What is a Jew

[Sigurd]

I’ll just butt in here since I seemed to have fuelled this discussion. It is my experience that when two opposing sides are at Remi, it calls for mediation with a third party.

I asked for a definition of fundamentalism because the wording of the statement that I first quoted sparked my interest (the notion that a religious stance is fundamentalistic because it does not evolve).
Historically the notion fundamentalism was first used in Protestantism early in the 20th century by a group of conservative members of a few protestant denominations as a counter to a modernisation tendency of the denominations in question.
In this bmolsson is somewhat right.
They published a publication called “The Fundamentals“, where they laid down 5 doctrines that they considered fundamental to their faith.
They were: The virgin birth, the physical resurrection of Jesus, the infallibility of the Bible, the substitutional atonement and the literal and physical second coming of Christ.
Today this term is used in a derogatory way to describe a fringe religious group or extremists.
It does however have a precise denotation: The returning to the defining or founding principles of the religion.
This is consequently a reaction to modernism which bmolsson calls evolve.
Hence fundamentalism is an active movement and implies taking action against an attempt at modernising a religion.

I would say Fundamentalism is a sign of a dead religion (I might take some FLAK for that statement).
The Deist religions out there, which are many, do not believe in revelation and hence is left to their own judgements with their only point of reference; a book compiled by the enemy.
The only choice they have is making this book infallible, because with out it they have nothing. They have hamstrung their other supporting pillars by deeming them heretic.
Originally Christianity was based on the revelatory element which encompassed change at a moments notice (ref. Peter and converting gentiles).
Often heavenly messengers brought the new doctrines and rites. Whenever a change occurred confirmation was required and given. Hence a religion based on the revelatory element is in fact not dead and could evolve at any moments notice.
It can not sustain any fundamentalists or modernists as these would be in opposition with the current status.


I believe in the question of religious vs. religion, Pindar is right in his assertion that the first is an adjective (ref. -ous) and requires a faith element. If one asks: are you religious? The follow up question would naturally be: what do you believe?

bmolsson does however have a point in saying that if asked many people will swear allegiance to a religion without having a clue to what they are supposed to believe in. One classical example would be the hordes of Scottish people claiming to be Protestants without knowing a fiddle about their supposed beliefs.
Here in Norway 90% of the population is Lutheran. A very large percentage have not the faintest clue what that involves. They faithfully baptise their children, send their youth to confirmation, their young adults to church for marriage and burry their old in sanctified Lutheran ground. Very few know what they are supposed to believe in; the trinity, the virgin birth etc…

Jews being proud of what they are and follow an ultra modernist view (atheism) can only be referencing their heritage which is again a question of race (what a tainted word).

[Pindar]

I believe in the question of religious vs. religion, Pindar is right in his assertion that the first is an adjective (ref. -ous) and requires a faith element. If one asks: are you religious? The follow up question would naturally be: what do you believe?

bmolsson does however have a point in saying that if asked many people will swear allegiance to a religion without having a clue to what they are supposed to believe in. One classical example would be the hordes of Scottish people claiming to be Protestants without knowing a fiddle about their supposed beliefs.

Jews being proud of what they are and follow an ultra modernist view (atheism) can only be referencing their heritage which is again a question of race (what a tainted word).

I agree many may identify with a particular faith without knowing anything about that faith. This may very well be due to a cultural inheritance or tradition. My point is: it is improper to apply the label Jew, Christian or any other faith to a person if there is no belief. If some belief exists: i.e. Muhammad was God's prophet or Jesus is the Christ or Jews are the Covenant people etc. then even without a formal adherence or devout practice the label still has some meaning. Without any supporting belief the label is void.