Skip to main content

Why is exclusivity of thought such a key component of some religions? Many religious traditions believe that if one does not practice religion in precisely the same way that they do, that God will not favor them and they will be doomed to 'eternal damnation'. Of course this creates all manner of groups, each of whom believe that their way is the ONLY way. They also believe that the rest of the world is going straight to Hell (or the equivalent).

Does this make any sense? Why is this a reasonable way to approach religion? Why can't people look to deeds and character and faithfulness, broadly, as definers of the "value" of man? Is this more about controlling people than teaching an appropriate religious path?

Thoughts?

© MBM

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Every religion thinks that it is the one "true" religion, and the only way to reach heaven or its equivalent is by following that religion. Therefore, the customs, beliefs, rituals, traditons and ways of that faith must be observed and obeyed in order to reach heaven. Any variation or lack of observance disqualifies a person from entering heaven, and deems them an unbeliever, who is forever doomed. This is just the way it is, and it makes sense to me. If a religion said, do this, and you're okay, but if you follow this too, even though it's not part of what we believe, you'll still be okay...what kind of religion is that? A religion has to have "rules" and guidelines...it's just the way it is.

I guess one reason why people are so adamant about proving to others that a particular religion is "the way", is because when you believe in something with your whole heart, your whole soul, and it make sense to you, you will do everything in your power to defend it. Whoever stands in your way or argues with you is going to suffer your wrath. There's nothing wrong with having passion and faith, but these people need to realize that it's useless to try to force religion on someone.

In Islam, we SPREAD the word, not force it. Once it's heard, it is the responsibility of that person to accept it. If they don't, that's their problem. It is recognized that what people believe is just what they believe, and most of the time, it doesn't change.

My devout Christian friend would give me lectures in my bad girl days. All they did was piss me off, I didn't get "saved" like she wanted, (not by Jesus anyway)...and the friendship actually broke up because of it. In all my convictions, and believe me, I have some very strong beliefs, I refrain from forcing anything on anyone. I like to teach instead, and let people make up their own minds. I mean, why waste all that energy when they are going to do what they want anyway?
quote:
Originally posted by SistahSouljah:
Every religion thinks that it is the one "true" religion, and the only way to reach heaven or its equivalent is by following that religion.[quote]

Not every one. Mainly the Judeo-Christian-Muslim based ones...
Remember...heaven doesn't exist in some spiritual paths(including Judaiism believe it or not)...Many spiritual paths are about becoming one with God in a spiritual sense....Developing your inner self or reaching enlightenmnet. Mystic traditions in Judaism(Qabalah), Islam(Sufi), And Christianity(Gnostic) also pratice this....and that we haven't even started on Eastern and/or traditional indigenous spritual systems the world over who do not prosteletize...but then again you could say they are "spritual paths and not "religions"...


[quote] but these people need to realize that it's useless to try to force religion on someone.[quote]

People that do this find it very useful...colonization, imperialism, ect...You need to force your version of God and religion(the diefication of culture) on another people to properly control them...It brings untold wealth...And once it is done...the exploitation and ooppression you get as a result is somewhat "self-renuing"...very useful indeed.

[quote]In Islam, we SPREAD the word, not force it.


That is a new occurance...The Coptic Christians in Egypt who were damn near got wiped out would have to disagree with you...So would the African masses who had to convert or face enslavement as "infidels" during the Eastern African slave trade...Although the spread of Islam was a little(and just a little) less bloody than Western Christianity...It still was done through force to a great extent by the Arab invaders of Africa.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
Is this more about controlling people than teaching an appropriate religious path?

Thoughts?


It seems to me that all organized religions are designed to control and dominate. And with the kind of success rate that those religions have enjoyed for centuries now, why would any of them change their course of direction now? Roll Eyes
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
Although the spread of Islam was a little(and just a little) less bloody than Western Christianity...It still was done through force to a great extent by the Arab invaders of Africa.


I wasn't talking about how it originally got introduced I was talking about modern times, and how we are taught to deliver the word without trying to forcing a person to accept it. This is how non-Muslims in an Islamic state can live happily with freedom of religion.
quote:
Originally posted by SistahSouljah:
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
Although the spread of Islam was a little(and just a little) less bloody than Western Christianity...It still was done through force to a great extent by the Arab invaders of Africa.


I wasn't talking about how it originally got introduced I was talking about modern times, and how we are taught to deliver the word without trying to forcing a person to accept it. This is how non-Muslims in an Islamic state can live happily with freedom of religion.


O.K., than in that case I see what you mean but F.Y.I., the Egyptian Coptic persecution wasn't in "ancient times"...I have an Egyptian Coptic friend who lost most of his family.
SistahSouljah, I wouldn't give too much credence to the "religious freedom" of any Islamic State. An "Islamic State" uses Islam as the law of the land. No non-Muslim can be free, religion-wise, and for that matter neither can any Muslim, in a land where religion is actually the law. Remember that poor woman in northern Nigeria.
quote:
Originally posted by SistahSouljah:

Every religion thinks that it is the one "true" religion, and the only way to reach heaven or its equivalent is by following that religion.


I certainly agree that most do, but I believe there are a number of religions, particularly Eastern ones like Buddhism, who believe that religion is merely a path to God and that, perhaps like language, they are all equal paths.

BTW - I find it absolutely incomprehensible that God would create human beings, sons and daughters of God no less, who are "cursed" to damnation merely for the offense of worshiping in the "wrong way". In most cases, that belief system requires that the vast majority of people on Earth - innocent people - be sentenced to eternal death. Why would God do that?
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
quote:
Originally posted by SistahSouljah:

Every religion thinks that it is the one "true" religion, and the only way to reach heaven or its equivalent is by following that religion.


I certainly agree that most do, but I believe there are a number of religions, particularly Eastern ones like Buddhism, who believe that religion is merely a path to God and that, perhaps like language, they are all equal paths.


BTW - I find it absolutely incomprehensible that God would create human beings, sons and daughters of God no less, who are "cursed" to damnation merely for the offense of worshiping in the "wrong way". In most cases, that belief system requires that the vast majority of people on Earth - innocent people - be sentenced to

God doesn't do that, man does. When the majority of the planet is said to be "damned to hell" by not believing or practicing their veneration of God as you do...It sure is a convenient excuse for invading their lands to "save" them. Isn't it?
Thinking for yourself is important.

But you guys are approaching this from only one direction. You are not exploring the possibility that rather than "control", this is the equivalent of someone warning that if you continue on the path you are on, you will go off the cliff. Does this mean that the person doing the warning created the cliff, or it's just in their mind? Or they're trying to control you by warning you that there is a cliff ahead? Maybe you're not as open-minded as you believe yourselves to be.
Sheba, the problem with your position is that there is absolutely no way a person is qualified to tell you that your way is wrong, unless it is wrong according to objective, observable fact. No one who gets their belief about someone else's "path leading to a cliff" from their religion is qualified to tell me that I'm heading down the wrong path spiritually. Such an "admonition" would be inherently rejectable. We don't need to say they're out to "control" us; but they can't be seen as "right" just because they say they are.
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
Sheba, the problem with your position is that there is absolutely no way a person is qualified to tell you that your way is wrong, unless it is wrong according to objective, observable fact. No one who gets their belief about someone else's "path leading to a cliff" from their religion is qualified to tell me that I'm heading down the wrong path spiritually. Such an "admonition" would be inherently rejectable. We don't need to say they're out to "control" us; but they can't be seen as "right" just because they say they are.


We don't say we're right just because we say we are. We say we are right because God told us so in His Word.

Universality of application to religion is a key to deciding what is more reasonably right or wrong--within certain tolerances. A religion naturally will usually (unless it's a universalist religion) that those who don't believe don't reap the rewards. This is common sense.

However, it is not reasonable to compartmentalize religion based on one's ancestry. Why should one's ancestry or ancestors dictate whom the person should worship? This naturally excludes anyone who is not in that gene pool. This is unreasonable discrimination--especially if the religion in question is purported to be really great for social stability.

Another test is how the belief systems guide the application of study of the natural world. If the belief system has unreasonable taboos (leading to rejection of things like autopsies, for instance), science will not progress. Of all the belief systems, the most compatible with allowing discoveries in science are Atheism, Deism, Agnosticism, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. Animistic and shamanistic religions do not qualify because people don't want to go against the spirits or offend them in some way. The results vary with region and individual systems, but for the most part there is at least one taboo that gets in the way of scientific discovery.

Buddhism and Hinduism are in a class all their own regarding science because neither believes n tangible reality as-we-know-it--it is all an illusion (called "maya" in Hinduism). If the physical world around us is a mere illusion, then so would any experiments or experimental results be.

Most religions believe in some form of "works-righteousness" (having to dooooo something to gain the favor of the god or gods and get forgiven based on something done). Christianity believes that faith alone saves, and that forgiveness is bought with Jesus' death on the cross (which was foreshadowed by all the animal sacrifices made prior to that) and one only needs believe in Jesus as the Messiah and Savior (and repent of sins) to gain forgiveness. It is also believed that faith without works is dead; however the works themselves are not the means by which forgiveness or eternal life is obtained.
quote:
Originally posted by shebakoby:
Another test is how the belief systems guide the application of study of the natural world. If the belief system has unreasonable taboos (leading to rejection of things like autopsies, for instance), science will not progress. Of all the belief systems, the most compatible with allowing discoveries in science are Atheism, Deism, Agnosticism, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. Animistic and shamanistic religions do not qualify because people don't want to go against the spirits or offend them in some way. The results vary with region and individual systems, but for the most part there is at least one taboo that gets in the way of scientific discovery.


This from a woman/man who believes that life didn't start in Africa...that the first humans weren't African, and Black of skin...

The 'taboo' blocking you from scientific discovery must be euro-centric racist thought.
quote:
Originally posted by shebakoby:

We don't say we're right just because we say we are. We say we are right because God told us so in His Word.




No, that's wrong. The truth is that you say you are right because you BELIEVE God told you so in what you BELIEVE is His Word.

Faith in scripture and faith in religion are the faith in MAN, not faith in God. You have faith in the men who tell us that the Bible is the word of God. This is why you lack any logical or moral authority to tell us where we are going. You are not going by what God says. You are going by what men have said God says. That, to me, is spiritual folly.
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
quote:
Originally posted by shebakoby:

We don't say we're right just because we say we are. We say we are right because God told us so in His Word.




No, that's wrong. The truth is that you say you are right because you BELIEVE God told you so in what you BELIEVE is His Word.

Faith in scripture and faith in religion are the faith in MAN, not faith in God. You have faith in the men who tell us that the Bible is the word of God. This is why you lack any logical or moral authority to tell us where we are going. You are not going by what God says. You are going by what men have said God says. That, to me, is spiritual folly.


You cannot prove that God didn't write the scriptures (via divine inspiraton to the people that took dictation).

In fact, there is ample evidence that God was the originator of the Hebrew (and Greek) OT/NT scriptures. Check out the work done by Ivan Panin, if you can get your hands on it. The phenomenon in question is "theomatic numbers." You may be surprised.
quote:
Originally posted by shebakoby:
You cannot prove that God didn't write the scriptures (via divine inspiraton to the people that took dictation).

In fact, there is ample evidence that God was the originator of the Hebrew (and Greek) OT/NT scriptures. Check out the work done by Ivan Panin, if you can get your hands on it. The phenomenon in question is "theomatic numbers." You may be surprised.


You have not refuted my statement. I said that Faith in scripture and faith in religion constitute faith in MAN, not faith in God. You can believe what you want to believe, but if you believe that the Bible is the word of God, then you are having faith in the human beings who try to tell us that it is.

Furthermore, isn't your point about proof silly? If you have any intelligence, you know that the lack of proof that something is FALSE is a TERRIBLY inadequate standard. You're correct: just because there's no proof that the men who say the Bible is God's word were false, doesn't mean that they are false. But WHATEVER it means, the fact is the fact: you ARE going based on faith in MAN when you believe the Bible is His word, and NOT based on faith in God. And again, that means that my main point against you stands firm: your faith in fallible humanity's word about God is inadequate authority to tell someone else that their way is wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
quote:
Originally posted by shebakoby:
You cannot prove that God didn't write the scriptures (via divine inspiraton to the people that took dictation).

In fact, there is ample evidence that God was the originator of the Hebrew (and Greek) OT/NT scriptures. Check out the work done by Ivan Panin, if you can get your hands on it. The phenomenon in question is "theomatic numbers." You may be surprised.


You have not refuted my statement. I said that Faith in scripture and faith in religion constitute faith in MAN, not faith in God. You can believe what you want to believe, but if you believe that the Bible is the word of God, then you are having faith in the human beings who try to tell us that it is.

Furthermore, isn't your point about proof silly? If you have any intelligence, you know that the lack of proof that something is FALSE is a TERRIBLY inadequate standard. You're correct: just because there's no proof that the men who say the Bible is God's word were false, doesn't mean that they are false. But WHATEVER it means, the fact is the fact: you ARE going based on faith in MAN when you believe the Bible is His word, and NOT based on faith in God. And again, that means that my main point against you stands firm: your faith in fallible humanity's word about God is inadequate authority to tell someone else that their way is wrong.


You cannot prove that man is the sole originator of the Bible. I have faith that God would kick the @$$ of anyone trying to surruptitiously speak for Him without authorization, that's for sure. You are fallaciously assuming that God wouldn't take adequate precautions as to the Word that was indeed from Him and its truthfulness or validity.

No other scriptures hold "God's Fingerprint". Only the Hebrew O.T. and the Greek N.T. do. This is impossible for Man to have done by happenstance.

But there are other ways to rationalize this.
quote:
Originally posted by shebakoby:
You cannot prove that man is the sole originator of the Bible. I have faith that God would kick the @$$ of anyone trying to surruptitiously speak for Him without authorization, that's for sure. You are fallaciously assuming that God wouldn't take adequate precautions as to the Word that was indeed from Him and its truthfulness or validity.


Sheba, that assumes that the Bible is His word. If it's not his word, then your statement about the precautions he would take as to His word don't apply.

The Book of Mormon claims to be God's word. The Qur'An claims to be God's word. The Ifa Oracle of the African religions you want to save Africans from... all of these things and more claim to be God's word. Rael, the guy who says aliens are the creators, says that they came and spoke right to him. The people who believe in these different "words" all believe that these are God's word, just because they have faith in the word of the humans who promote them as such. But you know what? They can't ALL be God's word, because they're all too contradictory. And the Bible contains the exact same elements of "faith" based word as all the others do.

Again, you can believe whichever one you want to believe in. The fact remains, the belief in these things conveys no authority to tell someone else that they are headed to hell for believing in the others.

And this stuff about God's fingerprint, and this numerological stuff... there are entirely too many logical flaws and contradictions in the Bible for the Bible to be God's word. God's "Word," if there is such a thing, exists in his works, and in te fact of the inviolable principles of nature and behavior that govern everything and everybody. When we discard the man-made religious beliefs, we take a major step toward becoming in tune with the beauty and absolute correctness of God's law. His message is in the application of his law and his works, and when we stop having faith in man's false presentations, God's message becomes completely self-evident to us, because it's untangled from all the false stuff. Objectively correct standards of conduct, spirituality, virtue and morality all flow easily and naturally from this uncluttered, less-adulterated understanding; and what's more, they become easy to adhere to. There is no temptation away from them, becauseyou see that they're so self-evident that to stray too far from them is illogical and nonsensical.

This is the core of MY belief system. I don't push it down anyone else's throat, and I don't often talk about it except when someone else asks me about it, or when they try to tell me that theirs is the only way.
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
quote:
Originally posted by shebakoby:
You cannot prove that man is the sole originator of the Bible. I have faith that God would kick the @$$ of anyone trying to surruptitiously speak for Him without authorization, that's for sure. You are fallaciously assuming that God wouldn't take adequate precautions as to the Word that was indeed from Him and its truthfulness or validity.


Sheba, that assumes that the Bible is His word. If it's not his word, then your statement about the precautions he would take as to His word don't apply.

The Book of Mormon claims to be God's word. The Qur'An claims to be God's word. The Ifa Oracle of the African religions you want to save Africans from... all of these things and more claim to be God's word. Rael, the guy who says aliens are the creators, says that they came and spoke right to him. The people who believe in these different "words" all believe that these are God's word, just because they have faith in the word of the humans who promote them as such. But you know what? They can't ALL be God's word, because they're all too contradictory.


They are indeed too contradictory for them ALL to be right. The issue then is what is the true source, based on the teachings therein.

Muhammed copied a great deal from Judaism, tacking aspects of it onto his own deity Allah-Akbar, who happened to be the favorite pagan deity of his clan. Akbar refers to the Moon god that was worshipped in pagan Arabia.

Joseph Smith claimed to have seen an angel that gave him the extension known as "the Book Of Mormon". Notwithstanding that nothing in the Book of Mormon can be substantiated by any sort of archaelogical evidence (such as the claim that some Israelites made it to America and gave rise to the Native population therein), it is extremely possible that Joseph Smith was deceived by a demon (fallen disobedient angel).

quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
And the Bible contains the exact same elements of "faith" based word as all the others do.


what?

quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
Again, you can believe whichever one you want to believe in. The fact remains, the belief in these things conveys no authority to tell someone else that they are headed to hell for believing in the others.


Authority is irrelevant here.

quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
And this stuff about God's fingerprint, and this numerological stuff... there are entirely too many logical flaws and contradictions in the Bible for the Bible to be God's word.


For a thorough debunking of all the supposed "contradictions" in the Bible click HERE:
http://www.tektonics.org/gk/gauvin02d.html
http://www.tektonics.org/af/ebe04.html

Do not confuse Biblical Numerics with numerology. It is NOT the same.

quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
God's "Word," if there is such a thing, exists in his works, and in te fact of the inviolable principles of nature and behavior that govern everything and everybody. When we discard the man-made religious beliefs, we take a major step toward becoming in tune with the beauty and absolute correctness of God's law. His message is in the application of his law and his works, and when we stop having faith in man's false presentations, God's message becomes completely self-evident to us, because it's untangled from all the false stuff.


Nature is an incomplete revelation of God. On what basis does one decide which is "man's false presentations" and what truly originated with God?

quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
Objectively correct standards of conduct, spirituality, virtue and morality all flow easily and naturally from this uncluttered, less-adulterated understanding; and what's more, they become easy to adhere to. There is no temptation away from them, because you see that they're so self-evident that to stray too far from them is illogical and nonsensical.


Morality does not come from "nature." Nature itself is amoral. What humans intrinsically know about what is right and wrong on a basic level (don't murder, don't steal, etc.) was implanted by God--that is why everybody knows the basics. But Nature does NOT tell us how to approach God.

quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
This is the core of MY belief system. I don't push it down anyone else's throat, and I don't often talk about it except when someone else asks me about it, or when they try to tell me that theirs is the only way.


If there IS more than one "way", then why are there any "ways" at all? Religion should be moot at this point then. Why would anyone make a claim to exclusivity, then? It wouldn't make sense. There has to be something else involved then.

Proto-Judaism (Israelite religion) and Christianity alone work on the premise of God reaching down to Man. All others, including modern Judaism in large part, are oriented as Man reaching out to God.
quote:
Originally posted by shebakoby:
If there IS more than one "way", then why are there any "ways" at all? Religion should be moot at this point then. Why would anyone make a claim to exclusivity, then? It wouldn't make sense. There has to be something else involved then.


You may want to get that mirror out and REALLY investigate this question...because you are the only person on the board saying your way is the ONLY way...
BTW, briefly for now... your "Theomatics" stuff is pretty funny. The authors of the concept get pretty arbitrary with the examples. It reminds me of the internet e-mail joke that shows how you can rearrange letters in a word to get new words or phrases that are similar in meaning... Check it:


GEORGE BUSH : When you rearrange the letters : HE BUGS GORE

DORMITORY : : DIRTY ROOM

EVANGELIST : : EVIL'S AGENT

PRESBYTERIAN : : BEST IN PRAYER

DESPERATION : : A ROPE ENDS IT

THE MORSE CODE : : HERE COME DOTS

SLOT MACHINES : : CASH LOST IN ME

ANIMOSITY : : IS NO AMITY

MOTHER-IN-LAW : : WOMAN HITLER

SNOOZE ALARMS : : ALAS! NO MORE Z'S

A DECIMAL POINT : : I'M A DOT IN PLACE

THE EARTHQUAKES : : THAT QUEER SHAKE

ELEVEN PLUS TWO : : TWELVE PLUS ONE

And for the! Grand finale: PRESIDENT CLINTON OF THE USA : : TO COPULATE HE FINDS INTERNS

So it looks like it's always possible to come up with some interesting patterns in letters and numbers. I'm sure I could find a numeric or alphabetic pattern in the Bible that says "I am not God's word!" The writers are probably making some good money off the books on the subject, though. I'm not mad at that.
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:
Originally posted by shebakoby:
If there IS more than one "way", then why are there any "ways" at all? Religion should be moot at this point then. Why would anyone make a claim to exclusivity, then? It wouldn't make sense. There has to be something else involved then.


You may want to get that mirror out and REALLY investigate this question...because you are the only person on the board saying your way is the ONLY way...



If you can't tell when somebody's playing "Devil's Advocate", maybe you need a humor injection.
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
BTW, briefly for now... your "Theomatics" stuff is pretty funny. The authors of the concept get pretty arbitrary with the examples. It reminds me of the internet e-mail joke that shows how you can rearrange letters in a word to get new words or phrases that are similar in meaning... Check it:


GEORGE BUSH : When you rearrange the letters : HE BUGS GORE

DORMITORY : : DIRTY ROOM

EVANGELIST : : EVIL'S AGENT

PRESBYTERIAN : : BEST IN PRAYER

DESPERATION : : A ROPE ENDS IT

THE MORSE CODE : : HERE COME DOTS

SLOT MACHINES : : CASH LOST IN ME

ANIMOSITY : : IS NO AMITY

MOTHER-IN-LAW : : WOMAN HITLER

SNOOZE ALARMS : : ALAS! NO MORE Z'S

A DECIMAL POINT : : I'M A DOT IN PLACE

THE EARTHQUAKES : : THAT QUEER SHAKE

ELEVEN PLUS TWO : : TWELVE PLUS ONE

And for the! Grand finale: PRESIDENT CLINTON OF THE USA : : TO COPULATE HE FINDS INTERNS

So it looks like it's always possible to come up with some interesting patterns in letters and numbers. I'm sure I could find a numeric or alphabetic pattern in the Bible that says "I am not God's word!" The writers are probably making some good money off the books on the subject, though. I'm not mad at that.


ROFLMFAO. Anagrams are a totally different thing than this. You totally don't understand how this works.
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
When I find it, I'll post a psychoanalysis of Fundamentalism. Essentially, the piece talks about the literalism and absolutism of the Fundamentalist doctrine.

It's interesting to read Shebakoby's posts in light of the analysis.


How many times do I have to tell you that I'm NOT Fundamentalist????? broscream soapbox

Therefore, any analysis of "Fundamentalism" will not apply to me at all. Razz
quote:
Originally posted by shebakoby:

ROFLMFAO. Anagrams are a totally different thing than this. You totally don't understand how this works.


No, I read a web page that gives a sketchy outline of it. I kind-of understand, but the point of my comparison is to show that it is possible to discern all kinds of patterns in anything, if you look hard enough and are creative enough. I'm sure that I could sit here and come up with a numeric pattern similar to the one you talk about, right here in this thread. "You liberals" could have a certain numeric relationship with "John Birch Society."
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.
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."

"Legalism" is a hallmark of fundamentalism. Fundies also usually reject infant baptism (if they are Baptists).

You seem to be confused as to what 'literalism' actually entails. Some people do not have a common-sense idea of it. Most people accuse fundamentalists of beleiving that everything in the Bible is literally literal, including clear instances of metaphor. If a PLAIN READING indicates plain language (meant to be taken "literally"), then that's what it says. Cases of metaphor are easily identified and taken into context.

For instance:

In Psalms, Job, and other places, metaphoric language is clearly used. In these cases (such as the "storehouses of ice and snow" (Job 38:22, NIV; the KJV has a better translation, rendering "treasures" instead of "storehouses"), what God is saying makes a point but does not indicate (at least in regards to the NIV translation) that there are literal buildings filled with ice and snow.

Your definition of fundamentalist clearly falls flat especially considering that "fundamentalists" DON'T take Christ literally when he says "this IS my body." They rationalize it away. This is a clear indication that the fundamentalists DON'T always take every piece of scripture "literally"!

And the belief that Christ is the only way to Heaven hardly makes one a "fundamentalist." Other churches who do not have fundamentalist doctrines also believe this.

I think you'd better read up on Lutherans before you decide to start flinging around the "fundamentalist" moniker.
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."

"Legalism" is a hallmark of fundamentalism. Fundies also usually reject infant baptism (if they are Baptists).

You seem to be confused as to what 'literalism' actually entails. Some people do not have a common-sense idea of it. Most people accuse fundamentalists of beleiving that everything in the Bible is literally literal, including clear instances of metaphor. If a PLAIN READING indicates plain language (meant to be taken "literally"), then that's what it says. Cases of metaphor are easily identified and taken into context.

For instance:

In Psalms, Job, and other places, metaphoric language is clearly used. In these cases (such as the "storehouses of ice and snow" (Job 38:22, NIV; the KJV has a better translation, rendering "treasures" instead of "storehouses"), what God is saying makes a point but does not indicate (at least in regards to the NIV translation) that there are literal buildings filled with ice and snow.

Your definition of fundamentalist clearly falls flat especially considering that "fundamentalists" DON'T take Christ literally when he says "this IS my body." They rationalize it away. This is a clear indication that the fundamentalists DON'T always take every piece of scripture "literally"!

And the belief that Christ is the only way to Heaven hardly makes one a "fundamentalist." Other churches who do not have fundamentalist doctrines also believe this.

I think you'd better read up on Lutherans before you decide to start flinging around the "fundamentalist" moniker.

Are you Missouri or Wisconsin Synod?
Alright, let me see if I can put this in a context that's a bit more understandable. Up until very recently (200-300 yrs.) shepherds tended to there flocks in a different fashion. sheepdogs didn't frighten the sheep into co-operation like today,(trust me this IS going somewhere). Instead, shepherds called to there flock, or sung a song, hummed whatever, just as long as they vocalized. And this is still practiced in remote parts of the world. Because sheep will only follow the voice of there sheperd,and none other. If 2 sheperds were to meet & converse in a valley and there flocks intermingled they didn't/don't stress out. When they were ready to part ways one shepherd would stand on one hill, the other on another hill, and they'd call to there flocks, and the sheep would seperate themselves. It didn't matter if it were 2 shepherds or 20, the flocks would only follow the voice of there master and none other. This is why the bible would use the sheep/shepherd analogy so often. It was one that people in that era would've understood. And this is what YAH is saying.

The earth is a mixed flock. He also lets you in on a little "behind-the-scenes" secret. That although you hear many voices, calling to you in the form of various religions, there are only two beings calling your name. One is him, and one is a ventriloquist of sorts. Who takes on many voices. And your even given the end results, one is on a hill called "Shamayin"(heaven) and for treason, and and attempting to overthrow the most high, one is on there way to "sheol"(hell). And the inevitable choice we all must make. Which path (voice) will you Follow? Now this is bound to rub atheist and those of other faiths the wrong way...but hey sometimes in life one must take that leap of faith, that's why they are called "faiths".

We were all granted and born with a great many freedoms. You can do and say a great many things. If one wants to blaspheme the name of the most high to the top of ones voice because you do not acknowledge the god of Yisrael, as the one true god that is absolutely within your given bounderies. But there something I think human beings never really understood... or or WOULDN'T understand, and that is, the greater the freedoms the greater the accountability. You can do what you will but you also must take responsibility for it. So it's not so much "MY WAY OR HELL" as "When I called to you, would not answer my voice"
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?

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×