Christian fundamentalism - What is it and is the term helpful?

[Muffled]

Exactly, except for one detail. It's not "similarities" with other religions. The more precise term would be "commonalities".

In Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc, fundamentalism always reacts negatively to modernity (and about 12 or so other things that I can't recall with certainty at the moment). By that, I mean it usually accepts modern technology, along with modern medicine and a few other modern things, but overall it rejects modernity in most of the forms that modernity takes.

For instance, you will everywhere find precisely the same opposition to modern notions that a woman should be equal to her partner in marriage.

I believe some things like loving you neighbor will never go out of style.

 

[Shad]

That wasn't my claim. That's a deflection from happened. It seems you prefer to make Trump look good by focusing on exaggerated claims than the facts. Trump made a bonehead comment, and foolish people were harmed.

Nope I pointed out what he actually said as you didn't bother doing research

NYC Poison Control Sees Uptick In Calls After Trump's Disinfectant Comments

Correlation does not equal causation. See son you need to establish a given report of ingestion was due to what Trump said and not other factors. Factors such as people doing it off their own accord. People that used a product on their counter for cleaning then put food on said counter contaminating said food. People using the product on to clean their food. Try again son.

Chris Cuomo wife baths in Clorox. Are you going to blame Trump for that too based on assertions?

What kind of person thinks that one can safely inject or ingest disinfectants beside a three-year old that found a bottle of bleach? How scientifically illiterate do you have to be to not know that? And why are you trying to whitewash that?

You just linked a report claiming, but never proving, a bunch of people just did that very thing.

You are assuming what he means by disinfectant. He was talking about the UV treatment right before.

I suspect that even those who trusted him knew better until he spoke, assuming they had never tried to cure an infection previously by drinking bleach before Trump began discussing its possible efficacy.

Fiction in your head.

Do you and I even have enough in common to have this conversation? I'll say "This is what happened, and it was terrible," and your answer will be to deflect to something else in an effort to sanitize Trump.

You claim X but never demonstrate X is true. I point this out. You whine /repeat. Try again

We don't care about the same things.

I know you don't care about making an effort, fact checking and proving a point. Try again.

We don't have the same purpose or values.

Values such as evidence based conclusion over assertions like you have done in your post. Yawn. Try again

I don't care about making Trump look better, and you don't want to discuss what he did, but rather, to keep deflecting like you just did again.

You care about making Trump look bad using fallacious logic, low effort research and low level thinking. I pointed out your mistakes so you whine, again.

 

[1213]

The problem with this definition is that EVERYONE believes their arguments are based on foundation. ...

If that is true, all are fundamentalists really. I don’t think that is true. Many people have baseless beliefs and ideas.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If that is true, all are fundamentalists really. I don’t think that is true. Many people have baseless beliefs and ideas.

No, sir, not everyone is a Fundamentalist. There is a certain way that fundamentalists approach religion and modernity that are substantially different than the way those in the mainstream of the same faith do. They have certain attitudes that can be listed and identified, literally checking off certain features on a checklist. This list of traits is so easy to identify, that we can even use the term Fundamentalism to describe certain members of faiths other than Christianity (Fundamentalism is originally a term used to denote a subgroup in Christianity).

Checklist of Fundamentalist traits (fundamentalists will have all, or many of these traits):

1. Belief in a literal reading of their holy scriptures. This begins with the idea that these Scriptures are word for word given by God, but also tends to favor a literal rather than figurative interpretation, such as in a literal historical Adam and Eve. There is little understanding of the play genre has, and scholarship regarding the origins of the sacred manuscripts is treated with suspicion if not outright rejection.

2. A rejection of modern scholarship as having any impact on understanding their faith or the world around them. This can include rejection of scholarship regarding the founder(s) of their religion, scholarship regarding the historicity or lack thereof of the stories within their texts, and even in many cases a general distrust of science and modern higher learning. For example, Fundamentalists are not inclined to value schooling, and if they do go to college, it tends to be in "safe" institutions run by their religious group, where they will not be challenged by the genuine ideas of modern academia. Most notable is the rejection of Evolution,

3. Fundamentalists draw a very small circle about who exactly constitutes the members of their religion. They limit "true believers" to others who share their minority views and ways. We see this in how ISIS attacks regular Islamic institutions, or the way Evangelicals believe that mainline churches are not housed with "real" Christians.

4. Fundamentalists engage in black and white thinking. You are either good or bad, saved or unsaved, us or them, spiritual or carnal.

5. Fundamentalists have a sense of paranoia, suspicion, and subliminal rage against those on the other side of the us/them divide. They may view these other people as trying to destroy the world, for example, or being an agent of Satan.

6. For some reason that I have never understood, Fundamentalists are focused on the Last Days and the End of the World, which they view as imminent. For them, it is the desire to see the old and corrupted pass away and the new and perfect come into being.

7. Fundamentalists choose for their leaders charismatic sorts that can deliver a rousing sermon, but often lack the formal training most groups demand. Again, it has its roots in a basic distrust of higher level learning. For example, you might hear a fundamentalist comment that the Anglican church down the street can have their highfalutin' pastor with his university degrees -- THEY have a pastor who is "spirit led" and "just preaches the Bible."

Anyhow, that is Fundamentalism as I understand it off the top of my head. You can see how this can be describing the "Born Again" believer at the non-denominational church down the street or the the Chabadnik at your local shul or the Wahhabist preaching a return to the teachings of the Quran. Even Buddhists and Hindus can have their fundamentalist types.

 

[Dawnofhope]

To me fundamentalism means that one has his arguments on foundation, arguments are based on something solid. Non-fundamentalism is like building house without any foundation.

Fundamentalist implies poor prioritisation of core values and principles.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Not all Catholics, including some members of the hierarchy, accept this 'weighty document' The Church has within it a form of fundamentalism which is not Scriptural but doctrinal. But is it not this fundamentalist attitude within Christianity in general that has sustained the faith through the centuries? Growth spurts are painful.

I didn’t believe for one moment that Catholicism has freed itself from the adverse impact of fundamentalism. However the its good to hear there is a significant movement for progressive values more aligned with modernity.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I believe people tend to duck for cover when certain phrases are used to do horrible things. God is great is a wonderful phrase but you would not catch me using it in this current atmosphere.

It seems clear there is discomfort with the word fundamentalist within mainstream Christian circles.

 

[Dawnofhope]

There are always bad apples when we are dealing with million so people. And, apparently, you ran across some of those type of people.

But I agree that it is more pejorative and used to create divisions.



Like this statement What is "many"? What is a "militant attitude"? Is the author of this Wikipedia definition creating division and is he, in some sense, militant in his approach to fundamentalism?

In today's culture, Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, Christian, Fundamentalist etc are mostly used as weapons of division. (there are exceptions)

I don’t live in the States so am much less affected by the division in your midst. My concern in viewing Christianity is a sizeable group that views itself as right and everyone else as wrong. Denial of science in favour of more literal understandings of the Bible is another concern. So I don’t know to what extent you view that as problematic and the language you would use to describe it.

About a quarter of Americans believe the Bible is the Word of God AND should be taken literally.

Record Few Americans Believe Bible Is Literal Word of God

 

[Kenny]

I don’t live in the States so am much less affected by the division in your midst. My concern in viewing Christianity is a sizeable group that views itself as right and everyone else as wrong. Denial of science in favour of more literal understandings of the Bible is another concern. So I don’t know to what extent you view that as problematic and the language you would use to describe it.

About a quarter of Americans believe the Bible is the Word of God AND should be taken literally.

Record Few Americans Believe Bible Is Literal Word of God

Interesting.... couple of personal viewpoints:

1. I didn't see where it was a "denial of science".
2. Literal Word of God - doesn't mean "denial of science" - it simply means that they (if not me) believe that it is the Word of God - inspired by Him.
3. In essence - everyone has a point where they believe they are right and everyone else is wrong. I would assume that, at some point, you also think you are right about your positions whereas those who disagree are wrong

So, I don't view it as problematic (in the majority of cases).

That being said, Westboro Baptist church, is a problem (and not to be confused with the Baptist denomination)

 

[Dawnofhope]

Interesting.... couple of personal viewpoints:

1. I didn't see where it was a "denial of science".
2. Literal Word of God - doesn't mean "denial of science" - it simply means that they (if not me) believe that it is the Word of God - inspired by Him.
3. In essence - everyone has a point where they believe they are right and everyone else is wrong. I would assume that, at some point, you also think you are right about your positions whereas those who disagree are wrong

So, I don't view it as problematic (in the majority of cases).

That being said, Westboro Baptist church, is a problem (and not to be confused with the Baptist denomination)

Fundamentalism is a problem with any religion but I’m focused on Christianity as it is the largest religion by far in my country (New Zealand) and yours (the USA). The Westboro Church exemplifies certain attitudes and behaviours and in New Zealand we have Christian groups that are problematic because of their extremism. Most Christians here are not like that.

In regards denial of science, YECs are a good example. There appears to be a sizeable group of Christians in the USA that remained convinced the earth is very young (less than 10,000 years old) despite incontrovertible proof to the contrary.

There was an interesting survey from Pew Research a few years back that highlights the disproportionately lower numbers of Christians who are scientists.

Scientists and Belief

It becomes a problem in addressing climate change and the increasing threats to the environment facing the planet and the resistance of countries to take effective steps due once again to denial of science.

Now with a worldwide pandemic it’s not surprising to see some countries managing this crisis well and others poorly based on the ability (or inability) to translate scientific knowledge into coherent public health strategies.

So one response is we are all entitled to our beliefs and that is true. However the truth matters along with the actions we take or fail to take. If we try to build a house and don’t have the skills then there will be problems soon enough. Part of the purpose of religion is to bring out the best in us all and enable us to become wiser loving people. If following a religious path results in ignorance and fanaticism then that certainly appears problematic to me.

 

[Kenny]

Fundamentalism is a problem with any religion but I’m focused on Christianity as it is the largest religion by far in my country (New Zealand) and yours (the USA). The Westboro Church exemplifies certain attitudes and behaviours and in New Zealand we have Christian groups that are problematic because of their extremism. Most Christians here are not like that.

Ok... but could you share "how" they are problematic?

In regards denial of science, YECs are a good example. There appears to be a sizeable group of Christians in the USA that remained convinced the earth is very young (less than 10,000 years old) despite incontrovertible proof to the contrary.

There was an interesting survey from Pew Research a few years back that highlights the disproportionately lower numbers of Christians who are scientists.

Scientists and Belief

Ok... now let's look at this a little deeper and establish how damaging this is.

Let's say there is a YEC. Does he deny medical improvement and not go to the hospital for a broken bone? no. Does he deny the advancement of transportation? no. As a matter of fact, a YEC won't deny any other scientific discovery.

Therefore, how problematic is it really? I think this is more of a mole hill than a mountain.

As far as scientists--I remember that they told Einstein that he was off his rocker being the only person who talked about the theory of relativity. You mentioned there is a "disproportionate amount of scientists" which means there are some who are YEC. Why? What are there reasons?

For me, I really don't care. But what I do know is that we weren't there and there are so many factors that man has yet to understand and discover. One new discovery (like quantum physics) changes everything, Theologically speaking, I could argue both sides of the coin (though at this time I would favor an older earth) but still hold onto mankind, as we know it, is no more that 10,000 years.

It becomes a problem in addressing climate change and the increasing threats to the environment facing the planet and the resistance of countries to take effective steps due once again to denial of science.

Please, Adrian, this is a fallacy. You don't have to be a religious fundamentalist to address climate change etc. One has nothing to do with the other. You can be a YEC and believe in climate change and you can be an atheist and not believe in climate change (as presented by some in the scientific community).

Now with a worldwide pandemic it’s not surprising to see some countries managing this crisis well and others poorly based on the ability (or inability) to translate scientific knowledge into coherent public health strategies.

Again... you shouldn't hook the two together. Which country managed it poorly because the country was a fundamentalist country? For that matter, which country can be declared a fundamentalist Christian country?

As to why some handled it poorly, it is highly debatable as to the reasons and whether or not it was poorly handled. Too many factors.

But that is another subject that has nothing to do with fundamentalism.

So one response is we are all entitled to our beliefs and that is true. However the truth matters along with the actions we take or fail to take. If we try to build a house and don’t have the skills then there will be problems soon enough. Part of the purpose of religion is to bring out the best in us all and enable us to become wiser loving people. If following a religious path results in ignorance and fanaticism then that certainly appears problematic to me.

This is true. But Jesus was a fanatic, a fundamentalist at heart, and changed the world for the better!

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Interesting.... couple of personal viewpoints:

1. I didn't see where it was a "denial of science".
2. Literal Word of God - doesn't mean "denial of science" - it simply means that they (if not me) believe that it is the Word of God - inspired by Him.
3. In essence - everyone has a point where they believe they are right and everyone else is wrong. I would assume that, at some point, you also think you are right about your positions whereas those who disagree are wrong

So, I don't view it as problematic (in the majority of cases).

That being said, Westboro Baptist church, is a problem (and not to be confused with the Baptist denomination)

Explain the problem with fundamentalists rejecting evolution. They cling to YEC despite the fact that all the evidence is against it. It's a rejection of scientific method, a distrust of it at best. And at the heart of this rejection is a literal reading of Genesis.

 

[Kenny]

Explain the problem with fundamentalists rejecting evolution. They cling to YEC despite the fact that all the evidence is against it. It's a rejection of scientific method, a distrust of it at best. And at the heart of this rejection is a literal reading of Genesis.

This is all true... my statement simply was that the rejection of evolution didn't mean they rejected all of science or are anti-science... just anti-evolutionary science.

The issue at heart for the YEC is that it doesn't factor in God and science still knows but a small pin drop of information that is out there.

What is the effect of a black hole on the whole of creation?
Is there an elasticity to what we see in the universe?

But as I said, it doesn't matter to me. Since time is relative, we can think it is long when it is short or we can think it is short when it is long.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Ok... but could you share "how" they are problematic?

The Christian Church is facing an unprecedented crisis in New Zealand with rapidly dwindling numbers. In the last census there was a rapid decline of those who identify as Christian from 48% of our population to 37% in just over 5 years. OTOH those who identify with no religion has risen from 42% to 49%.

'No religion' overtakes Christianity in latest Census results

This is a dramatic change in a very short period of time but one that was been accelerating over the last few decades.

In the USA the numbers of those who identify as Christian is much higher but there is still a rapid decline.

In U.S., Decline of Christianity Continues at Rapid Pace

The trend is likely to continue as there are much higher rates of affiliation with Christianity in the Baby boomer generation and older compared to the younger generations.

Its useful to start with the facts and there is a lot of discussion and debate about ‘why’ this demographic shift is happening. To what extent has it to do with the message of Christianity or the way it is portrayed are essential questions?

Specific problems as far as I can see include a message that appears judgmental and unloving towards people who don’t share the fundamentalist/evangelical view of Christianity. That would include those who have an alternative narrative about the Message of Christ (Catholics and Muslims for example). It would include those to whom Christianity is not important either by being a member of another religion such as Hinduism or Buddhism or having no affiliation at all.

That is the core issue for me.

Ok... now let's look at this a little deeper and establish how damaging this is.

Let's say there is a YEC. Does he deny medical improvement and not go to the hospital for a broken bone? no. Does he deny the advancement of transportation? no. As a matter of fact, a YEC won't deny any other scientific discovery.

Therefore, how problematic is it really? I think this is more of a mole hill than a mountain.

As far as scientists--I remember that they told Einstein that he was off his rocker being the only person who talked about the theory of relativity. You mentioned there is a "disproportionate amount of scientists" which means there are some who are YEC. Why? What are there reasons?

For me, I really don't care. But what I do know is that we weren't there and there are so many factors that man has yet to understand and discover. One new discovery (like quantum physics) changes everything, Theologically speaking, I could argue both sides of the coin (though at this time I would favor an older earth) but still hold onto mankind, as we know it, is no more that 10,000 years.

I grew up with science as I did with Christianity. For me, science and religion are like two wings of a bird. Both wings need to be strong for the bird of humanity to fly into the heavenly realm. If we have religion without science then we are inclined to superstition. If we have science without religion then materialism results. I see the insistence on belief of a young earth based on literal interpretation of Genesis extremely damaging for the reputation of Christianity. It is a theory that has been totally discredited. It is almost never discussed publicly in New Zealand. I have one close associate I work with who believes in a young earth. Interestingly she is a Christian from the USA. Despite other fundamentalist beliefs she is such a friendly, kind and gentle natured soul. However it makes me wonder.

Please, Adrian, this is a fallacy. You don't have to be a religious fundamentalist to address climate change etc. One has nothing to do with the other. You can be a YEC and believe in climate change and you can be an atheist and not believe in climate change (as presented by some in the scientific community).

There is some association between religious beliefs and views on climate change according to PEW.

Views about climate change vary by religious affiliation and level of religious observance. Hispanic Catholics (77%), like Hispanics overall (70%), are particularly likely to say the Earth is warming due to human activity. Most of the religiously unaffiliated (64%) and 56% of black Protestants say climate change is mostly due to human activity.

By comparison, fewer white mainline Protestants (41%) view climate change as primarily due to human activity. White evangelical Protestants are least likely to hold this view; 28% among this group say the Earth is warming primarily due to human activity, 33% say the Earth’s warming is mostly due to natural patterns, and 37% say there is no solid evidence that climate change is occurring.

How Religion Impacts Americans' Views on Climate Change and Energy Issues

Again... you shouldn't hook the two together. Which country managed it poorly because the country was a fundamentalist country? For that matter, which country can be declared a fundamentalist Christian country?

As to why some handled it poorly, it is highly debatable as to the reasons and whether or not it was poorly handled. Too many factors.

But that is another subject that has nothing to do with fundamentalism.

I see the current administration in the USA as influenced by the Christian evangelicals who are traditionally more aligned to the Republicans.

The current administration has been heavily criticized as it compromises the environment and abandoned international agreements such as the Paris accord to pursue its own national agenda.

5 major changes to US environmental policy in 2017 - CNNPolitics

You believe there is no connection between the two?

This is true. But Jesus was a fanatic, a fundamentalist at heart, and changed the world for the better!

Jesus was the Son of God so had the authority from God Himself to say and act as He did. Caiaphas, the chief Priest believed he has acting in accordance with the Torah when he essentially consigned Jesus to death. I note also Jesus reserved His strongest criticisms for the religious leaders of His day. I wouldn't see American evangelists representing the Gospel of Christ anymore than i would see the Judaism representing Moses two thousand years ago. But we are all entitled to our point of view and I appreciate you sharing yours with me, even though we disagree on some important areas.

 

[Kenny]

Specific problems as far as I can see include a message that appears judgmental and unloving towards people who don’t share the fundamentalist/evangelical view of Christianity.

That is the core issue for me.

1. Jesus had the same problem
2. That has nothing to do with fundamentalism. At the core, I am a fundamentalist as was Jesus, but I don't have a message of judgement in accordance with Jesus.
3. It isn't relegated to just religion. Atheists can be judgmental.

I grew up with science as I did with Christianity. For me, science and religion are like two wings of a bird. Both wings need to be strong for the bird of humanity to fly into the heavenly realm. If we have religion without science then we are inclined to superstition. If we have science without religion then materialism results. I see the insistence on belief of a young earth based on literal interpretation of Genesis extremely damaging for the reputation of Christianity. It is a theory that has been totally discredited. It is almost never discussed publicly in New Zealand. I have one close associate I work with who believes in a young earth. Interestingly she is a Christian from the USA. Despite other fundamentalist beliefs she is such a friendly, kind and gentle natured soul. However it makes me wonder.

This is a great paragraph. Don't agree with "totally discredited" as there are still scientists that offer a different perspective. Don't see scientists arguing about gravity because there is nothing to argue about.

I see the current administration in the USA as influenced by the Christian evangelicals who are traditionally more aligned to the Republicans.

The current administration has been heavily criticized as it compromises the environment and abandoned international agreements such as the Paris accord to pursue its own national agenda.

5 major changes to US environmental policy in 2017 - CNNPolitics

You believe there is no connection between the two?

No.

I am glad we are out of the Paris accord but it has nothing to do with religious beliefs. I am also pro-environment.

This is a fallacy... most fundamental Christians are Republicans. Republican party changes its position on the Paris accord therefore fundamentalist Christians are anti-environment..... hardly.

Most fundamentalist Christians are Republicans because of the right to life and the basic tenants of freedom of religion. They don't have to agree (neither do I agree) with everything that the Republicans do as a party.

I happen to be an independent registered as a Republican just to be involved in the primaries. (Independents mostly can't if they don't have a party affiliation)

Plus, there are Fundamentalist Christian Democrats, and LGBT et al who are Republicans.

Jesus was the Son of God so had the authority from God Himself to say and act as He did. Caiaphas, the chief Priest believed he has acting in accordance with the Torah when he essentially consigned Jesus to death. I note also Jesus reserved His strongest criticisms for the religious leaders of His day. I wouldn't see American evangelists representing the Gospel of Christ anymore than i would see the Judaism representing Moses two thousand years ago. But we are all entitled to our point of view and I appreciate you sharing yours with me, even though we disagree on some important areas.

Great paragraph. However, you seem to be a fundamentalist in disagreeing with me But please don't lump "American Evangelists" all into one pot. Billy Graham was/is a great American Evangelist and represents the Gospel of Christ quite well IMHO.. Worldwide, it would be hard pressed to find any Christian that would disagree.

Do appreciate you!!