#
|
Poster
|
Post
|
Commentary
|
Posted by An Apologist on 28 Jan 2015 at 5:23AM
|
This is an interesting take on the matter IMO:
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/when-towers-fall/ |
A link to RC Sproul's view on the problem of evil. Essentially a fundamentalist view in that it assumes: absolute certainty in the existence of God; a point of view unambiguously supported by the Bible; and the Bible is inerrant.
| |
1
|
Posted by JimC on 28 Jan 2015 at 8:18AM
|
I do find the existence of religious fundamentalists in this day and age, including Calvinists like Sproul (and Sproul Jr), an interesting phenomenon. Anyway, at least you know where you stand with fundamentalists - there's no pussyfooting; no ambiguity...
“We cannot repay our debt to God - the only way to avoid perishing at the hands of God is repentance; Hell is an eternity of suffering torment in the presence of God's divine wrath, an all consuming fire from which there is no escape and no relief; the husband is the head of his household as Christ is the head of the church; the human race is totally depraved; Hitler could have been worse; God literally created the world in six days, we should do everything in our power to seek the healing of homosexuals...” and so on.
I think it can be argued that fundamentalism is the most intellectually honest approach to any Scripture-based religion, so perhaps Calvinism is one of the most intellectually honest versions of Christianity because it has no need, as Sproul puts it, for "hermeneutical gymnastics".
Regarding the tension between the Protestant and Catholic Divisions of Christianity, I recommend Sproul's book "Are We Together?" where he spells out everything that he perceives is wrong with Catholicism. As Sproul says... "The Reformation is not over"!
|
|
2
|
Posted by An Apologist on 2 Feb 2015 at 1:13AM
|
Another caricature of "fundamentalist" beliefs which misconstrues the nature and motivations of God as understood by them, as well as an ad hominem attack on Sproul to draw attention away from his point
|
A peculiar non-sequitur. I’ve quoted Sproul, described fundamentalism as “honest” and recommended one of Sproul’s books. How on earth can that be an “ad hominem attack?” And how is it a "caricature"?
|
3
|
Posted by JimC on 2 Feb 2015 at 8:36AM
|
I think we should apply something to this argument that religious fundamentalists seem to lack: Empathy.
|
|
4
|
Posted by An Apologist on 4 Feb 2015 at 2:16AM
|
How so? Most religious "fundamentalists" in my experience have been extremely humble and empathetic. Are you attempting to misrepresent them through appealing to media caricatures of such?
|
That’s interesting. But I wonder why the word “fundamentalists” is in quotation marks? And where did this idea of “media caricatures” come from when I plainly said “in my experience”?
|
5
|
Posted by JimC on 4 Feb 2015 at 8:39AM
|
Interesting that you consider religious fundamentalists to be humble and empathetic when in my experience thay are the exact opposite. Perhaps we each have different definitions of empathy and humility.
|
|
6
|
Posted by An Apologist on 14 Feb 2015 at 12:12AM
|
I would define a "religious fundamentalist" as one who sincerely believes in Christ and consistently puts God's will in their lives first. They are indeed humble, sympathetic, empathetic, and spiritually put me to shame! I have no idea who you are referring to or how you would mis-characterize them as a group!
|
Aha. An Apologist has his own, unique definition of “religious fundamentalist.” What he is actually describing is a “holy person.” Not a fundamentalist.
|
7
|
Posted by JimC on 14 Feb 2015 at 5:57PM
|
I can see now why you can't relate to my experience of fundamentalists - you also have your own personal definition of the word “fundamentalist”! When I use the word in the context of religion I am referring to people who are dogmatic, strict literalists, who believe in exclusion, claiming that their interpretation of Scripture is the only correct interpretation, that they are right and everyone else is wrong.
When I meet and interact with these people they are very rarely humble and empathetic, in fact they are the exact opposite. |
And quite often make it clear that I am condemned to an eternal lake of fire!
|
8
|
Posted by An Apologist on 16 Feb 2015 at 1:18AM
|
That's quite a personal definition--and of course when you define the term that way, especially with loaded words like "dogmatic" and "believe in exclusion" and "believe that they're right and everyone else is wrong"--you are inviting us to a vision of a caricature of a foaming-at-the-mouth "fundamentalist" that the mass media has created for us rather than the reality. Appealing to integrity and fidelity to God's word does not turn one into this caricature--rather, given the actual content of God's word, one is invited to personal humility before God's awesome love and power!
|
Personal definition? Loaded words? These are standard definitions! And where did the “foaming at the mouth” image come from. I said no such thing!
|
9
|
Posted by JimC on 16 Feb 2015 at 8:17AM
|
It's odd that you think my definition of “fundamentalism” is a “personal definition” when it is actually an agreed, standard definition. And I don't understand why you think the words "dogmatic" and "exclusion" are loaded. Maybe you have your own definitions of those words too. The “foaming-at the mouth” description seems to be something you've created so you can refute that instead of the argument I'm making. However, I have meet those sorts of people too, but that doesn't describe all fundamentalists
|
|
10
|
Posted by An Apologist on 18 Feb 2015 at 12:38AM
|
Considered together, the combination of all of those terms is designed to call to mind a caricature image of "fundamentalists" crafted by Hollywood and the mass media over decades. Your further poisoning of the well by stating "Interesting that you consider religious fundamentalists to be humble and empathetic when in my meetings and interactions with them they are the exact opposite" completes the appeal to this caricature.
|
This “Hollywood” and “mass media” “caricature image” is absolutely nothing like what I have in mind. I am referring to well known theological concepts. I can’t understand the source of the Apologist’s indignation, except perhaps as a way to shut down the debate.
|
11
|
Posted by JimC on 18 Feb 2015 at 8:25AM
|
The definition of “fundamentalist” that I use comes from the dictionary (obviously) but also from:
- "Fundamentalism and American Culture" by George Marsden, pages 4 and 5
- "Authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, quest, and prejudice". By Altemeyer & Hunsberger (International Journal for the Psychology of Religion)
It would be useful if you could give a specific example of a fundamentalist caricature in Hollywood or the mass media, as we could use that as the basis for a discussion of fundamentalism in practice. Such an example would help the conversation progress and perhaps resolve why the fundamentalists you meet are humble and empathetic whereas the ones I meet are the exact opposite.
|
|
12
|
Posted by An Apologist on 20 Feb 2015 at 12:09AM
|
One appeal that the media always seems to resort to is over-publicizing the activities of the two-dozen-member, all-one-family Westboro Baptist Church. I can't think of any reason to give such an insignificant fringe group as much publicity as it gets, to the point that the group is known worldwide, without an agenda on the part of the media to do so. Google "Westboro Baptist Church" and you will get "About 933,000 results!
That ridiculously insignificant group plays a straw man caricature role worldwide, to the extent that most in other countries view them as representatives of fundamentalism. Don't even start on how the motion picture/entertainment industry portrays priests and preachers of any denomination!
Having answered your question, who is it in your experience with "fundamentalists" that you think represents this caricature?
|
Aha... the apologist equates fundamentalism with the Westboro Baptists. Certainly not what I had in mind – they are fundamentalists but what distinguishes them and what attracts media attention is that they are extremists. I think the Apologist has suffered a logic failure... he is affirming the consequent: If all religious extremists are fundamentalists, it does not follow that all fundamentalists are extremists.
|
13
|
Posted by JimC on 20 Feb 2015 at 8:53AM
|
I assume you refuse to provide a source for your definition of fundamentalism because there is no source, and so is yet another definition that you've invented. However, your chosen example of the Westboro Baptists is helpful to see where you're coming from because I can see now you equivocate extremism with fundamentalism. Your argument also has another logical flaw known as affirming the consequent. In other words, although it's true that all religious extremists are fundamentalists, it's not true that all fundamentalists are extremists. I'd say Jerry Falwell was a good example of a modern day Christian fundamentalist.
There's also a logical flaw with your “google hits” logic which I've explained on this db previously. But to summarise: consider the google search for the minor English football team... "Kidderminster Harriers" which brings up more results than “Westboro Baptist Church”.
My experience with fundamentalists is that they profess absolute certainty in the existence of their particular god, and insist their religion (i.e. Christianity or Islam) is the one true religion, and that their point of view is unambiguously supported by an authoritative doctrine and inerrant Scripture (Bible, Quran, etc). Arguments will often begin with the axiom that "The only way to God is..." This dogmatic, literalist and exclusive approach is incompatible with empathy or humility in my opinion. Let's explore the origin of the word 'fundamentalist' which, according to Rick Warren, comes from a 20th century document called the Five Fundamentals of the Faith and those five fundamentals are:
1. The Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:1; John 20:28; Hebrews 1:8-9).
2. The Virgin Birth (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23; Luke 1:27).
3. The Blood Atonement (Acts 20:28; Romans 3:25, 5:9; Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 9:12-14).
4. The Bodily Resurrection (Luke 24:36-46; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, 15:14-15).
5. The inerrancy of the scriptures themselves (Psalms 12:6-7; Romans 15:4; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20).
|
|
14
|
Posted by An Apologist on 23 Feb 2015 at 1:27AM
|
I am pointing out that that is the image of fundamentalism created by the mass media and entertainment sources that rely on groups like the Westboro Baptists to create this straw man caricature. Your loaded terminology appeals to this same stereotype.
|
Yeah... but if that image exists – it’s not the image I have in mind. My terminology is not loaded at all – it’s basic theology!
|
15
|
My search of Google--"Kidderminster Harriers" brings up "about 449,000 results" and my search of “Westboro Baptist Church” a minute ago lists "about 951,000 results"--but even so, the point is: how many people worldwide have heard of the Kidderminster Harriers (I certainly hadn't) and associate them with representing soccer or football in general, and how many people worldwide have heard of the Westboro Baptists and associate them with representing Christian fundamentalism in general? Again, when the media and entertainment industries resort to excessive publicity of a two dozen (or less) member fringe group in order to insinuate that they represent in some way the fundamentalist perspective, one arrives at the caricatures that you yourself have been insinuating.
|
I’m willing to bet that more people in the UK have heard of Kidderminster Harriers than the Westboro Baptists!
But the Apologist has missed the point. Google hits don’t prove anything and even if it did – I am not using the Westboro Baptists as an example of Fundamentalism.
The apologist has created a straw man argument so that he can refute it and is completely dodging any kind of grown up discussion on fundamentalism, which is a well established theological concept.
|
|
16
|
Regarding the “five fundamentals” - the first four are indeed fundamentals of Christian faith, to be taken literally. The fifth is also correct within context, that being inerrant for its specific purposes. None of the passages you mention state that all Scripture is only to be taken literally and that there are not other means employed to inspire us to a deeper understanding of God's love for us and His will and purpose.
|
Some agreement – that’s good!
|
|
17
|
Posted by JimC on 23 Feb 2015 at 8:53AM
|
It’s very misleading for you to use an extremist group such as the WB's to illustrate fundamentalism. I'd say Jerry Falwell was a good example of a modern day Christian fundamentalist (I think you agree – not sure) but it seems we both agree on the “Five Fundamentals of the Faith” so that's progress. This certainly aligns with my experience of fundamentalists in that they profess absolute certainty in the existence of their particular god and insist their religion (i.e. Christianity or Islam) is the one true religion (exclusion), and that their point of view is unambiguously (literalist) supported by an authoritative doctrine and inerrant (dogmatic) Scripture (Bible, Quran, etc). Arguments will often begin with the axiom that "The only way to God is..." followed by absolute certainty. When I meet and interact with these people they are very rarely humble and empathetic, in fact they are the exact opposite. After all, how is it possible to be humble when one has absolute certainty?
I think your “google results” method for assessing excessive publicity is worth exploring. There do seem some obvious flaws such as the effect of the source country of your IP address, your search settings, whether you put your phrase in quote marks, the way words are combined and so on. Plus how many of those results are from news sources, and how many are from websites where people are bemoaning the excessive publicity of the Westboro Baptists?!
|
|
18
|
Posted by An Apologist on 25 Feb 2015 at 1:23AM
|
I'm not using the Westboro Baptists to illustrate fundamentalism - I'm pointing out how a biased media uses the Westboro Baptists as a proxy for "fundamentalism" in order to create a negative caricature of all fundamentalists!
|
But the topic of conversation isn’t the “biased media” – it’s the theological concept of fundamentalism. And for some reason the Apologist wants to avoid any kind of theological discussion. I wonder why?
|
19
|
Jerry Falwell is a televangelist who claims to be a fundamentalist but he is hardly a spokesperson for all fundamentalists. He has his own views and interpretations, especially as such apply to political issues.
|
Another straw man... I did not argue that Jerry Fallwell was a spokesman for all fundamentalists. That argument has been invented by the apologist, so that he can refute it.
|
|
20
|
Fundamentalists tend to be of strong faith--true. Again, I would question the "absolute certainty" part--I do believe ambiguity is necessary for faith and for that matter hope to even exist in the first place as I've stated many times before--but I do see those who feel quite certain of their convictions. Of course I see such people among evangelical atheists too!
|
It’s good that the Apologist argues against “absolute certainty” – but that’s his perspective. That’s not the perspective of fundamentalists. So another dodge, followed by yet another digression – “evangelical atheists” LOL. Why is the Apologist so intent on avoiding a theological discussion on fundamentalism?
|
|
21
|
Labels don't necessarily tell the whole story of one's worldview, especially when one tries to attach other baggage to the definition like what you are attempting to do to "fundamentalists" and in referring to me as one! You certainly seem to have a penchant to artificially categorize and label the views of others!
|
Wait a minute... when did I refer to the Apologist as a fundamentalist? I did no such thing!! And since when was “fundamentalism” an “artificial category”?! This conversation is becoming the biggest dodge since the Dodge Ram!
|
|
22
|
Posted by JimC on 25 Feb 2015 at 8:10AM
|
Lots of agreement here I think (and hope!) I think you agree it is disingenuous to use the Westboro Baptists as a negative caricature of “fundamentalism” because although they are fundamentalists, they are extremists, and most fundamentalists are not extremists.
I think we both agree Jerry Falwell was a better example of a modern day Christian fundamentalist and more importantly, (I think) we both agree with Falwell's reference to the “Five Fundamentals of the Faith”. And I also agree with your opinion that “absolutely certainty” of those fundamentals is not necessary (i.e. the inerrancy of the Bible, the bodily resurrection, the virgin birth, the deity of Jesus and the blood atonement). However, fundamentalists disagree with you and I, and claim that those who disagree with thosedoctrines are heretics, and that salvation hinges upon those five doctrines. Hence: exclusivity; literalist and dogmatic. I will be tossed into a Lake of Fire according to many of the fundamentalists I debate with!
I must admit I am confused by your assertion that I referred to you as a fundamentalist. When did that happen?
|
|
23
|
Posted by An Apologist on 27 Feb 2015 at 1:34AM
|
Falwell maybe a fundamentalist but I don't see him as a representative of fundamentalism. Through whatever means he has become a successful televangelist with the influence that such media exposure brings but that does not make him a spokesperson for the perspective. A lot of what he says is tied to his personal opinion on a lot of different subjects and is not to be mistaken as justified by Scripture nor necessarily representing the opinion of other fundamentalists on the matters.
|
And I didn’t say he was a representative of fundamentalism. I said he was an example of a fundamentalist. Yet another straw man created by the Apologist misquoting me so he can create an argument I never made so he can refute it!
|
24
|
You mistake the integrity with which a person maintains a viewpoint--whatever that viewpoint might be--with arrogance, at least I think that is what you are implying. One person's "dogmatism" is another person's "integrity" on an issue. Such has nothing necessarily to do with arrogance or lack of personal humility or compassion. Jesus is a good example of one who was uncompromising on matters of integrity and fidelity to God's word while being personally compassionate.
|
A bizarre equivocation of “dogmatism”’ and “integrity. Two completely different concepts. And I didn’t even use the word “arrogance”!
|
|
25
|
I definitely recall you applying the term “fundamentalist” to me. You seem to enjoy "defining" the position of others with terminology that invites an image loaded with negative caricatures, wouldn't you agree?
|
Well, that’s a false memory, because I never did refer to the Apologist as a fundamentalist! Another example of the Apologist relying on inherently unreliable intuition and not bothering with verification to determine if something is true. And again, using his own assumption that “fundamentalism” is a “negative caricature” in order to dodge a discussion on the theological concept of fundamentalism.
|
|
26
|
And who's to say the fundamentalists who say you will be tossed into a Lake of Fire are wrong?
|
Good point! I’m not saying they are wrong – I’m saying they are certain they are right!
|
|
27
|
Posted by JimC on 27 Feb 2015 at 8:31AM
|
I think we both agreed Jerry Falwell was a better example of a modern day Christian fundamentalist and more importantly, (I think) we both agree with Falwell's reference to the “Five Fundamentals of the Faith”. But if, as you say, he is not representative of fundamentalism, who is? I must admit I am still confused by your assertion that I referred to you as a fundamentalist. When did that happen? I don't see how you can be a fundamentalist when you make it clear you do not have absolute certainty in the tenets of fundamentalism or even the existence of God.
As I explained, there are fundamentalists who say I will be tossed into a Lake of Fire, and you ask... “who's to say they're wrong?” and of course anyone can say they are right, and anyone can say they are wrong. I'm certainly not saying they are wrong! All I can say is that they are unable to support their claim with evidence or verification, so I am unable to believe it. But of course, anything is possible. Perhaps the “lake of fire” threat is another example to support your assumption that the world's theologies cannot be reconciled.
I don't understand your equivocation of dogmatism and integrity. Dogmatism is when principles are laid own as being absolutely and undeniably true. I didn't use the word ”arrogance” as you suggest, but I do think arrogance is an inherent risk of dogmatism, and dogmatism is certainly not a basis for humility! If we believe that Jesus spent His time telling everybody who disagreed with Him that they were wrong and He was uneniably right, then that's not an example of humility. (Sadly we will never know what Jesus, if He existed, actually said).
|
In an attempt to get a straight answer I will try repeating the questions that have been dodged...
|
28
|
Posted by An Apologist on 2 Mar 2015 at 12:26AM
|
Fundamentalists are those who believe in fundamentalism as I defined the word and you could not. I don't know that they need a "representative"--they are not structured like hierarchical churches. Falwell may be a fundamentalist but a lot of his personal opinions--especially on political matters--do not reference Scripture at all. They shouldn't be confused with fundamentalism itself.
|
Er... but the Apologist didn’t define the word. And the idea that fundamentalists “need a representative” came from the Apologist – not me! Am I being trolled?
|
29
|
Faith--as well as hope and charity--are Christian virtues per Scripture. Neither faith nor hope are possible in situations of absolute proof. As to matters of certainty, who can say? It would seem that certainty would violate the principles of faith and hope but perhaps those claiming certainty may be referencing other matters. I again note that you are attempting to pigeonhole the perspective of others--including my perspective--while being more than vague regarding the basis of your own beliefs.
|
Eh?! What does any of this have to do with fundamentalism?
|
|
30
|
You seem to be conflating certainty on an issue with arrogance when the two are entirely separate matters. Being absolutely certain about anything has nothing to do with attitude per se. If a person is absolutely certain that one plus one equals two and is quite dogmatic about it that doesn't mean that s/he needs to be arrogant because of that certainty. As stated, I know many people of strong faith who are quite humble personally--in fact I would go as far as to state that a person of strong Christian faith is more than aware of his/her personal faults and failings and their reliance on God's mercy--and the fact that we are all in the same boat on the matter.
|
Er... being absolutely certain as everything to do with attitude! This also displays a complete lack of understanding of what the word “dogmatism” means. 1+1=2 is not an example of dogmatism.
The apologist’s defensive attitude in this whole conversation is puzzling, considering that, in his own words, he studied religion at high school, philosophy at a Christian college, philosophy at a secular institution, postgraduate studies at a seminary, and subsequent formal studies in Christian education. And yet he doesn’t seem to know the formal meanings of fundamentalism or dogmatism. Ho hum…
|
|
31
|
Jesus did insist on Scriptural truth--and the proper attitude toward such--in all of His confrontations with religious scholars of His time. Jesus was nonetheless compassionate, even when suffering extreme torture. For the rest of us--who all fall far short of God's holiness--humility in interacting with others (other than compromising Scriptural truth, its proclamation and its standards of right and wrong) is certainly called for.
|
What does any of this have to do with fundamentalism?
|
|
32
|
Posted by JimC on 2 Mar 2015 at 9:47AM
|
I can't find your definition of “fundamentalism” so I'd be grateful if you could provide it again. In any case, I thought we'd agreed on the “Five Fundamentals of the Faith” as a definition, did we not? I must admit I am confused by your assertion that I referred to you as a fundamentalist. When did that happen? I don't see how you can be a fundamentalist when you make it clear you do not have absolute certainty in the tenets of fundamentalism or even the existence of God.
As I explained, there are fundamentalists who say I will be tossed into a Lake of Fire, and you ask... “who's to say they're wrong?” And I'm certainly not saying they are wrong! They could be right! All I can say is that they are unable to support their claim with evidence or verification, so I am unable to believe it. But of course, anything is possible.
Perhaps the supernatural “lake of fire” threat is another example to support your assumption that the world's theologies cannot be reconciled as it does seem an uncompromising statement, does it not?
I don't understand your equivocation of dogmatism and integrity. Dogmatism is when principles and opinions (not facts) are laid own as being absolutely and undeniably true. I didn't use the word ”arrogance” as you suggest, but I do think arrogance is an inherent risk of dogmatism, and dogmatism is certainly not a basis for humility!
Thankfully nowadays there are many Christians who are neither dogmatic or fundamentalists. Perhaps 500 years from now we will be able to say the same about Islam. As for your reference to Jesus, if we believe that Jesus spent His time telling everybody who disagreed with Him that they were wrong and He was undeniably right, then that's not an example of humility. (Sadly we will never know what Jesus, if He existed, actually said.)
|
Let’s try and get some answers to those dodged questions...
|
33
|
Posted by An Apologist on 4 Mar 2015 at 2:28AM
|
We did not agree on the “Five Fundamentals of the Faith” as a definition of fundamentalism.
|
Disappointing... I thought we had at least agreed on that!
|
34
|
I don't know that you can include all fundamentalists within your "buttonhole" definition of their "5 characteristics". The necessity for maintaining the Christian virtues of "faith" and "hope" must necessarily be dependent upon a certain degree of lack of absolute certainty regarding God's existence--likewise our doing anything out of love or compassion or altruism or whatever, since if there were no doubt regarding our destiny as a result of our choices we would always be acting 100% in self interest when we did the right thing and could not learn the real experience of any of those positive attributes.
|
Buttonhole? Does he mean “pigeon hole”? Anyway... The “five fundamentals” are not my definition! They come from the fundamentalist movement in 1920s America. This essay on faith and hope and compassion is fascinating... but what does t have to do with fundamentalism?
|
|
35
|
First of all, one may make a general statement that those who deliberately sin and are unrepentant face this destiny, the matter of such destiny itself dependent on one's faith in Scripture and one's interpretation of such, but if I were to say that YOU specifically face this destiny I would be acting in judgement of your very soul, and I am incapable of such. Likewise when we recognize that salvation is through Jesus the Christ alone--He who died to satisfy God's perfect justice and make our redemption possible if we turn to Him and accept Him into our hearts and lives--we don't know how God specifically does so, or whether some who reject Jesus are actually rejecting a caricature or false representation of who He was and is--and several other complex matters well beyond our ability to understand regarding the position and disposition of others. I believe that God is both just and merciful, and that He will treat all with both justice and mercy, although from our limited perspective it may be difficult to recognize such. So all we can ultimately say is that while the world needs Jesus and a correct understanding of Him and of all that he did and taught, and that we are to do our utmost to bring about His kingdom as He would wish us to, we still are in St Paul's position, per his words in 1Corinthians 4:1-5:
"So here is how you should think of us. We serve Christ. We are trusted with the mysteries God has shown us. Those who have been given a trust must prove that they are faithful. I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court. I don’t even judge myself. I don’t feel I have done anything wrong. But that doesn’t mean I’m not guilty. The Lord judges me. So don’t judge anything before the appointed time. Wait until the Lord returns. He will bring to light what is hidden in the dark. He will show the real reasons why people do what they do."
|
And now an essay on salvation and St Paul. That’s all very well, but it seems to me that hundreds of words are being used to avoid any discussion of fundamentalism. I wonder why?
|
|
36
|
One need not distinguish between opinions and facts.
|
Well it’s obvious that religious apologists don’t distinguish between opinions and facts! But my worldview is based on a very clear distinction between opinion and fact!!
|
|
37
|
Dogmatism comes from extreme confidence in one's position, and in insisting that that position is correct, but such my refer to either opinions OR facts. There are those who are quite "dogmatic" regarding one matter or another who appear to be quite correct. Technically one might state that teachers I have had were absolutely "dogmatic" in insisting that one plus one equals two--and I'm rather glad they did! I've had "good" teachers and "bad" teachers throughout my years of education, but I still don't see a link between their certainty regarding what they taught necessarily resulting in personal arrogance. Many were quite humble with a terrific, often self-deprecating sense of humor--and I have encountered many others in Christian ministry with this demeanor as well.
|
Again... a completely erroneous understanding of the word dogmatism. 1+1=2 is not an example of dogmatism. How can someone who studied Christian philosophy have such a lack of understanding of the word dogmatism?
|
|
38
|
There always have been Christians with a great deal of faith conviction who nonetheless are very aware of their personal faults and failings and their absolute dependence on God's mercy and grace, and thus themselves kind and merciful to others in recognition of such. In fact, I would consider that a fundamental basis and understanding of a "Christian" attitude, as it was from the time of the first apostles forward throughout history!
|
Again... lots of words... nothing to do with fundamentalism.
|
|
39
|
Posted by JimC on 4 Mar 2015 at 9:22AM
|
I provided very clear definitions of fundamentalism, and to avoid repetition I've compiled the sources of those definitions here... http://revjimc.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/the-fundamentals-of-fundamentalism.html … let me know if any aspect of those definitions is unclear.
I also don't understand how you can now disagree with the dictionary definition of "dogmatism". Changing the meaning of words to suit your argument removes the very basis of your argument and abandons logic. Your reference to Corinthians illustrates a potentially dangerous aspect of Fundamentalism, namely the belief of being above democratically determined laws and the courts that make judgements according to those laws. I must admit I am puzzled by your assertion that I referred to you as a fundamentalist. It seems clear to me that you are not a fundamentalist because you have stated that you do not have absolute certainty in the tenets of fundamentalism or even the existence of God.
As I explained, there are fundamentalists who say I will be tossed into a Lake of Fire, and you ask... “who's to say they're wrong?” And I'm certainly not saying they are wrong! They could be right! Who is to say that any supernatural belief is wrong? All I can say is that they are unable to support their claim with evidence or verification, so I am unable to believe it. But of course, anything is possible.
Perhaps the supernatural “lake of fire” threat is another example to support your assumption that the world's theologies cannot be reconciled as it does seem an uncompromising statement, and it does seem each religion has its own take on several matters fundamentally different from each other - leading to exclusivism - which surely you agree is an uncompromising position?
I didn't use the word ”arrogance” as you suggest, but I do think arrogance is an inherent risk of dogmatism, and dogmatism is certainly not a basis for humility! As for your reference to Jesus, if we believe that Jesus spent His time telling everybody who disagreed with Him that they were wrong and He was undeniably right, then that's not an example of humility. (Sadly we will never know what Jesus, if He existed, actually said).
|
Perhaps I can reduce the repeated dodges by taking the definitions off line. But I am curious how the apologist can have such a weak understanding of the word “dogmatism”...
|
40
|
Posted by An Apologist on 6 Mar 2015 at 12:37AM
|
The definition(s) in your blog – which is a tautology - specifically excludes the loaded words that you previously insisted was a part of the definition of fundamentalism itself, although you still present material that you claim supports your baggage-laden interpretation of such.
|
Eh? The blog includes all the words I’ve previously used! And now the Apologist illustrates that he doesn’t know what a tautology is! LOL
|
41
|
You are "re-interpreting" my position to be disagreement with the definition of the word "dogmatism" rather than whether such term accurately portrays "fundamentalism" itself? That’s a straw man.
|
Bizarre. He creates a straw man (that I said dogmatism portrays fundamentalism) then says I’ve created a straw man. And this person claims to have studied philosophy?
|
|
42
|
That is a bizarre twist on that passage even for you! What part of stating that humanity is incapable of the totality of knowledge necessary to render just judgement of the fate of anyone's soul from God's all-encompassing perspective--and also are perfectly capable of even fooling ourselves regarding our own actual motivations--would lead you to reference that matter to the court proceedings which interpret and judge compliance with humanly-enacted laws?
|
What?!
|
|
43
|
It hasn't been established that "dogmatism" applies to the fundamentalist perspective, given it baggage-laden definition.
|
Dogmatism is an attribute if fundamentalism. How can someone who studied Christian philosophy not be aware of that?
|
|
44
|
Posted by JimC on 6 Mar 2015 at 6:44AM
|
As I said previously, when I use the word “fundamentalist” in the context of religion I am referring to people who are dogmatic, strict literalists, who believe in exclusion, claiming that their interpretation of Scripture is the only correct interpretation, that they are right and everyone else is wrong. This is consistent with the definitions, origin and history of the word as I've explained here... http://revjimc.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/the-fundamentals-of-fundamentalism.html ...and as always I'm happy to discuss any specifics that you disagree with.
Your reference to Corinthians illustrates a potentially dangerous aspect of Fundamentalism, namely the belief of being above democratically determined laws and “any human court” that make judgements according to those laws.
It seems clear to me that you are not a fundamentalist, you don't adopt a strict, literal interpretation of scripture and you have stated several times that you do not have absolute certainty in the tenets of fundamentalism or even the existence of God. I think you believe in religious exclusivism but I'm not entirely sure. Perhaps you can clarify.
As I explained, there are fundamentalists who say I will be tossed into a Lake of Fire, and you ask... “who's to say they're wrong?” And I'm certainly not saying they are wrong! They could be right! Who is to say that any supernatural belief is wrong? All I can say is that they are unable to support their claim with evidence or verification, so I am unable to believe it. But of course, anything is possible.
Perhaps the supernatural “lake of fire” threat is another example to support your assumption that the world's theologies cannot be reconciled as it does seem an uncompromising statement, and it does seem each religion has its own take on several matters fundamentally different from each other - leading to exclusivism - which surely you agree is an uncompromising position?
I didn't use the word ”arrogance” as you suggest, but I do think arrogance is an inherent risk of dogmatism, and dogmatism (religious or otherwise) is certainly not a basis for humility! As for your reference to Jesus, if we believe that Jesus spent His time telling everybody who disagreed with Him that they were wrong and He was undeniably right, then that's not an example of humility. (Sadly we will never know what Jesus, if He existed, actually said).
|
Let’s try again!
|
45
|
Posted by An Apologist on 6 Mar 2015 at 8:08AM
|
The "history" you explained your blog does not define contemporary fundamentalism or contemporary fundamentalist views! Those "five tenets" appear to be specific objections to the position of certain other theologians who held heterodox views that the "fundamentalists" corrected. The views that were held by the other faction in opposition to the "fundamentalists" is never stated so we really can't follow the debate--but that's not to say that if the other faction offered different heterodox views, the "five tenets" would have been entirely different in keeping with an orthodox Christian interpretation of whatever the controversy happened to be!
|
Yes it does! It has two examples of contemporary fundamentalism!
What are these factions that the Apologist refers to? Which debate? Is the Apologist unaware of the fundamentalism versus modernism (or liberalism) debates of the 1920s? Surely that would be on the syllabus at his seminar classes?
|
46
|
|||
47
|
Posted by JimC on 6 Mar 2015 at 1:42PM
|
Your reference to "contemporary fundamentalism" is interesting and I'd like to hear more about that and how you think fundamentalism has evolved since it appeared in the 1920s. But in the meantime, given the five essentials of fundamentalism...
1. The Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ
2. The Virgin Birth
3. The Blood Atonement
4. The Bodily Resurrection
5. The inerrancy of the scriptures themselves
...it would be interesting to get your opinion on how that list may have changed in terms of "contemporary fundamentalism" to use your words. What would you remove from the list, or add or modify?
Also, should I give credibility to opinions of Christians who state that they are fundamentalists? Take Curtis Hutson who edited the fundamentalist newspaper The Sword of the Lord until 1995. I think we both agree that's contemporary. You can see his particular "five fundamentals" here (in section 89) http://revjimc.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/the-fundamentals-of-fundamentalism.html Or are you still asserting that fundamentalism is simply "a form of a religion, especially Islam or Protestant Christianity, that upholds belief in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture"?
|
|
48
|
|||
49
|
Posted by An Apologist on 8 Mar 2015 at 2:50AM
|
Rather than discussing my views on how fundamentalism has evolved, I'd be interested in the original debate referenced in your Marsden article, minus Marsden's obvious usage of loaded words such as defining fundamentalism as opposed to "modernism."
|
Ah... the political dodge! Rather than answer the question that’s asked, let’s talk about a different question! But what is this “original debate” the Apologist refers to? And how can someone who studied at seminary consider “fundamentalism” and “dogmatism” to be loaded words!?
|
50
|
Although I don't have a problem per se with the five essentials of fundamentalism --which on the surface appear to reflect general Christian orthodoxy--I would say that there is much more that can be said of those who may identify as "fundamentalists." Those 5 points most likely merely represent a specific defense of the orthodox Christian perspective against specifically heterodox views of whatever group Marsden refers to as "modernists."
|
We can say all sorts of things about people who identify themselves as “fundamentalists” but the point is that those five points are what define fundamentalism. And it’s not Marsden who is identifying “modernists” (he wasn’t even alive at the time!) – it was the fundamentalists in the early 1920s who identified “modernism” which they would often refer to as “liberalism”.
|
|
51
|
You ask if you should give credibility to opinions of modern-day Christians (such as Curtis Hutson) who state that they are fundamentalists - That's a broad, blanket question that can't be answered because it references those who may claim to be "fundamentalists" but do not hold orthodox views--such as the Westboro Baptists. Others may presume to speak on behalf of fundamentalists and/or misportray their personal views as part of the fundamentalist perspective. Or you may be speaking to sincere, orthodox Christians. It depends on who you are speaking to.
|
Actually it’s a very specific question and a very slippery answer – especially the reference to the Westboro Baptists when I specifically referred to Curtis Hutson!
|
|
52
|
Posted by JimC on 8 Mar 2015 at 11:54AM
|
I thought your reference to "contemporary fundamentalism" was interesting and I was going for a conversation about it, and how you think fundamentalism has evolved since it appeared in the 1920s, but never mind.
Also, I don't know why you think “ fundamentalism” and "modernism" are loaded words when in fact they are well defined theological concepts. It would also have been interesting to get your opinion on the list of fundamentals, and how the list may have changed in terms of what you refer to as "contemporary fundamentalism" which is a term you have not explained, and the work of Curtis Hutson, and so on, given your seminary training which must have covered those concepts. But again, never mind. I personally feel it makes sense to give credibility to opinions of Christians who state that they are fundamentalists, and I'm not sure why you'd avoid agreeing or disagreeing with that approach.
|
|
53
|
Posted by An Apologist on 11 Mar 2015 at 3:22AM
|
I believe that fundamentalism has evolved in all sorts of diverse directions, probably too large a scope for discussions here, but you are still ignoring my point.
|
Another dodge. The apologist introduces the concept of “contemporary fundamentalism” and then says it’s out of scope!
|
54
|
You say “fundamentalism” and "modernism" are well defined theological concepts – but “defined" by whom? Again, my point was that regardless of whether there are loose definitions which might apply in some sense to how someone labeled as a "fundamentalist" or a "modernist" might interpret Scripture, the original debate/discussion referred to in Marsden's article ought to have been posted. If we were to see the "five fundamentals" that you claim define "fundamentalism" specifically related to that debate, you might find that the response was a very specific orthodox defense of Christianity against a non-orthodox interpretation. Had the non-orthodox faction argued against other "fundamental" orthodox tenets, the "fundamentalist" response might have been entirely different, referencing a different set of disagreements, and they might have posted "three points" or "seven points" or "100 points" or whatever would have been required to defend the orthodox perspective, and your list would have been entirely different!
|
Defined by the sources I’ve already provided – which strangely – the Apologist seems unaware of despite having studied philosophy at Seminary!
And what is this “original debate/discussion” that he keeps mentioning? The “Five Fundamentals” didn’t come from any debate mentioned by Marsden. I will try asking the question again...
|
|
55
|
P osted by JimC on 11 Mar 2015 at 9:03AM
|
I thought your reference to "contemporary fundamentalism" was interesting and I was looking forward to you explaining what it means, and the ways fundamentalists define their own perspective. Also, I don't know why you think “fundamentalism” and "modernism" are "loaded words" when in fact they are well established theological concepts defined by Christian scholars and theologians.
|
Let’s try again!
|
56
|
Posted by An Apologist on 13 Mar 2015 at 12:48AM
|
I've provided my understanding of fundamentalism already. It is a broad movement in support of basic matters of Christian orthodoxy. Had that meeting between the "fundamentalists" and the "modernists" resulted in arguments about other theological matters, the "5 tenets" that arose from the discussion might have been entirely different. Nothing wrong with the 5 tenets per se--it's just that they don't represent all of Christian orthodoxy. Perhaps "fundamentalists" take all of Scripture more literally than I might happen to but the lessons are pretty much the same, as I've pointed out repeatedly.
There is also, of course, the matter of those who would refer to themselves as "fundamentalists" even without subscribing to an orthodox Christian viewpoint. There is no "pope of fundamentalism" or any single source which can authoritatively define the movement. This will always be a problem for people like you who like to "shoehorn" others' perspectives into neatly-defined categories---whether accurate or not--even though you won't define your own perspective thusly!
|
So we’ve moved away from definitions to a personal “understanding” – but why rely on a personal “understanding” rather than as a theological philosophy?
And again – what is this meeting between “fundamentalists” and “modernists”? Where is he getting that from?!
And of course fundamentalists take scripture literally – that’s the dictionary definition of fundamentalism!!
|
57
|
You ask why “modernism” is a loaded word.
"Modern" is obviously a loaded word because it creates a contrast in the mind between "modern versus old-fashioned," or versus obsolete, previously misunderstood, or other unfavorable images in one's mind. Obviously this leads to prejudice favoring "modern" or "modernist" whenever the term is used.
|
This is extraordinary. The apologist seems totally unaware of the theological concept of “modernism” - who on earth said there was prejudice favouring modernism? There’s a tension between modernism and fundamentalism and has been for 100 years, but modernism in the theological context is another word for liberalism. It’s not a question of “modern” versus “old fashioned”!!
|
|
58
|
|||
59
|
Posted by JimC on 13 Mar 2015 at 1:02PM
|
I'm not entirely sure but I think you have your definitions of orthodoxy and fundamentalism the wrong way round. I refer you to this explanation by Roger E. Olson (Professor of Theology, George W. Truett Theological Seminary, Baylor University). Let me know if you agree...
"Orthodoxy is belief in the universal doctrines (dogmas) of Christianity rooted in Scripture and commonly held and taught by all the church fathers and Reformers. They what author Gary Tyra (in Toward a Missional Orthodoxy) calls the “Christological verities.” They include the deity and humanity of Jesus Christ (incarnation of God), Trinity, salvation through Christ and his cross, and salvation by grace alone."
"Fundamentalism is (among other things): adding secondary and even tertiary beliefs to basic Christian orthodoxy as necessary for authentic Christian identity (e.g., premillennialism, biblical inerrancy, young earth creationism), insisting that salvation depends on belief in a long list of doctrines including ones not part of basic Christian orthodoxy, and refusing Christian fellowship with other Christians who are “doctrinally polluted” or “doctrinally impure” because they do not believe everything on the fundamentalists’ long list of essential doctrines."
Also, I don't know why you think “fundamentalism” and "modernism" are "loaded words" when in fact they are well established theological concepts defined by Christian scholars and theologians. Your suggestion that there's prejudice favouring theological modernism seems odd to me. Where did you get that idea from?I see arguments from Christians in both directions with no obvious prejudice one way or the other. Your point about judging “against the actual standards of Scripture” falls down because there are no such standards, just interpretations. If we are to judge people, both theist and atheist, then a generic standard applicable to all is more appropriate, and that's known as humanism
|
|
60
|
Posted by An Apologist on 15 Mar 2015 at 12:54AM
|
Are you asking for a precise and all-encompassing accounting of the development of the loosely-defined movement since the 1920s? That would be hard to come by indeed! As stated I would equate fundamentalism with traditional Christian orthodoxy for the most part, at least Protestant orthodoxy, although there is nothing to prevent anyone from claiming to be a "fundamentalist" no matter how unusual his or her views might be.
|
No of course I wasn’t asking for that! Yet another dodge. The conversation started because I thought it might be interesting to discuss the origins of Fundamentalism and hence explain why the Westboro Baptists are not a good example. But that was a long time ago! How someone who has studied Christian philosophy can assert that the concept of fundamentalism is meaningless - and also completely confuse the argument for orthodoxy with the argument against orthodoxy - continues to be a puzzle!
|
61
|
As for your definition of orthodoxy, it depends on the application of the word in various uses, such as "Catholic fundamentalism". Likewise many who would call themselves "fundamentalists" are "millennial dispensationalists" and many are not. Also--as stated--many would call themselves "fundamentalists" who might hold a rather unorthodox view on just about anything. Don't know how else to get this point through: in spite of the specific circumstances where the movement is considered to have begun, there is no "official" standard for those who would currently refer to themselves as "fundamentalists."
|
This is a non sequitur, another dodge. It completely ignores the definition of orthodoxy I provided.
|
|
62
|
Posted by JimC on 15 Mar 2015 at 9:53AM
|
I'm confused about your comments on orthodoxy and fundamentalism. Previously you've suggested there's no difference between orthodoxy and fundamentalism. Your response to Olsen's definition of “orthodoxy” referred only to “fundamentalism” and you then agreed with Olsen's explanation of how fundamentalism is different to orthodoxy. Also, I don't know why you think “fundamentalism” and "modernism" are "loaded words" when in fact they are well established theological concepts defined by Christian scholars and theologians. Your suggestion that there's prejudice favouring theological modernism seems odd to me. Where did you get that idea from? Is there any evidence? I see arguments from Christians in both directions with no obvious prejudice one way or the other.
|
|
63
|
Posted by An Apologist on 18 Mar 2015 at 1:47AM
|
"Fundamentalism" originally referred to the theological position of those who were in a discussion/debate with "modernists" at a specific seminary.
|
No it didn’t. What is he talking about?
|
64
|
We know nothing about the specifics of that debate because in spite of my asking you repeatedly, you have not provided those specifics.
|
I’ve provided the specifics of the origin of fundamentalism. But I have no idea what this debate is that he keeps referring to - if I knew what it was I’d provide detail!
|
|
65
|
From that discussion came--apparently--"5 points" that you claim defines "fundamentalism."
|
Where is he getting this from? The “five points” came from the Presbyterian General Assembly in 1910.
|
|
66
|
Without more info regarding what that debate was about, we won't know whether those 5 points are an essential "definition" of the "fundamentalist" position at the time, or merely a defense of the orthodox Christian position against specific matters brought up at that discussion/debate.
|
How can I provide info on a non-existent debate? I can provide the minutes from the Presbyterian General Assembly – but he seems to be referring to something else?
|
|
67
|
"Fundamentalism" remains a label in any case. There is no universally-accepted definition of the term, no leader of the movement; no one to "define" an "official" position. Therefore, anyone can refer to themselves or another as a "fundamentalist".
|
More dodging. Why does there have to be a “leader of the movement?” Who said it was a movement? How can anyone discuss any philosophical concept? Will the apologist apply his own logic to his diatribes against atheism? I doubt it!
|
|
68
|
Therefore, in current times, "contemporary fundamentalism" cannot be defined since the original term has lost whatever meaning it might have once had.
|
Even more bizarre. The term “contemporary fundamentalism” was introduced into the conversation by the Apologist – now he tells me it cannot be defined. So why did he use it?!
|
|
69
|
You brought up the issue of "modernism" versus "fundamentalism"--define the terms you wish me to comment on.
|
I did!!! But even if I didn’t, how can someone who studied Christian philosophy at Seminary be unaware of the concepts of fundamentalism and modernism!
|
|
70
|
The casual observer would likely find the loaded word "modern" more attractive than its presumed counterpart, "old-fashioned-ism" or "obsolete-ism" or whatever.
|
We are not discussing the word “modern” and in any case, “modern” is not a loaded word. I was hoping to discuss the theological concept of “modernism”. The counterpart of “modernism” is not “old-fashioned-ism”. It does seem I’m being trolled!!
|
|
71
|
Posted by JimC on 18 Mar 2015 at 7:40AM
|
Your statement that “anyone can refer to themselves or another as a fundamentalist" is a truism, because anyone can refer to themselves or another as anything. I assumed you were familiar with the term “modernism” in the context of religion. Essentially it is the liberal reaction (some say challenge) to fundamentalism. You will find the definitions of fundamentalism and modernism here... http://revjimc.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/the-fundamentals-of-fundamentalism.html but what I don't have a definition for is the term you used: “contemporary fundamentalism”. What does it mean? I doubt you'd use a term that had no definition.
|
|
72
|
Posted by An Apologist on 20 Mar 2015 at 1:02AM
|
My statement that “anyone can refer to themselves or another as a fundamentalist" is a truism and that was part of my point. In what way does that confuse you?
|
It doesn’t confuse me. And I didn’t say it did. I said it was a truism!
|
73
|
One source claims that "fundamentalism" requires a "literal" translation of scripture and another that there are only 5 points that are "fundamental" to that perspective and essential to salvation and that everything else is "negotiable." Such is the problem when one attempts to define artificial terms!
|
Er... problem? What’s the problem?
|
|
74
|
In the case of "modernism", again the definitions are too broad based and short on specifics. "Modernism" is also a label that anyone might claim, since there is no "pope of modernism" or any ultimate, authoritative source to reference to provide a detailed, specific definition
|
Yet another dodge. The idea that it’s impossible to discuss a philosophical concept unless it has its own “pope” or “ultimate authoritative source” is comically ridiculous! I wonder if the reference to “pope of modernism” was a deliberately ironic reference to Pope Pius X? (Probably not!)
|
|
75
|
"Fundamentalism" may have had a specific meaning in the 1920s to all who would claim that perspective. Since that time, however, anyone can claim to be "fundamentalist." Anyone can claim that label because it's just a label--hence my conclusion that "contemporary fundamentalism" IS essentially impossible to define!
|
Another dodge. It was the Apologist who introduced the concept of “contemporary fundamentalism” into the conversation. Then he says it’s impossible to define. So why did he use the phrase?
|
|
76
|
Posted by JimC on 20 Mar 2015 at 8:51AM
|
Your statement that “anyone can refer to themselves or another as a fundamentalist" is a truism, because anyone can refer to themselves or another as anything. I'm not sure why you assumed that confused me. I don't think a truism can be confusing. I will consign the phrase “contemporary fundamentalism” to the trash can. LOL at your coining the phrase “pope of modernism” given the famous encyclical of Pope Pius X warning against modernism. http://revjimc.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/the-fundamentals-of-fundamentalism.html (I assume you were being deliberately funny on this occasion).
|
|
78
|
Posted by An Apologist on 22 Mar 2015 at 12:57AM
|
You can't define a label such as “contemporary fundamentalism” when there is no authoritative definitive source for such! I don't know why you wasted all this time trying to do so!
|
LOL – I’m definitely being trolled. Unless of course, the apologist has a memory problem and honestly can’t remember using the phrase “contemporary fundamentalism”.
|
79
|
Pius X may have spoken against his definition/understanding of "modernism" but he was in no better position than anyone else to "define" the label. "Modernism" per se can apply to anyone who chooses that label, or chooses that label to apply to anyone else. There is no authoritarian source that can define any "label" unless the "label" applies to those who have an authoritarian definitive source to which all subscribe to.
|
Well obviously Pius X, like anyone who discusses any concept, made his definition clear before he discussed it. It is astonishing that the Apologist cannot grasp the simple idea that any philosopher or theologian will define a concept before they discuss the concept.
|
|
80
|
Posted by JimC on 22 Mar 2015 at 9:12AM
|
I'm picturing you at seminary refusing to discuss every theological concept on the syllabus because each concept has a label... “I can only discuss concepts that have no label!”
|
|
81
|
Posted by An Apologist on 23 Mar 2015 at 1:10AM
|
Theological concepts in a syllabus are either pretty well defined or can be clarified through discussion.
|
Exactly! And that’s precisely what the Apologist is refusing to engage with here!
|
82
|
Arbitrary labels applied to those in a given society for the purpose of constructing a caricature of those people are a different matter.
|
But it was the apologist who introduced “caricatures” into the conversation, specifically the Westboro Baptists. He has an extraordinary habit of introducing his own concept into a debate in order to refute it. Classic straw man fallacy!
|
|
83
|
Posted by JimC on 23 Mar 2015 at 9:15AM
|
I don't understand your “labels” logic. Are you saying that the Pope was applying the term “modernism” as an "arbitrary label applied to those in a given society for the purpose of constructing a caricature of those people"?
|
|
84
|
Posted by An Apologist on 26 Mar 2015 at 1:06AM
|
Pope Pius X may have had a specific viewpoint in mind that he labeled "modernism", regarding which he expressed an opinion. One would have to read his writings to get context.
|
Of course he did – and of course we have to read what he said to get context - that’s why I provided the text of what he wrote!
|
85
|
Pope Pius X, however, is in no position to define the word "modernism" as it might be used in any other context. "Modernism" remains a label to which anyone--or no one--can claim to subscribe to, regardless of his/her viewpoint, thus the label is rendered essentially meaningless, as are all labels without a specific, generally-recognized definition applying to all who carry that label.
|
Of course he is in a position to define the word! Any philosopher or theologian who discusses an “ism” will define the concept before they discuss it! This is bizarre. I’m sure that if the Apologist was railing against atheism, and I said it was just a label that is rendered meaningless, he wouldn’t accept that as a valid argument!
|
|
86
|
Posted by JimC on 26 Mar 2015 at 8:51AM
|
I don't think Pope Pius X was defining “the word modernism as it might be used in any other context”. What gave you that idea? I think it's clear he was using the word in its religious context, and I think he made it clear what he meant by it. I'm not sure what the alternative is to having a label. For example, the pope's encyclical is entitled “Encyclical of Pope Pius X on the Doctrines of the Modernists”. What would be a better title in order to avoid the problem you perceive with labels?
|
|
87
|
Posted by An Apologist on 28 Mar 2015 at 12:55AM
|
Pope Pius X made it (fairly) clear what HE meant by the term modernism! He had no control over whoever else might choose to appropriate the term nor however they might choose to define or apply it. Nobody has that control--and that's why it is merely a label that can be be used by any random person in whatever context.
|
This is another dodge. The Apologist now agrees that Pope Pius X defined the term but he still avoids any discussion on the topic! And he seems totally unaware that “modernism” – like “fundamentalism” – has a consistent definition according to both Catholic and Protestant theologians. The Apologist also dodges the question of what title Pius X could have used which would be better than “modernism”.
|
88
|
Posted by JimC on 28 Mar 2015 at 1:25AM
|
I don't think Pope Pius X was defining “the word modernism as it might be used in any other context”. What gave you that idea? I think it's clear he was using the word in its religious context, and I think he made it clear what he meant by it, so I'm puzzled as to why you can't even begins to discuss the concept of modernism, given a clear definition. I'm not sure what the alternative is to having a label. For example, the pope's encyclical is entitled “Encyclical of Pope Pius X on the Doctrines of the Modernists”. What would be a better title in order to avoid the problem you perceive with labels?
|
Let’s try again...
|
89
|
Posted by An Apologist on 28 Mar 2015 at 2:16AM
|
What makes you think that Pius X can define a label that anyone can choose to adopt? The issue--as you presented it--wasn't "Pope Pius X's understanding of Modernism" but of the label "modernism" itself, which is beyond anyone's ability to control or define.
|
Eh? Who said Pius was defining a label that anyone can choose to adopt? #DodgeCity
|
90
|
Posted by JimC on 28 Mar 2015 at 9:22AM
|
I didn't say that "Pius X can define the term for anyone who chooses that label". I said he was using the word in its religious context, and I think he made it clear what he meant by it. So I'm puzzled as to why you can't even begin to discuss the concept of modernism, given a clear definition. Are you not at risk of eliminating yourself from any discussion on any philosophical concept? What do you think would be a better title for the encyclical in order to avoid the problem you perceive with labels?
|
|
91
|
Posted by An Apologist on 4 Apr 2015 at 2:02AM
|
What does Pius X's definition of "modernism" have to do with how anyone else would choose to define the term? The original context in terms of this discussion was "modernism" versus "fundamentalism", those terms at one time defined in our current discussion context in a specific debate in a specific Protestant seminary! Why would you assert that Pius X's definition of "modernism" would apply to that situation?
|
So now the debate in a Protestant Seminary comes up again. What seminary? What debate? What is he talking about?!
|
92
|
I expressly asked you for the particulars of that debate (a transcript would have helped) in order to understand what was meant by "modernism" in that context and what was meant by "fundamentalism" in opposing it--and you refused to provide such. I'm not the one obfuscating the issue!
|
I can provide the minutes from the Presbyterian General Assembly – but he seems to be referring to something else? I haven’t refused to provie anything!
|
|
93
|
Posted by JimC on 8 Apr 2015 at 9:18AM
|
I'm still puzzled as to how you think it's possible to discuss any aspect of philosophy, even when a definition is provided. If every "ism" is just a label in your opinion, then how can you ever discuss any philosophical concept in a meaningful way? For example, what do you think would be a better title for the encyclical from Pius X in order to avoid the problem you perceive with labels? I don't know why you're puzzled as to the views of Pius X on modernism in 1910 and a debate on modernism by Protestants 10 years later. What is it specifically that puzzles you? Did you honestly not cover the concept of modernism during your time in Seminary? And which seminary debate on modernism are you referring to? I can try and get a transcript if you give me some detail.
|
|
94
|
Posted by An Apologist on 10 Apr 2015 at 1:01AM
|
I'm still puzzled why you think Pius X could or did provide the ultimate definition of the term "modernism" that all others would follow--including a faction in a specific Protestant seminary years later. Protestants do not follow popes nor allow them to define their usage of terms. Why would you assert that they would?
|
More dodging – if not trolling. I never said Pius could provide the “ultimate definition of the term modernism”. I never asserted Protestants follow popes or allow them to define their usage of terms. I never made a connection between the Pope and a Protestant seminary. Three straw man arguments in one paragraph! Three made up arguments created by the Apologist so he can refute them!!
|
95
|
You are the one trying to impute meaning to labels--including, in the original discussion, the meaning of the label "fundamentalism." In spite of the fact that anyone can appropriate that label, or apply it indiscriminately to others--as they can with the label "modernism"--I am giving you some benefit of the doubt in asserting that perhaps that label had meaning at the time that the term was invented. That took place as a result of a specific debate--the contents of which we do not know since you have not provided them--between different factions of a specific Protestant seminary at a specific time. From that debate emerged one faction referred to as "modernists" and one faction referred to as "fundamentalists." That will be as close to imputing any meaning to the term "fundamentalism" as one can come. If you're not interested in pursuing the matter, that's fine--but again, you were the one who seemed quite interested in that label earlier in the discussion and sought some sort of definition of such.
|
Impute meaning to labels? The words “fundamentalism” and “modernism” have meanings, and definitions. How can he be unaware of these concepts?
And why won’t he tell me what this “specific debate” is or was? What seminary is he talking about?
|
|
96
|
Posted by JimC on 10 Apr 2015 at 10:36AM
|
I'm still puzzled as to how you think it's possible to discuss any aspect of philosophy, even when a definition is provided. If every "ism" is just a label in your opinion, and if in your opinion anyone can appropriate a label, or apply it indiscriminately, then how can you ever discuss any philosophical concept in a meaningful way? For example, what do you think would be a better title for the the encyclical from Pius X in order to avoid the problem you perceive with labels? I don't know why you're puzzled as to the views of Pius X on modernism in 1910 and a debate on modernism by Protestants 10 years later. What is it specifically that puzzles you?
Who ever said Pius X provided the “ultimate definition” of modernism? What is an “ultimate definition” anyway? Who asserted that “Protestants follow popes”? Did you honestly not cover the concept of modernism during your time in seminary?
And which factions in which specific seminary are you referring to which caused modernists to emerge? I can try and get the info you want if you give me some detail, but I don't know what you're referring to.
If you are honestly unaware of modernism and the theological positions, I've provided an overview of here... http://revjimc.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/the-fundamentals-of-fundamentalism.html where you will find:
Dictionary definitions (section 7.1)
Modern day Evengelical anti-modernism position (section 7.2)
Early 20th century Catholic anti-modernism position (section 7.3)
Early 20th century Protestant anti-modernism position (section 7.4)
Early 20th century Protestant pro-modernism position (section 7.5)
|
|
97
|
Posted by An Apologist on 13 Apr 2015 at 11:52PM
|
I continue to be astounded by how you are doing everything other than providing the relevant material!
|
But I have provided tons of relevant material!
|
98
|
As I continue to point out, it isn't what Pius X happened to think constituted "modernism." It isn't necessarily about how modernism is/was considered at one time or another, either previously or currently. The original context in the discussion was what and how "FUNDAMENTALISM" was to be defined! I pointed out that since there is no policing of the term that anyone can call themselves or someone else a "fundamentalist" and thus the term has lost whatever meaning it may have once had.
|
The document written by Pius X gives us a meaning of modernism that we could use as the basis of a discussion. It’s ridiculous to say fundamentalism has lost the meaning it once had when it’s clear Christians are still using the word.
|
|
99
|
HOWEVER, I AM RESPONDING TO HOW FUNDAMENTALISM FIRST CAME TO BE DEFINED! THAT is the crux of the matter!
|
I’ve explained how it first came t be defined – and he refuses to discuss it!
|
|
100
|
Fundamentalism came to be defined through a specific debate at a specific Protestant seminary at a specific time! From that debate, we know that "5 fundamentals" of fundamentalism arose.
|
Wrong - that’s not how fundamentalism came to be defined!
|
|
101
|
The question was--and remains--WERE/ARE THOSE 5 TENETS SPECIFIC DEFINITIONS OF "FUNDAMENTALISM", OR WERE THEY JUST SPECIFIC RESPONSES TO POINTS IN A PARTICULAR DEBATE WHICH WOULD PLACE THE EMPHASIS NOT ON THE 5 TENETS THEMSELVES BUT ON AN ORTHODOX DEFENCE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY IN GENERAL? We cannot determine that until/unless you provide us with a SPECIFIC transcript--or at least a general outline--of that specific debate! PLEASE DO SO--THANKS!!
|
The “5 tenets” came from the Presbyterian General Assembly in 1910.
|
|
102
|
Posted by JimC on 14 Apr 2015 at 11:19AM
|
So if I understand you correctly, you want to discuss how fundamentalism first came to be defined with no reference to modernism. If so, I refer you to what has been covered here previously... http://revjimc.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/the-fundamentals-of-fundamentalism.html where you will find:
Regarding the detail of what the Presbyterian General Assembly discussed during their meetings of 1910, which resulted in the "five fundamentals", you will find their meeting minutes here... https://archive.org/stream/minutesofgeneral1910pres#page/n7/mode/2up (I suggest you start reading from page 271)
|
|
103
|
Posted by An Apologist on 16 Apr 2015 at 1:18AM
|
I am only interested in whatever arguments advanced in the name of "modernism"--in a specific seminary at a specific time--influenced the so-called "5 tenets of fundamentalism." The so-called "5 tenets of fundamentalism" is what emerged from that specific debate.
|
No... The 5 tenets came from the Presbyterian General Assembly meetings of 1910
|
104
|
Since that specific debate was used as a basis for defining the "fundamentalist" viewpoint in its original context, then what is needed is the specific minutes of that specific debate in order to understand whether those so-called "5 tenets" are intended as a comprehensive definition of the fundamentalist position or whether those "5 tenets" only represent a specific response to points raised as the basis for a general defense of the orthodox Christian position.
|
But there was no such “specific debate”. And I have provided the specific minutes of where the “5 tenets” came from.
|
|
105
|
In other words--are those so called "5 tenets" the be-all and end-all of the fundamentalist position, or not? We would need to understand the course of that specific debate in order to reach understanding on such. I don't know how to make that any clearer to you!
|
I don’t know about “be all and end all”. They are what they are – but again – they didn’t come from a “specific debate” – they came from meetings and I have provided the minutes.
|
|
106
|
You are offering everything but the necessary minutes of the specific debate, which is what we actually need in order to understand the fundamental basis for "fundamentalism" in its original context!
|
Bizarre! I am providing the minutes of the meetings where the “five fundamentals” (or the “5 tenets” as the Apologist calls them) came from. Perhaps if I ask again I will get an answer...
|
|
107
|
Posted by JimC on 16 Apr 2015 at 9:55AM
|
I'm puzzled as to your assertion that I haven't provided the minutes of the meetings from which the “five fundamentals” were defined, when I did. Please read the thread and save your time and mine! To repeat from my previous post: The minutes of the Presbyterian General Assembly meetings of 1910, which resulted in the "five fundamentals", are here... https://archive.org/stream/minutesofgeneral1910pres#page/n7/mode/2up (I suggest you start reading from page 271)
|
|
Posted by An Apologist on 18 Apr 2015 at 12:40AM
|
The minutes of the Presbyterian General Assembly in 1910 are again not relevant.
|
Yes they are!
|
|
The issue isn't about what the Presbyterian church in 1910 had to say on the matter, any more than what Pius X had to say on the matter, or what you or I have to say on the matter.
|
Yes it is!
|
||
108
|
The term "fundamentalism" was coined after a specific debate in a specific Protestant seminary--but no matter
|
No it wasn’t!
|
|
109
|
If the minutes of that debate are unavailable, I would proffer that fundamentalism was a general defense of Christian orthodoxy and thus probably referenced more matters than the specific "5 tenets of fundamentalism" that were presented. Without the specific minutes of that specific debate we would be unable to reach further clarity on the matter, however.
|
I have provided the minutes of the meetings where the specific “5 tenets” came from! Why can’t he acknowledge that? Oh well... let’s try again...
|
|
110
|
Posted by JimC on 18 Apr 2015 at 9:23AM
|
I'm still puzzled as to your assertion that I haven't provided the minutes of the meetings from which the “five fundamentals” were defined, when I did. To repeat from my previous posts: The minutes of the Presbyterian General Assembly meetings of 1910, which resulted in the "five fundamentals", are here... https://archive.org/stream/minutesofgeneral1910pres#page/n7/mode/2up (I suggest you start reading from page 271).
I'm even more puzzled when you say these minutes are not relevant when they cover the specific debates which resulted in the "five fundamentals" which is what you specifically asked for! I have no idea which seminary debate you are referring to - if you give me some data I will try and get some information for you.
As I've explained already, the word "fundamentalism" came from the 19th century Niagara Bible Conference (which was documented in a series of pamphlets which I can provide if you can't find them) and the word was subsequently popularised in the “The Fundamentals”, a collection of twelve books published in 1910 which I have already provided for you in their entirety. To remind yourself of all the information I've previously provided, please refer to sections 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 here http://revjimc.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/the-fundamentals-of-fundamentalism.html and let me know if you want me to add anything - I will do what I can.
I am still curious about one thing - were the concepts of fundamentalism and modernism/liberalism really not on the syllabus?
|
|
111
|
|||
112
|
|||
113
|
Posted by An Apologist on 20 Apr 2015 at 2:07AM
|
Now you're taking this whole conversation in a different direction!
|
LOL
|
114
|
On Feb 20 you made the following statement: "Let's explore the origin of the word 'fundamentalist' which, according to Rick Warren, comes from a 20th century document called the Five Fundamentals of the Faith."
|
That is indeed what Rick Warren suggested.
|
|
That work was published in 1920, following a specific debate at a specific seminary
|
No it wasn’t and I didn’t say it was!
|
||
115
|
Now you make the contradictory statement: " the word "fundamentalism" came from the 19th century Niagara Bible Conference (which were documented in a series of pamphlets which I can provide if you can't find them) and the word was subsequently popularised in the “The Fundamentals”, a collection of twelve books published in 1910 which I have already provided for you in their entirety."
|
I think I’m allowed to contradict Rick Warren! And that is indeed where the word “fundamentalism” comes from, and I’ve just had to explain that because the Apologist claimed the term "fundamentalism" was coined after a specific debate in a specific Protestant seminary. Which it wasn’t. And I don’t know why he keeps making that claim.
|
|
116
|
My whole purpose was to try to provide some context on the original meaning of "fundamentalism" but your shifting appeals to different means of defining such makes even that matter impossible!
|
Well, I’ve re-read the entire conversation and there’s only one person providing context on the meaning of the word “fundamentalism”. And it’s not the apologist. LOL.
Is it worth asking again? What would Paxman do? Yes... he’d ask again...
|
|
117
|
Posted by JimC on 20 Apr 2015 at 3:12PM
|
I'm still puzzled as to your assertion that I haven't provided the minutes of the meetings from which the “five fundamentals” were defined, when I did.
To repeat from my previous posts: The minutes of the Presbyterian General Assembly meetings of 1910, which resulted in the "five fundamentals", are here... https://archive.org/stream/minutesofgeneral1910pres#page/n7/mode/2up (I suggest you start reading from page 271).
I'm even more puzzled when you say these minutes are not relevant when they cover the specific debates which resulted in the "five fundamentals" which is what you specifically asked me to provide! You now refer to a work published in 1920 which followed a specific debate at a specific seminary. Which work are you referring to, and which debate and which seminary? If you give me some data I will try and get some information for you.
As I've explained already, the roots of the word "fundamentalism" came from the 19th century Niagara Bible Conference (which were documented in a series of pamphlets which I can provide if you can't find them) and the word was subsequently popularised in the “The Fundamentals”, a collection of twelve books published in 1910 which I have already provided for you in their entirety.
I'm also puzzled when you say I haven't provided context when I've actually provided comprehensive context. To remind yourself what that context is, please refer to sections 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 here http://revjimc.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/the-fundamentals-of-fundamentalism.html and let me know if you want me to add anything. I will do what I can.
I am still curious about one thing - were the concepts of fundamentalism and modernism/liberalism really not on the syllabus when you attended seminary?
|
|
118
|
Posted by An Apologist on 22 Apr 2015 at 3:31AM
|
Jim, none of this addresses the context of your original posit. You sought a definition of the term "fundamentalism."
|
No - I didn’t seek a definition of the term “fundamentalism” – I provided the definitions!
|
119
|
I pointed out that "fundamentalism" is a label that can be applied to any that would claim such--either in reference to their own position or that of others. Because "fundamentalism" is a label with no ultimate point of reference to define such, the label is ultimately meaningless
|
And that’s just a dodge – it’s a ridiculous argument which prevents any discussion on any theological or philosophical concept, and it’s an approach the Apologist does not apply to himself!
|
|
120
|
I chose to indulge you to seek a definition regarding its original context.
|
No – it was me that provided the definition of the word in its original context.
|
|
Part 121
|
You have now moved the goalposts of the original definition--first claiming that it occurred as a result of a specific debate in a specific Protestant seminary, resulting in the issuance of "5 tenets" that needed further defining in context of that debate.
|
Eh? I did not mention a specific Protestant Seminary! What is he on about!
|
|
122
|
You now claim that the term "fundamentalism" resulted from an entirely different set of circumstances.
|
I’ve explained where the word originated, and then where, when and how the fundamentalist movement originated.
|
|
123
|
So unless you can offer some consistency even in asking others to jump through your ever-shifting and convoluted hoops--how are we or anyone else to proceed in discussing and clarifying the matter?
|
If this isn’t trolling then I don’t know what is!
Shall I try again? Maybe this time there will be progress...
|
|
124
|
Posted by JimC on 22 Apr 2015 at 9:46AM
|
I realise this is all moot because you don't want to discuss fundamentalism and you don't seem to recognise it as a valid concept, but I am puzzled when you say I claimed the word fundamentalism “occurred as a result of a specific debate in a specific Protestant seminary” because I don't think I did.
The “famous five points” resulted from an official list provided by the Presbyterian General Assembly in 1910. The minutes of those meetings are here... https://archive.org/stream/minutesofgeneral1910pres#page/n7/mode/2up (I suggest you start reading from page 271).
All of the previous points regarding fundamentalism that I've made can be found here... http://revjimc.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/the-fundamentals-of-fundamentalism.html
I am still curious about one thing though - were the concepts of fundamentalism and modernism/liberalism really not on the syllabus when you attended seminary?
|
|
125
|
Posted by An Apologist on 25 Apr 2015 at 12:24AM
|
Already responded to and deconstructed ad infinitum.
|
Ad infinitum? Yes. Responded to? Only in terms of non sequiturs!
|
126
|
And, for the record since you asked, my seminary education covered neither the specific debate between what you referred to as "modernists and fundamentalists" at a specific Protestant seminary in 1920, nor the general minutes of the Presbyterian General Assembly of 1910."
|
Obviously! LOL – but not what I asked. Still in Paxman mode so here we go again...
|
|
127
|
Posted by JimC on 25 Apr 2015 at 11:21PM
|
I realise there's no point me asking because you don't want to discuss fundamentalism and you don't seem to recognise it as a valid concept, but I am puzzled when you say I claimed the word fundamentalism “occurred as a result of a specific debate in a specific Protestant seminary” because I don't think I did. When did I say that? And which debate and which seminary are you referring to?
The “famous five points” you asked about (which Rick Warren referred to) came from an official list provided by the Presbyterian General Assembly in 1910. The minutes of those meetings are here... https://archive.org/stream/minutesofgeneral1910pres#page/n7/mode/2up (I suggest you start reading from page 271).
All of the previous points regarding fundamentalism that I've made can be found here... http://revjimc.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/the-fundamentals-of-fundamentalism.html
I am still curious about one thing though - were the concepts of fundamentalism and modernism/liberalism really not on the syllabus when you attended seminary? Surely they would be topics studied together with Congregationalism, revivalism, literalism, dispensationalism, millennialism, premillennialism, etc. were they not?
|
|
128
|
Posted by An Apologist on 4 May 2015 at 12:48AM
|
You are still referring to terms and labels as if they had specific definitions, which they do not.
|
Of course they have specific definitions. And I’ve provided them!
|
129
|
In fact it would be relevant because we could compare how the different groups define the term, and in any case, we could have a discussion based on a chosen definition. And we could discuss how and why groups of people identified with the movements. How can someone who has studied philosophy (or even someone who hasn’t!) not understand that basic concept? How, as a student of philosophy, could he ever have discussed anything at all!
|
||
130
|
Neither "modernism" nor "fundamentalism" are specifically defined confessional statements and in that sense, as I continue to point out, they are meaningless labels which have lost whatever meaning they might have had in the first place.
|
So what? Neither is atheism or humanism – but why would that prevent a discussion on those concepts? This is a ludicrous argument – just to dodge any discussion on the topic of fundamentalism. I’ve obviously hit a raw nerve with that word... but why?
|
|
131
|
Some of the other terms are more specifically defined in narrower terms, such as "literalism" (although not as specific as one might think), along with "dispensationalism", "millennialism", "premillennialism" and the like. "Revivalism" can be said of any Christian group which renews its religious fervor. "Congregationalism" merely refers to a type of church structure or governance. It may refer to a specific denomination which uses the term "Congregationalism" --just as with "Presbyterianism" or "Methodism" and others--but, again, there is no copyright on the term and presumably anyone can use it to define their faith community or another's faith community, whatever their beliefs or practices.
|
Should I explain that copyright law does not apply to names, titles, short phrases or expressions? Nah! Let’s just accept that anyone can use any word to define their faith community and all words are meaningless labels. Apart from atheism. LOL
Can’t help noticing he’s ignored the “specific debate in a specific Protestant seminary” point... maybe he just forgot. So...
|
|
132
|
Posted by JimC on 4 May 2015 at 8:35AM
|
I remain puzzled when you say I claimed the word fundamentalism “occurred as a result of a specific debate in a specific Protestant seminary” because I don't think I did. When did I say that? Where did you get that idea from? Which debate and which seminary are you referring to?
The “famous five points” you asked about (which Rick Warren referred to) came from an official list provided by the Presbyterian General Assembly in 1910. The minutes of those meetings are here... https://archive.org/stream/minutesofgeneral1910pres#page/n7/mode/2up (I suggest you start reading from page 271). All of the previous points regarding fundamentalism - including definitions - can be found here... http://revjimc.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/the-fundamentals-of-fundamentalism.html
I am also curious about how you can claim it's valid to avoid a debate because the terms used don't have specific definitions. How could you possibly have ever discussed anything in your philosophy classes? A cynical person might think this is your way of dodging issues with which you are unfamiliar or which you find uncomfortable. You also suggest the only concepts which are not meaningless are “confessional statements.” Surely your approaches eliminate many of your favourite targets from further discussion, namely communism, rationalism, humanism, determinism, relativism, atheism... etc. I think it's unlikely that you will adopt your own guidelines and avoid those topics because they can be defined in different ways!
|
|
133
|
|||
134
|
|||
135
|
|||
136
|
|||
137
|
|||
138
|
|||
139
|
|||
140
|
|||
141
|
|||
142
|
|||
143
|
|||
144
|
|||
145
|
|||
146
|
|||
147
|
Sunday, 3 May 2015
A non-conversation on Fundamentalism
An odd conversation with a Christian apologist on the subject of fundamentalism versus modernism... subjects which he seems not to know of, or doesn't want to discuss (yet continues to argue about - for three months!)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment