tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19322660.post2945785745458383750..comments2024-03-18T00:05:07.328-07:00Comments on The Puritan's Sword: A Biblical Examination of Philosophical, Theological, and Political Trends: On Theological Cuss-Words And the Spirit of The AgeR.S. Ladwighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13487404072546513179noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19322660.post-17382990663738088252007-08-25T09:47:00.000-07:002007-08-25T09:47:00.000-07:00Hey Uber, I know, I know these aren't precise defi...Hey Uber, I know, I know these aren't precise definitions I was specifically trying to avoid dictionary use so my definitions are I know a tad shallow. So point taken. I was trying to at least contrast a broad definition of what these words really meant with how they are popularly used, I think I did that. <BR/><BR/>However, as for the matter of dogma, I agree that most people probably wouldn't classify a belief that the sun will rise tommorrow as a "dogma" but I wonder why not? Given the dictionry definitions you just gave I think the belief that the sun will rise is dogmatic. I am not trying to defend my admitedly shallow definition of dogma but I do still think it is a bit broader in its scope than it is generally used. "Truth" itself is different from "dogma" in that truth is the object irregardless of who holds to it, whereas dogma is the held belief irregardless of it's truthfulness. <BR/><BR/>On second thought, given those dictionary definitions I don't see what exactly is wrong with my succinct broad definition. But I do hear you when you suggest this:<BR/><BR/><I>"If I were to suggest an alternate (2 for this entry, I might recommend "A set of beliefs held solely because of fear of change and/or because the church/bible says so."</I><BR/><BR/>That is the general attitude towards religous doctrine, people are sort of lemmings/drones doing and believing what "The Church" says to.<BR/><BR/>Either way you slice it "dogma" is used as a sort of swear word, like calling someone a "poopyhead". I still think that in reality everyone is dogmatic and it shouldn't be a dirty word, I often find the people who most ferociously label others as "dogmatic" in the negative sense are the greatest violators of their own standard of "open mindedness".<BR/><BR/>As for fundamentalist, you wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>"Next, your definition of what constitutes a fundamentalist is far too general. Even the leftest of the liberal religious left believe their religion to be true"</I><BR/><BR/>I agree completely. And that is the hypocrisy and idiocy of the Liberal Christians and "All inclusive" groups. I don't think it is a problem with my definition (although I admit it is shallow) so much as it is with the common use of the word...<BR/><BR/>The rest of what you say is correct Uber, it is a 20th century protestant branch. However, I am going for the general definition, one that applies to Muslims, Catholics, Jews etc. This is why Webster's has often 6 different meanings of a word given the context. Again though, you are absolutely right, it is a Christian term and its popular use in our culture really came from the Fundamentalists in the early 20th century...the Libs didn't like them so Fundi became a dirty word.R.S. Ladwighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13487404072546513179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19322660.post-26365148623006631612007-08-24T21:42:00.000-07:002007-08-24T21:42:00.000-07:00It's a small point, but I think that some of your ...It's a small point, but I think that some of your <B>1)</B> definitions are a bit too vague. I wouldn't be too bothered by it except that the presence of such vagueness here both unreasonably mitigates the meaning of such words and terms (as defined by official dictionaries) and, as such, exaggerates the distance between what the terms mean and what critics are trying to get across. Now, I'll be the first to agree that there are many who unfortunately feel that, by simply dropping a few of these terms into an argument, they can easily make their case. Clearly this is not so. But I digress. The terms I might revise are:<BR/><BR/><B>Dogma- 1) Any belief held to be true</B><BR/><BR/>The term "Dogma" is more specific than just any belief that is held to be true. I think that "truth" would suffice in that place, and I don't think that Dogma and truth really feel synonymous when juxtaposed. No one would claim that the belief that the sun will rise in the morning is dogmatic. It's just plain apparent to anyone with a pair of functioning eyes who doesn't live in London. <BR/><BR/>Merriam-Webster defined Dogma in a few possible ways:<BR/><BR/>1. Something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet.<BR/>2. A point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds<BR/>3. A doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church.<BR/><BR/>And certainly, when a critic of religious belief uses the term "dogma" or any of its derivations they are usually employing the latter two. They may indeed feel that the beliefs held by the person they are criticizing are both arrogant and narrow minded as you stated, but those feelings are not implied by the use of the word dogma. If I were to suggest an alternate <B>(2</B> for this entry, I might recommend "A set of beliefs held solely because of fear of change and/or because the church/bible says so."<BR/><BR/>Next, your definition of what constitutes a fundamentalist is <I>far</I> too general. Even the leftest of the liberal religious left believe their religion to be true, just in a different way than the religious right (and others, for that matter). Fundamentalism is much closer in meaning to literalism and, when referring to Christians, biblicism. No doubt, fundamentalists believe their religion to be true, but using that as a definition is equivalent to calling me a vegetarian because I eat vegetables. Doing so ignores other important details that might set me apart from actual vegetarians (like the fact that I also eat meat). If you check out either the Oxford or the Merriam-Webster dictionary's entry for "fundamentalism", you'll actually find that the first entry specifically defines the term as a movement of 20th century Protestant Christianity. Now, the word has shifted in its usage to sometimes refer to any strict adherence to a religious or ideological belief, but its roots are clearly in Christianity.<BR/><BR/>Those are my thoughts.Ubersehenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17332607619856283785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19322660.post-76106119548573113592007-08-22T23:14:00.000-07:002007-08-22T23:14:00.000-07:00Hi Bob,Excellent post. I can't believe a Raggae b...Hi Bob,<BR/><BR/>Excellent post. <BR/><BR/>I can't believe a Raggae band would go out of its way to make a point like that. That is totally funny.<BR/><BR/>Jah Man!TheChristianAlert.orghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03834633162196296344noreply@blogger.com