. So if killing is OK in those circumstances, how do we know that it's not in other circumstances, like abortion? You said that "thou shalt not kill" is clearly against the death penalty, but you're clearly wrong on that. And everything I've read about Judaism at the time indicates that they believed life started at birth.

For example there's this from that same page:

When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23: If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life,

That's saying that if there's a fight and you kill a woman's unborn baby, you pay a fine. But if you kill the woman, you get the death penalty. That clearly values the life of the woman over the life of the unborn baby, which is the basic pro-choice position. Was God against Laci's law?

And of course God kills and kills and kills in the Bible, including pregnant women and children, though I suppose you could argue that God's law doesn't apply to himself. It doesn't set a very good example though.

I would say that it's not at all clear that abortion is against the Bible, let alone Christianity, and yet it's a huge issue for fundamentalists. I'd think it would be crystal clear to be such an important issue for fundamentalists.

You say that it's "cut and dry" and that you have no choice but to believe abortion is murder. But many Christian denominations disagree with you. For example, here's the United Methodist Church's position on abortion, not known as an ultra-liberal denomination, and BTW George Bush's church. I'd call it a moderate pro-choice position - against late term abortion, against abortion for birth control and gender selection, but pro-choice in other circumstances. But clearly not absolutist against abortion, as you suggest is necessary for all Christians.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by DBursey:
I'm a fundamentalist existentialist, with nihilistic and hedonistic tendencies.

That's wonderful. That word alone makes me iffy.

[DBursey]

Which one?

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by DBursey:


Which one?

Correction: both.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Logic:


I'm trying my best to be a fundamentalist. I've never seen a problem with being one. And at the same time I'm fed up with the media and how they say that OBL is a fundamentalist or that any other idiot who claims to do something in the name of a religion(be it Islam, Christianity, Judaism and the list goes on). It's simply wrong and gives the wrong impression of the religion they are trying to follow.

My impression is that Islam is much better documented than Christianity - that Muhammad was alive 500 years after Jesus, and was a much less obscure figure than Jesus. In that sense, to be a fundamentalist Muslim is probably easier than it is to be a fundamentalist Christian. The specific tenets of Islam are probably better documented than those of Christianity, which are mostly layers put on by others many years later. Would you agree? But I suppose there are lots of un-fundamentalist layers stuck onto Islam as well.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by BRussell:
My impression is that Islam is much better documented than Christianity - that Muhammad was alive 500 years after Jesus, and was a much less obscure figure than Jesus. In that sense, to be a fundamentalist Muslim is probably easier than it is to be a fundamentalist Christian. The specific tenets of Islam are probably better documented than those of Christianity, which are mostly layers put on by others many years later. Would you agree? But I suppose there are lots of un-fundamentalist layers stuck onto Islam as well.

No, they're about the same, really.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/

that pretty much details the early Christian church, all the way back to the 1st century.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
No, they're about the same, really.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/

that pretty much details the early Christian church, all the way back to the 1st century.

That's a good link, but I don't see how it shows that Islam and Christianity are similar in their added "layers." I know some about the early Christian church (though not nearly as much as is contained in those links), but next to nothing about how Islam formed. It just seems to me that Jesus was a more obscure figure historically than Muhammad, and that less is probably known about the real Jesus than the real Muhammad. But that's just a guess.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Fundamentalism has a bad name, I think. It should just mean "based on the fundamentals," i.e., the original, important stuff. The basics. But it's somehow been equated with radicals and literalists and violence and other distortions of the fundamentals. Bin Laden is anything but a fundamentalist Muslim. Bush isn't a fundamentalist Christian either.

In Christianity, fundamentalism should involve a reliance on the basic teachings of Jesus. Jesus didn't say anything about abortion. Jesus didn't say anything about gay marriage. Strangely enough, those two issues seem to define the boundaries of Christian fundamentalism today, despite the fact that Jesus' teachings - the fundamentals - contain no references to those issues.

We do know that the primary concern of Jesus' ministry seems to have been the underclass and the stigmatized. And Jesus didn't say "help the poor, but only if my taxes are low."

Fundamentalism is different from literalism. One can believe that the teachings of Jesus should define Christianity, while not relying exclusively on the canonical Bible to determine what those teachings were. The Bible isn't necessarily a fundamentalist document. To the extent that the Bible distorts what Jesus said and did, and I believe it does to some extent, it does not represent the fundamentals. Here's an example of an attempt to get at the true Jesus by using historical scholarship to examine the canonical Bible as well as other non-Biblical writings. That's true fundamentalism, IMO, and yet the approach is severely criticized by those who call themselves fundamentalists.

Fundamentalism is also different from certainty. One can admit to some uncertainty about exactly what Jesus' teachings were, while still being a fundamentalist Christian. We don't know for certain what Jesus did and said, but we can muddle through as best we can, making educated guesses, and admitting that we don't know for sure.

Any other fundamentalists out there?

We had a somewhat lengthy discussion on 'interpretation' of the Bible about a week ago. My thoughts on that don't need to be repeated (pisses me off enough from last week).

But most interpret the Bible that you can infer and speak on God's behalf provided you can get a text from the bible with a similar theme. Hence there are Christians who believe music and dancing is sinful.... because the bible doesn't talk about Jesus at a Disco. Nor does the old testiment speak to fondly about music or dancing. As a result, the ideas are 'sinful', and forbidden.

Others, pull some stuff from the bible to have a more modern interpretation. They pull it out to allow Polka. And anything else is 'sinful'. The above strict interpretation is 'sinful' as well because it's 'false'. Anything more liberal than Polka is 'sinful' ,and 'false'.

What happened here? Everyone read and saw what they wanted to see.


Funny thing about the Bible is that it doubles as a Magic Eye. There's something hidden in every page.

Problem is, it wasn't written that way. But people have no problem stairing at it, crossing their eyes to see what they want.


Hitler looked at it, and saw a justification for a holocaust. Someone else looked at it, and brought about Waco. Someone else: justified the crusades. Cortez and other europian explorers used it to justify killing 10's of thousands of native americans. All to God's approval... or so they read/thought.

Were they justified? To each his own apparantly.


I personally agree with you. But then again. There are some who believe computers are sinful and go against God's will.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by BRussell:
That's a good link, but I don't see how it shows that Islam and Christianity are similar in their added "layers." I know some about the early Christian church (though not nearly as much as is contained in those links), but next to nothing about how Islam formed. It just seems to me that Jesus was a more obscure figure historically than Muhammad, and that less is probably known about the real Jesus than the real Muhammad. But that's just a guess.

Personally, I think it has more to do with the majority of people's lack of knowledge regarding the Church's history. Not obscure in that the information isn't out there and easily available, but in that people are largely ignorant (not meant as a flame). Most Christians can't tell you anything about pre-Vatican Theology (many are ignorant of anything pre-Luther).

I will grant you that more is known of Muhammad's entire life, but Jesus' active ministry is rather well documented. Regarding their perspective ministries and views, they're almost equally covered (slight edge to Muhammad due to language limitations).

[Logic]

Originally posted by BRussell:
My impression is that Islam is much better documented than Christianity - that Muhammad was alive 500 years after Jesus, and was a much less obscure figure than Jesus. In that sense, to be a fundamentalist Muslim is probably easier than it is to be a fundamentalist Christian. The specific tenets of Islam are probably better documented than those of Christianity, which are mostly layers put on by others many years later. Would you agree? But I suppose there are lots of un-fundamentalist layers stuck onto Islam as well.

I agree. It's also 600 years less of possible corruption of the true text which makes it easier to "understand". Also the fact that soon after the first time Gabriel came to Muhammad(pbuh) he got attention and a core of followers(even if he ran home to his wife scared). Jesus' life is IIRC not as well documented.

As well as people documenting his sayings and life and thereby recording how one should live and follow the Quran.

But then there are some un-fundamental parts that OBL and others follow but are just distortions of the true meaning of the text. They take perhaps one verse and ignore the rest to justify their means. That particular verse is often something that will happen in hell and not something a human should do. They also ignore the context(much like most of the Islamaphobes here do) and justify their bigotry and ignorance on the matter. Killing innocent is never, and I repeat, never justified in Islam.

But the most important thing to me is that I've become a much better person after following more and more of Islam the more I learn about it. That's the most important thing to me.

[coolmacdude]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
[B]But most interpret the Bible that you can infer and speak on God's behalf provided you can get a text from the bible with a similar theme. Hence there are Christians who believe music and dancing is sinful.... because the bible doesn't talk about Jesus at a Disco. Nor does the old testiment speak to fondly about music or dancing. As a result, the ideas are 'sinful', and forbidden.

Well some also believe that drinking is sinful, yet Jesus drank wine often in the Bible.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by coolmacdude:
Well some also believe that drinking is sinful, yet Jesus drank wine often in the Bible.

Yupper.

Though it should be noted, it was more like spoiled grape juice than wine during those times. They weren't exactly fermenting for taste or to get a buzz. It was because it didn't spoil as quickly as water would go stale. Wine kept better than water did.

They couldn't afford it either. This wine was cheap. The wine today (even the cheapest) is well manufactured, fermented, processed, bottled, and transported.


This is partially why the Roman Catholic church is very strict about the wine used during mass. It must be similar to one used at that time. Though it's still not quite what it was like.


Best efforts show that Jesus was poor, and most likely wouldn't have even had that quality. Spoiled grape juice is about the best way to describe what he must have enjoyed at his richest moment.

Put some grape juice out in the sun for a day or two.. bring it back to a slightly warm tempurature (he didn't live in a cool place remember)... and that's about what Jesus enjoyed.

[Cohiba]

BRussell

Some good points. Let me give a few opinions and ideas on them.

The gay marriage thing, indeed to the best of my knowledge, should not a part of "fundamental" Christian thought. Again, if no rule exists, then no rule can be followed. So, the gay marriage thing is very vague. For the most part, sex has been thought as a "necessary evil" in the Christian religion, something that should be used for the purpose of making children. Because homosexuals cannot make children, they should not be having sex. The reasons go on and on, but again, when there are no rules, then cracks are usually filled in by some ideas. So pretty much I agree with your statement.

Now for the abortion thing, which although you had some good ideas there were some errors in your thinking.

When you say that abortion is not murder, because some countries have abortion legal, but murder is not legal, is not what Christian fundamental is all about. Many countries do not create laws based on the Bible.

Now, indeed, you can say that a killing a human inside of a human deserves less of a punishment, as cursing your mother deserves more of a punishment then cursing a farmer. True. But, that does not make such cursing acceptable. It the same as saying stealing $49 is less wrong then stealing $10,000. Because of this, stealing $49 is okay.

Now, by your other quote, it still says that those that create miscarriages "abortion" are still doing something wrong, as they must go to the judges. Again, it does value the life of the woman over the child, but still states that creating a miscarriage is wrong, and must be punished.

So by the bible, if you create your own miscarriage, you or the abortionist should go to the judges and be forced to pay a fine. As, doing such is wrong.

So indeed, the Bible still states that abortion is wrong, and some sentence should be given. Because if this, abortion, or any act that creates a miscarriage should be punished by the law.

Finally, with the Jewish idea that life starts at birth, you can say that too. In Thailand, a common religious belief is that human life starts when the child speaks his or her first word. It is actually a problem for babies to be stolen, and then sold to restaurants and eaten. Back in colonial times, quickening was considered when the child was alive (about the 16th week). Its been years since I cracked open the Talmud so I will just take your word on that, but different religions have different styles.

Now with God killing people. Well, it's God. By the Bible, he can do what ever the hell he wants, because he is above the rules. I mean hey, it's his book, right?

Now, I do have to semi-retract my "Bible is against death sentence" idea. It seems it has also been a few years since I have cracked open the Bible too.

Good discussion, though I am afraid parts of your argument have self-destructed.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Cohiba:
When you say that abortion is not murder, because some countries have abortion legal, but murder is not legal, is not what Christian fundamental is all about. Many countries do not create laws based on the Bible.

I didn't mean to suggest that the laws of the US or other countries are based on the Bible. I just mean that it's logically possible - in fact, extremely common - to have laws against murder, and yet have abortion legal. You have to do better than point to "thou shalt not kill" to show how the Bible specifically outlaws abortion.

Now, by your other quote, it still says that those that create miscarriages "abortion" are still doing something wrong, as they must go to the judges. Again, it does value the life of the woman over the child, but still states that creating a miscarriage is wrong, and must be punished.

So by the bible, if you create your own miscarriage, you or the abortionist should go to the judges and be forced to pay a fine. As, doing such is wrong.

So indeed, the Bible still states that abortion is wrong, and some sentence should be given. Because if this, abortion, or any act that creates a miscarriage should be punished by the law.

I just want to point out here that in the case mentioned in Exodus, the woman didn't voluntarily get an abortion. Men were fighting and caused the woman to abort, presumably against her will. Not even the most pro-choice person in the world would argue that it's OK to go up to a pregnant woman and make her lose her child against her will, no harm no foul. It's not completely relevant to abortion, but it's one Biblical passage that's commonly cited in the abortion debate.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I didn't mean to suggest that the laws of the US or other countries are based on the Bible. I just mean that it's logically possible - in fact, extremely common - to have laws against murder, and yet have abortion legal. You have to do better than point to "thou shalt not kill" to show how the Bible specifically outlaws abortion.

I just want to point out here that in the case mentioned in Exodus, the woman didn't voluntarily get an abortion. Men were fighting and caused the woman to abort, presumably against her will. Not even the most pro-choice person in the world would argue that it's OK to go up to a pregnant woman and make her lose her child against her will, no harm no foul. It's not completely relevant to abortion, but it's one Biblical passage that's commonly cited in the abortion debate.

Not to be a smartass, really, but if Jesus had seen an abortion in his lifetime (especially one that's late term), what do you think he would have called it?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Not to be a smartass,

Now why do I have a hard time believing that?

really, but if Jesus had seen an abortion in his lifetime (especially one that's late term), what do you think he would have called it?

Maybe it's the smart-assiness, but I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that Jesus wouldn't have encountered abortions, and therefore wouldn't have had a chance to comment on them? I don't know what term he would have used for it. I don't know Greek or Aramaic though. What's your point?

I'll say this - if Jesus had been portrayed in the Bible as having seen an abortion and condemned it, or a gay marriage for that matter, then I would fully understand why "fundamentalists" would make it a big issue.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Now why do I have a hard time believing that?


Maybe it's the smart-assiness, but I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that Jesus wouldn't have encountered abortions, and therefore wouldn't have had a chance to comment on them? I don't know what term he would have used for it. I don't know Greek or Aramaic though. What's your point?

I'll say this - if Jesus had been portrayed in the Bible as having seen an abortion and condemned it, or a gay marriage for that matter, then I would fully understand why "fundamentalists" would make it a big issue.

What I'm asking is, if Jesus were to see a live abortion, especially a late term abortion, knowing his sensibilities, what do you think he would say or think about it?

It's an honest question. No tricks.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
What I'm saying is, if Jesus were to see a live abortion, especially a late term abortion, knowing his sensibilities, what do you think he would say or think about it?

It's an honest question. No tricks.

I'm not religious, but isn't infanticide bad?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
What I'm asking is, if Jesus were to see a live abortion, especially a late term abortion, knowing his sensibilities, what do you think he would say or think about it?

It's an honest question. No tricks.

If you frame it like that - actually viewing a live, late-term abortion, it's hard to imagine anyone liking it very much. Some things are simply gross. I've seen a couple of live, normal births and I almost want to outlaw them. In addition, most people agree that late-term abortions, unless medically necessary, are wrong.

However, I know of no evidence to suggest that Jesus wanted to change Jewish law to outlaw abortions. Nor do I see anything in his teachings that seems to suggest that he would if he had had the opportunity. From everything I've read, abortions were practiced at the time, and therefore it was probably something that was just accepted. There's no reason to believe Jesus didn't accept it too.

My guess, and this is purely a guess, is that things like abortions were solely women's concern, and so Jesus and the Jewish (male) lawmakers before him probably didn't bother themselves too much about that kind of thing.

[constrictor]

Originally posted by Cohiba:
BRussell
For the most part, sex has been thought as a "necessary evil" in the Christian religion

LOL

I love this stuff.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by BRussell:
My impression is that Islam is much better documented than Christianity - that Muhammad was alive 500 years after Jesus, and was a much less obscure figure than Jesus. In that sense, to be a fundamentalist Muslim is probably easier than it is to be a fundamentalist Christian. The specific tenets of Islam are probably better documented than those of Christianity, which are mostly layers put on by others many years later. Would you agree? But I suppose there are lots of un-fundamentalist layers stuck onto Islam as well.

In essence, Christianity has been defined by the Church. The Church wrote the New Testament scriptures and transcribed the scriptures. The thing I find troubling about fundementalist american type christianity is that they take the scriptures and nothing else, yet they do not realise or take into account who wrote the scriptures and what their contemporaries said about the scriptures. Tradition has always been a big part of Christianity, fundementalists take that and throw it out of the window.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by undotwa:
In essence, Christianity has been defined by the Church. The Church wrote the New Testament scriptures and transcribed the scriptures. The thing I find troubling about fundementalist american type christianity is that they take the scriptures and nothing else, yet they do not realise or take into account who wrote the scriptures and what their contemporaries said about the scriptures. Tradition has always been a big part of Christianity, fundementalists take that and throw it out of the window.

They take translations of the Bible and and read it literally. It is true what you say about the NT. A very good point. That is why the Church is so important.

It makes me wonder why Evangelists insist on calling themselves Christian and at the same time saying Catholics *aren't* Christian. The opposite is true actually. At least the Mormons are nice enough not to slander other world based religion and accept that they are just fringe heretics. How about the Evangelists just calling themselves Evangelists? Or Talibans?

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by undotwa:
In essence, Christianity has been defined by the Church. The Church wrote the New Testament scriptures and transcribed the scriptures. The thing I find troubling about fundementalist american type christianity is that they take the scriptures and nothing else, yet they do not realise or take into account who wrote the scriptures and what their contemporaries said about the scriptures. Tradition has always been a big part of Christianity, fundementalists take that and throw it out of the window.

Bingo. Christianity isn't to be taken soley (or even mainly) from the Bible, but from the Apostolic traditions handed down from the early Church. I know that cuts against the grain for many Bible-thumpers, but I recommend they read the writings of the early fathers and discover that for themselves... though, I sincerely doubt they will.

[Cohiba]

I believe the major problem is taking any fundamentalist though with any written word. Look what it did to China with Mao's red book. The basic idea of the word of God is to be good to others, and that they should be good to you. When you start burning witches, when you start crusades to kill the infidels, or killing the Jewish, you are reading "too much" into something, or most likely one part of something.

Think about it, the Bible is not written in "legalese" so it can really mean much of anything what you really want it to mean. Some points are more formulated, but if you take certain quotes out of context, then you can change it's meaning easily. If you really really want the bible to mean something is good, then you just have to hunt down one line that gives a vague idea, single out other lines that may add supporting information.

Christianity like all religions is a very good form of social control. If people truly followed what Christianity meant, or what the Muslim, or Jewish religion meant, then things would be much better then how they are now. Its all about doing what is good, even if what is good is not good for you. Helping a homeless person, giving to others, helping people, and have a useful purpose in life (which means trying hard to not be homeless in the first place). It creates a very good circle of society, but if you take one quote out of context, then it can mean its okay to kill people, to rape women, to burn children.

Language is good at conveying ideas, but it is not perfect. Now, when you translate ideas, things get lost in the mix, so of course, ideas will too. It is just how it is.

Some ideas, when you read the passages thoroughly, and understand what people knew back then, and what people know now give a better and more contrasted image of what the Bible means. But this still gives rise to interpretation. However, overall the idea of Christianity is to be good to others. But, Saying abortion is fine with the bible, is like saying that killing non-American citizens is fine with 14th amendment of the U.S. constitution. Common sense and compassion to others is necessary for a functioning government, either state-wise, or church-wise. Even John Adams said that solid and moral religious principals are needed for any government to function.

I would recommend listening to rabbi's debate on what the words of the Talmud really mean. It is very interesting.

[ebuddy]

I'm not 100% sure what the thread attempts to achieve. I've been given a book that was the divinely inspired word of God. I do not believe the Bible bastardized the life, times, teachings, and actions of the man the entire Bible is about. Jesus affirms the credibility of the Old Testament in several instances and in some cases refutes your supposition that the Bible is not clear on specific items;

Matthew 19:4-6 (see also Mark 10:5-9)
4 And he answered and said, Have ye not read, that he who made [them] from the beginning made them male and female,
5 and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh?
6 So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

You're right though, Jesus' ideal of marriage while consistent with the Bible did not specifically condemn gay-marriage. Jesus did pretty much espouse his ideal of marriage, it simply did not include gays. In a debate, I guess you'd have to refer to the numerous other mentions of the act of man lying down with man in the Bible.

Jesus also iterates in many instances, the sanctity of life and the value of children born and unborn. The Old Testament does this often as well.

I'm a fundamentalist.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Bingo. Christianity isn't to be taken soley (or even mainly) from the Bible, but from the Apostolic traditions handed down from the early Church. I know that cuts against the grain for many Bible-thumpers, but I recommend they read the writings of the early fathers and discover that for themselves... though, I sincerely doubt they will.

[Zimphire]

Funny, the person next to Jesus on the cross wasn't Catholic when he passed over.

Those who believe that a man made religion is needed or supersedes Jesus's spiritual teachings are in for a big surprise.

It's strictness like this that Jesus was making fun of the Pharisees for.

Those who think the Pope is following in Jesus's footsteps are indeed wrong as well.

One doesn't need a church or a Pope to speak to God for them. We all have a direct connection ourselves.

[voodoo]

Sad seeing heretics call themselves Christian. Heh. They must think religion is some kind of hobby or something.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Sad seeing heretics call themselves Christian. Heh. They must think religion is some kind of hobby or something.

Who is this pointed towards voodoo?

If it's pointed towards me you are 100% wrong. (as usual)

If it's not, well it out of context with the discussion and 100% silly either way.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I'm not 100% sure what the thread attempts to achieve.

It would be a miracle of Biblical proportions if any thread on MacNN ever achieved anything!

I think I've made my point clear - it is to have a discussion about the term and the people called "fundamentalists." Although fundamentalists say that they are concerned with the fundamentals of Christianity, IMO they constantly layer on their own extra-Christian - usually conservative - beliefs on top of their Christianity. For example, things like abortion and gay marriage, which for some reason define fundamentalists, are not mentioned at all by Jesus. How is that "fundamentalism" if those things aren't part of the fundamentals?

Furthermore, I think a strong argument can be made that the fundamentals of Christianity are anything but conservative in nature. Jesus, IMO was a radical liberal. He challenged authority, he challenged the status quo, he was interested in helping the lower classes and the oppressed. The Pharisees and other Jewish authorities were the conservatives.

I've been given a book that was the divinely inspired word of God.

Then you are a literalist, but I've tried to argue that literalism is not the same thing as fundamentalism.

But why do you believe that? Wasn't the Bible written by people? Wasn't it compiled by people? Were the books that didn't make it into the Bible not divinely inspired? How did the compilers know which was which? Weren't the gospels, for example, written after Jesus had died, mostly by people who never knew him, and aren't they therefore subject to distortions of his life? Does the Bible not have discrepancies in factual matters? Did the people who wrote the books of the Bible not have very human agendas and influences that could also distort the actual events they depict?

My view is that the Bible is one source of information about the roots of our religion(s), but a) it is not a perfect source of information and b) there are other sources of information. Oh and c) that uncertainty about the roots of your religion is unavoidable when we're dealing with events so long ago, and we should simply admit the uncertainty rather than acting as if our information is perfect.

Jesus also iterates in many instances, the sanctity of life and the value of children born and unborn.

Jesus did talk about children. But show me where he talked about the unborn. It should be easy if there are "many instances."

[Zimphire]

1. Jesus indeed talked about Children.
2. What does it say about God knowing children before they are born BG?

The only thing that really bothers me about this thread is that there are those who are trying to say unless you follow this brand of Christianity you aren't saved.

That is pure FUD.

I am wondering then how a man stranded on a deserted Island could ever be saved!?

It's not what Church you belong to. It's what is in your heart that matters.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
***

ooo struck a nerve there. Must have hit close to the mark then he he. Especially since my comment wasn't directed to you.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by voodoo:
ooo struck a nerve there. Must have hit close to the mark then he he.

voodoo, the king of projection!

You have made horribly wrong comments like that toward me before voodoo. So it wouldn't have been a big suprise.

Either you was referring to me, or you said it out of the blue out of context, with no apparent reasons at all. (Which is highly unlikely, not your style)

Learn to quote who you are referring to if you weren't speaking to me.

Especially since my comment wasn't directed to you.

Tell us then voodoo. Who were you referring to then?

And if you say "I was just referring to anyone" etc. I am going to post the laughing at you smiley.

If you are going to swing. At least be man enough to come up to the plate.

[voodoo]

Knock yourself out. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

[Zimphire]

Here is a pic of what you are doing.



Are you going to answer my questions or are you going to post another post full of asinine rhetoric at an attempt at dodging?

Sorry that wont work here.

You need to stand by your words, or don't say them at all.

So who were you aiming the post to voodoo? Tell us.

If it isn't me, I am sure the person that it was aimed at would LOVE to know.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Funny, the person next to Jesus on the cross wasn't Catholic when he passed over.

Those who believe that a man made religion is needed or supersedes Jesus's spiritual teachings are in for a big surprise.

It's strictness like this that Jesus was making fun of the Pharisees for.

Those who think the Pope is following in Jesus's footsteps are indeed wrong as well.

One doesn't need a church or a Pope to speak to God for them. We all have a direct connection ourselves.

Zimph, I'm not stating that you're not Christian, I do believe you are. From my talks with you, I do believe that you agree with everything in the Nicene Creed. I'm just saying that people need to go back and read the Apostolic Fathers (the contemporaries of the orginal 70) and see what their take was on the beliefs and foundation of the early church. Apostolic tradition is a very real thing, and much more important that many can fathom.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Zimph, I'm not stating that you're not Christian, I do believe you are. From my talks with you, I do believe that you agree with everything in the Nicene Creed. I'm just saying that people need to go back and read the Apostolic Fathers (the contemporaries of the orginal 70) and see what their take was on the beliefs and foundation of the early church. Apostolic tradition is a very real thing, and much more important that many can fathom.

I have zero problem in that stein.

There are however others in here that think if you don't adhere to a certain denomination of Christianity you are hell bound or "heretics" as one user said.

That bothers me that people calling themselves Christians are trying to promote such beliefs.

It's not what Church you belong to. It's not what the Pope says.

It's what is in your heart that matters.

If voodoo wasn't speaking to ME, I am curious as to who exactly he was referring to.

I doubt he will ever actually give us a answer that isn't a cop-out, or a dodge.

He was speaking to SOMEONE in this thread.

Now does he have the guts to say who? Doubt it.

[ebuddy]

But why do you believe that? Wasn't the Bible written by people?

No, it may be too intense for you to understand at this point in your life. Suffice it to say the Bible was written by God, about God, and for God. At no point of It's existence was It not interfered with by God.

Wasn't it compiled by people?

No.

Were the books that didn't make it into the Bible not divinely inspired?

No, they were not divinely inspired and as such, never made it into the Bible.

How did the compilers know which was which?

Several reasons. The "additional" books were not written by apostles or prophets, some contained specifically "anti" Biblical concepts such as praying for the dead, and none claimed to be the Word of God. Aside from this, they contained severe historical inaccuracies.

Weren't the gospels, for example, written after Jesus had died, mostly by people who never knew him, and aren't they therefore subject to distortions of his life?

shortly and disciples were very intimately connected to eyewitnesses of Jesus, not to mention the accounts of cultures not "of the Book" that corraborate the stories. Are you saying the very name that brings shivers to secular conversation, and splits our calendar from the days of old to new is a lie?

Does the Bible not have discrepancies in factual matters?

No. Not one. If you have some bring them forth and I will happily expose their ignorance. Perhaps then you will read it.

Did the people who wrote the books of the Bible not have very human agendas

Yes, Divinely inspired and emblazened in the hearts of the authors, the agenda of drawing you to He who created all humans.

and influences that could also distort the actual events they depict?

There are no distortions. There is no book as historically credible, there is no book as intently studied, there is no book as widely disseminated, there is no book so compelling.

[macvillage.net]

God dropped the bible on eBuddy's head.

The hemoraging that resulted explains the rest of the above post.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
No, it may be too intense for you to understand at this point in your life. Suffice it to say the Bible was written by God, about God, and for God. At no point of It's existence was It not interfered with by God.

You're right that I don't understand Biblical literalism, but I'm not sure that "too intense" is the reason I'd give for why I don't understand it. But I know that you believe all those things, what I'm asking is why. I mean it honestly - it's such a foreign idea to me, that I'm interested in how someone could possibly think like you do on the issue. What is the basis for your literalism/inerrancy beliefs?

About Biblical discrepancies - I'm not sure I want to get into that. IMO, there are many clear examples of discrepancies, but if you believe as a starting point that there can't possibly be any factual discrepancies, I'm not sure how fruitful it would be. We can get into it if you want though.

And BTW, I'm still waiting for all those many instances where Jesus talked about the sanctity of life and the value of the unborn. If it's so important to fundamentalist Christians, it should be very easy to find very clear statements about it!

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by BRussell:
You're right that I don't understand Biblical literalism, but I'm not sure that "too intense" is the reason I'd give for why I don't understand it. But I know that you believe all those things, what I'm asking is why. I mean it honestly - it's such a foreign idea to me, that I'm interested in how someone could possibly think like you do on the issue. What is the basis for your literalism/inerrancy beliefs?

About Biblical discrepancies - I'm not sure I want to get into that. IMO, there are many clear examples of discrepancies, but if you believe as a starting point that there can't possibly be any factual discrepancies, I'm not sure how fruitful it would be. We can get into it if you want though.

And BTW, I'm still waiting for all those many instances where Jesus talked about the sanctity of life and the value of the unborn. If it's so important to fundamentalist Christians, it should be very easy to find very clear statements about it!

Well, there is Matt 18:10-14, which has both P'shat and Derash (explicit and implicit) meanings... Literal, as in actual children, and figurative, in reference to new followers.

10. Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.
11. For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
12. How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?
13. And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.
14. Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

The Greek word most often used for "baby" in the NT is brephos, it's also used in the above verses in reference to the "little ones". Interestingly, the word brephos is used regardless of whether the baby is unborn or not. It was used in Luke 1:41, in reference to John the Baptist:

41. And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost.

IMO, that would imply that babies are the same, born or unborn, and if you kill one it's "better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea".

[BRussell]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Well, there is Matt 18:10-14, which has both P'shat and Derash (explicit and implicit) meanings... Literal, as in actual children, and figurative, in reference to new followers.

10. Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.
11. For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
12. How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?
13. And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.
14. Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

The Greek word most often used for "baby" in the NT is brephos, it's also used in the above verses in reference to the "little ones". Interestingly, the word brephos is used regardless of whether the baby is unborn or not. It was used in Luke 1:41, in reference to John the Baptist:

41. And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost.

IMO, that would imply that babies are the same, born or unborn, and if you kill one it's "better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea".

Just so I understand, you're saying that 1) Jesus said God doesn't want the death of children, and 2) the Gospels use the same Greek word for baby in reference to an unborn baby and a "born" baby. Pretty sneaky! I wonder though: what is the Greek word for "fetus" or unborn baby? Was there one, at least one in common use? I've been through two pregnancies with my wife, and have had many other friends and acquaintances go through pregnancies, and I don't think I've ever heard them use the term "fetus" or any other word but baby when referring to their child in the womb. And yet many of them were decidedly pro-choice.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Are you saying the very name that brings shivers to secular conversation, and splits our calendar from the days of old to new is a lie?

I didn't see this before - this is all dramatic and everything, but I had to chuckle a little, because of course the very name "Jesus" is a lie. As I'm sure you know, his name wasn't Jesus, but Joshua (if you're looking for an English version of his name, that is).

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Just so I understand, you're saying that 1) Jesus said God doesn't want the death of children, and 2) the Gospels use the same Greek word for baby in reference to an unborn baby and a "born" baby. Pretty sneaky! I wonder though: what is the Greek word for "fetus" or unborn baby? Was there one, at least one in common use?

I've never seen one. I don't believe they differentiated between a fetus and a baby. A child was either "born" or "unborn".


And Jesus' name was Eshu in Aramaic, Issa in Hindi, and Esau in Sumerian. Jesus is simply an Anglicization, no biggie.