Fundamentalism: What it is, what it isn't. Who is or isn't a fundie?

[Wind Song]

This topic of fundamentalism came up on another thread and I think it deserves it's own thread. Fundamentalism is explained in wikepedia and I will go and get that link so that we are at least on the same page with the topic.

The first formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs can be traced to the Niagara Bible Conference and, in 1910, to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, which distilled these into what became known as the "five fundamentals":[7] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-6)

The inspiration (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Biblical_inspiration) of the Bible and the inerrancy (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Inerrancy) of scripture as a result of this.
The virgin birth (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Virgin_birth_of_Jesus) of Christ.
The belief that Christ's death was the atonement (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Atonement_in_Christianity) for sin.
The bodily resurrection of Christ (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Resurrection_of_Christ).
The historical reality of Christ's miracles (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Miracles_attributed_to_Jesus).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism

[revelarts]

Thanks for getting a historical reference at least and not using the word in the derisive ways you have done over and over.

But Are you a BUDDHie?

Maybe i'll start a thread.
Buddhism: What it is, what it isn't. Who is or isn't a Buddhie?

do you think i can explain it?

[Wind Song]

Why don't you say what fundamentalism is to you, rev?

[Wind Song]

Buddhist fundamentalism shows it's ugly head in sectarianism. That would be one branch of Buddhism claiming it is superior to all others. It has happened in history that one form of Buddhism tried to outlaw, suppress and in some cases even kill those of another Buddhist sect.

The danger of fundamentalism is narrowness, IMO.

[Thunderknuckles]

I thought the title of this thread was about fundamentalism in general and not as it pertains to any specific belief?
In general, fundamentalism is the strict adherence to the fundamental principles of any belief system and is very intolerant not only to opposing views of other beliefs but intolerant to differing interpretations within the fundamentalist belief. Fundamentalism can be found within any belief system.

I am not a "fundie".

[Wind Song]

I thought the title of this thread was about fundamentalism in general and not as it pertains to any specific belief?
In general, fundamentalism is the strict adherence to the fundamental principles of any belief system and is very intolerant not only to opposing views of other beliefs but intolerant to differing interpretations within the fundamentalist belief. Fundamentalism can be found within any belief system.

I am not a "fundie".

Yes, the topic is fundamentalism in general. It can be found in all religions.

Fundamentalist Buddhism:

"In his recently published book Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist, scholar and former Buddhist monk Stephen Batchelor (http://www.stephenbatchelor.org/stephenbio.html) has argued against literalist interpretations of some core Buddhist teachings, namely, reincarnation and karma.

For Batchelor, the Buddha never taught anything of the sort; rather, reincarnation and karma are part of a larger Indian religious worldview, doctrines that became attached to Buddhism as it developed in South Asia, doctrines that we can leave aside and still confidently call ourselves Buddhists. In fact, he seems to want to jettison reincarnation and karma unceremoniously as the only way to preserve Buddhism in the modern world. Batchelor, one could argue, is a fundamentalist in his atheism."
http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Fundamentalist-Buddhists-Fundamentalist-People.html

[KarlMarx]

This topic of fundamentalism came up on another thread and I think it deserves it's own thread. Fundamentalism is explained in wikepedia and I will go and get that link so that we are at least on the same page with the topic.

The first formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs can be traced to the Niagara Bible Conference and, in 1910, to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, which distilled these into what became known as the "five fundamentals":[7] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-6)

The inspiration (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Biblical_inspiration) of the Bible and the inerrancy (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Inerrancy) of scripture as a result of this.
The virgin birth (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Virgin_birth_of_Jesus) of Christ.
The belief that Christ's death was the atonement (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Atonement_in_Christianity) for sin.
The bodily resurrection of Christ (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Resurrection_of_Christ).
The historical reality of Christ's miracles (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Miracles_attributed_to_Jesus).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism



Thanks for the information. However, except for the first and last bullets, these are the tenants of the Christian Faith. Actually, the Nicene Creed outlines what Christians have to believe and still be Christians

On the first and last bullets, i.e. the divine inspiration of the Bible and the inerrancy of scripture. You said that it led to "narrowmindedness". I suppose that what some may call "narrow mindedness" would be called orthodoxy to others. The early church was plagued by a great many heresies, Gnosticism, Arianism, and so forth. Many of the so called "gospels" that were omitted from the New Testament are in fact the product of these heresies. I would claim that it is necessary to the faith to believe that that the scripture is inerrant. If you do not say that they are and that they are open to interpretation, you run the risk of allowing the passions of the day to dictate religious dogma. That is why the Church is often accused of being closed minded and not open to change. The Church is not a democracy and its beliefs are not open to a vote. You either believe in what the scriptures say is so, or you don't.

I doubt anyone would try to advocate that the Buddhists abandon their belief in reincarnation, the four noble truths and the eightfold noble path. If you did, you wouldn't be Buddhist, now would you? The same goes for Christians.

[KarlMarx]

Yes, the topic is fundamentalism in general. It can be found in all religions.

Fundamentalist Buddhism:

"In his recently published book Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist, scholar and former Buddhist monk Stephen Batchelor (http://www.stephenbatchelor.org/stephenbio.html) has argued against literalist interpretations of some core Buddhist teachings, namely, reincarnation and karma.

For Batchelor, the Buddha never taught anything of the sort; rather, reincarnation and karma are part of a larger Indian religious worldview, doctrines that became attached to Buddhism as it developed in South Asia, doctrines that we can leave aside and still confidently call ourselves Buddhists. In fact, he seems to want to jettison reincarnation and karma unceremoniously as the only way to preserve Buddhism in the modern world. Batchelor, one could argue, is a fundamentalist in his atheism."
http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Fundamentalist-Buddhists-Fundamentalist-People.html

Seems odd that Buddha didn't believe in reincarnation when he was raised a Hindu andwas a Hindu ascetic before meditating under the Banyan tree. Not that I'm an expert on the subject, but didn't Buddha attain a state of Nirvana after he died? That is, he broke the cycle of death and rebirth? Guess not according to Mr Batchelor....

well, it's cold comfort knowing that atheists throw their barbs at other religions, too .. the one thing they seem to do best is try their hardest in not believing in anything! :)

[avatar4321]

As far as I'm concerned a fundamentalist Christian is merely one who wants to get back to the fundamental basics found in the Bible.

That isn't necessarily a bad position in my honest opinion. This world would be much better off if people actually lived the fundamentals of the Bible. Unfortunately, most don't, even those fundamentalists.

[tailfins]

I'm a Fundamental Baptist. I agree with all the points in the OP, but would modify it thus:

The inspiration of the Authorized 1611 King James Bible and the inerrancy of scripture as a result of this.

[PostmodernProphet]

obviously it's going to be difficult for you folks to discuss fundamentalism since you cannot agree what it is even while you think you have......

first it's defined by it's original Christian theological definition, then applied by the same person who proposed that definition to Buddhists, who I am quite certain do not believe in the "inerrancy" of the Christian scriptures....
then you have those using it in it's present day non-theological form, as well as one who argues inerrancy only applies to the biblical translations of a gathering of Latin scholars.....

[PostmodernProphet]

besides, nowdays I find the most common unifying factor of fundamentalists is their belief in the inerrancy of their ideas......

[tailfins]

obviously it's going to be difficult for you folks to discuss fundamentalism since you cannot agree what it is even while you think you have......

first it's defined by it's original Christian theological definition, then applied by the same person who proposed that definition to Buddhists, who I am quite certain do not believe in the "inerrancy" of the Christian scriptures....
then you have those using it in it's present day non-theological form, as well as one who argues inerrancy only applies to the biblical translations of a gathering of Latin scholars.....

You are thinking of the Latin Vulgate. The Authorized King James is specifically free of influence from the Latin Vulgate. Any "bible" influenced by the Latin Vulgate is an apostate "bible".

[tailfins]

besides, nowdays I find the most common unifying factor of fundamentalists is their belief in the inerrancy of their ideas......

I see that in the South. Many Southern churches worship Southern culture more than Jesus.

[Wind Song]

Just a small point I'd like to make. Hindu's believe in reincarnation, Buddhists talk about rebirth. They are different. Reincarnation implies there is something permanent like a soul with personality that reincarnates to another body. So what "goes" is closer to a Christian concept of an eternal soul.

Buddhists talk about rebirth. We are the only religion with teachings on emptiness. It is NOT an eternal soul with a personality that moves from one body to the next.

Buddhists talk about being reborn in one of the six realms of cyclic existence. This occurs until enlightenment. What is reborn? Consciousness and karma. Neither are solid, permanent or self-existing.

Consciousness doesn't have a personality.

[revelarts]

Buddhist fundamentalism shows it's ugly head in sectarianism. That would be one branch of Buddhism claiming it is superior to all others. It has happened in history that one form of Buddhism tried to outlaw, suppress and in some cases even kill those of another Buddhist sect.

The danger of fundamentalism is narrowness, IMO.

Can you show me in the 5 point definition you posted at the beginning anything that says there's a need to kill or oppress other groups?

What is your definition of fundamentalism? You ALWAY use it in the negative.
And it doesn't seem to mean the 5 points.

[Wind Song]

Can you show me in the 5 point definition you posted at the beginning anything that says there's a need to kill or oppress other groups?

What is your definition of fundamentalism? You ALWAY use it in the negative.
And it doesn't seem to mean the 5 points.


I never said that there is a need to kill or oppress other groups that is inherent to fundamentalism. I pointed to one fundamentalist, Martin Ssempa who drafted the "kill gays" legislation in Uganda, and another, Scott Lively, whose mission, he brags, "sets off an atomic bomb on gays worldwide". Then there is Fred Phelps.

Those are examples of fundamentalism in the negative. I don't view all fundamentalists negatively. I notice that problematic religious extremism worldwide leans decidely in the fundamentalist direction. Consider the Muslim extremists, as an example.

Fundamentalism appears problematic to non-fundamentalists. They're so damn serious. Let's put the fun back in fundamentalism.

[revelarts]

I never said that there is a need to kill or oppress other groups that is inherent to fundamentalism. I pointed to one fundamentalist, Martin Ssempa who drafted the "kill gays" legislation in Uganda, and another, Scott Lively, whose mission, he brags, "sets off an atomic bomb on gays worldwide". Then there is Fred Phelps.

Those are examples of fundamentalism in the negative. I don't view all fundamentalists negatively. I notice that problematic religious extremism leans decidely in the fundamentalist direction. Consider the Muslim extremists, as an example.

Fundamentalism appears problematic to non-fundamentalists.

Can you give me some examples of what you'd consider positive fundamentalist?

[Wind Song]

The early movers of fundamentalism were very effective in growing its numbers, especially as the old denominational churches and seminaries were falling to theological liberalism, and conservatives from within those denominations, not wishing to give up the fight, often joined with the fundamentalists in their efforts. But it was always an uneasy alliance. Whereas fundamentalists saw the need to expand their new “movement,” the conservative evangelicals saw themselves as merely holding to what was already established: "It seems strange to suggest that we are adherents to some strange new sect,” wrote J. Gresham Machen, “whereas in point of fact we are conscious simply maintaining the historic Christian faith & of moving in the great central current of Christian life."

Machen saw the following as weaknesses in fundamentalism: (1) the absence of a historical perspective; (2) the lack of appreciation for scholarship; (3) the substitution of brief, skeletal creeds for historic confessions; (4) the lack of concern for precise formulation of Christian doctrine.
In the eyes of the broader Christian public, the militant nature of fundamentalism, from its inception, was often more apparent than its biblicism -- thus the term “fighting fundamentalist.”
http://www.faithbiblechurchnh.org/compk_fundamentalism.htm

[Wind Song]

Can you give me some examples of what you'd consider positive fundamentalist?


The fundamentalists that are consistently non-violent. In other words, they oppose the death penalty, and abortion. They would abstain from serving as soldiers in war. I consider that positive fundamentalism.

Consistent practices and views of not harming.

[tailfins]

Can you give me some examples of what you'd consider positive fundamentalist?

I know you directed this at WS. My response would be: do a Google Images search on "German Baptist".

[Wind Song]

Nicheren and Pureland Buddhism are examples of positive fundamentalism.

[Wind Song]

This is not MY definition of fundamentalism but it is A definition:


A fundamentalist is someone who, with missionary, martyr, or terrorist zeal, is doctrinaire: she or he rigidly adheres to—and actively propagandizes to others—the fundamentals of this-or-that religion or ideology as it (supposedly) first appeared on the historical scene. The fundamentalist, however, gives little serious attention to subsequent intellectual developments surrounding that religion or ideology. In other words, he or she substantially discounts or rejects Modernism, and is alienated from contemporary intellectual culture. And there are ur-texts and historical moments that take on sacred status for the fundamentalist, and they are not to be seriously questioned or reinterpreted.

Hence the connection between, say, a Muslim fundamentalist and a Christian fundamentalist. Both are:


rigidly devoted, in a doctrinaire fashion, to sacred texts;
missionary (or worse) in their zeal; and
battle, discount, or simply ignore the contemporary intellectual scene.



http://santitafarella.wordpress.com/2012/01/19/what-is-a-fundamentalist/

[Wind Song]

"A fundamentalist," Jerry Falwell once said to me, "is an Evangelical with guts."

http://sites.silaspartners.com/cc/article/0,,PTID314526_CHID598014_CIID2396820,00.html (http://sites.silaspartners.com/cc/article/0,,PTID314526_CHID598014_CIID2396820,00.html)

[tailfins]

"A fundamentalist," Jerry Falwell once said to me, "is an Evangelical with guts."

http://sites.silaspartners.com/cc/article/0,,PTID314526_CHID598014_CIID2396820,00.html (http://sites.silaspartners.com/cc/article/0,,PTID314526_CHID598014_CIID2396820,00.html)

Yet he was accepting enough to be friends with Larry Flynt.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-flynt20may20,0,2751741.story

[Wind Song]

Yet he was accepting enough to be friends with Larry Flynt.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-flynt20may20,0,2751741.story

Your point?

[revelarts]

Windsong, I think in general the term Fundamentalist usually is use in a negative way, and has a connotation of harsh strict and severe at minimum. But as you point out in the initial post, and a few others have mentioned it was a just a way for traditional Christians to outline the basics of there faith.

The idea of the Bible as God's word, authoritative and the normal plain understanding of what it says is the most honest and faithful. A real virgin birth, A real resurrection, Jesus is a real savoir. Is the basic idea it seems to me. but many people have a problem with what the Bible says and so have attacked the "fundamentalist" as bad people because they were not politically correct.

You yourself say a positive fundamentalist agrees with your understanding of politics.

But in general the neg connotation has stuck and the term spread to other uses.
Even though most of what the "fundamentalist" espoused has been what Christianity has professed since the Nicaea creed from around 300 AD..

it is traditional Christianity. what many Christians now say is: " maybe the Bible isn't really the word of God, it's just a collection of writings, Jesus rose from the dead , Spiritually, but not physically, that'd be a miracle which is not scientific. God didn't create men the earth or the universe If he did it's by evolution. Adam and Eve were not real, LOL. "
But they say they are Christians becuase they believe SOME of what Jesus said about God and being good people somehow. Because it's good.
Frankly...IMO... it's just a weird position to take.
it's like saying i can just ignore what I don't like about Bible and the story of Jesus as if I'm at a buffet. It seems to me dishonest to be much less than a "fundamentalist" if you claim you BELIEVE a religion or ARE a Christian, Hindu, Buddhist etc... I guess people just enjoy religion light. But it seems they are not very serious about the foundation of what they say they believe. Now, if a person diggs out chucks they think are true and make a NEW religion, that fine it seems to me. but to claim that they are an adherent to what was started 1000s of years ago and treating those who haven't changed as the outsiders is hijacking the original faith.

People can believe what they like , of course, but IMO non "fundamentalist" are dishonest with their foundational docs and traditions whatever faith they profess.

[tailfins]

Your point?

My point is that at least some Fundamentalists don't treat their adversaries like crap.

[Wind Song]

My point is that at least some Fundamentalists don't treat their adversaries like crap.


Good for them. May those who treat their adversaries with respect grow in numbers so that all may benefit.

[PostmodernProphet]

You are thinking of the Latin Vulgate. The Authorized King James is specifically free of influence from the Latin Vulgate. Any "bible" influenced by the Latin Vulgate is an apostate "bible".

I suggest you reexamine the source of the King James translation......at the time only a dozen or so partial manuscripts of the original Greek and Hebrew texts were even available......at best you should be using the Revised King James version which eliminated the known errors.....

[PostmodernProphet]

battle, discount, or simply ignore the contemporary intellectual scene.





given the general state of contemporary intellectualism, this would be the positive in fundamentalism......