"Fundamentalist": a misnomer?

How did they acquire this tag? In what sense are "Christian fundamentalists" concerned with the "fundamentals" of Christianity?

Seems to me they are mostly about taking biblical quotes,...often out of context, sometimes within context... and applying them *literally*. Moreover, they lean heavily, it would seem, toward the OT. I thought Christianity was supposed to be a "fulfillment" of the OT; in other words, Christians should look for their "fundamentals" to the *NT*.

Anyway, seems to me that "literalists" is a fairer and more accurate description of these folks than "fundamentalist ". Judging by the posts of Christians here and elsewhere, the "fundamentals" of Christianity have to with compassion, returning good for evil, and the like, and little if anything to do with, for example, injunctions in Leviticus concerning sex or with primitive science in Genesis.

Resolved: "Christian fundamentalists" are now known as Christian Biblical Literalists; or maybe just "Biblical literalists"; or perhaps "self-described Christian fundamentalists". For the sake of clarity, if nothing else. Also, seems like progressives are conceding a lot to them to let them get away with this seemingly brazen twisting of the meaning of perfectly good English words.

Talk amongst yourselves. I'm agnostic; don't expect much more from me. End of Christmas post.

Have a Merry.

five doctrines

Inerrancy of the Scriptures
The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus
The doctrine of substitutionary atonement through God's grace and human faith
The bodily resurrection of Jesus
The authenticity of Christ's miracles (or, alternatively, his premillenial second coming)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fundamentalism#Doctrine

Fundamentalist Christianity, or Christian fundamentalism is a movement which arose mainly within American Protestantism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by conservative evangelical Christians, who, in a reaction to modernism, actively affirmed a "fundamental" set of Christian beliefs: the inerrancy of the Bible, the virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the authenticity of his miracles. This core set of beliefs was the "line in the sand" drawn by conservative Christians as they battled against the rise of rationalism, higher biblical criticism, and liberalism within Protestant denominations.

The nature of the Christian fundamentalist movement, while originally a united effort within conservative evangelicalism, evolved during the early-to-mid 1900s to become more separatist in nature and more characteristically dispensational in its theology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fundamentalism#Doctrine

For all their professed "love" and "reverence" towards Jesus Christ, they certainly have ignored his words and teachings--and most all from the New Testament.

It strikes me as ... well... I just don't understand how this can not be the ultimate betrayal/hypocracy....?


Seems to me that some DUers have identified as Christian Fundamentalists. I don't wish to offend them, so i won't say more.

... and I'm not familiar with that ( a guess: death of Jesus redeems mankind?)... all of the doctrines involve interpretation of the bible as an *historical* account, i.e. literally true.

If so, why not describe them as "literalists"? Some Christians would regard the "fundamentals" of the religion as being something else entirely.

historical context. The movement was formed in opposition to modernity creeping into Christian thought in the early part of the century. They were attempting to keep the fundamental doctrines alive in the face of an ever changing Christian theology. The word Christian Fundamentalist has been somewhat co-opted in todays language to mean something different than its original intent.

The definition as per Wilkepeidia of a Christian Fundamentalist is as follows:

"Fundamentalist Christianity, or Christian fundamentalism is a movement which arose mainly within American Protestantism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by conservative evangelical Christians, who, in a reaction to modernism, actively affirmed a "fundamental" set of Christian beliefs: the inerrancy of the Bible, the virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the authenticity of his miracles."

In this sense, I consider myself a Fundamentalist (or "Fundy" in it's most trendy and pejorative sense) and call my self a Fundamentalist without qualification.

"Christer's" didn't really catch on in the eighties, nor did "X-tians" in the nineties. And our current flavor-of-the-month, "Magic Thinkers" popped it's bubble before it was even fully blown up.

Personally, I prefer "Radical America Clerics" as it clearly implies a difference between your average, church-going family whose most flagrant abuse of civility lies in praying together before a meal in public (of which, I too am most heinous in my guilt), and the George-Orwell-in-collars types who place politics and cash before God. However, I'm fully aware that Radical American Clerics won't catch on, either (it's got eight syllables-- way too long for the average Joe to wrap his tongue around)

Having said that, I am looking forward to the day when whatever pejorative label is used, it contains a clear and obvious delineation between those who worship God and those who use God.

Hope everyone has Happy Hol's. :)

they should be the absolute core of Judeo-Christianity.

It should be easy to follow them as they're basically ancient bullet points but how many fundamentalists even pay attention to them. I mean "thou shalt not kill" - I would've thought that would be quite easy to understand...

(Not to mention the injunction not to worship anyone other than God, which *-apologists don't seem to follow).

They are *selective* literalists. They pick and choose what they want to interpret literally.

Funny, conservative Roman Catholics deride their liberal co-religionists as "Cafeteria Catholics", for choosing to select what parts of Church doctrine they will take seriously.

because all religious texts have paradoxes and contradictions (and just plain weird stuff that nobody understands).

For me the fight is not between Christianity & Islam, East vs West, Religion vs Secularism...

it's Progressives vs Radicals.

Right now the Radicals are shouting louder, that's why we need more Progressives to stand up and restore balance (...to the the Force).

;)

They also ignore all evidence that their rule books are faulty or in error.

Check out the 1973 Chicago convention on biblical Inerrancy. It says it all.
RAmen!

Aren't their several different sets, associated with different religious denominations. Who gets to decide which set is the "correct" one?

http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm

Page down past the bullet points.

The Ten Punishments (shown on link above) are also quite interesting.

If Punishments 6 and 8 were enforced there wouldn't be many politicians left.

your description of how the term was developed is correct, although I do not share your belief that it is an improper twisting of the word.

Fundamentalism perfectly describes what they are. They are fundamentally wrong, they are fundamentally warped and they are fundamentally dangerous when they inflict their literalist beliefs on school children in Kansas and elsewhere.

its the *literalism* that's dangerous, as you point out yourself. ( As well as their zeal to *impose* it; which is another issue.)

Their use of the term "fundamental" implies that they are speaking of the "essence" or "heart" of their religion ( which they claim to be Christianity). Many Christians do not seem to identify with this ideology. They also claim to identify with the heart or essence.

Seems to me it's a matter of truth in advertising. If your... in this case...literalist, or selectively literal interpretation of the religion ignores fundamental precepts of your religion ( as it is generally understood, at least by a large portion of the general population) you really shouldn't going around calling yourself an adherent of the "fundamentals" of that religion. The nature of the "fundamentals' appear to be in dispute.

In other words, they are less "fundamentalists" than "trivialists". They are absorbed in the trivia and minutiae of the bible while missing the larger, more, ahem, *fundamental* themes.

I say they shouldn't call themselves fundamentalists. And other people shouldn't call them that either.

a convincing argument. But, like military intelligence and honest politicians, I am afraid that you have a tough battle ahead of you.

Or: The buttocks. The anus.

So yes, I think the word is perfect. Most of them are asses and quite a few of those are total assholes....


Thanks, thanks very much. I'll be here all week.

I have begun using the term 'Old Testament Paulists' - suggested by a DUer. This seems to fit their mindset and summarize their beliefs without further insulting the gentle carpenter who they pretend to worship and adore.

These loud-mouth posers are the furthest thing from being Christian.
Nothing in their lives, deeds or beliefs are representative of the teachings of Christ.
It goes without saying that one who not only wears their faith on their sleeve but crams
it down other people's throats.. is one who lives without faith at all.

And the funniest thing is..... They are all left behind.