Religiously Searching for My Faith's Contact Lenses

I was bored and reading up on some of my friends' blogs, since it's been a few weeks. I was looking at my good friend Tommy's blog in which he was talking about how people are ashamed of having labels, along with talking about how it seems like being Baptist or a "fundamentalist" is like a curse word along, same with being Republican. He also spoke on how it's a misnomer of saying "Religion Kills" because of the positive points of religion are being clouded and overshadowed by the negative points. He also spoke about how doubting or not being labeled is a cool thing to do nowadays and spoke on how the "old ways" are being scoffed at by "new ways" because they are old, not because they are ineffective or irrelevant. I agree with most of this, except something struck a nerve with me. Tommy ended a paragraph stating "Are we forgetting the differences between moral relativism and absolute truth?" Need a reference? Read his blog for Dec. 5, 2006 entitled Back from the Dead at http://metaldrummer26.livejournal.com/

Done reading? Let's start with what I agree with Mr. Stewart. For the most part, I agree with a good chunk of Tommy's argument on the "Relgion Kills" statement. However, my view on "Religion Kills" differs from what Mr. Stewart interprets. Since the English language is too limited, I think another purpose behind the "Religion Kills" statement is more to awaken those who are walking through the practice, not the message; doing something because the church says so and doing it blindly, instead of finding and knowing the reason why you think/believe/act and doing what you think/believe/act. If what you think/believe/act happens according to the church, whether by coincidence or learned knowledge from it, that's great. But if you are taking communion because that's what you do before the service is over and that you do it because that's what you do at church, then there's an issue.
I do agree with the whole be proud of your label thing. As humans, we have no choice but to use labels. And being a non-label is a label in it of itself (i.e. Non-denominational is a denomination). I think the trouble is that there aren't enough labels to fully describe what you think/believe. For example, I can say that I'm a wrestling fan, but it doesn't explain my philosophy and feelings on it fully. When I say I'm a wrestling fan, there are the inevitable connections to low intelligence/NASCAR fandom. I then have to say that I'm a college educated wrestling fan...then inevitably a college educated wrestling fan that reads philosophy, etc. See? So maybe people need to pierce further into a person or politician more than just seeing a blue or red background behind his or her name.

However, I feel like I should explain why I'm not a fundamentalist because the whole moral relativism vs. absolute truth argument. The reason why I'm not a fundamentalist isn't because I'm all about "everything's okay" or post-modern thought which I believe Mr. Stewart is making reference to. I'm not a fundamentalist because after my personal research/walk/whatever-you-want-to-call-it, I cannot think the Bible to be totally fact and God breathed. Mind you, I'm still reading and learning, so I don't remain totally, stubbornly firm in my stance. In the grand scheme of things, does it matter if I think the story of Adam and Eve was a metaphor and you think it's fact when we both get the same message out of it?
But does being a non-fundamentalist mean that I'm morally opaque? No! Killing? Wrong! Stealing? Wrong! Raping? Of course it's wrong! Obviously there are some more controversial things to take a stance on such as abortion or pre-marital abstinance in which tradition states that they are morally wrong. I have nothing against tradition, however I am against doing it for tradition's sake. That's one of the reasons why Jesus had to come down in the first place, because everyone focused on the traditions rather than the point behind them. Side note: Before you jump to conclusions, I'm not condoning abortion or pre-marital sex, so set the volume of your objections to the statement to a low hum than booming whoop .
In terms of absolute truth, it's not that I don't think that there is an absolute truth. I just am weary to believe that we have found it, at least fully. It's true we as Christians were blind but now can see, but that doesn't mean that we have full 20/20 vision. Man's pride doesn't wear his glasses when he should all the time. There is still more to learn, more to explore. While we get a better glimpse, I don't think God is fully enclosed in a book (or in truth, a series of books and letters bounded together). If you are fundamentalist, that's fine. I can understand that. However, don't think that those who aren't fundamentalists are skeptic because it's the cool thing to do or resented traditional church in their youth. The main truth is Christ came and died for our benefit. That's enough for me. Is it enough for you?

P.S. Thanks, Tommy. I appreciate your firm stance and excellent thoughts that make me sit, reflect, test, and question my own ideas.