Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've seen a lot of talk in this forum about fundamentalist Christians - mostly negative. I'm curious: In your (polite) opinion, how would you describe what separates or distinguishes someone you consider to be fundamentalist from other Christians? Or, better yet, from yourself?
Conversely, what do you say is a better answer than the principles you consider to be fundamentalist? Please don't bash anyone, but I'd like to know why you feel fundamentalists are misled and why your view is more true. Or maybe why you ultimately changed your stance if you were a fundamentalist. I'm aiming these questions at other Christians who believe they're less radical, so to speak.
Please try to keep this civil, I'm genuinely curious what's meant by the label "fundamentalist".
When I was a fundamentalist I regarded the distinction as primarily accepting the Bible as inerrant and infallible, and regarding it as a source of objective information regarding what to believe and how to live. Also, since faith in "the finished work of Christ" was basic, you had to believe Christ was divine and died for your sins; and a few other things more or less naturally tend to flow out of that.
The more precise definition varies (which should tell you something right there) but a common one is to boil it down to "seven fundamentals of the faith":
They are considered "fundamental" because, as the above link says, you can't deny any of them and still be considered a Christian, much less a fundamentalist. (In fairness, not all fundamentalists would take it quite that far; my own sub-group simply regarded more liberal Christians, condescendingly, as "weaker brothers in Christ" for the most part. Although denying the deity of Christ would have been a bridge too far, even for us).
It's a pejorative term for Protestants who believe the bible is the infallible and inerrant revelation from the Christian God. Especially those who go out and preach fire and brimstone to anyone who disagrees.
Great replies so far guys. I want to amend my question, though.
Conversely then, what do you say is a better answer than the principles you consider to be fundamentalist? Please don't bash anyone, but I'd like to know why you feel fundamentalists are misled and why your view is more true.
Mordant pretty much covered it. The one thing I would add is that as "fundamentalist", or evangelical, Christian I was taught and believed that the bulk of bible stories were, and had to be, literally true. So, there was a literal 6 day creation, a literal garden where the first 2 humans were placed with literal trees of life and knowledge, and a literal talking snake, a literal global flood, etc. And all of the stories regarding the Israelites and their interaction with God were literally true.
NO problem thus far with this thread, folks, but simply wanted to interject an early-on warning that there is to be NO bashing or demeaning of those who consider themselves to be fundamentalist. Let's have a civil and meaningful discussion, void of any personal attacks or insults....That's all!
Great replies so far guys. I want to amend my question, though.
Conversely then, what do you say is a better answer than the principles you consider to be fundamentalist? Please don't bash anyone, but I'd like to know why you feel fundamentalists are misled and why your view is more true.
I was misled as an evangelical Christian because those principles are at odds with what we have learned about our world, and because myths are not meant to be understood literally and when they are any deeper truths are often subjugated. Also, a literal reading of the OT* leaves one with a belief in a God who is double-minded and capricious, and with a set of beliefs about God that are self contradictory.
*eta: also, an acceptance of everything in both the new and old testaments as true
I've seen a lot of talk in this forum about fundamentalist Christians - mostly negative. I'm curious: In your (polite) opinion, how would you describe what separates or distinguishes someone you consider to be fundamentalist from other Christians? Or, better yet, from yourself?
Conversely, what do you say is a better answer than the principles you consider to be fundamentalist? Please don't bash anyone, but I'd like to know why you feel fundamentalists are misled and why your view is more true. Or maybe why you ultimately changed your stance if you were a fundamentalist. I'm aiming these questions at other Christians who believe they're less radical, so to speak.
Please try to keep this civil, I'm genuinely curious what's meant by the label "fundamentalist".
In general it is a man made term to put down someone who does not take a very liberal view of the Bible. The definition varies depending on what is disagreed about.
In a literal sense it should be someone who fundamentally sees the Bible as the inspired word of God and superior to any claims of modern man that contradict it. Fundamental truth is in the Bible. This allows for recognition that the copies and translations we have today contain errors, but such errors do not change the ... fundamental teachings of the Bible.
Now in arguing against scripture many will point to those who believe in 6 creative days as being 24 hour days. They are not fundamentalists as the Bible is clear in it's use of the word for Day and it covers either a 24 hour period, one shorter, one longer or one of indeterminate length, just as the word does today. They figure if you can paint everyone with the brush of the 6day believers you diminish the Bible. Ain't so, it just shows either a lack of knowledge or no concern for what is really true.
The Bible is either God's revelation to man of His will and Purposes or it is simply of no more value than the writings of any science fiction author. Can't take some and reject the rest or such are no different than thsoe who take words out of context and the actual range of meaning.
Differentiating between man made teachings and what the Bible actually teaches is the problem and .... the Bible tells us such will be the case.
Good answers to the first part have been posted. The "better way" is to recognize that the Bible and "inspiration" are not about direct revelation from God in most of the material in it, but the reports of people varying from bronze age myths and legends that are source materiel for a history of the growing awareness of one ethnic group as to the nature of God and our relationship with God and our fellow human beings, culminating in the revelations given through Jesus and the advice for application attributed to Him and persons led by the Spirit, but which have been subject to "editorial work" before finalization in the authorized or canonical scriptures. Secondly, the recognition that the heart of the message of Jesus was a concern for the well-being of everyone in any situation that is known as "agape."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
