"The problem with fundamentalist religion isn't the fundamentalism"

[Man of Faith]

So, you agree?

I agree that it seems like you want gray areas except for your statement that there should be gray areas.

 

[Man of Faith]

I think the problem is one of having or not having any truth or standards. I have a truth to go by so I don't have gray areas. Whether it is the truth or not, which I happen to believe it is, isn't the issue, I do have faith that it is the truth and can see real evidence in my human experience to back it up

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I agree that it seems like you want gray areas except for your statement that there should be gray areas.

So you're not saying anything of substance.

 

[Man of Faith]

So you're not saying anything of substance.

Do I ever?

 

[LuisDantas]

I think the problem is one of having or not having any truth or standards. I have a truth to go by so I don't have gray areas.

That is great if you are only worried about consistency with a pre-defined model (as in mathematics or game design) or if your goals favor having answers and certainty over truth and relevancy.

However, if you are instead aiming to be religiously honest, such a strategy is just lousy, if not all-out destructive.

Whether it is the truth or not, which I happen to believe it is, isn't the issue, I do have faith that it is the truth and can see real evidence in my human experience to back it up

Trouble is, that amounts to saying that you don't care about truth, and therefore that you don't care very much about your own beliefs and religious convictions.

 

[drsatish]

[FONT=&quot]Me! Cute Kid! From L.K.G…[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I just WALKED out from my classroom…[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]My Parents ASKED…did you LEARN the FUNDAMENTALS of HUMANITY?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I like Ice-Creams..[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]By the way, WHAT SHOULD I tell My Parents?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Satish[/FONT]

 

[rojse]

particularly when steered by crafty antagonists.

Like politicians.

 

[rojse]

I'd disagree with that theory - a moderate person would only use religious scripture as part of their guidelines, and discard whatever they did not agree with, while a fundamentalist would keep all of the scriptures, be they good or bad.

 

[LuisDantas]

As a side note, IIRC, the fundamentalism movement was originally meant to be inclusive and ecumenical: the idea was that by focusing on the "fundamentals" of Christianity... i.e. on what "really" mattered, they'd be able to create more cohesion between Christian groups that were divided by "unimportant" differences.

Interesting. I never heard of that before, but logically it makes sense. People wouldn't choose to label themselves fundamentalists for many other reasons.

And it is certainly regrettable that so many people went astray with such a mistake. I wish more Christians had the healthy courage to take responsibility for their interpretations of their own religion and scriptures.