Ah, but...
Submitted by Jules on 2002-06-10 15:12:24, Monday
In reply to No - the difference is that submitted by Forgiven on 2002-06-10 14:09:48, Monday
|
...that's not Fundamentalism with a capital 'F'. It may be fundamentalism in the general sense of holding to fundamentals, but as others have said, so does everyone, believer or unbeliever, we all believe in something. But Christian Fundamentalism with a capital 'F' is something else. What you've described is putting your faith in the resurrection as a historical event, as the basis of your faith. So do I. We do it on the basis of reasonable historical evidence. You could present the evidence in a secular court of law, and put it to the jury, and the verdict would probably be split. Some would take that final step of faith, and some wouldn't. But that doesn't make either group Fundamentalists, nor does it make us Fundamentalists. There are other beliefs we hold, not on the basis of historical evidence, but based on experience, either our own or that of others. But again there is evidence, to which we add that step of faith. Fundamentalism is when you add others things that can't be established by reasonable historical or experimental means. Things, most obviously, like the idea that the whole Bible (and exactly those 66 books, no more, no less) is specialy inspired by God and free of any factual error; that any part of it can and should be used verbatim to address contemporary issues, and so on. So, I suppose the opposite of Fundamentalism is not doing that; only holding to beliefs that have historical or experimental evidence (plus a step of faith), and avoiding beliefs that require 'blind faith' without serious evidence. The test of Fundamentalism-free Christianity is when those who don't make that final step of faith nevertheless agree that it makes sense. With Christian love, Jules PS Don't miss Malcolm in the Middle...! |
Follow ups: