Defining: Conservative, Fundamentalist and legalist

[Nadiine]

I think society is misdefining (or REdefining) these terms to mean that anyone that takes God's commands serious are 'legalistic fundy's'...

I think these terms should be explored and properly defined to be fair to Christians.

[LivingLifeHisWay]

I agree with you.

I have heard it said - Action fruit without attitude fruit is legalism. That makes sense to me.

[WannaWitness]

I wouldn't want to be called "legalistic" merely because I try my best to follow the Bible. I think some people ignorantly misuse the term.

[edb19]

Legalism is the mistaken belief that our standing with God depends on our law keeping. (my pastor has said several times that he wants this word back because we've distorted it to mean man's rules - i.e. no smoking, no alcohol)

IMO - a fundamentalist is one who believes the fundamentals, the basics. Sadly it has come to mean an extremist which isn't necessarily the case.

[Nadiine]

Legalism is the mistaken belief that our standing with God depends on our law keeping. (my pastor has said several times that he wants this word back because we've distorted it to mean man's rules - i.e. no smoking, no alcohol)

IMO - a fundamentalist is one who believes the fundamentals, the basics. Sadly it has come to mean an extremist which isn't necessarily the case.
:amen: :thumbsup:
This has been my "tangent" for years now. People have misdefined terms and now regular conservative Christians are now viewed as radical legalist fundies... as if we're the evil one's for DARING to clarify what God's word calls sin.

This imo all stems from a society that refuses to accept that truth is absolute; but relative. (relative to what they feel, think or perceive).

[edb19]

This imo all stems from a society that refuses to accept that truth is absolute; but relative. (relative to what they feel, think or perceive).

A big amen to that. I love (note this is sarcasm) the idea that something might be true for you but not for me. Heaven only knows where that idea came from.

[Nadiine]

A big amen to that. I love (note this is sarcasm) the idea that something might be true for you but not for me. Heaven only knows where that idea came from.
ya huh! They never really think it through tho... if eternal fiery Hell is REAL in my personal opinion, THEN DOESN'T THAT MAKE IT TRUE?? If so, doesn't that mean that people who reject God WILL actually be in that hell I believe exists??

Or.... wasn't it actually true for me - and I just believed it in my ignorance??
Everybody's beliefs can't literally ALL be right , can they? Since they all contradict one another?

God bless you sister!! Always great to C U. :hug: :hug:

[Izdaari]

A big amen to that. I love (note this is sarcasm) the idea that something might be true for you but not for me. Heaven only knows where that idea came from.
Yes, Heaven does know where that idea came from. ;)

Also, Erik von Kuehnelt-Liddihn has shed some light on the origins of that kind of thinking in this book, Leftism: from de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse (http://www.amazon.com/Leftism-Sade-Marx-Hitler-Marcuse/dp/0870001434/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/103-4642928-7932655?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189002042&sr=8-2).

But anyway...

Some things are true for one and not for another: i.e., Ben & Jerry's Chunky Monkey is the world's best ice cream. Some things are generally true but not always true: i.e., wise old maxims. And some things are universal, absolute, objective truths: i.e., 1 + 1 = 2, at least so long as we stick with Base 10 math. If any would say all truths are relative, they're not wise. Likewise for any who would say all truths are objective. An important part of wisdom lies in assigning each truth to the correct category.

[Nadiine]

Yes, Heaven does know where that idea came from. ;)

Also, Erik von Kuehnelt-Liddihn has shed some light on the origins of that kind of thinking in this book, Leftism: from de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse (http://www.amazon.com/Leftism-Sade-Marx-Hitler-Marcuse/dp/0870001434/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/103-4642928-7932655?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189002042&sr=8-2).

But anyway...

Some things are true for one and not for another: i.e., Ben & Jerry's Chunky Monkey is the world's best ice cream. Some things are generally true but not always true: i.e., wise old maxims. And some things are universal, absolute, objective truths: i.e., 1 + 1 = 2, at least so long as we stick with Base 10 math. If any would say all truths are relative, they're not wise. Likewise for any who would say all truths are objective. An important part of wisdom lies in assigning each truth to the correct category.
Actually, it's all in the question and statement... truth isn't relative or subjective.

The person claiming that ice cream is the best in the world, IS MAKING A TRUTH STATEMENT OF THEIR OWN TASTE.
AND IT'S ABSOLUTELY TRUE that they believe it is the best in the world.
But when they put it onto all others, it doesn't make it true, it makes it true and FALSE becuz it's NOT the best in the world "TO OTHERS" while it may be to some others. It's either absolute true or absolutely false of each individual.

The issue is in the details of the claims & statements.
It's either absolutely true, or not by who is stating it for whom.

[Izdaari]

Actually, it's all in the question and statement... truth isn't relative or subjective.

The person claiming that ice cream is the best in the world, IS MAKING A TRUTH STATEMENT OF THEIR OWN TASTE.
AND IT'S ABSOLUTELY TRUE that they believe it is the best in the world.
But when they put it onto all others, it doesn't make it true, it makes it true and FALSE becuz it's NOT the best in the world "TO OTHERS" while it may be to some others. It's either absolute true or absolutely false of each individual.

The issue is in the details of the claims & statements.
It's either absolutely true, or not by who is stating it for whom.

:amen:

I think we said pretty much the same thing in different words. ^_^

[Nadiine]

:amen:

I think we said pretty much the same thing in different words. ^_^
lol, sorry - I must have not understood what you were saying then. That does happen plenty of times unfortunately. :blush:
:wave:

[BigNorsk]

Conservative is a word used so many different ways it is almost useless. For most people conservative just means you agree with them.

Marv

[DerSchweik]

Words have meaning. Words DO have meaning.

We should not allow the meanings of words to arbitrarily change to suit someone's needs of the moment. Take for example the word "gay." It used to mean "happy," "exuberant," "mirthful." (now be honest, did you know that?) However, to suit the needs of a particular group, we no longer define the word as happy, exhuberant, or mirthful - anything but, right?

Conservative refers to one who advocates conserving something - let's say the accepted definition of words. The conservative will fight to retain the proper definition of a word, for example.

Fundamental refers to one who advocates sticking with the basics, say the elemental tenets say of our faith. A fundamentalist will fight against changing basic propositions of faith like, say, the triune nature of God. Some things are just basic. And whenever we venture too far, we want to revert to the basics to get back on the right path...

But liberals are working hard to press the definitions of these words to mean something different - something vile or nasty or ugly. The tremendous irony in "liberalism" is that it must stick to the fundamentals of its beliefs and strive constantly to conserve them to remain viable. Liberalism is more fundamental and conservative than either fundamentalism or conservatism - because it has to be to survive.

Legalist refers to someone who seeks their justification on the basis of law. A legalist, caught in wrong-doing would never appeal to the judge for mercy and grace; rather, they would seek to find loopholes in the law to justify their wrongdoing.

All this of course, IMHO.

Love you all for your insights and contributions! God Bless!!

[Time2BCounted]

Very interesting thread, and i find myself agreeing with each post.
Religiously speaking, from a biblical standpoint then, are the conservative and the fundimentalist 'cousins' 'siblings' or 'actually one in the same'?

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Words have meaning. Words DO have meaning.

We should not allow the meanings of words to arbitrarily change to suit someone's needs of the moment. Take for example the word "gay." It used to mean "happy," "exuberant," "mirthful." (now be honest, did you know that?) However, to suit the needs of a particular group, we no longer define the word as happy, exhuberant, or mirthful - anything but, right?

Conservative refers to one who advocates conserving something - let's say the accepted definition of words. The conservative will fight to retain the proper definition of a word, for example.

Fundamental refers to one who advocates sticking with the basics, say the elemental tenets say of our faith. A fundamentalist will fight against changing basic propositions of faith like, say, the triune nature of God. Some things are just basic. And whenever we venture too far, we want to revert to the basics to get back on the right path...

But liberals are working hard to press the definitions of these words to mean something different - something vile or nasty or ugly. The tremendous irony in "liberalism" is that it must stick to the fundamentals of its beliefs and strive constantly to conserve them to remain viable. Liberalism is more fundamental and conservative than either fundamentalism or conservatism - because it has to be to survive.

Legalist refers to someone who seeks their justification on the basis of law. A legalist, caught in wrong-doing would never appeal to the judge for mercy and grace; rather, they would seek to find loopholes in the law to justify their wrongdoing.

All this of course, IMHO.

Love you all for your insights and contributions! God Bless!!
Thank you for your post here. I truly do love your definitions because they are so simple to understand. Sometimes we over complicate things and speak in terms that some can't, or won't, grasp.

Wish you'd been here when we were attempting to write our wiki. :doh:

[DerSchweik]

Very interesting thread, and i find myself agreeing with each post.
Religiously speaking, from a biblical standpoint then, are the conservative and the fundimentalist 'cousins' 'siblings' or 'actually one in the same'?
Wow, um I guess I haven't thought about that - good question.

Personally, I consider myself both a conservative and a fundamentalist. I agree with the principles behind both positions.

I'm not sure - is it possible there are conservatives who don't ascribe to fundamental principles or, are there fundamentalists who don't ascribe to conservative principles - IMO, I'd have to say "no," but good question for thought! :scratch:

[DerSchweik]

Thank you for your post here. I truly do love your definitions because they are so simple to understand. Sometimes we over complicate things and speak in terms that some can't, or won't, grasp.

Wish you'd been here when we were attempting to write our wiki. :doh:

My wife makes fun of me because I have a dictionary in just about every room of the house. I am constantly referring to my dictionaries because personally, I realized a long time ago that I use words when I speak that I learned "contextually" as I grew up, but didn't really know their actual definition. I mean, I could give a basic or general definition that was probably "in the ballpark" but I grew to want to know the proper, "official" definition, its roots (etymology - a word I had to look up, ha!), etc.

I'd like to try my hand at a wiki - but neophyte that I am, they seem yet a bit challenging to me. :)

[Time2BCounted]

Wow, um I guess I haven't thought about that - good question.

Personally, I consider myself both a conservative and a fundamentalist. I agree with the principles behind both positions.

I'm not sure - is it possible there are conservatives who don't ascribe to fundamental principles or, are there fundamentalists who don't ascribe to conservative principles - IMO, I'd have to say "no," but good question for thought! :scratch:
Dont feel too confused brother lol, when i consider the question i see no differance either and woould have to say i consider myself both and that both are really the same thing.

I'm open to any counterpoint though

[DerSchweik]

Dont feel too confused brother lol, when i consider the question i see no differance either and woould have to say i consider myself both and that both are really the same thing.

I'm open to any counterpoint though
Nah - I don't think there's a need to counter. Thanks.

I need the confusion though - keeps my mind churning, ha!

[Time2BCounted]

I'll bet you enj oy a good game of chess then eh?

[DerSchweik]

I'll bet you enj oy a good game of chess then eh?
Oh yeah, absolutely, ha!

I can think ahead about 8 or 10 moves, really well too - and if it weren't for the person on the other side of the board, I'd even win sometimes. ;)

[Izdaari]

Wow, um I guess I haven't thought about that - good question.

Personally, I consider myself both a conservative and a fundamentalist. I agree with the principles behind both positions.

I'm not sure - is it possible there are conservatives who don't ascribe to fundamental principles or, are there fundamentalists who don't ascribe to conservative principles - IMO, I'd have to say "no," but good question for thought! :scratch:
Wiki: Fundamentalist Christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity)

Definitely there are conservatives who don't subscribe to all the fundamentalist principles as described in that wiki. I would be one of them. For example, though I do believe the Bible is authoritative, I don't believe it is inerrant, nor do I think God meant for us to read it as literally as possible. I also don't believe in Young Earth Creationism. In short, I would agree with C.S. Lewis and other Anglican conservatives, but not with Jerry Falwell. OTOH, if by fundamentals, you meant merely the basics of Christianity, i.e. as described in Lewis' Mere Christianity, I do of course agree with those.

And although I am conservative politically -- an old school Goldwater conservative -- I don't agree with the Christian Right that the government should have much of a role in enforcing morality. Which is to say, I'm a libertarian conservative, not a social conservative.

[DerSchweik]

And although I am conservative politically -- an old school Goldwater conservative -- I don't agree with the Christian Right that the government should have much of a role in enforcing morality. Which is to say, I'm a libertarian conservative, not a social conservative.

I'd have to agree with that. The issue of "legislating morality" is quite problematic and prone to adverse consequences - i.e. actually propogating the very thing you attempt to legislate against - case in point: prohibition.

It sounds wise, but in practice it is anything but. The problem is the very nature of the law - the purpose of the law is to point out our sinfulness - not to restrain or prevent it. When we attempt to legislate morality, we only succeed at inciting the very thing we are trying to make illegal.

IMHO...