0
   

Fundamentalism and literalism.

 
 
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2004 12:48 am
Is there a difference between fundamentalism and literalism. Obviously, fundamentalists are literalists, but is the converse true?

In the past, I have used the two terms interchangably, perhaps in error.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 987 • Replies: 4
No top replies

 
mosheb
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Aug, 2004 01:56 am
fundamentalists certainly aren't literalists. Thats because there is usually quite a lot of literature, so it matters what you would be a literalist of. For example. in judaism, modern fudemantalists don't adhere at all to the letter of the bible, but rather to all kinds of newer things, that were written as a commentary for it. Tis is something that can be observed in many religions, that the fundamentalist actually are quite far from the meaning of the scripture. maybe you think so because in Christianity, fundamentalism is usually connected to protestants, and they are stimes literalists
0 Replies
 
coluber2001
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Aug, 2004 08:55 pm
By "literalist" I mean taking religious myths, symbols, and texts literally rather than figuratively as metaphors.
0 Replies
 
dauer
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Aug, 2004 09:40 pm
I'm pretty sure a Jewish fundie could take a text on more than the plain meaning. The Jewish approach to tanakh is often within four levels.

Quote:
Pshat: often inaccurately translated as literal, Pshat comes from the root which means simple, although Pshat is sometimes anything but simple! Pshat correctly means the intended meaning (the opposite of Drash! see below). The problem is, one person's pshat is another person's drash!


Remez: alluded meaning (reading between the lines). Remez in modern Hebrew means hint. Traditionally, remez referred to methods such as gematria (word-number values)


Drash: drawn out meaning. Homiletical or interpretative meaning. The word 'midrash' is from the same root. The drash is an interpretation that is not explicit in the text, in other words, not pshat.


Sod: (lit. secret). The mystical or esoteric meaning.


http://www.kolel.org/pages/parasha/torah.shtml

I could be wrong and if so, someone please correct me.

Dauer
0 Replies
 
Moishe3rd
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Aug, 2004 06:26 am
dauer wrote:
I'm pretty sure a Jewish fundie could take a text on more than the plain meaning. The Jewish approach to tanakh is often within four levels.

Quote:
Pshat: often inaccurately translated as literal, Pshat comes from the root which means simple, although Pshat is sometimes anything but simple! Pshat correctly means the intended meaning (the opposite of Drash! see below). The problem is, one person's pshat is another person's drash!


Remez: alluded meaning (reading between the lines). Remez in modern Hebrew means hint. Traditionally, remez referred to methods such as gematria (word-number values)


Drash: drawn out meaning. Homiletical or interpretative meaning. The word 'midrash' is from the same root. The drash is an interpretation that is not explicit in the text, in other words, not pshat.


Sod: (lit. secret). The mystical or esoteric meaning.


http://www.kolel.org/pages/parasha/torah.shtml

I could be wrong and if so, someone please correct me.

Dauer


Sod is a little bit too literal. :wink: I have never heard of anyone speak of Sod as the definition for esoteric or mystical. It is simply one pshat :wink: that encompasses the vast realm of the mystical.

As you pointed out, all of the above are somewhat loose definitions in terms of rigidly defining what Torah or halacha is.

The main thing is though, as was pointed out, fundamentalist is a inaccurate description of both Jewish and Moslem strong believers. It was originally used as a Christian description. And may be applicable there.

In Judaism, one must be highly educated in the Torah in order to have a valid "strong" opinion on Jewish belief. If one simply reads through Tanach as an "inspiring scripture," that may lead him closer to G-d, but he has no basis for his opinions on what it all means. He is simply responding emotionally to where ever his inspiration leads him.
In order to be a valid teacher or "preacher" on Judaism, one must have a deep understanding of 3,000 years of source material for one's opinions.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Fundamentalism and literalism.
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/10/2024 at 07:35:26