What defines a Fundie?

[Totallyatpeace]

Han Solo stated a good question.

 

Sometimes things go in both sides, though.

 

A supplementary thinking point – can there exist a category of Fundamental Atheist? Fundamental skeptic?

 

Have forum members met some?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes. But I'm too nice to mention a name here.

[Guest Roamin' Lion]

I absolutely think that a fundie can be a political fundie as well as a religious one.

 

I think the characteristics apply equally to any area of belief systems, and most of what we think is a belief in something or someone.

 

Being a free thinker in my opinion is being able to see that almost any theology or philosophy will reach what Phillip Slater calls the point of diminishing returns. In other words, the very thing you believe if carried out infinitely will one day end up prohibiting the very thing it was meant to promote.

 

For me, that means that being a fanatic about any idea is dangerous, and must be continually reevaluated for reasonable parameters and effectiveness.

[syndacit]

Very good responses here. I think a simple definition of a fundie is anyone eager to exclude others from their favored position.

 

Exclude from heaven, exclude from the fold, exclude anyone who differs.

 

Another characteristic is palpable fear of EVERYTHING other than.

 

Those who wish to exclude and who are afraid are the antithesis of what the gospel is reputed to preach, but such is their lot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think there is more too it

like labeling people/things/actions

which ties into exclusion

 

and if Fundies label people to exclude them

doesn't that make everyone a fundie in one way or an other

due to one time in or an other in our life time we have excluded someone or something due to beliefs or morals.

 

thats a big flaw, and causes contradiction in many ways, from denial etc etc

[Guest Roamin' Lion]

No, labeling in and of itself is not an exclusion. We label item so that we have less confusion. We all agree a table is a table.

 

I agree that some people hold Christian beliefs, I can label them Christians or Hindus or whatever, but exclusion is an act that goes a step beyond, that of classifying them as part of or not part of something.

 

I also added the characteristic of excluding from a favored position. Therefore, I am not excluding anyone from a favored position by recognizing who they are.

 

I do not see a flaw there.

[Guest Roamin' Lion]

Additionally, I can exclude you from a dinner party, but it might only be bacause I do not know you or I do not have the resources.

 

But, if I say only this sort of person is welcome because all others are inferior, now I am excluding one from a favorable position.

[syndacit]

Yes I know a table is table. haha though sometimes a chair when bored but oh well.

 

the flaw that I mean is, in ending we add to all the chaos by labeling cause in the end terms we ourselfs get labeled, causing exclusion.

 

Take the enviroment of Highschool and Cliques

Gangs

Preps

Goths

Nerds

etc etc

each one thinks they're not the labeling type but label others which cause them, themselfs to get labelled by all other groups, which adds to the fire of fights for who is right.

 

I myself try not to label groups at highschool but in the end I do, cause it is true, its easier to distiguish them, but they get mad and label me.

 

so what I'm trying to get at, labeling different christian groups and beliefs as fundies just adds to the fire. Thats my opinion. I know this thread isnt meant to be mean but it just adds some fuel to the fire.

[Guest Roamin' Lion]

Point of view is the source of exclusion, not labels in and of themselves.

 

When one labels another with a value laden term, then the label helps or is descriptive of the sentiment behind it.

 

Perhaps this is the way you are using the term label...with a negative connotation. Labels are not by necessity bad.

 

Maybe you are also alluding to stereo-typing which often goes with labels.

 

I am not using the term label in that context. I am using it in its most simple and benign form. As a term which helps us understand who we mean and what we are talking about.

 

For example, this is why we are trying to define the term fundamentalist or fundie to begin with, so we have a common understanding of what we are talking about.

 

I know a few fundies who I adore, but I never discuss religion with them. They have no idea that I do not believe the same as they do. I choose my words carefully. No need to distress them.

[syndacit]

okay. That I understand

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

A supplementary thinking point – can there exist a category of Fundamental Atheist? Fundamental skeptic?

To answer this question would require a definition of fundamentalist. If your definition includes the idea of strict adherence to the words of a god, then an atheist can't be a fundamentalist.

 

That's not to say that an atheist can't be dogmatic about his or her beliefs.

 

Main Entry: dog·ma·tism

Pronunciation: 'dog-m&-"ti-z&m, 'däg-

Function: noun

1 : positiveness in assertion of opinion especially when unwarranted or arrogant

2 : a viewpoint or system of ideas based on insufficiently examined premises

 

In fact, a fundamentalist is also a dogmatic christian, at least from the viewpoint of an atheist.

[♦ ficino ♦]

I think fundies are exclusionary groups, but I don't think that characteristic defines fundies, since there are lots of principles according to which groups exclude people. I think that fundamentalists are defined by their strict adherence to tenets of belief that are claimed to derive from correct understanding of a text or texts. There might be fundamentalists in preliterate societies, where oral tradition and not texts provides the deposit of belief, but I don't think that matters for this thread. Fundamentalists believe in a bunch of myths: 1) that the text and associated doctrines are authentic continuations of the original revelation, haven't been changed; 2) that the text conveys truth; 3) that there is a correct methodology for understanding the text; 4) that the leaders of the group follow that methodology, and that it is open to the followers, too, if they study deeply enough.

 

Mystics and visionary reformers, in my opinion, are different. They hold their spiritual experiences up as sources of special knowledge, deeper than what fundamentalists get by their study of texts. There are often fights between visionaries and fundamentalists: e.g. at the beginning of the Hasidic movement; Sufism; around the time of St. Francis; etc. etc.

 

The followers of the visionaries, who don't experience the same visions, often encode the interpretations of their founders into new sets of doctrine. Successive generations can become fundamentalist if private, ecstatic experience is no longer held up as accessible to everyone. By my view, religions in their first generation cannot be fundamentalist. If Jesus and the disciples were historical personages, whatever they were doing wasn't fundamentalism. Fundamentalists always look back to what they imagine is the original purity of the religion in its first days. By definition, in my book, they are always separated in time from the beginnings of the belief system.

 

At the same time, as someone said above, they often neglect how their system enshrines changes that occurred since the beginning. People have told me that the texts used by Islamic fundamentalists are at the very least a century older than the time of Mohammed. Other changes get added on through time (e.g. female genital mutilation) and are defended wrongly as though they belong to the original religion.

 

I agree that fundamentalists in our world have the additional characteristic of forming communities artificially. That's how they differ from traditional communities. Traditional communities are organized around stable family structures, stable occupation of land, stable economic conditions of production, stable leadership. When big economic or political changes occur and people are displaced, often into urban ghettoes or even abroad (Muslims in the UK or Holland, etc.), very few principles of organization exist. Then interpretation of texts as guided by a leadership is in proportion a much stronger principle of social organization than it was in a traditional society, where other factors contribute to stability and water down the effect of mastery of the text. Village elders in a traditional society might not even be literate.

 

I think there could be fundamentalist Marxists or Objectivists - I don't think the texts have to be religious, necessarily.

[Caretaker]

Unofficial definition, but I'd say a common trait I believe to see in a fundamentalist, is that they even make the typical Christian shudder.

[Lilith]

Here is a couple of ways to tell:

 

Women preachers:  Not fundy

Treat Gays like lepers:  Fundy

Make women wear dresses and no makeup:  dyno-sized fundy

No Television:  mega-sized fundy

Think other religions have some pretty good ideas too:  NOT fundy

Let you wear shorts and flops to church:  not fundy

Ban all alcohol, because Jesus only drank grape juice: Big fundy

Have a special get together on Halloween so kids can't trick or treat  Fundy

Believe that sin is defined by anything that's fun:  Fundy

Think that the Holy Spirit does not dwell within people:  Not fundy

Believes "born again"  really means "born from above"  Not fundy

 

And that's all I have to say about that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I've been to some rather fundy churches that had either a woman preacher (my favorite church to date...) or let you wear flip-flops and cut-offs to service w/o batting an eyelash (the church I was saved in).

 

FWIW.

[Caretaker]

FWIW, I once had to babysit in a neighborhood that was packed with Fundamentalists. The clothing was extrememly distinctive, Boys always had a crew cut, no name brands, shirts tucked in... Girls in Sunday best skirts *everyday* and their hair was always kept to waist length.

 

And of course, they were forbidden to watch TV or listen to radio. Crap, even John Denver was of the tool of the devil! The person I babysat for wasn't fundy, luckily. Her kids have gotten to know some of the fundy kids, though, and I do know the fundy kids do NOT step foot in the house if either the TV or the radio are on.

 

But these are just my observations of one neighborhood.

[Guest Loki]

To me a Fundy or (Bible Thumper as I sometimes like to call them) is someone who believe that the bible is not only the Word of God and that it's 100% literal and true, but that it is the only book you should read. A lot of the most fanatical Fundies I've ran across will tell me to my face that I shouldn't read any other book except for the bible because if I do I'd be filling my mind with Satan's lies. As I said in one of my previous posts on another thread, most of them don't really even read their bible's themselves they just pick bits and pieces that suit them.

 

The typical fundy is arrogant, beligerant, dogmatic, extremely narrow-minded, believes the most fantastic of fantasies, is fanatically obssessed with worshiping their god, and isn't well read except for maybe in their religion. They make worshiping their god as their #1 duty in life and will let everything else go down the drain, I find that a lot of fundies have health problems because they don't seem to take care of themselves because they see their "flesh" as evil and only temporary. They are more conserned about what happens after they die then their lives here in now.

 

Most of them won't watch Tv unless it's "Christian", same for movies and music. They dress outdated and overly modest. (For example, when I was in a Christian School they would let you wear what they called "shorts" but they had to be two inches below the knee. You had to tuck in your shirt. You couldn't wear orange or black because it was "Satantic". You could wear any clothes advertizing anything, not even sports teams.)

[Guest Roamin' Lion]

Fundamentalism is about power and control the need for which is based in fear. Exclusion is meant as a control measure to isolate true believers from the outside world.

 

If you look at family systems theory, it follows that any cult-like fundamentalist group will operate much the same way.

 

It matters little if it a holy roller church or the taliban or the neocon politians or even Amway. It is all a brand of fundamentalism that is meant to control the actions and the thoughts of the adherents.

[Guest marktaylor]

We had a question about what distinguish a fundie from regular Christian, so I wanted to start this topic to see what we mean with it.

 

The word fundie comes from Fundamentalist.

 

And I'm sure apostates have different ideas what they want to be called a fundie, and Christians most likely have different view.

 

So Apostates and Christians ... read, set, GO!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A fundamentalist would give YOUR life for what they believe. It's a matter of ownership.

[Ouroboros]

Han Solo stated a good question.

 

Sometimes things go in both sides, though.

 

A supplementary thinking point – can there exist a category of Fundamental Atheist? Fundamental skeptic?

 

Have forum members met some?

 

I find it funny to sometimes call myself for a "Hardcore Fundamentalist Agnostic", it's just as non-defining as a "Ultra-Moderate" in politics. It's hard to be decisive on non-decisiveness.

[Amethyst]

IMHO, fundyism isn't limited to Christians, but it's most often seen in members of religious cults. I think anyone can be a fundie. Heck, even atheists can.

 

My definition of a fundie is someone who is always right, and everyone else is always wrong, regardless of what the logic or evidence may say. A fundie is someone who is extremely narrow-minded, and usually bigoted towards certain groups of people. Fundies are notorious for believing whatever they want to, and plugging their ears and singing "la, la, la, la, I can't hear you!" whenever anyone else has an opposing idea.

 

According to Gilles Kepel, fundamentalism is a product of the modern world, where people use their moderne thinking and modern technology to fight against the modern world. In the same way, as the workers movement was a product of industrialization and not all people feeling well in the process, Gilles Kepel sees fundamentalism as a sign, that something in the modern world isn’t okay.

 

Yes, I would agree that uncertainty breeds religious cults, especially of the extremist variety. We are definitely living in uncertain times. (I have this nagging feeling that someone in a previous life gave me the "may you live in interesting times" curse, and so here I am.) It's not very surprising that there are so many cults around nowadays, even with science that can disprove every single one of them. I do find it sad, though.

 

I find it funny to sometimes call myself for a "Hardcore Fundamentalist Agnostic", it's just as non-defining as a "Ultra-Moderate" in politics.

 

Heh...aren't "hardcore fundamentalist" and "agnostic" mutually exclusive? I like to think that I'm open to new ideas, as long as there is evidence to back them up.

[Thurisaz]

cyberdiva113~

 

Do you believe that Mormons and JW's fall into the same category as the list Mythra provided? (Denominations within Christianity)

 

As long as Jesus plays a very prominent role in their mythology, don't you think that makes them christians (refering to the definition of that term)?

[thomas]

But at the same time, US allow people to do a lot of stuff, and still there's more cults started here than anywhere else?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I do not remember the specific things, that Gilles Kepel had in mind. But I think I have seen others suggesting, that a rapid changing society may cause some types of personalities to seek security in a rigid belief system. It is my inpression, that predictability and control is one of the issues.

[Totallyatpeace]

QUOTE(Totallyatpeace @ Jun 19 2005, 05:32 PM)

cyberdiva113~

 

Do you believe that Mormons and JW's fall into the same category as the list Mythra provided? (Denominations within Christianity)

 

As long as Jesus plays a very prominent role in their mythology, don't you think that makes them christians (refering to the definition of that term)?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Interesting question, Thurisaz. I have never thought of it that way as I was taught that they are cults, outside of Christianity.

 

Jesus plays a part in Islam, too.

[Totallyatpeace]

I do not consider Word of Faith a cult. We have dictrinal differences but they are not a cult.

 

This is exactly the thing that frustrates me as about Conservative Christians (which I am one).....that because someone interprets scripture a bit differently that they are cast aside as being part of a cult. I could rant on and on about this but I think I'm on the wrong web site to do that.

[Lilith]

I do not consider Word of Faith a cult. We have dictrinal differences but they are not a cult.

 

This is exactly the thing that frustrates me as about Conservative Christians (which I am one).....that because someone interprets scripture a bit differently that they are cast aside as being part of a cult. I could rant on and on about this but I think I'm on the wrong web site to do that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'd be interested in discussing this further with you. Perhaps a new thread is in order?

[Ouroboros]

Heh...aren't "hardcore fundamentalist" and "agnostic" mutually exclusive?  I like to think that I'm open to new ideas, as long as there is evidence to back them up.

 

That's the purpose of the label, it is a total contradiction, you can't be both.

Agnostic is a skeptic view of things, while fundamentalist have made a final acceptance of things.

 

So being a fundamentalist agnostic, is just a funny wordplay to throw people off.

[Ouroboros]

I do not remember the specific things, that Gilles Kepel had in mind. But I think I have seen others suggesting, that a rapid changing society may cause some types of personalities to seek security in a rigid belief system. It is my inpression, that predictability and control is one of the issues.

Basically the fear of change and the fear of the unknown creates ideas that take strong root in peoples minds. They just can't handle the situation and need a crutch.