I still think....

Originally posted by no1marauder
I think the no1 reason that these people adopt this type of faith is that it places them in a small, special circle and punishes the vast majority of humanity who they loathe.

Some adopt it. Most are just brainwashed.

"Ah! if it were only a conviction based on insight. Then one could bring arguments to bear, and the battle would be fought with equal weapons. But religions admittedly appeal, not to conviction as the result of argument, but to belief as demanded by revelation. And as the capacity for believing is strongest in childhood, special care is taken to make sure of this tender age. This has much more to do with the doctrines of belief taking root than threats and reports of miracles. If, in early childhood, certain fundamental views and doctrines are paraded with unusual solemnity, and an air of the greatest earnestness never before visible in anything else; if, at the same time, the possibility of a doubt about them be completely passed over, or touched upon only to indicate that doubt is the first step to eternal perdition, the resulting impression will be so deep that, as a rule, that is, in almost every case, doubt about them will be almost as impossible as doubt about one’s own existence. Hardly one in ten thousand will have the strength of mind to ask himself seriously and earnestly—is that true? To call such as can do it strong minds, esprits forts, is a description more apt than is generally supposed. But for the ordinary mind there is nothing so absurd or revolting but what, if inculcated in that way, the strongest belief in it will strike root. If, for example, the killing of a heretic or infidel were essential to the future salvation of his soul, almost every one would make it the chief event of his life, and in dying would draw consolation and strength from the remembrance that he had succeeded."

- Philalethes from Schopenhauer's "On Religion"

Originally posted by Phlabibit
... some people really think that way.

I still don't buy it. Any thoughts?

ES

If you can tune in to a Christian radio station that runs the talk show hosted by D. James Kennedy, by all means do so.

Originally posted by Coletti
How do you define fundamentalist? I suppose I consider myself a fundamentalist because I believe the Bible as an axiomatic foundation for truth.

http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/fund.html

"The term `fundamentalism' has its origin in a series of pamphlets published between 1910 and 1915. Entitled "The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth," these booklets were authored by leading evangelical churchmen and were circulated free of charge among clergymen and seminarians. By and large, fundamentalism was a response to the loss of influence traditional revivalism experienced in America during the early years of the twentieth century. This loss of influence, coupled with the liberalizing trends of German biblical criticism and the encroachment of Darwinian theories about the origin of the universe, prompted a response by conservative churchmen. The result was the pamphlets. In 1920, a journalist and Baptist layman named Curtis Lee Laws appropriated the term `fundamentalist' as a designation for those who were ready "to do battle royal for the Fundamentals.""

In terms of actual beliefs, I think the five fundamental beliefs of Fundamentals are:

1. Inerrancy and Inspiration of Scripture
2. Divinity of Christ and the Virgin Birth
3. The Substitutionary nature of Christ's death
4. Resurrection
5. The Second Coming

http://www.catholic.com/library/Fundamentalism.asp

Originally posted by amannion
Wow.
I'm amazed that you can state that you're a fundamentalist AND that it would be impossible to believe anything without logic.
There seems to me to be no logical framework for a belief in the bible as some sort of supernatural book of law - passed down from on high.

I'm afraid there's an underlying supposition here that can not be granted without a comment.

You seem to suggest that a belief in anything supernatural is automatically illogical. Why is that?

We have defined such things as heat and light and motion to the point of having physical constants and laws that are absolute and surely logical. But just as the study of quantum physics is far removed from the study of aerodynmics, perhaps there is another, category of truth and fact that is simply harder to pin down at this point. Various supernatural occurences are not automatically illogical, just because they can't be quantified and analyzed in a lab.

The Bible tell us that Jesus walked on water. You might say, 'there, proof that the Bible is wrong'. A less dogmatic person might say, 'aha, so it is possible for a supernatural person to override the natural world as I understand it'. (In fact, I would think that's probably why He did it! To make the point that He was SUPER (over the) natural. Another way to say it, is that Christ's coming in itself was SUPER logical; above and beyond what we had come to expect!