Thoughts on the NT and it's writers

[beamishboy]

While I'm not a fundamentalist, per se, I am a conservative evangelical. I'm afraid I have to side with your aunt on this one. Your view of Scripture is in need of some work. As for your Vicar...find a new teacher; this guy is leading you astray. The doctrine of Scripture is the first of five definitive theological convictions that determine whether or not a person is an authentic, born again Christian. Those who reject inerrancy are in danger of rejecting Christ. I can't for the life of me understand how you could develop such a liberal position from reading Metzger.

You mention general ideas without going into detail. What is the doctrine of Scripture? Inerrancy is a modern invention. My vicar says it came about in the late 19th century as a reaction to the RC's papal infallibility.

Metzger was the chappie who translated the RSV Bible. When the RSV first got published, fundamentalists burnt it in the church yard because Isaiah 7:14 was translated "young woman" instead of "virgin". But of course we now know that Matthew quotes Isaiah 7:14 but the writer of Matthew used the Septuagint and not the Hebrew Bible. So Matthew puts in the virgin bit. But the idea of virginity was never in Isaiah.

So, Metzger, as an honest scholar, translated Is 7:14 as "young woman" and fundamentalists saw red. I think they are aware of this problem in Matthew and any reminder of it makes them mad.

I'm only interested in the truth because we are told that the truth shall set us free. I'm not interested in learning something under someone who has an agenda. Truth can always be discussed and if it's really true, it need not hide in fear. If what I've written is wrong at all, please point my errors out to me. But you should not say, "Hey, I have this doctrine of scripture and it includes inerrancy and anyone who denies inerrancy may not be a true Christian". That won't work for me because I've got an independent mind. I need to see what gave anyone the notion that the Bible is inerrant in the first place. I can then show him why the Bible is not inerrant. The NT can't even quote the OT prophecies correctly.

My vicar, like most priests in the CoE, believe in truth above doctrine. If some doctrine is false, we just have to accept it. We may continue with the doctrine because of tradition but we must know it's wrong at least intellectually even if the rituals can't be changed because rituals and traditions usually don't change. But intellectually, I have to be honest.

 

[billychum]

The doctrine of Scripture is the first of five definitive theological convictions that determine whether or not a person is an authentic, born again Christian.

I could be wrong but I don't recall scripture saying anything like this. Can you tell us what the other four are?

Billy <><

 

[Steve Petersen]

Then there is the question of which canon of the NT? The Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopian, Catholic, Protestant? These all exist today, and each sect claims the hand of God in compiling their canon.

 

[TimRout]

I could be wrong but I don't recall scripture saying anything like this. Can you tell us what the other four are?

Billy <><

The five fundamental doctrines of biblical Christianity are:

1. The doctrine of Scripture
2. The doctrine of God
3. The doctrine of man
4. The doctrine of sin
5. The doctrine of salvation

It is possible for a genuinely saved person to challenge certain elements of the above doctrines, but those who do so are in danger of departing orthodoxy.

 

[TimRout]

You mention general ideas without going into detail. What is the doctrine of Scripture? Inerrancy is a modern invention. My vicar says it came about in the late 19th century as a reaction to the RC's papal infallibility.

Metzger was the chappie who translated the RSV Bible. When the RSV first got published, fundamentalists burnt it in the church yard because Isaiah 7:14 was translated "young woman" instead of "virgin". But of course we now know that Matthew quotes Isaiah 7:14 but the writer of Matthew used the Septuagint and not the Hebrew Bible. So Matthew puts in the virgin bit. But the idea of virginity was never in Isaiah.

So, Metzger, as an honest scholar, translated Is 7:14 as "young woman" and fundamentalists saw red. I think they are aware of this problem in Matthew and any reminder of it makes them mad.

I'm only interested in the truth because we are told that the truth shall set us free. I'm not interested in learning something under someone who has an agenda. Truth can always be discussed and if it's really true, it need not hide in fear. If what I've written is wrong at all, please point my errors out to me. But you should not say, "Hey, I have this doctrine of scripture and it includes inerrancy and anyone who denies inerrancy may not be a true Christian". That won't work for me because I've got an independent mind. I need to see what gave anyone the notion that the Bible is inerrant in the first place. I can then show him why the Bible is not inerrant. The NT can't even quote the OT prophecies correctly.

My vicar, like most priests in the CoE, believe in truth above doctrine. If some doctrine is false, we just have to accept it. We may continue with the doctrine because of tradition but we must know it's wrong at least intellectually even if the rituals can't be changed because rituals and traditions usually don't change. But intellectually, I have to be honest.

The doctrine of Scripture states:

The 66 books of the biblical canon are verbally inspired and inerrant as originally given.

 

[TimRout]

The Doctrine Of Scripture
The Christian faith pivots around the historicity of the resurrection. As Paul put it, &#8220;...if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.&#8221; [1 Corinthians 15:14/NIV] But the resurrection does not stand alone as an historical eccentricity; rather, it is the product of biblical prophesy, as Paul mentioned earlier in the above passage.


&#8220;For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Peter and then to the Twelve.&#8221; [1 Corinthians15:3-5/NIV]


Even the resurrection, with its central standing in the Christian faith, gleans its significance from the Scriptures. Jesus believed the Old Testament was infallible [John 10:35]. The broader testimony of the Bible supports this conclusion [Proverbs 30:5]. Thus the Scriptures stand as our only and all sufficient rule for faith and practice [2 Timothy 3:16]. Everything else we believe springs forth from the Word.


The Doctrine Of God
While belief in Yahweh is, in itself, insufficient to save [James 2:19], such belief is nevertheless requisite. If one is to be saved, one must believe in the God, not merely a god. Thus Christians acknowledge only the Triune God of the Bible [Matthew 28:19; John 1:1-5, 10:30; Romans 8:9-11; Titus 2:13]. (Normally we would also discuss Christology and Pneumatology at some length, though for our purposes, conservative evangelical values may be assumed).


The Doctrine Of Man
Human beings were created directly by God, in His image, and in two distinct genders [Genesis 5:1-2]; all persons have a definite beginning [Psalm 139:13]. Mankind was created to serve and glorify God [Ecclesiastes 12:13; 1 Peter 4:11]. Human beings are by nature corporeal [Matthew 6:11], though we possess both a soul and a spirit [Hebrews 4:12]. A person's spirit is everlasting [Matthew 25:46].


The Doctrine Of Sin
Though created in perfection, man chose to sin [Genesis 3:6]. Sin brought death [1 Corinthians15:21-22]. The term death refers to both physical demise and unending punishment in hell [1 Corinthians11:30; Revelation 20:11-15]. There is nothing people can do to rescue themselves from God's wrath [Isaiah 64:6]. The natural destiny of all human kind is, by default, condemnation [John 3:18].


The Doctrine Of Salvation
What we cannot do for ourselves, God has done for us. While we were still helpless in sin, God sent His Son, the only begotten God [John 1:18/NASB], born of a virgin [Matthew 1:23], to die in our place [Romans 5:6]. Through faith in Christ, a person's sins are forgiven and he is made a child of God [John 1:12; Romans 10:9-13]; authentic belief is always accompanied by sincere repentance [Mark 1:15]. Jesus did not remain dead, but rose bodily on the third day [Luke 24:6]. He ascended bodily into heaven, from whence He will one day bodily return [Acts 1:11]. Those who die in Christ are received spiritually and immediately into the presence of God [2 Corinthians 5:8]. At the end, all Christians will be resurrected unto glory [1 Corinthians 15:23-24]. The wicked too will be resurrected unto everlasting torment [Revelation 20:11-13]. Evil will continue for a time, but when all is said and done, God wins [Revelation 21:1 - 22:21].


While this is an exceedingly brief and incomplete synopsis, it sketches the elemental doctrines that provide a foundation for the Christian faith.

 

[beamishboy]

The doctrine of Scripture states:

The 66 books of the biblical canon are verbally inspired and inerrant as originally given.

You must be clearer. That's not what is taught in my church which is older than your entire country. You must state precisely who coined up these doctrines. If it's not by older churches, I suspect it's by one of these new organisations. If it's by, say, the United Fundamentalist Churches of North America, please say so.

 

[TimRout]

You must be clearer. That's not what is taught in my church which is older than your entire country. You must state precisely who coined up these doctrines. If it's not by older churches, I suspect it's by one of these new organisations. If it's by, say, the United Fundamentalist Churches of North America, please say so.

I have presented a biblically framed synopsis above. As to the authority of your church -- if you want to impress me, you'd better make your case from Scripture alone. Man made denominational institutions are meaningless.

 

[billychum]

The five fundamental doctrines of biblical Christianity are:

1. The doctrine of Scripture
2. The doctrine of God
3. The doctrine of man
4. The doctrine of sin
5. The doctrine of salvation

see no danger in accepting this if one chooses.

It is possible for a genuinely saved person to challenge certain elements of the above doctrines, but those who do so are in danger of departing orthodoxy.

departing othodoxy (whoever determines that) and not being christian (is too me anyway) clearly two different things.

thanks for the info
Billy <><

 

[TimRout]

see no danger in accepting this if one chooses.

Glad to hear it.

departing othodoxy (whoever determines that) and not being christian (is too me anyway) clearly two different things.

thanks for the info
Billy <><

You make an important point. Ultimately, it is God who will judge whether a person has (or has not) adhered to His Word. That said, if a person espouses beliefs that are clearly contrary to Scripture, and these beliefs cut across the grain of core doctrine, it is not unreasonable to conclude they have departed orthodoxy.

Is it possible for a person to hold some unorthodox views yet still be saved? Perhaps. But a departure from the fundamental doctrines specified above opens the door to any and every heresy.

It should be noted that the essential doctrines of the faith do not contain some of the "hot button" issues Christians like to debate. For example, one's opinion on women in ministry, divorce and remarriage, church polity, Calvinist vs Arminian hermeneutics, and so forth, have no direct bearing on a person's eternal destiny.

 

[beamishboy]

I have presented a biblically framed synopsis above. As to the authority of your church -- if you want to impress me, you'd better make your case from Scripture alone. Man made denominational institutions are meaningless.

Your so-called biblically framed synopsis has lots of biblical quotations but when one actually looks at the citations, one finds that they don't say what you mean them to say. Just as an example, in Jn 10:35, Jesus was using scripture to refute the Jews' argument that he was blasphemous. He was saying that if humans are called gods in Psalms and if Scripture cannot be broken, how can they say he is blasphemous for calling himself the Son of God. He didn't declare that the O.T. is infallible. This is the usual misreading that is so wrong in fundamentalist Christianity. A verse is taken out of context and twisted to give a general teaching when it does not.

It's like if you say I have committed an offence for drinking alcohol and I reply in this way, "If the law of the land states that an underage boy cannot commit an offence and the law cannot be broken, how can you say I'm committing an offence for drinking beer?" And you are attempting to conclude that I'm saying that the law of the land is infallible.

The same goes for all your other biblical quotations. I notice fundamentalists love to do this. They state their doctrines and in brackets, they put in biblical references. But when you read the biblical references in context, they usually don't mean what the fundamentalist wants them to mean.

Even if the Bible has any reference that the O.T. is infallible which I absolutely dispute (because there is NO SUCH REFERENCE), the Bible clearly says nothing about the N.T. The books of the N.T. were nothing more than a collection of religious writings and the church gathered them (excluded some) and turned them into the N.T. Nowhere can you find justification for the collection of the N.T. to be designated the word of God.

Hebrews was only included because some in the church wrongly thought it was written by Paul and when they discovered it was not (and they haven't the foggiest who wrote it), they kept it anyway. Jude is another dubious book that made reference to an apocryphal O.T. book. The same goes for many of the N.T. epistles, etc. Paul told the Colossians to read his letter to the Laodiceans but we know that epistle was lost. So today we have in Col the instruction to read the epistle but it's lost. If it's the word of God, can we say that the word of God that should prevail even when heaven and earth shall fall away, is in fact lost for good?

These are issues that inerrantists shy away from. But you can sweep it under the carpet but it will never go away.

Like you, I'm not impressed with your doctrines either because they are not based on Scriptures. You just use quotations but when read in context, they don't mean what you think they mean.

 

[beamishboy]

The doctrine of Scripture states:

The 66 books of the biblical canon are verbally inspired and inerrant as originally given.

This doctrine is totally man-made. The choosing of the 66 is arbitrary. It was never unanimously accepted. Just look at the different Canons all through history. Different churches came up with different canons. Just read Metzger and FF Bruce for the details.

Even as late as Tyndale's time, Tyndale's translation shows more than 66 books. Fundamentalists sometimes talk about Tyndale with tears in their eyes but they will flip when they see some deuterocanonical works in his Bible.

Martin Luther placed James, Peter, Hebrews and Jude as a secondary canon. He called James an epistle of straw and there is a division between the 4 books from the rest of the Bible.

Let's not pretend that the 66 books had always been accepted. They only became truly accepted in the past two hundred years and only by fundamentalist Protestants.

 

[TimRout]

This doctrine is totally man-made.

Untrue. Conservative theologians have good reason for holding to the canon as stated.

The choosing of the 66 is arbitrary. It was never unanimously accepted. Just look at the different Canons all through history. Different churches came up with different canons.

Universal unanimity is no test of truth. If you don't believe me, just ask a Mormon what he thinks of the Bible. Among the most orthodox churches we find strong affirmation of what we now call "the canon".

Just read Metzger and FF Bruce for the details.

Your reliance on Metzger and Bruce fails to recognize that other equally credentialed scholars disagree with them. I can't blame you for espousing a liberal position when you are so determined to trust the work of less-than-conservative scholars. Have you read Wenham, Boice, or Geisler on this issue? As one of my sem professors used to say, "We end where we begin."

Even as late as Tyndale's time, Tyndale's translation shows more than 66 books. Fundamentalists sometimes talk about Tyndale with tears in their eyes but they will flip when they see some deuterocanonical works in his Bible.

Funny you should bring up Tyndale. I was trained at Tyndale University in Toronto Canada. They have a wonderful Bible College and Seminary. I think you'll find most knowledgeable believers are well aware of the deuterocanonicals -- even their inclusion in the early publications of the KJV -- but this does not suggest we recognize them as part of the legitimate canon. And please note...I'm not flipping. In fact, I'm feeling rather calm and serene at the moment.

Martin Luther placed James, Peter, Hebrews and Jude as a secondary canon. He called James an epistle of straw and there is a division between the 4 books from the rest of the Bible.

I suppose this would bother me if I were a disciple of Martin Luther. As it is, I'm a disciple of Jesus Christ. Brother Martin was a smart man, but that doesn't make him infallible.

Let's not pretend that the 66 books had always been accepted. They only became truly accepted in the past two hundred years and only by fundamentalist Protestants.

I'm afraid you're misinformed, my friend. Perhaps if you broadened your scholarly base beyond Metzger, Bruce and your Vicar, you would come to understand why conservative evangelicals like me hold the views we do.

And by the way...since I am NOT a fundamentalist Protestant, your last statement is clearly erroneous. But keep studying, my young friend. There is still much truth to discover.

 

[TimRout]

Your so-called biblically framed synopsis has lots of biblical quotations but when one actually looks at the citations, one finds that they don't say what you mean them to say. Just as an example, in Jn 10:35, Jesus was using scripture to refute the Jews' argument that he was blasphemous. He was saying that if humans are called gods in Psalms and if Scripture cannot be broken, how can they say he is blasphemous for calling himself the Son of God. He didn't declare that the O.T. is infallible. This is the usual misreading that is so wrong in fundamentalist Christianity. A verse is taken out of context and twisted to give a general teaching when it does not.

It's like if you say I have committed an offence for drinking alcohol and I reply in this way, "If the law of the land states that an underage boy cannot commit an offence and the law cannot be broken, how can you say I'm committing an offence for drinking beer?" And you are attempting to conclude that I'm saying that the law of the land is infallible.

The same goes for all your other biblical quotations. I notice fundamentalists love to do this. They state their doctrines and in brackets, they put in biblical references. But when you read the biblical references in context, they usually don't mean what the fundamentalist wants them to mean.

Even if the Bible has any reference that the O.T. is infallible which I absolutely dispute (because there is NO SUCH REFERENCE), the Bible clearly says nothing about the N.T. The books of the N.T. were nothing more than a collection of religious writings and the church gathered them (excluded some) and turned them into the N.T. Nowhere can you find justification for the collection of the N.T. to be designated the word of God.

Hebrews was only included because some in the church wrongly thought it was written by Paul and when they discovered it was not (and they haven't the foggiest who wrote it), they kept it anyway. Jude is another dubious book that made reference to an apocryphal O.T. book. The same goes for many of the N.T. epistles, etc. Paul told the Colossians to read his letter to the Laodiceans but we know that epistle was lost. So today we have in Col the instruction to read the epistle but it's lost. If it's the word of God, can we say that the word of God that should prevail even when heaven and earth shall fall away, is in fact lost for good?

These are issues that inerrantists shy away from. But you can sweep it under the carpet but it will never go away.

Like you, I'm not impressed with your doctrines either because they are not based on Scriptures. You just use quotations but when read in context, they don't mean what you think they mean.

Your hermeneutic process is entirely unsatisfactory. I stand by what I wrote.

 

[billychum]

Ultimately, it is God who will judge whether a person has (or has not) adhered to His Word. That said, if a person espouses beliefs that are clearly contrary to Scripture, and these beliefs cut across the grain of core doctrine, it is not unreasonable to conclude they have departed orthodoxy.

I agree

Is it possible for a person to hold some unorthodox views yet still be saved? Perhaps. But a departure from the fundamental doctrines specified above opens the door to any and every heresy.

I agree and I also understand the danger involved but if a doctrine is truly the truth then anyone seeking the truth should ultimately be lead back anyway. I guess I would say if one is up for it (solid in their faith) then proceed with caution.

It should be noted that the essential doctrines of the faith do not contain some of the "hot button" issues Christians like to debate. For example, one's opinion on women in ministry, divorce and remarriage, church polity, Calvinist vs Arminian hermeneutics, and so forth, have no direct bearing on a person's eternal destiny.

Yea it's tuff wading through this sort of stuff while at the same time sticking to that adhereance principal that you mentioned above.

Billy <><

 

[beamishboy]

Untrue. Conservative theologians have good reason for holding to the canon as stated.
Universal unanimity is no test of truth. If you don't believe me, just ask a Mormon what he thinks of the Bible. Among the most orthodox churches we find strong affirmation of what we now call "the canon".

Your reliance on Metzger and Bruce fails to recognize that other equally credentialed scholars disagree with them. I can't blame you for espousing a liberal position when you are so determined to trust the work of less-than-conservative scholars. Have you read Wenham, Boice, or Geisler on this issue? As one of my sem professors used to say, "We end where we begin."

Funny you should bring up Tyndale. I was trained at Tyndale University in Toronto Canada. They have a wonderful Bible College and Seminary. I think you'll find most knowledgeable believers are well aware of the deuterocanonicals -- even their inclusion in the early publications of the KJV -- but this does not suggest we recognize them as part of the legitimate canon. And please note...I'm not flipping. In fact, I'm feeling rather calm and serene at the moment.

I suppose this would bother me if I were a disciple of Martin Luther. As it is, I'm a disciple of Jesus Christ. Brother Martin was a smart man, but that doesn't make him infallible.

I'm afraid you're misinformed, my friend. Perhaps if you broadened your scholarly base beyond Metzger, Bruce and your Vicar, you would come to understand why conservative evangelicals like me hold the views we do.

And by the way...since I am NOT a fundamentalist Protestant, your last statement is clearly erroneous. But keep studying, my young friend. There is still much truth to discover.

You keep saying Conservative Theologians have good reasons but you've never shown the reasons. That's what I find so unhelpful about many fundamentalists (I'm not using the term in a derogatory sense so please don't be upset). Most fundamentalists will just say that they are right and their views are right but I find them ALWAYS unable to give a credible reason why they are right. When I was much younger, I believed every word in the Bible was from God. After all, I still believed in fairies and Santa Claus then.

When I turned 9, I became an atheist. I know in the other threads, atheists always dispute this because they say I couldn't have been a real atheist at that age but I know I really was.

I told my Vicar I should perhaps stop being an altar boy but he asked me to continue. We had many conversations in the vestry and I realised that what I could not accept was fundamentalism. My aunt who became a Baptist after living in the US for a time tried to influence me but what she did unknowingly was to give me fundamentalist interpretation. Naturally, I felt I couldn't accept it because to really be a fundamentalist, one must strain biblical meanings and twist everything to conform to one another. It's a very tiring exercise but it's the uncanny ability of fundamentalists to believe in the result of such exercise that I find most perplexing.

It was because of my atheism that I read Metzger and Bruce. You make disparaging remarks about these two scholars. I think you don't know what you're talking about when you made them both appear less than the greatest scholars of our time. My vicar tells me that Metzger's research and books are still used today by scholars - I think it's for translating the NT or something like that.

Fundamentalism would make life easier of course. If I were a crofter who played in the heath every day and didn't go to school, I should be quite happy to read and understand the Bible in a fundamentalist way. It's the most uncomplicated. But it's also the most contradictory to reality.

I have explained in my earlier post why fundamentalism is wrong when interpreting the NT. You have only said the two giants in theology, Bruce and Metzger, were wrong. You have not explained how your approach is right. This may be the approach you normally take among your own fundamentalists but I need reasons why your approach is right and Bruce and Metzger are wrong.

 

[TimRout]

You keep saying Conservative Theologians have good reasons but you've never shown the reasons. That's what I find so unhelpful about many fundamentalists (I'm not using the term in a derogatory sense so please don't be upset). Most fundamentalists will just say that they are right and their views are right but I find them ALWAYS unable to give a credible reason why they are right. When I was much younger, I believed every word in the Bible was from God. After all, I still believed in fairies and Santa Claus then.

When I turned 9, I became an atheist. I know in the other threads, atheists always dispute this because they say I couldn't have been a real atheist at that age but I know I really was.

I told my Vicar I should perhaps stop being an altar boy but he asked me to continue. We had many conversations in the vestry and I realised that what I could not accept was fundamentalism. My aunt who became a Baptist after living in the US for a time tried to influence me but what she did unknowingly was to give me fundamentalist interpretation. Naturally, I felt I couldn't accept it because to really be a fundamentalist, one must strain biblical meanings and twist everything to conform to one another. It's a very tiring exercise but it's the uncanny ability of fundamentalists to believe in the result of such exercise that I find most perplexing.

It was because of my atheism that I read Metzger and Bruce. You make disparaging remarks about these two scholars. I think you don't know what you're talking about when you made them both appear less than the greatest scholars of our time. My vicar tells me that Metzger's research and books are still used today by scholars - I think it's for translating the NT or something like that.

Fundamentalism would make life easier of course. If I were a crofter who played in the heath every day and didn't go to school, I should be quite happy to read and understand the Bible in a fundamentalist way. It's the most uncomplicated. But it's also the most contradictory to reality.

I have explained in my earlier post why fundamentalism is wrong when interpreting the NT. You have only said the two giants in theology, Bruce and Metzger, were wrong. You have not explained how your approach is right. This may be the approach you normally take among your own fundamentalists but I need reasons why your approach is right and Bruce and Metzger are wrong.

I am not interested in regurgitating in this venue the works of far better scholars than I. Here are some sources you might consider reading in addition to Metzger and Bruce. If you want to understand conservative scholarship, why not give them a go. If, on the other hand, you want to continue criticizing conservatives without studying their scholarly work first hand, I guess that's your choice.

"Inerrancy": Norm Geisler (chief editor)
"Scripture Alone": R.C. Sproul

 

[beamishboy]

I am not interested in regurgitating in this venue the works of far better scholars than I. Here are some sources you might consider reading in addition to Metzger and Bruce. If you want to understand conservative scholarship, why not give them a go. If, on the other hand, you want to continue criticizing conservatives without studying their scholarly work first hand, I guess that's your choice.

"Inerrancy": Norm Geisler (chief editor)
"Scripture Alone": R.C. Sproul

How fascinating! You can't defend your fundamentalist stand but you can refer me to books. Then you should not say my position is wrong without substantiating. You're basically saying I'm wrong but you're not going to substantiate because I can read it up in a book. This is a debate forum. I used to be very angry with fundamentalists because I always wondered why they just said someone was wrong and not give clear grounds. They are always shy of a debate but very quick to say someone is wrong. Now, I understand fundamentalism better and I'm no longer angry. It's not a tenable belief system. When examined closely, it crumbles. So, any seasoned fundamentalist will stay away from an argument. But they are very quick to say someone is wrong and they'll do it in a line or two, the more scathing, the better. When challenged, they give you a reading list.

 

[TimRout]

How fascinating! You can't defend your fundamentalist stand but you can refer me to books. Then you should not say my position is wrong without substantiating. You're basically saying I'm wrong but you're not going to substantiate because I can read it up in a book. This is a debate forum. I used to be very angry with fundamentalists because I always wondered why they just said someone was wrong and not give clear grounds. They are always shy of a debate but very quick to say someone is wrong. Now, I understand fundamentalism better and I'm no longer angry. It's not a tenable belief system. When examined closely, it crumbles. So, any seasoned fundamentalist will stay away from an argument. But they are very quick to say someone is wrong and they'll do it in a line or two, the more scathing, the better. When challenged, they give you a reading list.

There you go again, calling me a fundamentalist. When will you ever learn....

 

[beamishboy]

There you go again, calling me a fundamentalist. When will you ever learn....

There goes your one-liner. You can cancel "fundamentalist" every time you see it in my post above and you will still get quite a coherent argument. You can still reply to it. But of course you have no intention to reply to it because (a) you have no adequate reply or (b) you are worried that a counter-argument from me might leave you with no alternative but to admit that I'm right.

When I was still within my first two weeks of having joined CF in January this year, I posted a few threads to defend the Christian faith in GA where atheists are plentiful. Some kind Christian (who's a fundamentalist) sent me a message and told me that I should not get into an argument with atheists because they could shake my faith. He told me that whenever I faced any opposition, I should just say, "The Bible says this and that's the end of the matter" and to restrict myself to one line. Another example is "You're wrong because that's not what the Bible says".

I told him that would be a cop out. He said better to cop out than to lose your faith. I should have known then that this was a very fundamentalist approach but I didn't know much about that branch of Christianity then.

Today I know better and I see adults doing the same thing. Whenever someone uses a one-liner "Others are wrong and he is right because, well, that's what the Bible says", I can bet all I have that he is a fundamentalist. Hehe.