Originally posted by Vox:quote:
Originally posted by shebakoby:quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
No wait, I want to understand this. Shebakoby, what is the difference between your beliefs and those of a fundamentalist? From your use of the capital F, I gather you distinguish yourself from a specific organized movement. But is there a difference between you and a fundamentalist with a little-F? Little-F meaning a person not aligned with a traditional evangelical movement, but who nevertheless fits the definition of a person who insists on the literal word of the Bible being the literal truth, who insists that any other way, and any other belief, leads to hell? That sounds a lot like you to me, and to Kweli and Oshun, so I'm curious what the difference is, from your perspective.
No, that is NOT the definition of fundamentalist. The term has been distorted by the media.
THIS is the REAL definition of fundamentalist:
-the doctrines of a fundamentalist church are based on certain "fundamentals"--_WHICH DO NOT NECESSARILY HAVE TO DO WITH WHAT IS TAUGHT IN SCRIPTURE_. An example of a "fundamentalist" doctrine that is not based on what the Bible actually says is the idea that the bread and wine of the sacrament of holy communion are ONLY SYMBOLS. Whereas, the Roman Catholics beleive in transubstantiation (transformation from bread and wine to body and blood) while LUTHERANS ALONE believe that both bread and wine and body and blood are present (after the pastor is done "sanctifying" it. We call this the "real presence."
Sheba, the definition I put forth comes from the dictionary. Where did yours come from?
The dictionary doesn't always get it right. Dictionaries are written by people, people who are fallible, and who often have no clue what the terms they are defining really mean. Case in point: Fundamentalist.
People who do not go to church or know anything about religion to any significant degree are not going to know the intricacies or niceties of what actually makes one "fundamentalist." And this is definitely the case here.
Dictionaries often have simplified definitions. And in this case it is oversimplified. While the "inerrancy" of the Bible is something that some Christians have IN COMMON with fundies, THIS ALONE DOES NOT MAKE THEM "FUNDY." The dictionary people did not bother to go around and ask what actually makes a person "fundy."
My definition comes from the Church itself; the Lutheran Church, because words mean things and the Lutheran Church's teaching are very specifically defined, as are the teachings of a "fundy" church. And it happens that the very things that the Lutheran Church differs from the fundy churches is the things which actually define "fundamentalist".
I mentioned earlier that LEGALISM is a hallmark of Fundamentalism. Legalism means two things:
a) Emphasis on obedience to and sovereignty of God (Emphasizing LAW over GOSPEL in a DISPROPORTIONATE WAY)
and b) making bull$#*t rules ("made by Men") for the Church.
Where the Lutherans differ here is that Lutherans have freedom in the Gospel based on Justification by Faith. Lutherans are NOT into Legalism at all and overemphasis of LAW over GOSPEL is B.S. If one is NOT Legalistic, one CANNOT be "Fundamentalist."
Fundies don't believe in Separation of Church and State. Lutherans had a concept of "Separation of Church and State" before anyone else did.
Back when I was growing up I went to a "non-denominational" private school for 6 years that was run by the Christian Reformed Church. They are Calvinist. I dunno if they were specifically fundy but they were legalistic. They even had a bull$#*t rule amongst themselves: "We can't pay on Sunday." This was because to "pay" someone on Sunday meant they were "making" someone work on Sunday. It was a goofy rule.