Defining Fundamentalism

[Justified Saint]

I thought it would be helpful to consider the meaning of the word "fundamentalism" since the word has been in use and witnessed here lately (or so I think).

Strictly speaking, fundamentalism refers to a kind of stern literalism (usually in religion) while there is also the Fundamentalist movement of Protestantism in the early 20th century (which is still very strong today). Thus fundamentalism can reside in any religion or set of beliefs, i.e. Islamic fundamentalists, Catholic fundamentalists, political fundamentalists etc.

Another important distinction I think worth considering is the fundamentalist as such and the practical fundamentalist. Holding to a set of core beliefs, of "fundamentals", is certainly an admirable thing and so discussions of fundamentalism are better nuanced not as [i]what[/i] one believes or holds to, but rather [i]how[/i] they do so. This distinction seems to be where the definition and indentification of fundamentalism should turn because to some degree everyone holds to some set of fundamentals, but what is important is the attitude one adopts toward persons with a different set of fundamentals. Is your [i]first[/i] attitude reactionary and antagonistic, or does it start with understanding and listening? The fundamentalist adopts the former attitude, his inital and constant reaction is one of intolerance because he cannot tolerate the other for among other things he is afraid of the other.

The reason fundamentalism, as a movement and a mindset, is a phenomena of the modern age is because it is an expression of intolerance in an age of pluralism. Thus fundamentalism exists in varying degrees of extremities (and we know what the most extreme are capable of).

Another careful point we must draw our attention to: fundamentalism is not [i]just[/i] a matter of intolerance for intolerance is a useful rhetorical tool and often an appropriate reaction. Rather, it is an intolerance that knows no limits and is reckless, an intolerance that will gladly exceed the standards of [i]accountability[/i], [i]responsibility[/i] and we might add good taste. Furthermore, intolerance and fundamentalism of this sort is one that asserts its position unreservedly and without question. Under this delusion [i]any[/i] extreme can be jusitfied and is never entirely ruled out and which could be used at anytime.

Therefore, it is not uncommon to see a fundamentalist excessively stubborn, obstinate and who thinks themself above correction (for a fundamentalist can never be wrong).

Bottom line: Fundamentalism is fear.

[Eutychus]

[quote] Bottom line: Fundamentalism is fear.[/quote]

Correction, bottom line, you haven't got a CLUE what biblical christian fundamentalism is.

As for the role "fear" should play in your relationship with God...shall we ask the Lord what He thinks?

[quote]Ps 34:11

Come, ye children, hearken unto me: [u]I will teach you the fear of the LORD.[/u]

Ps 111:10

[b][u]The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom:[/u][/b][/quote]

So, basically you are saying "do NOT fear the Lord?" Is that the position you have taken up here?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1061191' date='Sep 12 2006, 06:37 AM']
So, basically you are saying "do NOT fear the Lord?" Is that the position you have taken up here?
[/quote]

You know that is [u]not[/u] what he is saying. You know this, Sir. So you have just said something you know is untrue. When someone says something that they know is untrue what is that? A lie. Which makes you a liar. How can a biblical christian do such a thing? Dont you like Justified Saint, and I fear the Lord our God? Or do you feel that it is ok to lie to make a point, like you did.

Also, speaking of biblical... yes thats right, how can you say what is biblical and what is not when you use the gutted KJ Bible, the canon of Luther, and not the The Canon of the Apostles? I challenge you to a debate to defend rejecting the authority of the Apostles, and their Canon. [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=57077"]CLICK HERE[/url] I await your response.

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1061191' date='Sep 12 2006, 05:37 AM']
Correction, bottom line, you haven't got a CLUE what biblical christian fundamentalism is.

As for the role "fear" should play in your relationship with God...shall we ask the Lord what He thinks?
So, basically you are saying "do NOT fear the Lord?" Is that the position you have taken up here?
[/quote]

[i]For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind[/i]. II Timothy 1:7

[i]Though an host should encamp against me, [u]my heart shall not fear[/u]: though war should rise against me, in this will I be confident[/i]. Psalm 27:3

[i]There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. [u]He that feareth is not made perfect in love[/u][/i]. 1 John 4:18

Notice that wisdom [i]begins[/i] in fear, but so long as one remains in fear they lack [b]trust[/b] and most important [b]love[/b].

Why do you GLOAT about your immaturity?

Edited September 12, 2006 by Justified Saint

[Eutychus]

[quote]Also, speaking of biblical... yes thats right, how can you say what is biblical and what is not when [u]you use the gutted KJ Bible, the canon of Luther, and not the The Canon of the Apostles?[/u] I challenge you to a debate to defend rejecting the authority of the Apostles, and their Canon. CLICK HERE I await your response. [/quote]

1: the KJV emmanates from the Syrian or Textus Receptus.

2: Catholic bibles and many others including the NIV emmanate from the Alexandrian texts, that USED TO BE, considered the oldest and therefore "the best" but history has shown that Origen and his almost Gnostics really got inside those texts and changed a lot.

If you care to get inside those issues, it really is a fascinating study. Most current scholars now realize the damage that Origen derived texts present, and the TR is the one that serious bible scholars now tend to use.

The "Canon of Luther?"

You mean the bible without the fairy tale books, the Apocrapha?

May I point out to you, that Luther was just using the VERY SAME list of books that JEROME compiled in the 4th Century?

[quote]At the end of the fourth century Pope Damasus commissioned Jerome, the most learned biblical scholar of his day, to prepare a standard Latin version of the Scriptures (the Latin Vulgate). In the Old Testament Jerome followed the Hebrew canon and by means of prefaces called the reader's attention to the separate category of the apocryphal books. Subsequent copyists of the Latin Bible, however, were not always careful to transmit Jerome's prefaces, and during the medieval period the Western Church generally regarded these books as part of the holy Scriptures. [/quote]

So, your beef is with "SAINT" JEROME here, not Martin Luther.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1061332' date='Sep 12 2006, 01:29 PM']
1: the KJV emmanates from the Syrian or Textus Receptus.

2: Catholic bibles and many others including the NIV emmanate from the Alexandrian texts, that USED TO BE, considered the oldest and therefore "the best" but history has shown that Origen and his almost Gnostics really got inside those texts and changed a lot.

If you care to get inside those issues, it really is a fascinating study. Most current scholars now realize the damage that Origen derived texts present, and the TR is the one that serious bible scholars now tend to use.

[/quote]

I've never heard this argument before.

Not to be a smartarse, but could you give me something other than your "most" evidence that gives me a number of "scholars" who use this?

And I think "the oldest" took a back seat to Jesus referencing the Alexandrian, but hey, what does I knows?

[Justified Saint]

How about you address those [b]KJV[/b] verses then, Euty? Or are you once again guilty of the reckless handling of scripture as your silence implies?

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1061332' date='Sep 12 2006, 01:29 PM']
May I point out to you, that Luther was just using the VERY SAME list of books that JEROME compiled in the 4th Century?
So, your beef is with "SAINT" JEROME here, not Martin Luther.
[/quote]
St. Jerome did include the deuterocanonical books, but labeled them as apocrypha in Jewish opinion.

From Wikipedia...
[quote]Since there was no fixed canon even among Jews until the Council of Jamnia (c.70-90 AD), it is not surprising that, historically, there have been hesitations among Christians, especially in the early centuries, about which Old Testament books to consider canonical. St Jerome explicitly denied the canonical character of any Old Testament book not included in the Hebrew Bible; [i]but later[/i], in his Preface to the Book of Tobit (PL 29, 24-25), stated that [b]he translated the deuterocanonical books[/b] into Latin as a concession to the [b][i]authority[/i] of the bishops[/b]; and in 402 AD declared he had not really denied the inspiration of these books, but [b]had only given the opinion of the Jews [/b](Apol. contra Ruf. 11, 33. PL 23, 476).

In view of that controversy, a list of canonical books (with the deuterocanonical books included) was drawn up at councils in Africa and [b]approved by the Pope[/b] of the time.
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha#Biblical_canon"]Source[/url]
[/quote]
While St. Jerome is a saint, it is clear from history the authority to create the Christian canon rested with the magisterium and the Pope. St. Jerome was obedient to the Church.