Big Floods

Yeah, I have heard the idea that the 'Shame exposed' was actually a reference to (it was Ham right?) having some sort of sexual intercourse.
I dont buy that at all.
Its true you 'can' interpret that particular phrase that way but its just as easily taken as having exposed his fathers drunken nakedness - i.e. pulling the tent back as a sort of prank or trick on the old man to humiliate him.
The 'worst case scenario' does not fit at all - Ham would be guilty of an astonishing crime that in later passages earned people fire and brimstone.
Instead we read he has accursed his lineage.

Your getting started on some idea that he produced 'black people' and they become slaves or what?
Sounds like some very wild story my kooky 'Merkan buddy would come up with - along with handling snakes and thinking the USA is the 'whore of Babylon' etc.

You have no reason to believe Noahs wife was a 'Negroid' (these are evolutionists terms btw) but common sense deductive reasoning means that Noah and His wife - along with the Three Brides had all the gene selection now descended into the world population.
Adam and Eve having ALL available traits in their genes of course.

You might be thinking of Moses wife who was a Nubian (if i recall.. go google maybe) and we can assume she was 'black.
The difficulty for us (not them) is that categorizing humans into 'different races' is an old-new idea that was not held by most ancients or especially Jews.
There was no 'Black Race' as if this was our old-new evolutionists teachings that there are three major branches of different sorts of monkeys that evolved.

Anyways,,, the breakthrough of the last century has been the understanding of DNA and how to trace it backwards.
We now know, what was always known before - all humans all come from the same mother. (who scientists call 'Eve')

But yeah.. the brothers go North, East and South (its more specific in the account) and then from there start civilisations.
I just think its interesting that we still see different 'faces' in those three directions (obviously there is huge mix - especially in the middle of those directions (Turkey being the start point)

 

I was told that by a Rabbi. Its their book, if they say it then it must be true right? No "interpret" anything, thats the way it is in the Jewish faith. In the Christian bible you can "interpret" it different.

As to the shame of homosexuality, that came later, from a different god, with new rules, at a different time, and was only so because they thought
we only had a limited amount of sperm. So that is a man made law, not a god given one. Again, this came from a Rabbi. SO since today we know better, then homosexuallity is alright, so says the Rabbi.

Oh, and yes i do believe i mixed up Moses and Noahs wives, had that in the back of my head when I typed it. Oh well, point is, by the time of Noah, the three distinct "physical appearences" as you put it had already appeared.

 

The text is the text and the Rabbi you spoke was probably trying to freak you out.

Actually its not the 'way it is' in the Jewish faith. Its taken for what it simply describes - Ham uncovers his fathers nakedness (Noah was passed out drunk) and he then went and got his brothers to come look at the old man passed out nude.

That alone is more than enough to explain why Ham is a jerk and why, not surprisingly his Son Canaan (like father like son) might also be the type to mock and disrespect people.

You 'can' interpret the phrase to the most extreme possible way possible by finding another passage in which similar language describes an act of adultery.
Just because the most extreme option is 'possible' to cram in there - doesnt make it a good choice.
Other 'possible' interpretations are to say it refered to castrating his father.
Well... ok sure.

In this case there is simply no call for choosing the most extreme possible offense that 'could' be covered under that language when the plain basic text is as its read is sufficient and covers the basics just fine thanks.

Actually, No.
Jews and Christians are reading the same passage and there is no 'different rules' for the art and science of interpretation here.
Especially when a plain reading of the text is sufficient and doesnt ask for much anyways.

Here comes the crazy...

Ding ding.. Crazy Train .. all aboard ding ding..

The Rabbi is the conductor on the Crazy Train apparently.
But you can just make up stuff I suppose.

Again, no reason in Judaic law, texts or tradition is given for you to say that other than just 'saying stuff' because you think it would sound good or something?

Once again, You are just saying this for no reason other than it crossed your mind that it might sound like an 'actual thing'.
Ham is the 'Great Grandfather' of what went on to be a lot of people including the 'African' peoples.

Now this is gonna be weird but I am about to partially agree with something you (or the other crackpot?) mentioned earlier about genetic descent and the change of appearances.
We definately can suppose that Hams original descendants may have all kinds of traits.
The ones with the least amount of Melanin and long nasal passages were definately at more likelyhood of getting eliminated.
The ones with shorter wider nasal passages and more melanin (sp?) being more likely to survive in sub-saharan Africa.

Again.. I just think its interesting that we see the three different 'faces' of mankind to this day.
There is no particular reason for Asians to have a disctinct face from Europeans (for the same reasons why example: Black skin is not good in Norway etc).
So its interesting to me in that sense, even though there are reasons why faces would change over centuries.

Anyways.. you seem to be agreeing that the three distinctive faces have appeared by the time of Noahs Sons.
I would agree in a sense but just to get more into the issue - we would actually be looking at their children, who they mated with, the grandchildren and so on.
Then how those proceed.
But I think we all understand we are using the three brothers names in the sense they are the Patriarchs and each take a direction to 'go forward'.
Shem, Ham and Japeth AND their wives would have had ALL the genetic choices possible today (obviously).
Most forget to mention the wives and that is actually very signifigant. Again, just taking it into more detail.

Also, its probably you were high when you wrote that Huron?
be honest?

 

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the text the Jews use has differences from what occurs in the Christianized Old Testament? I have no knowledge here but it seems entirely possible that there could be differences.

 

Wow, erasmus, you just know everything! How did you get so smart as to be stating your interpretations and opinions as fact?

 

Erasmus, i am sure that your god ordained King James bible is infallible, but it is a translation into English, from this other little language called Hebrew. NOW Hebrew is a more literal language, especially at the time of Moses. There weren't these words or thoughts that might mean one thing, but deeper it means another.

Example. I AM THAT I AM in that original Hebrew meant, "Just believe me cause I said it" NOT the deeper " I am the all powerful beginning and end I am everything" omnipresent god bullshit interpretation the christians subscribe to.

That said, is it not possible that the Hebrew scripts say something different that the Christian translation? Like, maybe Mary being young, never saying virgin? no way!

THat is what I meant by the Christian bible being more open to "interpreting" because the Hebrew Scriptures dont leave much to interpret, it says it flat out.

And it is a fact that in the time of the homosexuality/masturbation laws, it was because of the thought of limited semen. THAT is exactly why it is not the same as when women have same sex relations. That isnt taboo, but it is considered a little too kinky.

As to moses and Noah, I honesty mixed up their wives, no "Hey lets speculate" here.

Unlike you, I obviously have some sort of back up to what I say, that is a sign of education and thought, not just random christian crazy babble sprewing out of my ass.

 

This thread is great! The only spoke in the wheels I wish to throw is that the Genesis version of the flood is, imo, blatantly ripping off several Sumerian texts (incidently, the author of Genesis didn't just rip off the story of the flood, but pretty much everything in Genesis 1-11). This has kinda been mentioned already, but I wish to expound upon it.

The figure in those Sumerian texts is called by three different names: Ziusudra, Atrahasis and Utnapishtim, but what each did after the flood is referred to as the same thing in all three texts; "nuah" which means "rest."

The reason this was done is the really big deal. I doubt I'll get much feedback on it, but has anyone here actually looked into this, thought about it? The best thing I've read comes from Professor Wenham, (Senior Lecturer in Religious Studies at the College of St. Paul and St. Mary in Cheltenham, England), who stated:

"If it is correct to view Genesis 1-11 as an inspired retelling of ancient oriental traditions about the origins of the world with a view to presenting the nature of God as one, omnipotent, omniscient, and good, as opposed to the fallible, capricious, weak deities who populate the rest of the ancient world; if further it is concerned to show that humanity is central in the divine plan, not an afterthought; if finally it wants to show that man's plight is the product of his disobedience and indeed is bound to worsen without divine intervention, Genesis 1-11 is setting out a picture of the world that is at odds both with the polytheistic optimism of ancient Mesopotamia and the humanistic secularism and the modern world.
Genesis is thus a fundamental challenge to the ideologies of civilized men and women, past and present, who like to suppose their own efforts will ultimately suffice to save them. Genesis 1-11 declares that mankind is without hope if individuals are without God."

This, imo, leads to a can of worms....

 

Its a 'spoke in the wheel' only if you are willing to start by assuming it is NOT based on a real event.
Even after that - you still have to guess that the earliest found text is the original text. That is not necessarily the case. The 'Genesis Version' may very well have been the first version - The Sumerian one being the re-telling, later version.
For some reason this should be pretty obvious but those interested in debunking the Genesis account cant seem to 'work this through' and just jump past common sense logic on this.

Now you can definately see where everything makes sense if you presume that there was a real physical event that happened.
Then you would actually expect there to be versions everywhere.
(well we hope to unearth them at least)
If its a real historical event for the basis - then there is no such thing as 'ripping off' anything. You might have crappy versions, good ones, some better than others.
You can even have a situation where there are many versions, none accurate and then Moses finally coming along (totally familiar with previous ones even) and then Pens what we call the 'Authorised Version'.
Thats good.
Not a problem at all.

Nobody gets very worried about names. without getting into the whole thing of it - people could have different names, go by names depending on what culture is writing about them.
Certainly Utnapishtim is this stories name for 'Noah'.
Yes its signifigant when you talk about the meaning...

I agree its interesting. I noticed patriarchs (and many others) would be given names which reflected their Era or some signifigant period of time they would live in.
Sometimes this appears prophetic (Immanuel) and other times they are named 'after' the events they are born into.
Example Peleg is named because in his days after the flood the Earth was 'Peleg' Divided.
This might be interesting to Freaker in regards to Continental Drift (and check out the hydroplate theory in general)
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ213.html

Yes, that is interesting and I think you would get feedback on this because it certainly does ring true.
He is proposing a what if scenario and this brings me back to the beginning of your post.
If this is based on a real event and even if its already been established in many accounts (Sumerian or Indian etc) then there is really no problem at all with Moses retelling this in what he suggests is the divinely inspired version.
I say Good.

There is most definately a situation here with a 'picture' of what is later revealed in the Death and Resurrection of Christ.
This is probably the only 'good reason' you will see for justifying Genesis as an 'Allegory' because later its given as a comparison for the Resurrection.
Having said that - nowhere does it suggest that because an event foreshadows another that its purely 'allegorical'.
In fact, The New Testament has Christ and his Apostles refering (and confirming) the Genesis account as a real literal event and a trustworthy account.

So basically: If you want to start with the assumption the Sumerian text is fictional then you can make an argument that Genesis is also fictional (but not necessarily based on the Sumerian text).
If you want to assume a real event proceeded them - then, if anything, the existance of other similar accounts only goes to lend more credibility, not less.




This, imo, leads to a can of worms....[/QUOTE]

 

This is not necessarily true. King James version is based on (if I recall my versions here) Jeromes Latin Vulgate and I think later Greek versions. Id have to look again because I think it depends on which edition.
There are many more translations besides The King James Version btw.
Infalibility is assigned to the OT scriptures and not in the sense to 'a version' or 'translation' in that sense.

You are probably high again and listening to the crappy Rabbi. Im not a Hebrew scholar and you only need to know the slightest big about the subject to know you are so far off the mark on this its almost the opposite of what is true.
That doesnt mean (as a lot of critics suppose) that you can 'Interpret anyway you like' either.
Almost always the text and context easily dictates the chosen meaning.
Same as me saying "Well I lost my dog today and Im really depressed about it and need to cheer up".
You cant just say that the word 'Depressed' just means anything like maybe you feel it means Im driving a spaceship.
You 'Could' choose to believe that 'depressed' is interpreted to mean a real physical object was pushing my physical body down into the floor.
Totally taking the word to the furthest extreme you 'could' do that.
In this case, the context really gives no other reasonable choice and 'interprets it for you' in its context - it refers to my emotional state which is not cheerful enough due to sorrow.
So in that sense I agree with you about 99% of the OT scriptures being 'self explanatory'.
This applies to english, greek, latin and so on.
Hebrew doesnt have some 'special' simplicity like you have made up or your crazy Rabbi has told you.

Ok... and even though 'I am that which is becoming that is becoming' might be the better translation. Fine.
So the difference you see here ....

So I dont really see much difference here other than you just added the word 'bullshit' in the second one and made it sound 'more elaborate' I suppose.

Well again you are arguing against yourself (err.. or something?) because again you have a word here which basically is a general term maybe best put in English 'Maiden'.
We dont use 'Maiden' anymore but translators are not being vague or sloppy and actually the opposite when they choose 'Virgin' as its the best and closest word in English.
You can say 'Debutante' maybe?
In these days it was not presumed a 'young maiden' was losing her virginity before marriage.
Even if they were (which im sure you assume?) it was the understood presumption in their society that a young unmarried debutante was also a virgin.
Hence the word is used interchangeably with 'Young unmarried woman'

I am beyond convinced you are just saying this for the sake of saying it.
One problem might be that all Christians have english translations and the 'down side' to that fantastic freedom is that certainly 'anyone 'can' interpret anything'.
You almost have to put every single word there in 'quotes' to make the point that just because you 'can do something' doesnt make it smart or a good idea.
I 'can' just decide to interpret the word 'Depressed' to mean a giant finger is pressing me into the ground - but thats not 'what Christians do' or even short of stupidity.
Dont worry - A Rabbi can even translate Genesis 9 to say its about Ham raping his Dad. There is no monopoly on silly translations here.

Actually, its forbidden for a man to lay with another man (as he would with a woman) becasue its considered an 'Abomination'.
There is no particular reason to believe that people were worried about 'limited semen' other than you fantasising a wierd story to excuse away a law which you think the Jews made up and then pretended was from God.

I understand. I wasnt hassling you over that. I always have to get the 'whos who' straight when it comes to all the OT characters and I mix them up too.
What Im saying is that the scriptures do not contain the idea of there being 'races' of people in the modern evolutionism sense of 'Negro race' or 'White Race' etc.
Moses wife is only described as being from (what we call) Black Africa (Ethiopian..or Nubian I recall??) and I would simply assume she probably was black.
Moses was probably not 'Black' coloured but then it doesnt care to say.

Thats what I love about your posts Heron - you are so crazy-ass wacky and say things like that lol!
Despite your last minute defense there - Im convinced you are wackass nuts in the head, stoned and literally just making up wierd shit you probably saw on some Wiccan books or something.
I love it!

 

I wasnt offended by anything until you referenced me to Wicca lol.

Anyway, as to the "abomination" word in Leviticus, that is where the
translation went wrong, and i forget the exact word in Hebrew, but
that is where the word went. It meant something like "commited an act
punishable by death" not abomination in the eyes of god. And it was
punishable by death not because it was same sex sex, but because
it wasted semen, like I said, same goes for male masturbation.

Women are excused from that law, I am not making it up, just do
some research.

I am not wack crazy in the head, you are only confined to your
christian texts and refuse to think outside of your box.

As to the King James reference, i was making a crack at
Christian fundamentalism, which you seem to be a part of.

More than half of your debate is nothing more than attempting to
discredit my argument by name calling, which is a very common
Christian last resort.

 

Wiccans love making up all sorts of fascinating retellings and rumours about Christianity.
Thats why I took a shot that was a likely source for your wacky ideas.

"toeyvah"

It really does mean 'Abomination'

There is zero in the text or around the text that would give you that idea. You are just making this up. Sorry but you really are.

Well I think its pretty obvious that a Law specifically about men for men about other men is not about women.
Its not something they can logically be 'excused from' .. errr.. unless they become men.. in which case they wouldnt be women anymore.

Ding ding.. Crazy Huron Train pullin into town.. lol.. actually I think its great. Id rather get into it with a genuinely wacky kook than some boring college students just parroting the crap they 'think' is what they are supposed to say about Christianity or Evolutionism and whatevre they garner from Landover Baptist or Talkorigins or other 'official antichristian' sites.

I have to tell you - The Christian texts are not mine. I was lucky enough to come across them one day. It turns out that they are the way out the box. Truth will set you Free as they say (and error binds us).
Good times.

The only people still using the word 'fundamentalism' are Wiccans and antichristian internet keeners who think it means something.
'Fundamentalism' was a term sorta flown about in the 80s (i mean in any popular sense) to describe a certain sort of Christian sects.
They did not really pan out anyways.

Now its just people like you who call any Christians who do not admit the faith is worthless as being 'fundamentalists'.
Its kinda like how people call someone opposed to gay marriage an 'extremist' in a sorta way to 'lower the bar' on whats acceptable to them.
Even though such a position is actually well within the mainstream.

I would not even come close to be a 'fundamentalist' even by your very narrow intention of the word.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.
My name-calling is not to be included in the debate - its actualy just a 'bonus' you get after the debate disfavours your wacky ideas.

 

For Pete's sake his screen name is heron (as in a bird), Huron is a group of Native peoples that belong to the Iroquoian language group.

You have now shown that you know nothing about American Prodestantism history...

Fundamentalist and Modernist (Christians) were terms used even before the Scopes trial, and newspapers in the 20's and 30's had regular large articles about the clash between fundamentalists and modernists. Darby (19th Cent.) is sometimes seen as the father of fundamentalism, but really it all came about together. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fundamentalism#Brief_history

 

.. and you need to stop reading Wikipedia and look at what I said and why.
I guess if you were wise enough you would INSTANTLY realise that Heron is NOT using the word to describe what he thinks is a early 20th century American term of a 'Fundamentalist' in the place and time as opposed to Modernists.
(although he is crazy so nothing would surprise me)
Does he think you are a 'Modernists' as opposed to a 'Fundamentalist'?
No.

I can make SOME assumptions and one of them is that Heron is NOT nearly 100 years old and he and I would know that terms from the 80s version of 'Fundamentalism'.
Unlike you I dont need to go read others versions on Wikipedia because I LIVED THROUGH THAT TIME.
And btw.. I DID NOT suggest that the modern popular usage (which among Christians hasnt been used much since the 80's) is the way he means it.
Thats WHY I went on to suggest he is using it in the current and pretty much only way its used anymore - To describe a non-Liberal Christian.

NOTHING I have stated here would give YOU or Heron ANY reason to think I was involved in a 30's debate with ..'Modernists' would it.
No.

If this WAS 1988 I would not even be CLOSE to the realm of what were dubbed 'Fundamentalists' but only now - in HIpforums would I be considered a 'Fundamentalists.

 

Erasmus, you seem like you have a lot of knowledge, but in having it, you refuse to let more in.

Nothing I have stated in regards to the bible have a "wiccan" source. Most of what i have said of the Old Testament was from interviews of Jewish people and Rabbis.

You accuse me of making it up, but apparently there is a bunch of Jewish people doing the same thing.

And honestly, i couldnt care less what is and isnt allowed for Jews. I am not jewish, and their god was never giving these rules to my people. If, IF, i was going to think the desert god was the one big one, i would only have follow the Noahide Laws, not the laws of Abraham, or Hagar, and certainly not the laws of Moses. Ask any Jew, they will agree.


Go read your Jesus book, and I will continue to study others faiths, why they believe, and to continue researching the anthropology of the ancient world.

 

Actually I didn't read that off wikipedia. Wikipedia is just a good place to get links to back your info up. I read it in a book called "Stealing Jesus: how Fundamentalism Betrays Christianity" and I found it to be a really good read, although it is written by a gay guy, so lots of people will proobly discredit right there and won't pick it up. Fundamentalims has become the norm, and it never was before. The historc Baptists were quite liberal, believing that you an acctually use your brain without it being tampered with by the devil, and never wanted God legalized in any way. Now they are the ones pushing for prayer in schools and such. Fundamentalism is a style of Christianity that rose out of an uneducated fear of the Higher Criticism.

And I didn't understnad the rest of your post really, sorry.

 

Ok.. now we are talking Burbot

Im now going to have a flashback to the 80s and here again you get back to the actual instances of 'fundamentalism' and what caused it to take off in the 80s - Higher Critisism.
Now again, there is no point in me going on about Higher Critisism as it was established and popularised in Pre-WW2 Germany either.
What we are knowing and thinking about is the school of Higher Critisism that had its big surge and run during the 80s, best known from 'The Jesus Seminar' and was seen and heard mostly through Time or Macleans Magazine or AE 'Bible Documentaries' etc.
Thats what we know when we use the term.

I do agree with you that 'fundamentalism' really got its big kickstart as a 'reaction' to the virtual Tsunami of 'Higher Critisism' which really did just blow through Christendom like a tidal wave.
Dont be surprised when I agree with you that 'fundamentalism' was (at least in a large part) a reaction and it was very appealing to those 'knee jerk' types not capable of dealing with the intellectual issues presented by 'Jesus Seminar' christianity.

Trust me I know - our Denomination got stuck right in the eye of the storm on this!
Those were some wild days let me tell you.

What people should understand is that, at that time the 'fundamentalists' dubbed themselves as such and a 'war of sorts' started in the Christian Denoms which ultimately ended up with many of the self-described 'Fundamentalists' going there own way (or getting asked to leave as in our case) and they went on to start a lot of their own schools at that time.
In some cases full on 'Church Splits' happened and in others like mine it was just a lot of 'ugly infighting'.

This was a bitter time but the fact is that the Fundamentalists proved so unpopular with Christians and Secular people alike that the word itself is being used by Liberal theologians and Secular Critics as a buzz-word strategy to 'scare down' the ones who fought off the fundamentalists in the first place.
Divide and conquer.
Ok.. Divide and 'Soften' is more like it.
This is gonna make sense in a second so bare with me...

Why is it that we find people like yourself (and you hear this a lot in popular secular media, books, pundits, hipforums etc) why do we hear you saying that 'fundamentalism' has somehow become a growing threat, is increasing and is 'getting worse'

.and on the other side...

Over and over we hear more and more complaints from Christian scholars, leaders, pundits about how Christianity is increasingly becoming more 'liberal' with growing schools of 'higher critisism' and increasingly secular and as Christians say - 'More Worldly'.

Whats going on here?
How can both be seeing the different things??

Its pretty obvious to me what is happening.
Both Liberal Christians and AntiChristians can benefit by doing nothing more than 'Lowering the Ceiling'.
As long as that Ceiling is called 'Fundamentalism' they can count on the 'middle of the spectrum' to avoid it at all costs and push itself over to the 'Left'.
Both of those Camps know full well that the one thing no mainstream Christian wants to be is a 'Fundamentalist.
Its still conjers up terrible emotional flashbacks for me almost 20 years later!

So the stategy is to (and so slowly its almost gone unnoticed) 'Lower the standards' needed before 'Fundie' status is threatened against the Christian.
Each time, the bank on the predictale fact that the affable peaceful Christian will run the other way.

Sadly this has been working very well and the funny thing is that I havent barely seen or heard from an 'actual fundamentalist' since 1990 lol!

You might tell me that its the other way around and that whats actually causing the seemingly contrarian perception is that 'mainstream christianity' has been the one to 'raise the centre'?
The problem is that this is simply not the case when you just take a big broad look at the state of The Church as a whole.

Examples: In all the centuries and right up until the last 20 years (and even say 6-7 years) it was very very well withing the limits of moderate, totally mainstream, everyday Christianity that a Church would completely dismiss the possibility of 'same sex marriage'.
That was such a given that nobody, not even harsh critics would be slightly surprised or describe it as any sort of extreme.
I cant overemphasise how that would apply to the most 'liberal' to the ordinary and so on.
A totally 'moderate' stance. Easily.
Now - you can find even the most 'traditionally conservative' denominations actually holding conventions to debate this topic!
Even if they reject it - the fact they are even entertaining it seriously would have been easily (and by popular outside standards) been considered 'extremely liberal and secular!'.

Can you even believe that just a few generations ago all denominations were opposed to birth control.
It was just a 'given' position and easily considered a moderate stand.
Ones who were just 'silent' on the issue would have been considered very moderate, liberal denoms by even secular humanists standards.

Women as ordained Ministers was considered easily well over to the 'liberal' side of things and Churches doing so would have, just a few years ago, been considered to have fallen to 'higher critisism' types of thinking to acccept such things.
Now that is pretty much mainstream.
Its actually being turned around to where Denoms that do NOT accept the liberal way are now said to have moved to the conservative end.. but in fact they did not move anywhere.
The Bar was moved over in order to make them appear further to the right on the new scale.

The 'Floor' has been raised on the other end too.
A few generations ealier and Jesus Seminar types would have been easily considered well past the extreme 'left' and well into the realm of full on heretics.
Somehow, what just recently was considered full fledged apostacy is now moved so far away (by the shifted scale) that you can just about be a satanist and still not falling within the 'new standards' being set?

So Yes - If you are gonna lower that threshold farther and farther to where now what 'was a moderate' is now nearly an extremist - then yes, you certainly would be seeing a lot of 'increasing fundamentalism' with the your new standards you have set.

If you lower the age of Senior Citizen Status from 60 to 55 then suddenly there will seem to be a lot more Seniors everywhere wont there?

The best answer to this will be when Christendom stops letting other people (and/or its most liberal side) dictate where the 'fundamentalist' bar is and what it means.

As an example: Actually I dont care if real 'Fundamentalists' believed Homosexuals should be getting the death penalty!
I continue holding the very moderate Christian position that its unhelpful and harmful behavior which, at the very least is not going to be sanctioned or condoned by the Church.
Dont lie to me and try and 'threaten me' with accusations that Im a 'fundamentalist' or that I have moved anywhere else in the scale of Christendom.
I have not.
The Critics and the secular world are the ones who have shifted their standards - not me.
They did so in hopes that I will be afraid and then move my position closer to theirs in order to avoid being called a bad name.
Im not gonna be forced into a false dichotemy that tries to tell me either I do the 'opposite of fundamentalists' or else Im 'more like them'.
Bull.

Finally, I think my last point had another tidbit worth considering.
If you insist on calling (what used to be) typical and even moderate positions 'extreme' or 'fundamentalist'
Then..
What do you call people who do hold real extreme fundamentalist views?
I mean.. words cease having usefull meaning when we use them for everything we want.
If you call everyone over the age of 45 'Senior Citizens' then what is left for someone who actually is 90 to be called?
Just a little secondary complaint there.

 

Ok, I will agree with you that there probobly has been a little of slipping over this past century for what constitutes a "fundamentalist", but I do not think that the large increase in people who qualify as fundamentalists today is wholey based on this slip in perspective

Using your example of same sex marrige, I think the real debate there is that the people opposed to it believe that marrige is wholey under God, but will deny same sex civil unins, because it is against od. The people for same sex unions see it as a civil battle, while the opposition sees it as a spiritual battel. That is the big difference between the two camps and I personally don't understand how you can deny civil liberties to a person based on your specific theological beliefs [but this is neither her nor there, if you, or anyone else wishes to continue this line of debate, feel free to PM me].

Just for sake of argument, and so we are able to sort of "quantify" what constitutes a fundie, what sort of characteristics would you ascribe to one? The main thing for me is that they will label other Christians as un(or anti)Christian if they don't subscribe to the exact doctrine of their own congegation or sect. For example, once out for supper a few of my friends (all christian, ad one athiest) were out for supper after a play we did at a church. The play was about Crystal Meth, and the pastor gave a short sermon after (in which he dealt with homosexuality, which is a whole other mess and story) and the pastors wife at dinner stared (from my understanding) ragging on and shouting at the athiest about how horrible a person he was. Only one of my friends stuck up for him and defended him, and then was called "unChristian" for it. That woman I would calssify as a fundamentalist. Pat Robertson would be another.

 

I think it's important to understand that it's the people as a whole, as a society, that has changed and gotten more "liberal" in that it has become progressive, changing with the times. So, since the people ARE the church, of course the church (christianity) has in general become more liberal. And the people who are behind the times (as far as gay rights, birth control, and women's rights) are of course going to be called conservative. It isn't a conspiracy, it's a product of our times and the change inherent in it.