Aristibule, I'm still not clear how you are making the distinction between dogma and principles. Perhaps if you could answer GiC's question to you:...
Remember how you accused Deacon Lance of it and it turned out you were wrong? Please allow the possibility that you may be wrong again.
Oz, I already answered GiC's question - one can lead a horse to water, etc. And, the second part - that is not quite how it went. Deacon Lance accused us, and turned out it was wrong - he apologized for his assumption, and I gladly accepted, and we continued with gentlemanly discussion. I wasn't wrong in that case.
All religion, be it from revelation or otherwise, either derives from a philosophy, is a philosophy, or is the source of a philosophy that must logically follow, and must rationally be approached in that manner. When we're objectively defining terms, we can't have prejudice towards or against a given system of beliefs.
I disagree, and under that definition then do not have 'religion'. That isn't the derivation, existence, source or approach of the Faith of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Is your assertion what they teach at Holy Cross?
This argument seems to be along the lines of what one hears from the 'Christianity is not a Religion, it's a relationship' crowd. It's the creation of a double standard, exempting oneself from the logical conclusions of their rhetoric. The OP dealt with the issue of fundamentalism, the discussion continued to objectively define fundamentalism. You then attempted to construct a definition that would somehow exempt Christianity (as properly practiced in your eyes) from that definition by essentially arguing that Christianity is special and thereby exempt from the criticism appropriate to all other religions.
Yup, that's my crowd - and Orthodox Christianity is special. And, no - I didn't 'attempt to construct' anything. Of course, much of Christianity *is* Fundamentalist, precisely because it attempts to conform to your first assertion of "all religion ... derives from philosophy, et al." I suppose it is because my own background differs fairly with your own (ie, being raised in traditional folk societies, close contact with Judaism, etc.) My assertion, of course, is that while there are various types of philosophies one may hold and be Orthodox, Orthodoxy itself is not a philosphy, nor dependent on philosphy. The definition of Fundamentalism, however, requires philosophy - and strict adherence to the assumptions that a philosophy requires.
So are these people too not fundamentalists? Well, if you can't include these people in the definition of fundamentalism, what's the purpose of your definition? Since it fails to include those who are considered fundamentalists by the common usage of the term in society. Or would you argue that that is different because this revelation is not true? If so, your definition is biased and subjective.
No, I would argue that my defintion is the common usage, and yours is one of several 'popular definitions' that is not in the majority. I would also argue that Wahabism does meet the definition of Fundamentalism, as it has first principles that it consistently adheres to, and a foundation in a political philosophy (which many Muslims find contrary to Islam.)
The fact that your argument was unclear and vague at times is part of my criticism, as well as the fact that it did not seem to be objectively applied.
I apologize for being unclear and vague, as my language isn't 'normative' for the usual level of public discourse these days - Dr. David Weeks of the Royal Edinburgh Hospital wrote some on linguistic patterns common to my type after a study he did through the '80s and early 90s. I beg to differ with your assertion of 'fact', however (especially as 'fact' and 'seem' are concepts that ill-fit being used in the same phrase - one has a pretense of objectivity, the other the odour of subjectivity.)