Quote:
Originally Posted by TGS
Wikipedia - whatever its veracity - has this as a definition of fundamentalism:
This second, I would suggest, comes closer to what the man on the Clapham omnibus would take to be fundamentalism. The definition you gave would seem to characterize some kind of basic beliefs of Christianity - and in that sense such beliefs are fundamental, but that is not the derogatory sense in which the word "fundamentalist" is bandied about.
|
Wikipedia is horrible for any religious based information due to the potential for griefing. However, "fundamentalism" was a specific movement in the early 20th century similar to that described. It's become a catch-all phrase that has a sort of derogatory sense to it these days. (I've never heard anyone called a "fundamentalist" and it had been a
good thing in context!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kindlekitten
in your belief is it possible for you to acknowledge and understand that almost certainly none of the new testament writings (with few exceptions were still debated) were not written by anyone who lived during the time of Jesus and witnessed anything?
|
If the evidence backed this up, sure. However, I do not believe the evidence comes even close to what you are asserting: "almost certainly" that "none" of the NT writings were by those of Jesus time. They were written
later but I already stated my belief that they were still by eyewitnesses in some cases, specifically citing John (adding Matthew, with Mark and Luke talking to eyewitnesses).
I find it curious that The Bible is the most discussed book in a thread about The Koran! Nobody questions the authorship of the Koran? Would that not be more on topic?
-Pie