----- Original Message ----- From: "iaamoac" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 4:05 PM Subject: Re: Definition of a Christian Fundamentalist
> --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > I'm going to be doing some analysis using numbers, but I want to be > sure > > that there isn't an arguement on what a Christian fundamentalist > is. I'd > > say that a Christian fundamentalist is one who, when asked: > > > > Which of these statements comes closest to describing your feelings > about > > the Bible? The Bible is the > Word of > > God but not everything in it should be taken literally. OR, The > Bible is a > > book written by men and is not the Word of God." > > > > > > would give the first answer. Does that sound reasonable? > > I would generally only consider a Christian fundamentalist to be a > Biblical Literalist. Maybe I wasn't clear. There are three choices: 1) The Bible is the actual Word of God. 2) The Bible is the Word of God but not everything in it should be taken literally. 3) The Bible is a book written by men and is not the Word of God." The first is a literalist interpretation. The numbers for those who say the world was created in 6, count 'em, 6 days are about 50% higher than this number. > Most Catholics would choose the first statement. Why not the second? How can you not be a literalist and pick one over two? Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
