Are Fundamentalists Hijacking the Labels?

[atanu]

Are fundamentalists hijacking the religious labels? When you and others think of a Jew, Christian, Muslim, or Hindu, do you think of a fundamentalist Jew, Christian, Muslim, or Hindu?

For the purposes of this thread, please discuss the four religions known to have fundamentalist movements -- Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism. Also, for the purposes of this thread, Christian Evangelicals may be considered to fall within the fundamentalist camp.

Just as scientism hijacks science.

 

[Villager]

That might be true for some, but the vast majority of atheists I know simply never believed, or converted because it dawned on them that their former faith was fiction.

But then if you are told that an erstwhile leader celebrated the massacre of Protestants by striking a commemorative medal, and you go to your priest to hear him say it's baloney, and all he can do is shrug his shoulders, you might well think of losing your faith. Surely it is far better to be atheist than believe in that sort of deity. If you never believed because you knew that fundamentalism breeds sociopathic behaviour, you are in a similar situation. But of course, Christianity is never like that, so sociopathy is never an excuse to reject it.

Don't you dare use French on me, buster!

Just excuse the French, then. :-)

I urge caution in generalizing about us heathens from what one sees.

I'm aware that not all atheists try make out the RCC to be the original church, and I apologise if I gave that impression. It is, however, a very common phenomenon currently. It is so frequently 'what one sees', and it might make for an improvement in the level of debate if fellow atheists could offer some gentle correction.

 

[JacobEzra.]

I'm aware that not all atheists try make out the RCC to be the original church, and I apologise if I gave that impression. It is, however, a very common phenomenon currently. It is so frequently 'what one sees', and it might make for an improvement in the level of debate if fellow atheists could offer some gentle correction.

When someone knows history, they can not deny it. RC and EO are the original church. Anything else outside of the historical heresies we know about, is new and not even close to original.

In simple words, evangelicalism is not original, Protestantism is not original nor is sda or lds. Neither are they even close to original. all of their beliefs are new and young in the timeline of Christianity.

 

[Willamena]

When someone knows history, they can not deny it. RC and EO are the original church. Anything else outside of the historical heresies we know about, is new and not even close to original.

In simple words, evangelicalism is not original, Protestantism is not original nor is sda or lds. Neither are they even close to original. all of their beliefs are new and young in the timeline of Christianity.

Fundamentalism simliarly isn't fundamental. It arose as a reaction to what was seen, by a group, as others straying too far from what the group consider to be "the basics." The same sort of distinction is made between Islam and Islamic. Whatever is seen as the liberal idea is countered by what is seen as to be a fundamental idea, thrown up to contrast it.

 

[Villager]

It arose as a reaction to what was seen, by a group, as others straying too far from what the group consider to be "the basics."

You refer, I believe, to a particular, rather brief historic movement that no longer exists as such. Fundamentalism (capital 'F') was a movement within American Protestantism that opposed liberalism, and was not necessarily literalist (though, being American, it quite often was literalist about Genesis). It did no more than attempt to keep theologians and clerics to the denominational statements of faith that most of them had signed up to. In other words, it was straight orthodoxy. As we now know, it had only limited success, because, although homosexual bishops are less than fully welcome, all sorts of heterodoxy fill the denominations. (Catholicism also, before Catholics start to think they have an advantage.)

Today, fundamentalism (small 'f') is whatever people want it to be. As explained earlier, it most often refers to the insistence that early Genesis be understood literally (notwithstanding the fact that is contradicts itself if so understood). What is not often recognised is that fundamentalist insistence, originally by means of what would now be criminal violence, was what destroyed the early church, and persists within cults today. That fact must be recognised if society is to progress further out of the barbarism of previous eras.

 

[godtrap]

Just as scientism hijacks science.

Sorry, what the hell is scientism?

 

[godtrap]

What is not often recognised is that fundamentalist insistence, originally by means of what would now be criminal violence, was what destroyed the early church, and persists within cults today. That fact must be recognised if society is to progress further out of the barbarism of previous eras.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but on what do you base the statement that fundamentalism is what destroyed the early church?

 

[ohhcuppycakee]

Of course they are. The extremists are the ones that scream louder so people are more likely to listen. Moderate religious people get no press! People want to see drama.