Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

What "is" Fundamentalist Christianity

Religion Christianity Fundamentalism

  • Please log in to reply
85 replies to this topic

#81 Morrhigan

Morrhigan
  • Islander
  • 1,546 posts

Posted 25 June 2004 - 04:59 PM

Regarding the definition of Fundamentalism, here's something with a historical perspective:

http://religiousmove.../nrms/fund.html

An excerpt:

Quote

The term `fundamentalism' has its origin in a series of pamphlets published between 1910 and 1915. Entitled "The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth," these booklets were authored by leading evangelical churchmen and were circulated free of charge among clergymen and seminarians. By and large, fundamentalism was a response to the loss of influence traditional revivalism experienced in America during the early years of the twentieth century. This loss of influence, coupled with the liberalizing trends of German biblical criticism and the encroachment of Darwinian theories about the origin of the universe, prompted a response by conservative churchmen. The result was the pamphlets. In 1920, a journalist and Baptist layman named Curtis Lee Laws appropriated the term `fundamentalist' as a designation for those who were ready "to do battle royal for the Fundamentals."

This site is excellent, with a lot of links and references:

http://www.wordiq.co..._fundamentalism

Excerpt:

Quote

Within the United States, fundamentalism was originally a movement beginning in the late 19th century of Christian evangelical conservatives, who, in a reaction to modernism, insisted on adhering to a set of core beliefs. Fundamentalists, in this sense, have engaged in criticism of more liberal movements. The original formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs can be traced to the Niagara Bible Conference in 1878. In 1910, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church distilled these into what were known as the "five fundamentals", which were:

Inerrancy of the Scriptures
The virgin birth and deity of Jesus Christ
The doctrine of substitutionary atonement
The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ
The bodily second coming of Jesus Christ [1] (http://www.suite101....istianity/52921)

This site is pretty good, too:

http://www.wordiq.co.../Fundamentalism

Exerpt:

Quote

Fundamentalists claim both that they practice their religion as the first adherents did and that this is how religion should be practiced. In other words, a Christian ought to believe and practice as those who knew and followed Jesus during His time on earth.

Can you tell I'm a research junkie? :lol:
Posted Image

#82 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 25 June 2004 - 05:04 PM

Morrhigan, on Jun 25 2004, 10:57 PM, said:

Quote

This loss of influence, coupled with the liberalizing trends of German biblical criticism and the encroachment of Darwinian theories about the origin of the universe, prompted a response by conservative churchmen.

This site is excellent, with a lot of links and references:

Darwin was about evolution, not about the big bang. That's Astronomy, not biology. Origin of the Universe, and Origin of the species are two totally unrelated topics.

Edited by Cyberhippie, 25 June 2004 - 05:05 PM.


#83 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 25 June 2004 - 05:12 PM

In the context of how reactions to science have affected religious movements, it's all the same, because Creationists themselves don't make a distinction. The way it was described was "this is what they were reacting to". That biology-astronomy equivalence ganging up on religion isn't real, but it IS what they were reacting to, just like a hallucinator doing what the voice tell him/her.

#84 Cardie

Cardie

    I'm a very *good* tailor

  • Administrator
  • 22,632 posts

Posted 25 June 2004 - 05:29 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Jun 25 2004, 05:56 PM, said:

You're contending that some of the things the happen or are approved of in the Bible may not compart with our human standards of right or wrong but that a Christian Fundamentalist accepts that because they are all part of God's Plan, they are acceptable within the context of the Bible?
I would say rather that because they are in the Bible, the Fundamentalist knows that they are part of God's plan.  Much of God's plan humans are never privy to, but the Bible provides a few small spoilers.  ;)

Cardie
Nothing succeeds like excess.

#85 Kimmer

Kimmer
  • Islander
  • 6,388 posts

Posted 25 June 2004 - 07:32 PM

Quote

The Amakelites and the Midianites might quarrel with the morality espoused in the Old Testament, had they not all been murdered or sold into slavery and concubuinage on the alleged orders of God.

Re: the Amakelites--

"Now go, attack the Amakelites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them.  Do not spare them: put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camel and donkeys." - 1 Sam 15:3

A point of clarification here. Let's put this verse into context (the bold is mine):

1Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD. 2Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. 3Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. I Sam. 15:1-3

Verse 2 gives us the reason the Lord told Saul to destroy the Amakelites. If you continue on you will read:

9But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep and of the oxen and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them; all that was despised and worthless they utterly destroyed.

So Saul spared the King, and technically they were not all wiped out. Okay, it's a small point, but it's important to keep things straight as much as possible - at least to me.

Just for fun, here is the result of what Saul did:

22 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. 23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

Why is all this even in the Bible? It's there as a testimony and as a example to us. The lesson here, to me is that God detests stubbornness and disobedience (and that means I'm in *big* trouble!).

Quote

Re: the Midianites:

"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women-children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." Num 31:17

The Midianites were worshipers of Baal-peor. They joined forces with Balak, the king of Moab, to entice the Israelites to join them in licentious orgies connected with the worship of Baal-peor. (Num. 22:4-7) The Israelites took part in the heathen festivals and orgies, and brought upon themselves a terrible punishment -- a plague that killed more than 24,000 of them. (Num. 25:9)

The destroying of the Midianites was God's punishment upon them for their behavior.

Quote

I'm not trying to be inflammatory here.  I just have a very difficult time reconciling the notion of a just and merciful God with some sections from the Old Testament, and I'm curious as to how others are able to do so. 
Sometimes I just have to remind myself that God sees all and knows all and I don't. I have this finite little mind and can't begin to comprehend the way God does. I simply have to take things on faith and move on with things that I can understand and do things with (such as learning to not be so stubborn). ;)

#86 Kimmer

Kimmer
  • Islander
  • 6,388 posts

Posted 25 June 2004 - 07:33 PM

Quote

Now I'm admittedly drawing on *long ago* memories of Bible Study (both formal and informal) but I really remember that Christ's arrival was a sign that nothing like the flood that led to Noah's Arc, for example, would ever be ordered by God again.

Gen. 9:11-17 ... the Rainbow was God's Covenant that He would never again destroy the world by flood.

Christ's arrival was to fulfill the promise of OT Scripture, that a Savior would be provided.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Religion, Christianity, Fundamentalism

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users