Fundamentalism

[abucs]

Was Jesus a fundamentalist?

He claimed not just to bring a truth, not just the truth, but to be truth itself.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Was Jesus a fundamentalist?

He claimed not just to bring a truth, not just the truth, but to be truth itself.

He only meant it metaphorically.

 

[Peter_J]

What drives a lot of people away from religion (especially from Christianity in the West,) is that the smallest number of Christians have the loudest voices (imagine with me a fire-and-brimstone pastor on the street corner.) It is often the case that these loud-voiced Christians are Fundamentalist in their thought; that is to say the definition of Fundamentalism is taking all scripture as literal truth. I feel that because of the lack of biblical knowledge and the superfluous amount of personal bias causes many to lose a genuine connection with Christ.

Well said, but your last sentence,

The very people that try to bring others to God are the ones that also push others away from his saving Grace.

I’d take issue with … although perhaps you didn’t actually mean it as stated, but rather something like “The very people most focused on bringing others to God …”

 

[Matthew_Light]

Was Jesus a fundamentalist?

He claimed not just to bring a truth, not just the truth, but to be truth itself.

Right.

Christ is the Word of God, and is the truth of God embodied in human form.

 

[Matthew_Light]

Fundamentalism isn’t necessarily saying other religions are wrong if I believe my religion then of course I think other religions are wrong.

I believe my religion, however I do not think Catholicism, Buddhism, Orthodox Christianity, Islam, etc. are “wrong”. Very far from it!

I do not view religions as being true or false in the way engineering questions are true or false. I view religious truth as being more like they way we know that we love our spouse, or our parents, or our children, or the way we experience the beauty of a glorious sunset, or an extraordinary beautiful musical work. Religious beliefs are true if they are intellectually consistent, meaningful, inspirational and lead us to become better, more loving human beings that try to serve our family, friends, people we meet on the street, and people we will never know in person. “By their fruits you shall know them.”

 

[Peter_J]

I believe my religion, however I do not think Catholicism, Buddhism, Orthodox Christianity, Islam, etc. are “wrong”. Very far from it!

I believe your self-description, but it is somewhat irrelevant to this thread. A Christian regarding e.g. Islam and Buddhism as “wrong” does not, in and of itself, mean that he/she is a Fundamentalist.

 

[Peter_J]

Something just occurred to me (apologies if I’m just thinking out loud silently): Among “Traditionalist Catholics” there are a sizable number who object to being described with a term that ends in “ist” or “ism”, and will say that they are simply “Traditional Catholics” (and that the rest of us *aren’t *Traditional).

The thing is, I’ve never heard of Fundamentalists who try to get rid of the “ist” (or “ism”) and call themselves simply “Fundamental Christians” … Are there such people?

 

[StGeorgesSquire]

Well said, but your last sentence,
I’d take issue with … although perhaps you didn’t actually mean it as stated, but rather something like “The very people most focused on bringing others to God …”

Ah. Thank you for the correction.

 

[StGeorgesSquire]

Something just occurred to me (apologies if I’m just thinking out loud silently): Among “Traditionalist Catholics” there are a sizable number who object to being described with a term that ends in “ist” or “ism”, and will say that they are simply “Traditional Catholics” (and that the rest of us *aren’t *Traditional).

The thing is, I’ve never heard of Fundamentalists who try to get rid of the “ist” (or “ism”) and call themselves simply “Fundamental Christians” … Are there such people?

I believe that it’s more of an “outsider” term to call them Fundamentalists while those “within the flock” simply call themselves Christians, et. al.

While Catholics and other liturgical sects–like Lutherans, Episcopalians (Anglicans,) etc.– are not immune to Fundamentalist members, it seems to be those small Calvinist sects who take Sola Scriptura to a whole different level.

 

[Peter_J]

Ah. Thank you for the correction.

Nice to be in agreement.

I believe that it’s more of an “outsider” term to call them Fundamentalists while those “within the flock” simply call themselves Christians, et. al.

Ahhh … I guess you and I *aren’t *Christians.

Come to think of it, the Traditionalist Catholics I mentioned earlier – I mean the ones who will say that they are simply “Traditional Catholics” (and that the rest of us aren’t Traditional) – have at time been known to say they are the definition of what it means to be “Catholics”, and that other “Catholics” really aren’t or at least are “neo-Catholics”.

 

[StGeorgesSquire]

Ahhh … I guess you and I *aren’t *Christians.

I suppose not
Peter J:

Come to think of it, the Traditionalist Catholics I mentioned earlier – I mean the ones who will say that they are simply “Traditional Catholics” (and that the rest of us aren’t Traditional) – have at time been known to say they are the definition of what it means to be “Catholics”, and that other “Catholics” really aren’t or at least are “neo-Catholics”.

I wouldn’t really label them as Fundamentalist. At best they would adhere to teachings, tradition, and the structure of Mass, etc. closer than others of the same faith.

 

[Peter_J]

I wouldn’t really label them as Fundamentalist. At best they would adhere to teachings, tradition, and the structure of Mass, etc. closer than others of the same faith.

You’re talking about Traditionalist Catholics? Personally I’m unsure whether we are better off calling them “Fundamentalists” or not (hence why I didn’t response to earlier posts that raised that possibility). I guess I’d have to say it just depends on the context.

 

[StGeorgesSquire]

I guess I’d have to say it just depends on the context.

I’m afraid that’s how it is. It’s too broad of a subject to determine if someone is or isn’t without having first seen their actions.

 

[Peter_J]

So, given everything that we know about Fundamentalism, what can and should we do about it? (Btw I’m a Catholic but I’m not using “we” to mean Catholics exclusively.)

 

[eddie_too]

i would doubt that a person who lives a life that it is impossible for others to emulate, for example a man who marries three women, should be considered as teaching God’s word.

it would be a disaster to follow the teachings of such a man because actions speak louder than words and there is no way that there are ever going to be three women for every man.

this idea of a self-proclaimed prophet teaching that others should do as he says and not do as he does is a good sign that the prophet’s words do not come from God.

so, there are significant differences in religions in regard to the amount of truth they preach.

if a religion contains the fullness of truth, it is a wise man who follows the fundamentals of that religion.

 

[kdbueno]

Fundamentalists search for truth. To be led by it is an ex cathedra statement regarding their latin sentence.