Are you a fundamentalist?

[Counterpoint]

Indeed. It applies to any internally consistent ideology. Whether it corresponds to reality is another matter.

The definition does not make the qualification “internally consistent.” IMHO, most (if not all) religions and ideologies are anything but internally consistent.

 

[edwest2]

The purpose of this thread is to discuss fundamentalism. I thought that was obvious.

“Fundamentalism is the demand for a strict adherence to orthodox theological doctrines usually understood as a reaction against Modernist theology.” So yes, I’m a fundamentalist.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Counterpoint]

“Fundamentalism is the demand for a strict adherence to orthodox theological doctrines usually understood as a reaction against Modernist theology.” So yes, I’m a fundamentalist.

Agreed. You’re a fundamentalist.

 

[edwest2]

Agreed. You’re a fundamentalist.

Uh… so the discussion part is … ??

Ed

 

[Pancras]

.
Atoms are fundamental.
I believe in their existence.
So yes, I’m a fundamentalist!

.

Ha ha ha ha! You made my day! ---- Again!
.

 

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by edwest2
“Fundamentalism is the demand for a strict adherence to orthodox theological doctrines usually understood as a reaction against Modernist theology.” So yes, I’m a fundamentalist.

That’s uncool. You agreed that we were using ‘fundamentalist’ in the pejorative in the beginning. If you started the conversation to argue that ‘Catholics are ret-rded’ and edwest2 has said, “I have paraplegia, so yes, I’m ret-rded”, do you think it would be ethical to conflate the literal meaning and the pejorative to prove your point? No. You are playing the shifty deceivers card here.

 

[Counterpoint]

That’s uncool. You agreed that we were using ‘fundamentalist’ in the pejorative in the beginning. If you started the conversation to argue that ‘Catholics are ret-rded’ and edwest2 has said, “I have paraplegia, so yes, I’m ret-rded”, do you think it would be ethical to conflate the literal meaning and the pejorative to prove your point? No. You are playing the shifty deceivers card here.

I’m simply agreeing with him.

 

[Counterpoint]

Uh… so the discussion part is … ??

The discussion has reached a conclusion. We have determined that “fundamentalism is the demand for a strict adherence to orthodox theological doctrines usually understood as a reaction against Modernist theology.” And we both agree that you are a (Catholic) fundamentalist.

 

[edwest2]

The discussion has reached a conclusion. We have determined that “fundamentalism is the demand for a strict adherence to orthodox theological doctrines usually understood as a reaction against Modernist theology.” And we both agree that you are a (Catholic) fundamentalist.

Which means nothing according to this comment. Since it is obvious that zero discussion was the goal.

Ed

 

[tonyrey]

The definition does not make the qualification “internally consistent.” IMHO, most (if not all) religions and ideologies are anything but internally consistent.

If all ideologies are internally inconsistent your conclusion is unreliable! Total scepticism is self-destructive…

 

[tonyrey]

The definition does not make the qualification “internally consistent.” IMHO, most (if not all) religions and ideologies are anything but internally consistent.

If all ideologies are internally inconsistent your conclusion is unreliable! Total scepticism is self-destructive…

 

[Counterpoint]

Which means nothing according to this comment. Since it is obvious that zero discussion was the goal.

Did you or did you not state the following?

“Fundamentalism is the demand for a strict adherence to orthodox theological doctrines usually understood as a reaction against Modernist theology.” So yes, I’m a fundamentalist.

 

[NekoNecro]

Yes, the followers of most revealed religions who adhere to the letter of every teaching could be called fundamentalists. Since Catholicism demands total obedience and submission to the dictat of an absolute authority it does fulfill the requirements.

Strict Catholics (i.e: Non-Cafeteria or Liberal Catholics) could be called fundamentalists, although that is usually reserved for Biblical fundamentalist movements (and is probably best kept that way, saves confusion).

 

[Counterpoint]

Yes, the followers of most revealed religions who adhere to the letter of every teaching could be called fundamentalists. Since Catholicism demands total obedience and submission to the dictat of an absolute authority it does fulfill the requirements.

Agreed.