Fundamentalist Christianity

[louis]

know nothings

Christian fundalmentalism is intimately tied to the perception of the Bible as the literal word of God. The fear is that departure from the text will lead to perdition. The problem is that this assumes a single correct hermeneutic, or system of interpretation.
We bring to scripture our preconceived notions, our private expectations, our personal experience, our prejudices.
Fundamentalists insist that everything they teach be based solely on the Bible, but they do not recognize the primacy of tradition in their churches. Tradition is every bit as important to most "fundies" I know as it is to Catholics.
One interesting paradox I've noticed in this Bible-belt part of America that I inhabit......most of the students I teach have been brought up in church. Ostensibly, they've heard doctrine taught and preached all their lives. But when questioned about such basics as the trinity, salvation by grace, the incarnation, etc., they actually know next to nothing about their own faith tradition.

From Louis...
I've noticed the same thing about many "believers" ....
There seems to be a large class of church-goers who have learned to
go through religeous motions by imitating their family and friends -for the
same reason they learn a manner of speech or dress - in order to "fit in".
They are not really believers - just social hypocrits.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Louis!

There seems to be a large class of church-goers who have learned to
go through religeous motions by imitating their family and friends -for the
same reason they learn a manner of speech or dress - in order to "fit in".
They are not really believers - just social hypocrits.

Yes, so...what's your point? Is it to imply that because a person ascribes to a system of belief, they are inherently hypocritical?

I am confused by your approach. Are you seeking understanding, or ammunition?

Anybody can be hypocritical to their belief system, including atheists. "Do as I say, not as I do..." Choosing to not be hypocritical and applying that in the course of your life is a conscious choice and unending action. And religious people are equally capable of being unhypocritical and leading their lives accordingly. In fact, Jesus was quite specific that doing away with hypocracy was supposed to be a main goal in guiding one's life.

Of course, that is something that must be addressed internally, from the self, from the inside out. It doesn't just happen. It must be a concious effort renewed everyday.

And then there is the little matter of not knowing what exactly takes place inside another person's mind and heart. "Believe half of what you see, some or none of what you hear," I believe is the old adage. You believe you observed hypocracy, but did you, really? Many times, yes, but I suspect not nearly as often as you may have led yourself to believe.

So what if another is hypocritical? What is that to you? You cannot live their life for them. And I doubt you would allow them to tell you how to live your life. When all is said and done, they will answer for themselves, not for you. And you will answer for yourself, not for them. So why waste precious time and energy on what is a philosophical trap? Because one or a few others lead their lives in a way you disapprove of, justifies a jaded and callous attitude?

"A man is about as happy as he makes his mind up to be." -Abraham Lincoln

So what if everybody else is hypocritical, are you? Do you guide your life specifically because everyone else is doing it (the Lemming effect)? Or are you merely jaded because some one or few people in your life disappointed you? Life is full of disappointment, the question is how you choose to handle disappointment. Are you a hot house lilly, who wilts at the first sign things might not go your way? Or do you stele yourself against those moments that inevitably come, that shake your world or your view of the world? Are you a wimp, or are you strong? The choice is yours. No judgement is cast here by me, frankly I could care less. The ball is back in your court.

If the purpose your question serves is understanding, then the best you can hope for is to demonstrate by example in how you guide your own affairs in this world, and speak of them to those who are willing to listen. The rest, ignore, they are not your responsibility beyond common human decency.

If the purpose your question serves is ammunition, you are waging war with yourself.

 

[arthra]

Literal or Allegorical interps?

I have a question that I wanted to assk here and seems appropriate for this topic...

Is a Fundamentalist someone who necessarily must be one who interprets the Bible literally or can they be someone who is willing to admit more allegorical or symbolic interpretations?

- Art

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Arthra!

I have a question that I wanted to assk here and seems appropriate for this topic...

Is a Fundamentalist someone who necessarily must be one who interprets the Bible literally or can they be someone who is willing to admit more allegorical or symbolic interpretations?

"Fundamentalist" seems to me a term that gets (mis)used an awful lot. The basis I believe came from one or a few denominations that made efforts to "get back to the basics, the fundamentals." Literal translation figures into that, I am sure, but is not the be all and end all. The movement tends to focus more on official interpretation of literal translation. In the strictest sense, your observation is correct. But there is a much broader sense of the term.

As applied now, I think the term has grown to mean a denomination or sect that is closed-minded to alternate possibilities/translations/interpretations. They are so sure of themselves, and certain that all others must be wrong. They get to heaven, and nobody else can.

The danger, to them, lies in being mistaken. Such an unthinkable thought is dismissed by whatever means necessary. In the process, they believe themselves to be doing God a favor by condemning anybody who believes even remotely different from their official interpretation.

Of course, the end result of such self-righteous narrow minded thinking can lead directly to something like flying a highjacked airliner into a skyscraper. Christians are not the only ones guilty of narrow-minded exclusionary self-righteousness, they just get picked on about it more here (in the US, but also in this thread and subtly in this forum).

Other religions, as well as philosophies and sciences, are equally capable of "fundamentalist" rationale as I have described, at least up to the point of "killing them all, and let God sort them out."

Don't know if this helps. Fundamentalism is a very dangerous thing in my view, across the board. Fundamentalism is a mindset, not a badge or nameplate. The vast majority of fundamentalist thinking people don't even realize they are actually fundamentalist in their rationale. Every fundamentalist of every stripe and persuasion needs to be reminded of the value in softening their stance, that forgiveness and tolerance are very closely related.

That cannot be achieved by driving them away with ridicule.

 

[Marsh]

Well said...

So what if another is hypocritical? What is that to you? You cannot live their life for them. And I doubt you would allow them to tell you how to live your life. When all is said and done, they will answer for themselves, not for you. And you will answer for yourself, not for them. So why waste precious time and energy on what is a philosophical trap?

I like that a lot.

Just to comment on what Louis said last time: I think the distinction that Louis was speaking about was actually believing vs. professing Christians, and not fundamentalist vs. non-fundamentalist Christians.

Believing Christians are people who actually believe in Jesus; professing Christians are the ones who go through the motions.

Just a thought.

 

[iBrian]

Christians are not the only ones guilty of narrow-minded exclusionary self-righteousness, they just get picked on about it more here (in the US, but also in this thread and subtly in this forum).

I would certainly hope that Christians here do not feel themselves overtly labelled as "narrow-minded".

Fundamentalism - as a form of rigid and often illogical closed-mindedness - has been referenced various times on this forum: not just on the subject of religion, but also in terms of politics and philosophy as well. More than once there have been digs at expressions of fundamentalism in Atheism and Science.

 

[mcedgy]

According to World Christian Encyclopedia: “[In] a comparative survey of churches and religions, Christianity coexists with 18 other major religions. The 19 religions are subdivided into a total of 270 large religious groups, and many tens of thousands of smaller ones. The editors have identified in excess of 34,000 separate Christian groups. Over half of them are independent churches that are not interested in linking with the big denominations.” Religious intellectuals place Christian groups into various categories but all Christian denominations use the same Holy Bible and the same alleged Son of God for their inspirational guidance. With approximately 34000 Christian groups worldwide and with at least 1000 of these groups in North America it confirms that the Bible is cryptic and it implies 34000 disagreements to the same “Word” by those who profess to be Christians. "A rose by any other name" takes on a whole new meaning!

 

[iBrian]

Well, considering that such a huge number of words have been translated across innumerable language barriers, it is hardly surprising that diffferences in interpretation exist.

I would be interested to note whether the 34,000 identified Christian groups exist with actual significant differences in doctrine - or whether a lot of them are simply founded on local roots and insist on keeping to those local roots, with an identity and infrastructure separate from national and international interference.

 

[mcedgy]

Brian - Someone once said, "all politics are local". I think the same could have been said about religion.

However it is ironic that ALL major religions teach essentially the same fundamentals. Generally there is a Supreme Being who has made His will known to men. He expects ritual observance and worship. Priests translate His word for humanity and participating believers receive glorious rewards while nonbelievers receive dreadful punishment. Each of these religions professes to worship the one true God. For the most part they ignore their similarity to each other, their similarity to paganism and their similarity to mythology?

Granted, many religion have different sects but the differences among Christian groups are staggering. Frequently these groups appear to be a number of different religions simply under the auspices of Christianity. Most scholars divide Christians into conservative (fundamentalists), moderate or mainline and liberal groups.

The most conservative: The Bible is the actual Word of God. God inspired the authors to write the Word. Every passage in the Bible is inspired, exact, truthful and without error. Fundamentalist and Evangelical Christians regard “saved” people as the only true Christians. They believe that those who have not been “born again”, including Roman Catholics, most followers of conventional churches and the millions who follow other religions will be sentenced to “outer darkness” where unimaginable mental and physical anguish rules.

The most moderate: The Bible contains the Word of God but some material should be rejected because it is opposed to the will of God. Any passage that condones genocide, sexism, homophobia, torturing, slavery or women as property for example should be rejected. This group accepts anyone proclaiming to follow the teachings of Jesus as Christian.

The most liberal: The Bible is a wide-ranging human document, written by human beings. The authors’ intent was to advance their own personal beliefs including their concept of God. Some liberal theologians have completely reinterpreted most traditional Christian beliefs. Information on this extremely liberal Christian theory can be found by researching the “Jesus Seminar”.

It seems these 3 catagories are more "revealing" than even the 34000 number. mcedgy

 

[StrangeQuark]

My question is why is Christianity under Monotheism? They worship three gods.

I know this thread is very old, but just in case you do check it again:

Careful there . . . it depends on the denomination. The United Pentacostal Church teaches what they call "the true revelation of Christ"--that is only one God in one personality and his name is Jesus.

The Way International teaches that Jesus is not God, just his son.

I think (I'm not sure on this point) that Jehovah's Witnesses also believe that Jesus is not God, that the only God is Jehovah.

The first 2 I have had both the fortune and misfortune to participate in when I was younger. As for JWs, I'm going on hearsay.

 

[StrangeQuark]

Since I have been a fundamentalist in my time, like others here, I may have something to add.

Fundamentalists in general may be ignorant of lot of things, but the ones I knew were avid Bible students. Way Internationalists studied the Bible every day several times a day. They also cross reference it with companion works and read books written to explain their interpretation.

The United Pentacostal Church was very similar in this respect. They certainly believe the Bible is literally true, but they explained to me that sometimes our very human brains needed a little help understanding. We used Greek interlinear New Testaments, concordances, Vine's Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, etc. etc.

The fact is, because of their fundamentalist perspective, knowing the Bible was *very* important.

Another part of the original question:

Different denominations do use different versions of the Bible, in my experience. I can't be sure about all, but I can say that Way and UPC would *only* use the KJV. JWs have their own version (I forget off hand what it's called, although I used to have one). I understand that all the NTs are translated from the same Greek text but the translations are different.

The thing is I really don't see anything wrong with the persective and the belief--sometimes people just carry things too far. In the UPC I experienced the charismatic style of worship and that appealed to me very much in those days. I still like the way they prayed and wish I could bring myself to get back into it.

However, a lot of what they taught was at odds with other ideas that I held in high esteem. For example, wives were to submit to their husbands, science was heretical and untrue (even a deception of the devil), and *everyone* else was going to hell. Stuff like that. That is fine for some people; I certainly would not want to take it away from them. It just doesn't work for me.

I have known some very good people who are fundamentalists, however, and I have a lot of respect and admiration for them. They did not run around telling people how they should live, as many do. Instead they tried to express themselves compassionately in everything they did.

Incidentally, I had heard a different explanation for dinaosaur fossils: One person told me that there is a description of a dinosaur in the Bible (don't know about that one myself), in the book of Job, I think. Then he proceeded to tell me that dinosaurs had existed at one time, but only about 6 or 7,000 years ago!

 

[Excelsis Deo]

Ok into the Lions den we go........

A little about me. I as a Christian consider myself a conservative evangelical. Fundamentalist would be a little to the right of me I guess. What does that mean? Well, I do believe that the Scriptures in their ORIGINAL manuscripts were inspired by God, this is because of the internal evidence and witness of Scriptures themselves and Jesus' attitude towards Scripture. I realize that there is a circular argument here because the belief is that Scriptures are true because they say they are true. You could say that God doesnt need validation from us on what is true. Take Genesis for example, "In the beginning God...", the Bible presusposes the God exists and doesnt explain where He came from. We would call this a presuppositional truth. Much like the Atheist who says there is no God knowing full well that you cant prove a universal negative. But he has to start somewhere. Thus the theory of Natural Selection, AKA Evolution. The atheist surmises there is no God then how did we get here? "By chance" and it goes on from there....even with the problem of irreduceable complexity.

So how does one get to the point of believing in God? I did not grow up going to church until my teen years and even then I didnt really get it. So for me like some it is "sparked" by experience. I have seen healings, given prophecies and received prophecies that came true. I even had an out of the body experience not associated with a near-death or drugs. But for me the ultimate experience has been in the instantaneous changed lives of drug addicts and others who trust in Jesus for salvation. You dont quit heroin and not have withdrawls but I have seen it. Funny what believing in an obscure Jewish rabbi/carpenter can do for your life. I shouldnt be surprised because these very things Jesus promised would happen to those who trust in Him. I also have a missionary friend who has a first hand account of a man who was clinically dead four days but was raised to life.

Going back to the Bible. I have experience in translating the New Testament. For this I had to learn Koine Greek. There are over 5,000 manuscripts for the NT alone. These are refered to in translation. If you get a Greek New Testament put out by the United Bible Society which is the standard for NT translation worldwide you can see the various manuscripts compiled in one form. Variant readings are listed as well. What this tells us is that there are variations among the manuscripts of various books. This tells us that the manuscripts can cotain errors. So ......when it comes to inerrancy of Scripture this only applies to the ORIGINAL manuscripts. But because of the science of textual criticism we can discover the original text as close as humanly possible. Now check this out...........

When the King James was written they only had a handful of manuscripts to use. Today we have access to over 5,000 (this is just for the NT) and yet the difference in the accuracy translation between the KJ and say the NAS or NIV is about 1%. I may need to clarify what I mean. That is not to say they are identical 99%, because the words are not exactly the same but it has to do with meaning. Compare these versions and you will see what I mean.


For those who need proof of Christianity, Christianity rises or falls upon the resurrection of Jesus. As the Apostle Paul wrote,"...and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins, " 1 Corinthians 15:17. Keep in mind that Paul was not a Christian but a persecuter of Christians when Jesus was on the earth. By his own testimony (twice in Acts) he sawand spoke to the resurrected Jesus after Jesus had been executed and buried. As a result of this testimony he suffered (beatings, stoning, imprisonment and eventually death) the rest of his life. A good book about the proof of resurrection is "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh Mcdowell, a former atheist who challenged the resurection and found it historical. "Who Moved the Stone" is another by a non-christian who came to faith after researching the resurrection.

 

[iBrian]

Hi Excelsis, and welome to CR.

the difference in the accuracy translation between the KJ and say the NAS or NIV is about 1%. I may need to clarify what I mean. That is not to say they are identical 99%, because the words are not exactly the same but it has to do with meaning. Compare these versions and you will see what I mean.

Ah, but you are comparing later versions with one another - try comparing the KJV - even the NIV and NAS - with a much earlier Bible, such as the Codex Siniaticus. The degree of difference is far wider.

Translations in themselves may not differ by a huge degree, but that shouldn't be surprising when using the same basic texts are the same. And though there may be a large number of NT texts surviving, I'll warrant that the majority are from the nearer side of the Middle Ages, and are therefore for the most part fairly direct copies of one another.

The real issue is when you start comparing later texts with earliest texts. That's where the real arguments for differences originate.

 

[Excelsis Deo]

Hi Excelsis, and welome to CR.


Ah, but you are comparing later versions with one another - try comparing the KJV - even the NIV and NAS - with a much earlier Bible, such as the Codex Siniaticus. The degree of difference is far wider.

Translations in themselves may not differ by a huge degree, but that shouldn't be surprising when using the same basic texts are the same. And though there may be a large number of NT texts surviving, I'll warrant that the majority are from the nearer side of the Middle Ages, and are therefore for the most part fairly direct copies of one another.

The real issue is when you start comparing later texts with earliest texts. That's where the real arguments for differences originate.

It is good that you mentioned Codex Sinaiticus because it was discovered by Tischendorf who revolutionized Textual Criticism as we know it by developing an apparatus that notes variations within the text. Now what is interesting is that the Critical text which is the basis for the NIV and NAS comes from his methodology and Westcott and Hort who followed after him. In contrast the KJV was based upon the Received Text (Textus Receptus) which was created by a different approach to compiling manuscrpits called the Majority Text method. The Received Text is considered inferior to the Critical Text that is used today (the example which is the UBS Greek New Testament 26th ed.). But still with their different methodologies and codexes the NIV and NAS are remarkable similar to the KJ. For further info consult "Introduction to New Testament Criticism" by J. Harold Greenlee.

Concerning dates Codex Sinaiticus dates to the 4th century and contains the entire NT and some OT books.

 

[Excelsis Deo]

It has been said that when it comes to religion "All paths lead to the same place." Which is to say they are essentially the same. I would agree with this statement to a point. The similarities are obvious. There is a God. Man has something wrong with him some call it "sin" others "bad Karma" or just "imperfections". So what religion promises us is that if I follow their path of teaching I will become a better person and possible attain some reward like paradise with 70 virgins or "oness" with God or live in a big mansion iin the sky in a place called heaven. In other words I EARN my way to God by my accomplishments and piety. In this way all religions seem to agree..............except Biblical Christianity. According to the Scriptures God has GIVEN us eternal life with Him. The Scriptures make it clear that we cannot attain or earn our way to God. Instead God has made a way which involved Him coming to us. Thus God came and lived among us (Jesus) and then finished His stay by dying for our sin, and rising from the dead. And now He offers to us an invitation for us to be with Him. Thus we are asked to turn from our sin (which leads us away from God) and turn to God by belief in what He did for us. To embrace Him as He has embraced us despite our sin and imperfection. This is what Christians call the "gospel" meaning good news. And it is indeed good news for those of us who were looking to religion to help us and finding only a set of rules to keep.

I had some Mormons come to my door one day and I asked them this question," If I do the things you say and follow your rules and practices can you GUARANTEE I will go to heaven when I die?" They said No we cannot. But for the Christian who puts their hope in God and the promise of Scripture he has a guarantee written by a man named John who had seen and touched Jesus after His resurrection. So John declares in 1John 5:13, "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God (Jesus) in order that you may know you have eternal life."

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Excelsis Deo, and welcome to CR!

It has been said that when it comes to religion "All paths lead to the same place." Which is to say they are essentially the same. I would agree with this statement to a point.

Yes, to a point. There are many here who could argue the finer subtleties.

In other words I EARN my way to God by my accomplishments and piety. In this way all religions seem to agree..............except Biblical Christianity... The Scriptures make it clear that we cannot attain or earn our way to God.

I guess a great deal hinges on interpretation, or semantics.
Salvation, that is, access to heaven, in the Christian tradition is through Christ, yes. However, according to James, traditionally the "half"-brother of Jesus raised in the same household, works are the clothing one wears in heaven (so to speak). In other words, "belief" alone gets you into heaven, but you'll run around naked as a jay-bird.
The righteous "man" is the working "man." "Show me your faith without your works, and I'll show you my faith by my works." Also, "Faith without works is dead." -both from James

I had some Mormons come to my door one day and I asked them this question," If I do the things you say and follow your rules and practices can you GUARANTEE I will go to heaven when I die?" They said No we cannot. But for the Christian who puts their hope in God and the promise of Scripture he has a guarantee written by a man named John who had seen and touched Jesus after His resurrection. So John declares in 1John 5:13, "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God (Jesus) in order that you may know you have eternal life."

I appreciate your sincerity, and I appreciate your steadfastness. However, were not the Mormons you mentioned perhaps only being honest. After all, can anyone truly claim a "guarantee?" When all is said and done, all that any of us can truly have is hope. Unfortunately, hope alone is no guarantee. Because John makes a declaration is no guarantee, at least not in the generally accepted definition of the word. And surely your personal experiences are not those of John. What John had is faith and hope, derived from experience, and bolstered with works. Which is all any of us can truly hope to have and achieve.

 

[juantoo3]

Kind regards again!

It is good that you mentioned Codex Sinaiticus because it was discovered by Tischendorf who revolutionized Textual Criticism as we know it by developing an apparatus that notes variations within the text. Now what is interesting is that the Critical text which is the basis for the NIV and NAS comes from his methodology and Westcott and Hort who followed after him. In contrast the KJV was based upon the Received Text (Textus Receptus) which was created by a different approach to compiling manuscrpits called the Majority Text method. The Received Text is considered inferior to the Critical Text that is used today (the example which is the UBS Greek New Testament 26th ed.). But still with their different methodologies and codexes the NIV and NAS are remarkable similar to the KJ. For further info consult "Introduction to New Testament Criticism" by J. Harold Greenlee.

Concerning dates Codex Sinaiticus dates to the 4th century and contains the entire NT and some OT books.

Didn't Tischendorf have a rival scholar? It has been quite a while since I looked into any of this, and I may have the two men confused. But it seems to me that one of the texts (whether or not Sinaiticus I do not recall) was found languishing in the scriptorium of a monastery (in the Middle East I believe). The dating as I recall was questionable, and Tischendorf and his rival did their work during the mid-eighteen hundreds. The two men claimed supremacy for their works by various means, neither of which being clearly ruled superior or inferior. Both texts were later used for translations.

I am not sure if the "Textus Receptus" mentioned is indeed the complete manuscripts in the British Museum used for the King James version. I am not aware of "majority text" method. Please correct me if I am not right, but I do not think there are further copies of the various books contained in that particular collection, the sum of which dates to around 400 AD.

I realize the KJV is not the "be all and end all" when it comes to Biblical scholarship. Even so, I do hold to it for reasons of ease of reference. Newer translations concern me, as I have seen instances of individual interpretation included. At least with the King James version, that personal interpretation was subjected to committee. Even after that, the personal interpretations that were included have, after almost 400 years, been made known to scholarship. Perhaps the clearest and most accurate translation I have seen (even then not perfect) is the Interlinear, which is direct literal translation from the Greek and Hebrew.

Are you at all familiar with a Biblical scholar named Ginsberg?

 

[juantoo3]

I apologize for responding to myself, but I took a look at some material today concerning the Textus Receptus. It is much more involved than I had previously understood. Thank you, Excelsus Deo, for bringing this interesting info to my attention.

 

[wethirst]

First of all, I must confess that at this point I have not read this entire thread, but was intriguied by the opening posts and thus am mostly commenting in reference to that.

I would not consider myself a fundamentalist. At least what most readers here would consider fundamentalist. I hold many opinions that would likely be labeled conservative-but I hate using any terms. I simply believe what I believe, and don't like to hide behind a political term.

Someone mentioned at the beginning of this thread that 'being open minded is the only way to be'. I agree to a point. I believe that when considering one's beliefs one must be as totally honest and open as possible-but there also comes a point of remaining steadfast despite doubts (of course, your doubts may be justified, or they may be simply passing. If we were to always sway to them, we may in fact be weak. Conversely if we never consider them-be are obstinate and ignorant). Yet wouldn't you say that a creed of 'open-mindedness' is itself a closed-minded view? It is paradoxical at best, but I do believe that one can be so pluralistic as to believe in nothing but the doctrine of always changing beliefs.

changing the subject a moment, going back to something else from the beginning of the thread. Though I do not agree with the fundamentalist 'young-earth because of Biblical geneology', I would argue with the point that dinosaurs are not mentioned in the Bible. First of all, much of the specifics of the Bible are up for debate considering the differences between Hebrew or Greek and English. But in Job, a creature called the Leviathan is mentioned which is believed to be a sort of plesiosauras (excuse the spelling). As well, Abraham (I believe it was) described a large mammal with a powerful tail... and so on. There are little items like this that do appear in Scripture. I personally agree with what's known as an 'old-earth' view of creation. I believe the geneologies in Scripture to be incomplete, particularly as the word for 'son of' in Hebrew used in those geneologies can also be translated 'grandson or great-grandson of'.

So to another earlier point of this thread... why do I believe in God? What 'evidence' do I have? At the moment, I am regrettably unprepared in my defense. I am at a point where I believe by faith-but faith was not the only original catalyst. An interesting book to read on the subject would be perhaps 'Surprised by Joy' by C.S. Lewis. Where he recounts his change from strict secularist atheism, to one of the most prolific and honored Christian thinkers of the modern era. Some 'evidence' pointing to God include the Intelligent Deseign theory (though I see it as a very small reason, for if God-specifically the God of the BIble is real-evidence of him would be something a little greater than just scientific). I also believe because of the obviousness (to me) of the existence of a moral law, and other such 'doctrines or apologies'. Yet, though it sounds extremely petty, I mostly believe...because I somehow just do. I have eyes wide open to something more than biological processes going on inside of me, of a change in my life and the way I observe everything. More thoughts to come I suppose.

 

[lunamoth]

Hi wethirst, welcome to CR. Nice first post!

lunamoth