Fundamentalism

[Matthew_Light]

I am of the opinion that fundamentalism is a mindset and that there can be fundamentalists in every belief system. Fundamentalist atheists, fundamentalist Protestants, fundamentalist Catholics, fundamentalist Muslims, and fundamentalist Baha’is.

The fundamentalists tend to be very rigid and black-and-white in their beliefs. If someone has a different religion or world-view, they are “wrong”. People all should convert from their present world-view and join the fundamentalist’s religion or belief system, or they are going to “miss out” or suffer or even go to hell forever.

I also see a lot of people from many different beliefs who are far less absolutist. They recognize that truth looks different as we approach it from different directions. These people are much less interested in converting others viewpoints as discovering areas of agreement and cooperation with others. They see value in a diversity of perspectives over insisting on a monoculture.

It is interesting to see how alike all the fundamentalists are, regardless of which belief system they have attached themselves to, and how alike the pluralists are, regardless of what religion or philosophy they follow.

 

[DaveBj]

I agree with you, if we’re talking about fundamentalism (with a lower-case f), as you wrote it. If we’re talking about Fundamentalism, that is a specific subset of Protestant Christianity, as explained in the relevant Wikipedia article. As long as everyone can keep their fundamentalisms differentiated, we can all be on the same page.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

The fundamentalists tend to be very rigid and black-and-white in their beliefs. If someone has a different religion or world-view, they are “wrong”.

So according to your more tolerant worldview, Fundamentalists must be “right”.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

… They recognize that truth looks different as we approach it from different directions. These people are much less interested in converting others viewpoints as discovering areas of agreement and cooperation with others. They see value in a diversity of perspectives over insisting on a monoculture.

… how alike the pluralists are, regardless of what religion or philosophy they follow.

Either God converts them, or they convert themselves. I am interested in taking part, whether by praying (perhaps even through my general, non-specific prayers), whether by supplying background information on an oblique and obscure facet (to add depth and perspective), or whatever.

I want to proactively help people improve their viewpoint for whatever they want to provisionally decide (which may be just a step on their way). All human affairs are extremely deep and of infinite dimensions. I am honest that my language is allusive. All symbolism has always had infinite levels, not only in this context. All sciences that I am aware of affirm true faith as I see it (misconstruals have crept in mainly due to shallowness on all sides, though occasionally by genuine mistakes), therefore I love to talk about all the sciences though I am under-trained! Almost everybody’s minds are under-fed on almost all subjects, it’s tragic!

Holy Scriptures are bullet points on which to hang the Apostles’ catechesis, for those being called to, in a way, self-select into listening as they go if this is the time for them to do so. That way, there’s no genuine problem with their truth in so far as it emerges.

I want people to be more themselves. Those are the points on which I am diametrically opposed to the fundamentalists.

I also differ essentially from some so-called “pluralists” in ways that are uncomfortable to them because those particular people are fundamentalists in “disguise” (by denying genuine diversity while pretending to be “nice” about it). I’ve noticed some describing themselves as Baha’is attempting to defend this kind of “stance” which is not affirming of humanness. They are copying their political leaders in countries where there has sadly been little freedom for thousands of years.

Different beliefs and different individual standards of adherence (which others can’t often judge) are of genuinely different value, but it is not my job to police that. Many enquirers and many responders however don’t accept this which complicates the discussion. Some of us will have to drop out of it due to lack of energy and the thread will have got nowhere really.

Time and space being what they really are, God may help the person who is “wrong” become right before I become so. There’s no way of telling over the internet. In person, Scriptures tell us a lot about healthful interpersonal boundaries for Church members!

Each person claims to believe what they claim to believe for their own motives (which they themselves may not even know), and, as far as I am concerned, provisionally. If there is a point they want to really sincerely converse about (and the more specific the better) I’ll try & join in on what I take to be the face value of it, subject to time and energy.

Fundamentalists are opposed to lifelong catechesis (us all being shown how to listen to God in Holy Scriptures in the here and now and echoing that to each other) which is why they have abolished it.

The true Church has to have “diversity of perspectives” and never apparent “monoculture”. Every time I show my face I am living proof of 61 years’ standing!

Holy Scriptures of the Christian churches were never meant to be used without a lifelong existential catechumenate. That will help those who choose to folow it see to what extent as Jesus said “Our kingdom is not of this world” and “Give to Caesar what is Caesars’”

People of genuine good will can maybe somehow pray along with the Church (though I individually at present don’t happen to know how) and thereby take part in its good doing, before they understand all of its doctrines, as well as (I hope) other kinds of good doing especially small ones, as well.

[being continued]

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

[continued]

Some of the kind members here are adept at pointing out valuable web pages on various subjects for free informational use.

When some people enquire about something, “it’s not always about what it’s about” so I try to assure people of something, even if it’s different from what they thought important.

I am insufficiently familiar in some Christian teachings but for the time being I see for example morals as needing to go paired with morale. Many a brazen face is crushed inside, and has been so for a long time.

It’s been commonplace for thousands of years all round the world to call one’s main or only god “God” (or the local equivalent), and that doesn’t mean we have to insist the others are talking about the same one as we are or vice versa (if it may in theory not always totally exclude it). If we attribute to Him a quality that others don’t, the fact that we may or may not be wrong about that has its place in His scheme of things and is for Him to address if He wants, probably not mine, unless occasionally I can do so very simply within the sort of ideas I have described above, if I think it will help people within the perspective I think they need at this time. E.g a factual misunderstanding on a point of what I think is a genuine faith.

I believe in God’s Good Cafeteria (see my other posts on this ) so it’s a question of a portion of whatever will set people up for their next step in life.

It always helps when people explain their personal reason for enquiring (which needn’t go into delicate detail) and often they don’t play this part in the proceedings well enough.

I aim to feed the minds and help people use their minds freely, but sadly many have been taught by politicians that they mustn’t.

As this is a Christian site, it’s fine for you to expect that viewpoint to be stressed here, flavoured with our individual personalities!!!

HTH

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Most would believe others religions to be wrong. That doesn’t make one fundamentalist. Otherwise all religious people would be fundamentalist because if we actually believe in our religion then we believe others are false.

 

[Matthew_Light]

Most would believe others religions to be wrong. That doesn’t make one fundamentalist. Otherwise all religious people would be fundamentalist because if we actually believe in our religion then we believe others are false.

That is a belief that many religious people have, but many others do not. And whether or not one holds to that belief doesn’t seem to have much correspondence to which religion or philosophy one holds to, either. One of my closest friends is an Orthodox Christian who does not hold that his faith is true and that other faiths are not, and I would say the same about my own faith as a Baha’i.

 

[Michael1966]

Matthew. I agree. It also seems to me that a mark of fundamentalism is the inability to be open to the possibility of error, so their ‘subjective beliefs’ must, to them, be equivalent to ‘objective truth’. The position is also presuppositional - they are right because they are right; they can’t be wrong because they are right. Anyone who disagrees with them must be denying objective truth.

I suspect most, though not all, people grow out of fundamentalism. It’s often the position of a fairly recent convert to any particular truth proposition. Perhaps also people can become more fundamentalist when their faith is threatened - in such a threatened position it is harder to admit that they may be fighting for something that may not be true.

 

[anon67074017]

The fundamentalist Catholics are Traditionalist Catholics.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

The fundamentalist Catholics are Traditionalist Catholics.

Are they? Is the line any further in? What I mean is that Traditionalists have distanced themselves from the core of the RCC - there is a clear demarkation. Is there a line over which you would identify someone NOT Traditionalist as ‘fundamentalist’?

 

[Servant19]

Matthew. I agree. It also seems to me that a mark of fundamentalism is the inability to be open to the possibility of error, so their ‘subjective beliefs’ must, to them, be equivalent to ‘objective truth’. The position is also presuppositional - they are right because they are right; they can’t be wrong because they are right. Anyone who disagrees with them must be denying objective truth.

I suspect most, though not all, people grow out of fundamentalism. It’s often the position of a fairly recent convert to any particular truth proposition. Perhaps also people can become more fundamentalist when their faith is threatened - in such a threatened position it is harder to admit that they may be fighting for something that may not be true.

Wonderful and humbling post Michael.

There is no doubt that there is always doubt, as much as I feel certitude

.

 

[drac16]

Yeah, we have those kinds of people in the Islamic community; they’re called salafis. All they ever want to do is to debate minor issues of Fiqh, like whether it is or is not permissible to celebrate the Prophet’s birthday. Moreover, salafis tend to scoff when someone quotes a scholar that they don’t like (like Yasir Qadhi, for example).

It’s spiritually draining when all someone wants to do is argue and puff themselves up. They need to be more charitable, in my opinion.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

I am a Catholic and believe that we are chosen by Christ, but when I read the bible I see that the Jews are also God’s chosen people, in Islam, Allah chooses whom he wills.

So now I ask; did the same God make a mistake when he chooses someone to be a Jew, Christian or Muslim. Only God can judge and we will be judged in the same way we judge other people.

I believe each of our scriptures are more about how we change ourselves, rather than how we should try and change other people.

 

[MartinJordan]

It’s spiritually draining when all someone wants to do is argue and puff themselves up. They need to be more charitable, in my opinion.

Yes, the greatest of these is Charity. The Church has been teaching this for two millenium and still does.

MJ

 

[MartinJordan]

So now I ask; did the same God make a mistake when he chooses someone to be a Jew, Christian or Muslim. Only God can judge and we will be judged in the same way we judge other people.

I believe each of our scriptures are more about how we change ourselves, rather than how we should try and change other people.

I think there too many voices, and the Shepherd has been calling for so long, but people want to hear what they like to hear.

MJ

 

[anon67074017]

Are they? Is the line any further in? What I mean is that Traditionalists have distanced themselves from the core of the RCC - there is a clear demarkation. Is there a line over which you would identify someone NOT Traditionalist as ‘fundamentalist’?

Traditionalist Catholics are similar to fundamentalist Muslims. They both believe in a strict interpretation of their religion. Traditionalist Catholics believe in the strict authoritarian beliefs prior to Vatican II. Non-Traditionalist Catholics accept Vatican II. That is the line.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

Traditionalist Catholics are similar to fundamentalist Muslims. They both believe in a strict interpretation of their religion. Traditionalist Catholics believe in the strict authoritarian beliefs prior to Vatican II. Non-Traditionalist Catholics accept Vatican II. That is the line.

Yet I know non-Traditionalist Catholics who are very close to the, shall we say ‘fervor’, that Traditionalists hold. It is around different issues though… not Vatican II. But take that apart from the equation and you would have very similar beliefs and strictness. Where is the line there?

 

[anon67074017]

Yet I know non-Traditionalist Catholics who are very close to the, shall we say ‘fervor’, that Traditionalists hold. It is around different issues though… not Vatican II. But take that apart from the equation and you would have very similar beliefs and strictness. Where is the line there?

The line may revolve around the strictness and authoritarianism of those Catholics.

 

[josephback]

Tolerance is a Christian value, moral relativism masquerading as tolerance is the issue. Tolerance gets an undeserved bad rap through misunderstanding.

 

[josephback]

Yet I know non-Traditionalist Catholics who are very close to the, shall we say ‘fervor’, that Traditionalists hold. It is around different issues though… not Vatican II. But take that apart from the equation and you would have very similar beliefs and strictness. Where is the line there?

Christianity — (love + mercy) + self righteous pride = fundamentalism