Why We Should Attack Moderate Religiosity

[classicchinadoll]

 

 

 

Was Paul confused? Oh, sure, in his context. Was it the same context of ours; as the "modern Christian". Not so much. The modern Christian I would say has it worse, in many regards. They are trying to make today, fit yesterday! And when they have little, to no clue what that yesterday even was.

 

In short... it's not so simple to cast stones.

 

 

 

Trying to go back to the ancient world, the way that people thought within 1st century culture and before that, is simply impossible. Sometimes with careful historical study one can experience impressions of it; maybe experience the odd conceptual rush of how "reality" was shaped in that era, but no modern person could truly understand it.

 

You're right about the mythical nature of it all, Antler. Many of these things had context in different ways that the modern Bible student or fundamentalist would or could ever see; again like the Greek myths there developed a lore that didn't necessarily have to be literal or logically congruent. Even the Garden of Eden story, if taken as a metaphorical satire, can have tremendous philosophical depth. Unfortunately, those levels of understanding are meaningless or ignored by modernists who think that they can figure out the meaning of their faith through a series of redundant episodes that don't really say anything profound, at least beyond the amusing "miraculous" or superficial aspects of the event.

 

That may satisfy the aspiration for the mystical,or that all great acts must have some kind of epic nature to them, but not for the full symbolic and philosophical nature of the event. For the ancients, the Garden of Eden story is about transformation, the transformative effect, human nature, and the complex notions about Fate. This would be apparent to the ancient mind, and derived from the writings of ancient thinkers, apparent to even a modernist. But not apparent to the desperate intellectual isolation of the modern Bible fundamentalist, trapped in a world of only modern thinking, which can only outline superficial and mundane references. Sad in a way, there are many parts of the Bible that are fascinating as historical symbolism and concept, but this is largely ignored by the obsessed modernists, so desperately seeking the symbols and ideas that only their modern minds can relate to, and in a way continuously trying to "re-invent" their religion and even understand their own internal philosophy.

 

What's the old saying ? "You kinda had to be there..."

 

I don't know i may be wrong but if ancient people recognized their mythology as just that, mythology, why were they doing things such as sacrificing their children to ancient gods

[classicchinadoll]

Sad in a way, there are many parts of the Bible that are fascinating as historical symbolism and concept,

 

 

A lot of serial killers invoke symbolism in killing their victims, I don't feel I am any worse off for not understanding what they were trying to express.

[Antlerman]

 

 

 

Was Paul confused? Oh, sure, in his context. Was it the same context of ours; as the "modern Christian". Not so much. The modern Christian I would say has it worse, in many regards. They are trying to make today, fit yesterday! And when they have little, to no clue what that yesterday even was.

 

In short... it's not so simple to cast stones.

 

 

 

Trying to go back to the ancient world, the way that people thought within 1st century culture and before that, is simply impossible. Sometimes with careful historical study one can experience impressions of it; maybe experience the odd conceptual rush of how "reality" was shaped in that era, but no modern person could truly understand it.

 

You're right about the mythical nature of it all, Antler. Many of these things had context in different ways that the modern Bible student or fundamentalist would or could ever see; again like the Greek myths there developed a lore that didn't necessarily have to be literal or logically congruent. Even the Garden of Eden story, if taken as a metaphorical satire, can have tremendous philosophical depth. Unfortunately, those levels of understanding are meaningless or ignored by modernists who think that they can figure out the meaning of their faith through a series of redundant episodes that don't really say anything profound, at least beyond the amusing "miraculous" or superficial aspects of the event.

 

That may satisfy the aspiration for the mystical,or that all great acts must have some kind of epic nature to them, but not for the full symbolic and philosophical nature of the event. For the ancients, the Garden of Eden story is about transformation, the transformative effect, human nature, and the complex notions about Fate. This would be apparent to the ancient mind, and derived from the writings of ancient thinkers, apparent to even a modernist. But not apparent to the desperate intellectual isolation of the modern Bible fundamentalist, trapped in a world of only modern thinking, which can only outline superficial and mundane references. Sad in a way, there are many parts of the Bible that are fascinating as historical symbolism and concept, but this is largely ignored by the obsessed modernists, so desperately seeking the symbols and ideas that only their modern minds can relate to, and in a way continuously trying to "re-invent" their religion and even understand their own internal philosophy.

 

What's the old saying ? "You kinda had to be there..."

Yes! Very well expressed. I'm booking marking this.

 

 

Now, using this in part as a context to address this whole question of Fundamentalism, and the use of it. I think this Wiki article about Christian Fundamentalism is a good thing to look over: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity The context of fundamentalism is in fact Modernity. It is an approach to religion is reaction to something. It is defined against something.

 

The claim of Fundamentalists to be what those of the early church were is a political claim, and cannot be supported contextually. This post above, plus what I've said speaking of that culture and how they used symbols etc, simply cannot be extended forward to say any modern Christian, fundamentalist or otherwise, is believing, experiencing, expressing, or practicing their faith in anyway that can be said to be 'fundamental' to the religion as a whole.

 

Everything back then operated under the umbrella of mythology, its how the world expressed itself, and therefore you can't have a 'fundamentalist'. You would essentially have to say that they were all fundamentalist. And if they were all fundamentalist, that that was the norm, then none were fundamentalist. And because that world was different, than society and culture thought differently, the use of the word "fundamentalist" today, is a complete fallacy. It is in their modern imagination, that that's the early Christians thought like them! They are laying claim to something that is not theirs, and no genuine way for them to lay claim to it. It's like planting a flag on a symbolic moon and saying "We are moon people!" It's a marketing distinction, itself a mythological expression of social conservatism.

 

Likewise, to criticize and condemn thoughts, perceptions, practices, values, etc from a modern context into the old is also a gross misunderstanding of context. It was a different world back then and they were not practicing immorality in their day from their perspectives. In fact they were, and existed in fact, were becoming, because they were in fact progressives. Not fundamentalists. Christianity was a radical change. In fact I have said, and will stand by it, that in many regards they were like modern atheism (in a social context, not in symbolic content). Perhaps more appropriately stated, they were Hippies! Hippies are not fundamentalist equivalents.

 

You have to understand that Christianity began as a movement. That makes it a social movement, and the use of religious context was its context as culture. The symbols of God were evolving to be more inclusive of others ---- that is the opposite of a fundamentalist! It was radical. "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, but all are one in Christ." As we say in Minnesota, Uffdah! If you put yourself in that context of the Conservative Jewish world (the Pharisee), that is a major threat to it. Sort of like a more radical form of Universalism today saying "you don't need to become a Christian to be saved". In fact as a interesting footnote, I imagine that Paul's conversion to Christianity and becoming a proponent of it (unlike the later elaborated myth in Acts about his conversion), was that he saw that it was a better way to get people converted to Judaism by relaxing the requirements such as chopping off bits of your male member... He was well motivated to see the light of change, and believing in it, and created myths to support it. It all may seem really backwards in light of our worldviews today, but in his day it was quite progressive actually.

 

Martin Luther could not be considered a fundamentalist either, nor any Christian in the dark ages. Again, context: social, cultural, and scientific contexts. It was how people lived. They did not have our context, and cannot be judged by our context, and furthermore any modern group claiming linkage to the past as the "pure form" is making a ridiculous claim. It is nothing higher that nostalgia: putting colored glasses on looking at the past; planting a flag on a symbolic moon and claiming they are the True Moon People. No, fundamentalism is a modern phenomena defined again Post-Enlightenment Modernity. It's an illusion, a marketing slogan laying claim to a past world that they have no part of, but wish they did. And if they did, they would be utterly out of context and in fact find little perch for the faith to rest in that world!

 

Therefore, to accept their claim and attack to the past to attack them, is to accept their claims. I reject their claims and criticize them as contemporaries, in this context. I won't let them hide themselves in some imaginary past they want others to see them in.

 

sorry for all the typos, I was racing to get out the door and typing fast...

[Shyone]

[

Now, using this in part as a context to address this whole question of Fundamentalism, and the use of it. I think this Wiki article about Christian Fundamentalism is a good thing to look over: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity The context of fundamentalism is in fact Modernity. It is an approach to religion is reaction to something. It is defined against something.

 

The claim of Fundamentalists to be what those of the early church were is a political claim, and cannot be supported contextually. This post above, plus what I've said speaking of that culture and how they used symbols etc, simply cannot be extended forward to say any modern Christian, fundamentalist or otherwise, is believing, experiencing, expressing, or practicing their faith in anyway that can be said to be 'fundamental' to the religion as a whole.

I get this feeling that I'm going to be speaking a different language from you, but here goes.

 

I read the links about fundamentalism and the movement, together with the name, originated within the past 200 years. That much is clear.

 

I think that the ideals of fundamentalism were not just a reaction to modernist biblical criticism and all that, but rather something that people have been doing for a long time in different ways.

 

Take for example a hypothetical church started in 1858 called "Christianity." You could argue all you want that "Christianity" started within the last 200 years, but there is the Church that lays claim to the name and there is the general religion that lay down the principles espoused by the church of "Christianity."

 

Fundmantalism, as outlined in the links, employs these principles:

 

Fundamentalist Christianity, also known as Christian fundamentalism or fundamentalist evangelicalism, is a movement that arose mainly within British and American Protestantism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries among conservative evangelical Christians, who, in a reaction to liberal theology, actively asserted that the following ideas were fundamental to the Christian faith: the inerrancy of the Bible, Sola Scriptura, the virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the imminent personal return of Jesus Christ.

 

Which of these principles would Martin Luther have disagreed with?

[Vigile]

We go to church, pray, and thing that God will take us to heaven when we die", people, i.e., the majority of Christians prior to the more recent Boil-on-the-Face-of-America phenomena called Conservative Evangelicalism, symbolized by such deep minds as Pat Robertson, James Dobson, George W. Bush, et al.

 

Boy your part of the country must have a very different experience with it than where I grew up. Before all those you mention, I grew up with David Wilkerson, Hal Lindsey, Nicky Cruise, Corrie Tenboom, and many others. It was around me and my community my entire life. Moreover, my parents and even grandparents were awash in the stuff and it wasn't just their church, but it was all around them. When I first lived in DC I was surprised to find that religious influence was a completely different animal than it is in the west. I suspect in the liberal N Central where you live that might also be the case. Most people who go to church in the west, probably 90% on up, go to the fundy variety and it's not just a new fad that started with xianity's recent push into the political arena.

[Vigile]

Fundamentalism could not exist without the modernist way of looking at the world. It is a reaction against modernism and actually uses elements of the modernist mindset in formulating it's main ideas.

 

But as far as fundies are concerned, they have been pushing back against modernism since the Roman Empire. History is littered with it. Conservatives have been fighting the march of history for eons. Hobbes, for example.

[Antlerman]

We go to church, pray, and thing that God will take us to heaven when we die", people, i.e., the majority of Christians prior to the more recent Boil-on-the-Face-of-America phenomena called Conservative Evangelicalism, symbolized by such deep minds as Pat Robertson, James Dobson, George W. Bush, et al.

 

Boy your part of the country must have a very different experience with it than where I grew up. Before all those you mention, I grew up with David Wilkerson, Hal Lindsey, Nicky Cruise, Corrie Tenboom, and many others. It was around me and my community my entire life. Moreover, my parents and even grandparents were awash in the stuff and it wasn't just their church, but it was all around them. When I first lived in DC I was surprised to find that religious influence was a completely different animal than it is in the west. I suspect in the liberal N Central where you live that might also be the case. Most people who go to church in the west, probably 90% on up, go to the fundy variety and it's not just a new fad that started with xianity's recent push into the political arena.

 

I'm in the orange and blue area of Minnesota. Now if you look at the big red blight on the face of the Country, it certainly resembles a bit of an infestation, but world-wide its not so large. Kind of like an inflamed hemorrhoid in a way, although it is spreading its irritations to 3rd world countries at an increasing rate.

 

I'll have some other thoughts later.

[Vigile]

I'm not sure what their methods were but that map doesn't represent the west accurately at all. It has large swaths that are predominately catholic, yet virtually the only catholics there are latinos. And then it highlighted the area around where I grew up as LDS yet this represents only about 20% of the religious community in that area. Primarily the entire NW is protestant if they are religious. There are a wide variety of protestant churches but they all basically believe the same thing with some of them focused on minor scriptural interpretation differences.

 

This isn't scientific, but if I had to describe the NW, leaving out the large urban areas of Seattle and Portland, I'd say that 15-20% (perhaps slightly less) take religion seriously and those who do are primarily fundamental in their belief structure and most of those are protestant and LDS. The other 80% mostly self-identify as xian but I'd argue that they are for the most part not anything. I know this sounds like the True Xian argument, but there is a reason it is not. The TC argument is a debate about which belief system is right and which is wrong. Most of those in the West who simply self identify as xian do so without thinking about it much and without practicing it at all. It doesn't change their world view other than via cultural influences. They might think about it if they are given 6 months to live. They want church weddings and church funerals, but the rest of their lives are 100% secular.

 

So, when we discuss moderate xianity with the NW, where I grew up, as a frame of reference we are discussing non denom churches who adopt the apostolic creed, but are pretty loose with worship music, don't quibble over doctrine, etc... We aren't going to find many (maybe 1%) who view the bible as symbolic. You might find a few non church goers who do view the bible symbolically, but as I said, the vast majority of them don't really think about religion much and it's not something that changes them in any real way. Over the years, if you ask, you might run into a handful of people who you might consider mystical who look at the religion the way you are discussing, but the reason I am always confused by your posts on this topic is due to the fact that in the part of the country I grew up in these people are serious outliers. And since I hear horror stories about the South, much, much worse than the NW I'm thinking that the same is pretty much the case across most of the country other than NE and a few other isolated areas, fundamentalism rules the day amongst those who are really religious and not just self identified as such.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

And actually no, Pharisee's were not "fundamentalists", per se. They would be considered conservative. But yes, sociologically speaking there would always be the extreme on the Bell Curve (statistical normal distribution). Fundamentalism per se, as a rise in social movement, is really much more a recent phenomena.

If we're defining fundamentalism as believing in the original version of the Abrahamic faiths, then you could technically argue that the Sadducees were the real fundamentalists since the early Israelites didn't believe in an afterlife and neither did the Sadducees and it's the Pharisees who were the "heretics." And if that's how we're defining a fundamentalist, then for any modern Christian to be counted as a "true" believer in Yahweh, they should all go back to being polytheistic pagans because that's who the original followers of Yahweh were, not Republican monotheists.

 

actually the passage i was referring to was when Jesus vouched for the law and the prophets, I think this is a good point to make as those who maintain belief in Jesus and his words have to either address the ot as being morally directed by god or question the credibility of the Jesus story. I have already posted something on this topic explaining how our moral code has evolved to become far more human rights focused then say the ot times when slaves were permitted beating of slaves was permitted and women had practically no rights and were held as property.

That passage comes from Matthew's gospel and most likely does not date back to the historical Jesus. For every scripture you can point to where Jesus reveres the old law, there's other passages where Jesus refuted the old law, such as in Mark's gospel. If I'm remembering my religious history correctly, Mark's gospel, which is the earliest of the canon gospels, was writing for the Gentiles and trying to convince them they were no threat and so the author was trying to make Jesus' teachings more appealing to Gentiles by relaxing the standards of following the old law. Matthew's gospel was writing for the Jews and was trying to convince the Jews that the teachings of Jesus was a better form of Judaism than the Pharisees' and Jesus followed the old law better than the Pharisees do. The historical Jesus was most likely a Jew who followed the Torah, but we might not never know what he thought about Gentiles following the old law because the conflict between the Christians who thought Gentiles should follow the old law and those Christians who didn't think they had to was a post-Easter conflict. Thus, the passages of Jesus where he discusses following the old law is a post-Easter invention that represents the debate between the early Christians and the Pharisees and is not a historical account of what Jesus thought about Gentiles.

[classicchinadoll]

 

 

And actually no, Pharisee's were not "fundamentalists", per se. They would be considered conservative. But yes, sociologically speaking there would always be the extreme on the Bell Curve (statistical normal distribution). Fundamentalism per se, as a rise in social movement, is really much more a recent phenomena.

If we're defining fundamentalism as believing in the original version of the Abrahamic faiths, then you could technically argue that the Sadducees were the real fundamentalists since the early Israelites didn't believe in an afterlife and neither did the Sadducees and it's the Pharisees who were the "heretics." And if that's how we're defining a fundamentalist, then for any modern Christian to be counted as a "true" believer in Yahweh, they should all go back to being polytheistic pagans because that's who the original followers of Yahweh were, not Republican monotheists.

 

actually the passage i was referring to was when Jesus vouched for the law and the prophets, I think this is a good point to make as those who maintain belief in Jesus and his words have to either address the ot as being morally directed by god or question the credibility of the Jesus story. I have already posted something on this topic explaining how our moral code has evolved to become far more human rights focused then say the ot times when slaves were permitted beating of slaves was permitted and women had practically no rights and were held as property.

That passage comes from Matthew's gospel and most likely does not date back to the historical Jesus. For every scripture you can point to where Jesus reveres the old law, there's other passages where Jesus refuted the old law, such as in Mark's gospel. If I'm remembering my religious history correctly, Mark's gospel, which is the earliest of the canon gospels, was writing for the Gentiles and trying to convince them they were no threat and so the author was trying to make Jesus' teachings more appealing to Gentiles by relaxing the standards of following the old law. Matthew's gospel was writing for the Jews and was trying to convince the Jews that the teachings of Jesus was a better form of Judaism than the Pharisees' and Jesus followed the old law better than the Pharisees do. The historical Jesus was most likely a Jew who followed the Torah, but we might not never know what he thought about Gentiles following the old law because the conflict between the Christians who thought Gentiles should follow the old law and those Christians who didn't think they had to was a post-Easter conflict. Thus, the passages of Jesus where he discusses following the old law is a post-Easter invention that represents the debate between the early Christians and the Pharisees and is not a historical account of what Jesus thought about Gentiles.

 

Yes if someone were to look into everything in the gospels, they would indeed have to question the credibility of the Jesus story, by noticing contradictions and drawing a fair assumption to the writers intention is a good way to do this. My post is aimed at christians who are not prone to study or textual criticism, but more to christians who spout Jesus's teachings and words as if everything said did come from this man named Jesus.

[classicchinadoll]

[

Now, using this in part as a context to address this whole question of Fundamentalism, and the use of it. I think this Wiki article about Christian Fundamentalism is a good thing to look over: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity The context of fundamentalism is in fact Modernity. It is an approach to religion is reaction to something. It is defined against something.

 

The claim of Fundamentalists to be what those of the early church were is a political claim, and cannot be supported contextually. This post above, plus what I've said speaking of that culture and how they used symbols etc, simply cannot be extended forward to say any modern Christian, fundamentalist or otherwise, is believing, experiencing, expressing, or practicing their faith in anyway that can be said to be 'fundamental' to the religion as a whole.

I get this feeling that I'm going to be speaking a different language from you, but here goes.

 

I read the links about fundamentalism and the movement, together with the name, originated within the past 200 years. That much is clear.

 

I think that the ideals of fundamentalism were not just a reaction to modernist biblical criticism and all that, but rather something that people have been doing for a long time in different ways.

 

Take for example a hypothetical church started in 1858 called "Christianity." You could argue all you want that "Christianity" started within the last 200 years, but there is the Church that lays claim to the name and there is the general religion that lay down the principles espoused by the church of "Christianity."

 

Fundmantalism, as outlined in the links, employs these principles:

 

Fundamentalist Christianity, also known as Christian fundamentalism or fundamentalist evangelicalism, is a movement that arose mainly within British and American Protestantism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries among conservative evangelical Christians, who, in a reaction to liberal theology, actively asserted that the following ideas were fundamental to the Christian faith: the inerrancy of the Bible, Sola Scriptura, the virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the imminent personal return of Jesus Christ.

 

Which of these principles would Martin Luther have disagreed with?

 

I agree with you shyone, whether ppl want to define fundamentalism in a way that only attaches itself to a modern group does not change the fact that the very ideas behind fundamentalism is something that has expressed itself through out religious history, the understanding or doctrines may change but the strict adherence to the rules of holy writings and condemnation for those who don't do the same, is a repetitive theme over history.

[Franko47]

Well, the themes can be the same, but there is a subtle difference between literal acceptance of Biblical events and stories, and seeing them in their explicit symbolism and ancient cultural meanings.

 

The first two centuries (AD) saw a lot of Christians who were Arianists as well as other descriptive groups whose theology was eventually overuled at the Council of Nicea. Primitive Christianity was more dependent upon anecdotal reference, mythical and legendary representations, and so on, than the modern Bible fundamentalist would concede. (Too bad we don't have statistical polling results from those eras; results would be very interesting)

 

In fact, there is reason to say that the first few generations of Christians would balk at the idea of Jesus now being a part of the "Godhead" and all this 'trinity' stuff.

 

I see Christianity as the evolution of a new religion anyway, sprung from the well of Judaism, with Paul likely as influential with this as Jesus himself. In fact, if Jesus is partially a construct, then that makes Paul of Tarsus the de facto founder of Christianity, like Joseph Smith to the Mormons.

[Antlerman]

[

Now, using this in part as a context to address this whole question of Fundamentalism, and the use of it. I think this Wiki article about Christian Fundamentalism is a good thing to look over: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity The context of fundamentalism is in fact Modernity. It is an approach to religion is reaction to something. It is defined against something.

 

The claim of Fundamentalists to be what those of the early church were is a political claim, and cannot be supported contextually. This post above, plus what I've said speaking of that culture and how they used symbols etc, simply cannot be extended forward to say any modern Christian, fundamentalist or otherwise, is believing, experiencing, expressing, or practicing their faith in anyway that can be said to be 'fundamental' to the religion as a whole.

I get this feeling that I'm going to be speaking a different language from you, but here goes.

 

I read the links about fundamentalism and the movement, together with the name, originated within the past 200 years. That much is clear.

 

I think that the ideals of fundamentalism were not just a reaction to modernist biblical criticism and all that, but rather something that people have been doing for a long time in different ways.

 

Take for example a hypothetical church started in 1858 called "Christianity." You could argue all you want that "Christianity" started within the last 200 years, but there is the Church that lays claim to the name and there is the general religion that lay down the principles espoused by the church of "Christianity."

 

Fundmantalism, as outlined in the links, employs these principles:

 

Fundamentalist Christianity, also known as Christian fundamentalism or fundamentalist evangelicalism, is a movement that arose mainly within British and American Protestantism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries among conservative evangelical Christians, who, in a reaction to liberal theology, actively asserted that the following ideas were fundamental to the Christian faith: the inerrancy of the Bible, Sola Scriptura, the virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the imminent personal return of Jesus Christ.

 

Which of these principles would Martin Luther have disagreed with?

You seem to be missing something. Martin Luther defined what became the modern Protestant theology. All these modern Fundamentalists were doing is taking that Protestant theology and interpreting it for themselves against Modernity. It basically taking basic Protestant beliefs and sticking their particular 19/20th Century social values into. They sure couldn't claim Catholic teaching (despite it being older) as the "fundamentals" of Christianity as they saw it! Good night, being a Protestant is again a "Not-This" religion. "Not Catholic" Protesting Catholics. Protestant. Sort of like A-Theist. I believe "not-this". That's what I believe...

 

In short, you're doing exactly what I said and that is allowing these modern Fundamentalist to write history in their image, and you have accepting their revision. You cannot however look back at the early church and imagine Luther, or Calvin, or the Roman Church, or Billy-Bob-Jesus-saved-me hayseed fundi from the Ozarks to look a damned thing like Jesus, the mythical disciples, Paul, et al. If you look at early Christian completely outside the patina of the later myth of the cannon and apostolic successions, it becomes apparent what is really going on.

 

I personally am not going to buy into their selling history to make it look like them. It's not warranted by any stretch of the imagination.

 

Edit: Actually, in thinking about it for a minute, if you were to say who of all the flavors of Christianity follow the 'fundamentals' of the early religion, it would be the Catholics. Why?? You ask... Because the early church was all about adapting and changing itself, creating new myths, to support itself fitting into new cultures and societies. That is how its myths evolved. So the fundamental nature of it, was being really adaptive using evolving myths to support itself into a new context. One needs just look at Catholicism with its many gods made saints, goddess worship, fish hatted priests, etc, etc, etc... That is very much fundamental to what created the canonical Christian texts. So.... who exactly is fundamentalist, and what does that really mean?

[Neon Genesis]

Even our modern day fundamentalists are different than the fundamentalist Christians from the 19th century. Like fundamentalists at first had no problems accepting evolution as a scientific fact and were more concerned with the rising threat of liberal scholarship at the time. It wasn't until after WWII that fundamentalists started to attack evolution more as they started to associate science negatively with Nazis.

[Shyone]

They sure couldn't claim Catholic teaching (despite it being older) as the "fundamentals" of Christianity as they saw it! Good night, being a Protestant is again a "Not-This" religion. "Not Catholic" Protesting Catholics. Protestant. Sort of like A-Theist. I believe "not-this". That's what I believe...

 

In short, you're doing exactly what I said and that is allowing these modern Fundamentalist to write history in their image, and you have accepting their revision. You cannot however look back at the early church and imagine Luther, or Calvin, or the Roman Church, or Billy-Bob-Jesus-saved-me hayseed fundi from the Ozarks to look a damned thing like Jesus, the mythical disciples, Paul, et al. If you look at early Christian completely outside the patina of the later myth of the cannon and apostolic successions, it becomes apparent what is really going on.

 

I personally am not going to buy into their selling history to make it look like them. It's not warranted by any stretch of the imagination.

Um, I still don't get it. Luther didn't say that Catholicism was fundamentalism. He said that religion should get back to it's basics: The inerrant bible and the other things that distinguish "fundamentalism."

 

Luther was rebelling against the Catholic church because they had supplanted biblical teachings with Papal Bull.

 

The 95 theses objected to indulgences, a doctrine that was distinctly unbiblical. He translated the Bible into German to make it more accessible, believing that everyone should be able to read and interpret the bible on its own merits.

 

He supported other doctrines based on whether he felt they had sufficient scriptural support (e.g. Communion).

 

I just don't really see any significant differences between the Protestant Reformation and Fundamentalism.

 

Can you list the differences? I asked earlier if you could show where Luther disputed any of the (five) principles of Fundamentalism, but it seems you can't.

[Shyone]

Edit: Actually, in thinking about it for a minute, if you were to say who of all the flavors of Christianity follow the 'fundamentals' of the early religion, it would be the Catholics. Why?? You ask... Because the early church was all about adapting and changing itself, creating new myths, to support itself fitting into new cultures and societies. That is how its myths evolved. So the fundamental nature of it, was being really adaptive using evolving myths to support itself into a new context. One needs just look at Catholicism with its many gods made saints, goddess worship, fish hatted priests, etc, etc, etc... That is very much fundamental to what created the canonical Christian texts. So.... who exactly is fundamentalist, and what does that really mean?

 

 

I replied before your edit, so let me address this.

 

The reason for the Reformation was that the Pope was garnering power and issuing Bulls and decrees that struck Luther as unsupported by the Bible. Likewise the new myths and the concentration of power. He said, "Every Christian is a Confessor" which went against the Catholic doctrines requiring people to confess to priests. He put the power into the hands of anyone that was able to understand the bible.

 

What I'm trying to convey is that the developments you speak of in the catholic church were viewed as veering off of the path that the bible suggested. "its many gods made saints, goddess worship, fish hatted priests, etc, etc, etc"

 

Hence, to get back to the religion "as god revealed it" would mean understanding the bible directly and not through the interpretation of any organization. Of course, with development of lutheranism, I imagine it again "veered" off this path, but that was the intent: to restore Christianity to what was said in the biblical canon.

 

Again, I recognize that "Fundamentalism" with a capital "F" was a movement that began fairly recently, the idea of Restoring religion to its fundamentals (fundamentalism with a lower case "f") was the goal of the Reformation.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

I just don't really see any significant differences between the Protestant Reformation and Fundamentalism.

 

Can you list the differences? I asked earlier if you could show where Luther disputed any of the (five) principles of Fundamentalism, but it seems you can't.

But even some of the leaders of the Protestant Reformation were not strict literalists like John Calvin believed science could be reconciled with scripture. This is quoted from page 167 of Karen Armstrong's book, The Bible-A Biography (a really good book I highly recommend, by the way).

Calvin never tired of pointing out that in the Bible God condescended to our limitations. The Word was conditioned by the historical circumstances in which it was uttered, so the less edifying stories of the Bible must be seen in context, as a phase in an ongoing process. There was no need to explain them away allegorically. The creation story in Genesis was an example of the divine balbative ("baby talk"), which adapted immensely complex processes to the mentality of the uneducated people. It was not surprising that the Genesis story differed from the new theories of the philosophers. Calvin had great respect for modern science. It should not be condemned simply "because some frantic persons are wont bodily to reject whatever is known to them. For astronomy is not only pleasant but also very useful to be known: it cannot be denied that this art unfolds the admirable wisdom of God." It was absurd to expect scripture to teach scientific fact; anybody who wanted to learn about astronomy should look elsewhere. The natural world was God's first revelation, and Christians should regard the new geographical, biological, and physical sciences as religious activities.

It's not as if Christians suddenly woke up one morning and decided "Hey, those science people were right! I better come up with a good allegory to explain this!" but the transition from a mythos to a logos understanding of the world was a gradual evolution in people's understanding of what faith and science meant to them.

[The-Captain]

I'm not sure what their methods were but that map doesn't represent the west accurately at all. It has large swaths that are predominately catholic, yet virtually the only catholics there are latinos. And then it highlighted the area around where I grew up as LDS yet this represents only about 20% of the religious community in that area.

 

Going by leading denomination likely has most of the map Catholic because they are more organized and report all attending parish members. If the hodgepodge of small denomination churches were counted together as "Protestant" the map would look a lot different.

[Shyone]

But even some of the leaders of the Protestant Reformation were not strict literalists like John Calvin believed science could be reconciled with scripture.

I should let a Christian describe the difference between biblical literalism and biblical inerrancy, but I think you know the difference. The 5 principles of Fundamentalism are:

 

The inspiration of the Bible by the Holy Spirit and the

inerrancy of Scripture

as a result of this.

The virgin birth of Christ.

The belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin.

The bodily resurrection of Christ.

The historical reality of Christ's miracles.

 

I would hardly call Calvin a liberal theologian, and although he viewed the bible in some parts as allegory, he did not describe them as erroneous. You will note that "strict literalism" of the bible is not one of the principles outlined for "Fundamentalism."

 

Fundamentalism does not require that one reject science in favor of biblical writings, although that idea may be prevalent among modern "fundamentalists."

 

If you include rejection of science, then you are redefining fundamentalism so drastically that even the original Fundamentalists would not recognize it.

 

Perhaps the problem is one of semantics. The "ism" of fundamentals was not coined until the last century. The principles have been brought out in different ways at least since the Reformation.

 

It would be like saying that Calvin wasn't opposed to stem cell research. Neither would the fundamentalists of the 1950's have been.

 

The bullseye to prove that fundamentalism is a totally modern development (other than the word) would be to show that Luther rejected one of the above 5 principles - without distorting their meaning (like changing inerrancy to literalism) or adding some characteristic of modern religious fundamentalism that was not characteristic of the movement in the Reformation or the 1950s.

[Vigile]

I'm not sure what their methods were but that map doesn't represent the west accurately at all. It has large swaths that are predominately catholic, yet virtually the only catholics there are latinos. And then it highlighted the area around where I grew up as LDS yet this represents only about 20% of the religious community in that area.

 

Going by leading denomination likely has most of the map Catholic because they are more organized and report all attending parish members. If the hodgepodge of small denomination churches were counted together as "Protestant" the map would look a lot different.

 

That's possible. I also thought they might have done it via the census. A lot of people who never go to church might self identify as catholic if asked their religion because they were consecrated as a baby.

 

However they did it, the map is worthless in understanding reality on the ground; at least as far as the NW is concerned. I feel unqualified to speak for other parts of the country.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

 

 

 

The bullseye to prove that fundamentalism is a totally modern development (other than the word) would be to show that Luther rejected one of the above 5 principles - without distorting their meaning (like changing inerrancy to literalism) or adding some characteristic of modern religious fundamentalism that was not characteristic of the movement in the Reformation or the 1950s.

But even Luther rejected the book of Revelation as being divinely inspired because he couldn't find Christ in Revelation. You asked what would be the difference between the early Protestants and modern day fundamentalists. If Luther lived today, he would be rejected by modern fundamentalists for not accepting Revelation as canon.

[Shyone]

 

 

 

 

 

The bullseye to prove that fundamentalism is a totally modern development (other than the word) would be to show that Luther rejected one of the above 5 principles - without distorting their meaning (like changing inerrancy to literalism) or adding some characteristic of modern religious fundamentalism that was not characteristic of the movement in the Reformation or the 1950s.

But even Luther rejected the book of Revelation as being divinely inspired because he couldn't find Christ in Revelation. You asked what would be the difference between the early Protestants and modern day fundamentalists. If Luther lived today, he would be rejected by modern fundamentalists for not accepting Revelation as canon.

Nonetheless, He translated Revelation and other books that he may have had questions about.

 

Initially Luther had a low view of the books of Esther, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. He called the Epistle of James "an epistle of straw," finding little in it that pointed to Christ and His saving work. He also had harsh words for the book of Revelation, saying that he could "in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it."[6] He had reason to question the apostolicity of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation because the early church categorized these books as antilegomena, meaning that they were not accepted without reservation as canonical. Luther did not, however, remove them from his editions of the Scriptures, but he placed them last in order. His views on some of these books changed in later years.

 

His bible, therefore, which does include the above books as canon, would be acceptable to fundamentalists (except that somefundamentalists insist on certain translations or versions...).

 

Btw, do all fundamentalists agree on a single version of the bible?

[Neon Genesis]

Conservapedia apparently does not accept any Protestant bible that contains the story of Jesus and the adultress woman because that story is obviously the work of a liberal agenda: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

[Shyone]

Conservapedia apparently does not accept any Protestant bible that contains the story of Jesus and the adultress woman because that story is obviously the work of a liberal agenda: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

It's ironic that they are probably right that the adulteress passage is an interpolation, but their motive for removing it is distasteful.

 

Interpolation or not, it's one of the nicest passages in the New Testament.

 

At least they aren't rewriting it so that Jesus throws the first stone.

[Neon Genesis]

Ironically, it's the liberal scholars who have been arguing for years now that the story of the adulteress woman is a later interpolation and for years fundamentalists have defended it being apart of the inerrant word of God. Now all of the sudden they're trying to claim it's the liberals who added it in and the fundamentalists were against it all along.