relda,
>> this kind of unbelief was not as threatening to Islam as Jewish unbelief was to Christians ... For Christian Fundamentalists today, this same affront similarly exists – albeit its degree is often hidden. <<

An interesting angle of seeing things. However, where would you place Christian Zionists, since they are often seen as "part of the fundamentalist wing of Protestant Christianity". (see e.g. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4930.htm) ? Perhaps you meant "for SOME Christian Fundamentalists".

The essence of Christian Fundamentalism lies in a literal reading of the bible and this is exactly how Christian Zionists explain and justify their position and actions (Christ's "second coming").

Glorfindel,
Thank you for the info about John Carroll's recent book. As far as I can remember, his 1977 book (Puritan, Paranoid, Remissive: A Sociology of Modern Culture) gave an analysis of the state of Western culture that had many valid (and original) points, however was too negative, too gloomy. I suspect the new book you mention - in addition to your quotes I had just a glimpse of one review - is equally pessimistic, although with the same qualities of sharp insights. I am not sure about his relation to Christianity - it is certainly not negative - however, he seems to be missing one of its main ingredients - hope, optimism, that is applicable, and should be applied, not only to the "hereafter".

We seem to be living in times that in some way resemble those of St Augustine: Although himself part of the declining Roman civilisation, he did not lament over its demise with the civilised pagans, nor did he rejoyce over its downfall with the new barbarians. His faith turned lament and nostalgia into respect for tradition, and fear of the new, unknown, into hope for a better world, as painful as the transitional period might turn out to be.

Thanks for the link George, I meant all Christians who bear the ESSENCE, as you say, of a Fundamentalism supporting a literal reading and understanding of the bible. From your link we find that “the Christian Zionist views find significant support among the charismatic, Pentecostal and independent Bible churches in Protestant fundamentalism”. These fundamentalists often tend to assert, "no creed but the Bible” - but this statement itself is a creed, for It says in effect, "I believe (credo) in no creed." This theoretical position is not amenable to practice. Even the notoriously anti-creedal Churches of the Christ denomination require some sort of implied statement of belief from persons seeking positions of authority in its fellowship. Finding a common denominator for Christianity can be a little nuanced as many shades of belief appear to exist - judging purely by historical standards, however, the Nicene Creed (as well as some of the lesser creeds) becomes a ‘reasonable’ place at least to define the faith.

It would seem many are becoming more polarised and trapped within their beliefs through, ironically, searching their bibles outside of any form of ‘orthodoxy’ and relying solely on their own biblical and private ‘revelation’. “Christian Zionists often view mainline Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic denominations with hostility and have at times considered the World Council of Churches and related bodies to be tools of the Antichrist.” Interestingly, they almost mirror a kind of Muslim fanaticism - one they also intensely denounce; any real difference between them, however, often becomes more a question of degree.

'TR, if that's your logic then I assume you also oppose religious organisations? Organisations being, of course, human infrastructure?'

Trav, if the 'Flat Earth Society' wanted to build a school for 1000 children to teach them the beauty of Earth's flatness then I see no ethical problem in opposing it as a concerned citizen. After all, children do not deserve to be mislead with nonsense.

However, if I oppose the 'Flat Earth Society' school and then lose then I'm not going to fall into a pit of depression. I have done my bit to promote science and learning and that is good enough.

Islamic and Christian schools are no different to 'Flat Earth Society' schools. Their basic teaching is just as daft.

'TR, I think your religion of science, reason, and humanism is one of the most stupid ever invented - some great technical advances, but at what cost to humanity and the earth! I am a Christian but if I had to choose another religion, yours would be at the bottom of the list.'

John, you are entitled to your opinion. You just so happen to be wrong in an objective sense. But so what.

Relda: I agree with your comments about Christian fundamentalism. Spong's "Rescuing the Bible from fundamentalism" raises many issues that fundamentalists and Christians generally should think about. Blind faith incompatible with reason is a dead end. Narrow literalism is unsustainable.

Christianity differs profoundly from Judaism and Islam: while they are mainly about observances, Christianity is hugely concerned with doctrine - for nearly 2000 years. Judaism has evolved into a much more relativist faith: few Jews now read Leviticus as literally relevant to today's world.

Christianity has spawned many denominations and fringe groups, but broadly it considers FOUR key sources of Christian belief: scripture, church tradition, reason (critical study and judgment), and personal experience. Those reflect its passage through the early church councils, the "total society" of church and state, the Great Schism (Orthodox vs Catholic) of 1054, Western mediaeval scholasticism, the Renaissance, the Reformation (several strands), the Enlightenment, and continued engagement of Christianity with philosophical and political thought and science.

Against this, Islam has been poverty stricken. It split into two main branches (Sunni and Shia) not over doctrine but over the blood right to rule. It closed the gates of ijtihad (independent critical thought) about 800 years ago and has persecuted its own contemplative (Sufi) strand. It has had no resurgence of learning either in theology or science. It has no "quality control" over teaching, as it lacks a theological hierarchy (Pope, patriarch, bishops etc) and seminary system and its "priesthood of all believers" means it cannot stop any half-baked, self-educated rabblerouser from setting himself up as an imam and preaching to any congregation that will have him. (Thus, individuals like Benbrika in Melbourne.)

The Al-Azhar University in Cairo is supposedly the pinnacle of Islamic scholarship. A mouse against the intellectual giants among Western universities!

While Christianity (apart from the worrying Pentecostal strand of the past hundred years) has evolved into greater tolerance and awareness of complexity, Islam, since Wahhabiism, has careered into an abyss. Beam me up Scotty ... there's no intelligent life here.

TR, do yourself a favour and stop making yourself look like an idiot. I'm almost embarrassed on behalf of you for the silly statements you keep making. I realise you must have serious emotional issues with religion, as that's the only thing which could start to explain your offensive and ignorant remarks, but try to clear through the fog in your head and get towards some rain or clear skies before you post next time.

[Islamic and Christian schools are no different to 'Flat Earth Society' schools. Their basic teaching is just as daft.]

Um, no. The "basic teaching" of religious schools is, in most cases, almost exactly the same, or extremely similar to the basic teaching of state schools. Ie: The school curriculum. You know, english, humanities, maths, science and the like