Good for you mike! By virtue of apostolic succession Catholics and Orthodox alike can trace themselves back to the times of peter and paul, the fundementalists are deaf to history. Keep up the good work!

I'm Roman Catholic but if your spiritual journey takes you to Orthodoxy, that is all well and good too, we are quite close theologially speaking!

There will still be Catholic and Orthodox Churches long after fundementalism becomes a mere historical oddity akin to Arinism and Albegensism.

I have to agree. As a former Catholic, now atheist, I don't think you can separate Christian beliefs from the Christian institution of religion. When you do that, every Joe Schmo/Plumber thinks they're a biblical scholar. But really, Christianity grew up as an institution and it has meaning in the traditions of the mass and other celebrations.
A friend of mine has a great quote... I don't have it word for word but it is to the effect of, "If you're going to do something, do it all the way. If you're going to be Christian, be Catholic."

I guess this argument takes a different spin depending on your definition of "religion". The Webster dictionary definition is this:

1. A.Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
B.A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

Most people's problems with "religion" are usually focused on definition 1b, specifically "institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship", taken to mean that they think the praise of the Christ has been hi-jacked by the very institutions that claim to be the "official source" of the religion. I will not cast any dispersions at a specific church or religion, but I think there is validity to the argument that "religion" has taken away from the worship of Jesus specifically. Fundamentalists argue that Jesus is the everything and that organized religion has replaced true worship with meaningless repeated prayers, strict adherence to "church rules", and various other objects or people that are worshipped in addition to Christ. Some of these churches argue that they are the "official church of Jesus" for various reasons totally discounting any of the fundamentalist arguments.

Could it be that the truth lies somewhere in the middle? Could it be that our praise of Jesus has been watered down by man-made conditions, just as it was during Jesus' time of Pharisees and Saducees? Could it be that the large denominational churches hold some of the truth as does fundamentalism? Good article to bring out this debate, but logically as Christians we should search the Bible to find God's opinion on the subject because His is the only one that counts.

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

"By virtue of apostolic succession Catholics and Orthodox alike can trace themselves back to the times of peter and paul, the fundementalists are deaf to history"

Jesus specifically taught that the "religious" leaders in Israel were the worst of God's followers even though they could trace their heritage back to the 12 tribes. Their heritage did not invoke any special treatment from God, but rather His wrath at taking their special place and destroying it with their institutional treatment of a sovereign God. Jesus was all about setting the "religious order" of the day on its ear, and telling it how far off base it had become. Many would argue that several big churches today have succumb to the same fate.

I am going to invoke the first rule of inter-Christian debate... calling someone or some group a Pharisee (or implying such) automatically makes you one.

'in the name of religion':

"the praise of the Christ has been hi-jacked by the very institutions..."
-If praise of Christ has been "hi-jacked" who are you saying the hi-jackers are? Since the Christianity of Rome and Constantinople is the same as was practiced by the likes of Sts. Peter(First Bishop of Rome) and Paul (who brought Christianity to Greece), that is to say it was sacramental, liturgical, hierarchical, apostolic, small "o" orthodox, and small "c" catholic, that would mean that Christianty was hi-jacked from the onset. A better argument could be made that Henry VIII and John Calvin hi-jacked Christianity.

"Most people's problems with "religion" are usually focused on..."
-Most people's problem with "religion" as such is that it makes demands upon them.

"'religion' has taken away from the worship of Jesus specifically."
-Well that depends on the "religion" doesn't it? The Muslim religion surely takes away from the worship of Jesus, so does Unitarianism, but Catholicsm and Orthodoxy are totally orientated to Christ in that they follow they carry out his work on earth in a way other newer Christian groups do not (sacraments.)

"Fundamentalists argue that Jesus is the everything and that organized religion has replaced true worship with meaningless repeated prayers,"
-Didn't Jesus and his apostles sing the Psalms at the last supper? Didn't Jesus teach his apostles to pray the "Our Father"? Shame on them and their meaningless repated prayers.

"strict adherence to "church rules""
-What you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, what you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven...

"Some of these churches argue that they are the "official church of Jesus" for various reasons totally discounting any of the fundamentalist arguments."
-So? Fundementalism (in the context it is being used in your point) is a product of late 19th century rural America. Plenty of Fundementalists totally discount Catholic and Orthodox arguments.

"Could it be that the large denominational churches hold some of the truth as does fundamentalism?"
-Quo veritas? Is there one truth or many in Christianity?

"logically as Christians we should search the Bible to find God's opinion on the subject because His is the only one that counts."
-I don't mean to come down on you so hard because I know you posted in the name of good natured discussion and I am only being so vigorus in defending my side because I know the Catholic-Orthodox side (I know there are plenty of diffrences between Cath. and Orthodox but for all intents and purposes it is the same side in a debate such as this) is not very well known outside of the Catholic-Orthodox community. That said, please notice how your appeal to "logic" requires, ipso facto, that one first accept everything you are saying. If I thought that one's individual meandering through the Bible was the ultimate answer to all religious questions I'd be a Protestant. How do you know that your personal reading is the best one? Frankly, sola scriptura is the anarchists guide to Heaven. There are thousands of ways to interprate the Bible and one can get it to "say" anything. I could use the Bible to make a case for pacifism, I could use the Bible to make a case for war, etc. Here is something for you to consider, did you know that Christianity (i.e. the Church) actually pre-dated the Bible? That's right, for decades and decades the New Test. did not exist! Indeed it did not exist in its present form until 300 years after Christ. Scripture is important, so is tradition, they are not opposing forces, no more than your two kidneys are opposing forces.

"point of contention":

"...institutional treatment of a sovereign God."
-What does this even mean? Isn't the old test. full of explanations of the rules for an "institutional" religion? Didn't God want the Jews to build the temple and have all those rituals? Religion in its best form is a natural and organic instiution (not like the serviant state churches like the "Church of England" imposed during the reformation.)

"Jesus was all about setting the "religious order" of the day on its ear,"
-Granted, so now that he's done that, what's with your attempt to set the religious order Jesus built (on this Rock I shall build my Church)"on its ear"? Rebellion against Christ in the name of following him?

Interesting perspective. I tend to agree that the two cannot be separated.