The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > What is fundamentalisms?

What is fundamentalisms?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 41
  10. 42
  11. 43
  12. All
Dear Grateful,

I used to associate "fundamentalism"
with the movement in American Protestantism that
arose in the early part of the 20th century in
reaction to modernism and that stressed the
inerrancy of the Bible not only in matters of
faith and morals but Christian faith belief in
such doctrines as the virgin birth, physical
ressurection, atonement by the sacrificial
death of Christ, and the Second Coming.

Fundamentalism has had an influence on all
Protestant denominations, particularly such
groups as the Church of God, Assemblies of God,
Pentecostal churches. Television evangelism has
also been influenced by conservative fundamentalist
beliefs. Organisations within a movement called the
New Religious Right have adopted social and political
positions based on a literal use of Biblical texts.
The infallibility of the Bible remains an important
fundamentalist issue today.

Therefore "fundamentalism" is a commitment to,
and reliance on, the traditional basics of
religious doctrine.

Richard Dawkins, on the other hand,
in his book, "The God Delusion,"
sums up fundamentalists in the following way:

"Fundamentalists know they are right because they
have read the truth in a holy book and they know,
in advance, that nothing will budge them from their
belief..."
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 4:11:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Foxy, yes I liked that definition of a fundamentalist from Richard Dawkins.

I looked up fundamentalism on Answers.Com, and it stated:
"A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism."

So, basically, one can be called a fundamentalist if they will hear absolutely no argument against their very strongly held beliefs in their particular God or religion.

The vast majority of Australians are nowhere near fundamentalist.
I read in the paper yesterday that there has been a huge swing away from church-going and religion in Australia in the past decade.

Obviously, the fundamentalists among us are not being listened to anymore. Thank God.
Posted by suzeonline, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 4:43:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
According to the “New Dictionary of Theology” the word, fundamentalism, originated in the USA in 1920 as the designation that Curtis Lee Laws used for his anti-modernist party in the Northern Baptist Convention. A fundamentalist is:

1. An evangelical Protestant

2. One who subscribes to supernaturalistic biblical Christianity

3. Opposed to certain aspects of secularization.

Although no one list is standard, the commonest points are:

1. Inerrancy of Scripture

2. Deity of Christ

3. His virgin birth

4. Substitutionary Atonement (taking on the sins of the world)

5. The Resurrection

6. The Second Coming

Many fundamentalists see teaching evolution in the schools as undermining the authority of the Bible in American life and fostering moral relativism. Marxism, Romanism (Catholicism), alcohol, tobacco, dancing, card playing and theatre attendance were other major targets for fundamentalist attacks.

Racism, militarism, violence, destruction of the environment, war, corruption and exploitation did not concern them.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 4:47:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grateful...you raised some very important points in your post before my last one which escaped me.

They deserve further scrutiny...you said:

// 1/ one represents a fundamentalist mentality (offensive and harsh to others who disagree and corrupting the teachings in a bid to rationalise this harshness) and the other a moderate approach yielding to 'harshness' as a last resort means of self-defense://

Pericles, foxy .. CJ... do you see it ? The last line. What have I been banging on about for oh.. perhaps 4 yrs now ? I've focused on the core doctrines and values..... BEcause.. of that very last line in Grateful's post...where he freely and clearly admits the very thing I have been harping about.

"Moderates will surcumb to the Radicals" (if not by persuasion, then at the point of a gun)

THUS... it behoves us to know, in our public interest..what those 'radicals' are likely to bring with them.
You know now (as if you didn't already) why I've written 1000s of posts on such things. (as has Proxy and a few others)

GRATEFUL also said:

//Sufis were men of peace. They followed a spiritual current of Islam that emphasizes moral education, tolerance and a personal link to God.//

Yes..indeedy..and for their trouble they are declared "heretics" by their fellow Muslims. (rightly so as far as I can see, doctrinally)

Grateful says:

//When Somalia plunged into clan wars after the collapse of the central government in 1991, Islam’s extremist Wahhabi strain gained strength amid the anarchy.//

Ummmmmmm....exactly. (Pericles, Foxy and CJ.. refer to my opening point)

Chaos..anarchy..... power.. dominance... 'totalitarian' control.

It's the standard Socialist wish list and the Muslims don't mind it too.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 5:19:29 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank-you everyone for your contributions, not withstanding more sour grapes from AGIR.

I relate strongly to Mikk characterisation

<<A fundamentalist is

Someone who would force others to agree with them.
Someone who will ignore evidence that goes against their beliefs.
Someone who hates people who dont agree with them.
Someone who will hurt those that dont agree with them.
Someone who will lie to support their beliefs.>>

I found another definition of fundamentalism by Andrew Dawkins:

<<Richard Dawkins defines fundamentalism as the following: blind obedience to scripture regardless of evidence, allied to extremism. He argues that far from being entrenched fundamentalists, atheists have a commitment to exploring evidence, and a readiness to embrace change, and that we should not mistake the passion of their arguments or their refusal to remain silent for fundamentalism.>>

http://richarddawkins.net/videos/4688-intelligence-squared-debate-is-atheism-the-new-fundamentalism

This was part of a debate over the question "Is atheism the new fundamentalism."

I think his description adds an important element to that of Mikk: <<blind obedience to scripture regardless of evidence>>

Although, I would add that the fundamentalist also rejects reasoning.

However, i have seen cases where atheists clearly do NOT have <<a commitment to exploring evidence>> and so can be characterised a fundamentalist in terms of Dawkin's definition.

salaams
Posted by grateful, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 5:53:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
david f

Who would use the New Dictionary of Theology? Maybe that suits your purpose and theirs, however English is a living language and preference should be given to the common usage and in the present.

Dawkins comes as close as any to present usage having spent recent years arguing the toss. I gave a Dawkins definition in another thread in response to Grateful.

Here is Encarta's, also relevant to today:

fundamentalism

1. movement with strict view of doctrine: a religious or political movement based on a literal interpretation of and strict adherence to doctrine, especially as a return to former principles

2. support for literal explanation: the belief that religious or political doctrine should be implemented literally, not interpreted or adapted.
Posted by Cornflower, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 6:10:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 41
  10. 42
  11. 43
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy