Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why Fundamentalism is Fundamentally Wrong
I'd be a major league dictionary fundamentalist then. I want to do exactly what I perceive Christ wants me to do generally( I fail of course). Count me in as a big time fundamentalist radical Christian.

That's not how we Christians define the term though. Among us in theological debates, a fundy Christian is one who reads the bible as if it were written by an American in 1950. It has nothing to do with the person trying to adhere to the mandates of the bible, it's how we interpret it.
A very local definition then. Why specifically 1950? Why not 1850?
Sodomia delenda est

I was joking about 1950, but, it would make a difference. Since 1850 some words have taken on entirely different meanings in English. Like the word charity, used to = love.

The fundy would assume the bible is written in their lingo, cultural understanding and maybe as importantly wrong, was written to them.
It seems you are defining a fundy as someone who seemly follows whatever he was taught when he was young.... which can be sometimes very wrong thing to do... and sometimes very right S6
Sodomia delenda est

It's really a natural error to make. I read Genesis 1 and I naturally felt the words meant what I would mean if I had written it.

Here's something that might be screwing up Christian theology, we're "qualifying" everything based on certain traditions that may be inaccurate.

The idea of humans "going to heaven/going to hell" may not be what the narrative teaches and if it isn't( I don't believe it is), we've wasted about 2000 years arguing over certain ideas that don't even apply at all. We've seen these certain passages as speaking to "going to heaven or hell" and they may not be.

We have large denominations built around some of these potential misunderstandings.
The Bible does not teach that we go immediately to our reward after death. The explicit teaching of the Bible is that death is a sleep, from which we awaken in the Resurrection. The Lake of Fire inwhich the wicked are cast (along with the Devil) does not exist until after the Millennium, after the New Jerusalem has come down from Heaven, after which the surface of the earth is turned to a state of molten lava as the earth is remade into the New Earth. The only place of safety during this re-creation of Earth will be within the New Jerusalem. The wicked are outside the city. The idea some have that there is or ever will be an ever-burning hell is based on a few idiomatic statements (like "the smoke of their torment ascends upward forever and ever"), and ignores all the clear statements that the wicked (including Satan) will be totally annihilated, and never will be any more. God certainly does not want a universe where there is some small corner somewhere inwhich torment and sinful blaspheming God continue forever.

Some people object to this Bible doctrine, saying they want to believe their departed loved ones are enjoying the bliss of Heaven. But how happy could their loved ones be, forced to look down on all the troubles suffered by those who yet live here on earth? Scripture makes it clear that it is at the Second Coming of Jesus that He brings with Him His rewards to give to everyone: "Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done." (Rev. 22:12; NASB) So no one, either good or bad, receives their reward before the Second Coming of Jesus. Only a very few people have already gone to enjoy a Heavenly reward--Enoch and Elijah, who were translated without seeing death; and Moses and the few saints resurrected at the same time that Jesus was. The Bible makes it clear that these were special cases. Jesus spoke of two general resurrections: the resurrection of the blessed, and the resurrection of the condemned. (See John 5:29.) If all the departed saints and all the departed wicked are already in Heaven or Hell, then how could there be any general resurrections?

"Absent from the body, face to face with The Lord". That doesn't equate to sleep. It doesn't equate to "going to heaven" either. It equates to the beatific vision. Maybe we'll take a long nap afterwards, but, that's a pretty definitive statement there.
Here is just one more example as to why Fundamentalism is........, well, get the point. S13

Saudi Cleric: ‘No Doubt’ the Sun Revolves Around the Earth

Some of these weird ways don't even have what I would call textual logic. It's clear to me( yea, cheated to get a HS diploma) that these old texts don't have modern scientific knowledge, yet this man felt obligated to treat the bible as a scientifically sound document because Muslims believe the Koran also had modern science in it( they do respect the bible to an extent).

How about these nutcase Jews? Where in the OT is it that men should not sit near females? That was an ANE cultural thing, nothing religious about it as far as I can find(need translator, the article says they had to ground a flight due to male Jews who would not sit near females):

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)