C
ComplineSanFran
Guest
Perhaps military fervor in addition? I will have to read Karen Armstrong’s book again. I recall thinking she had this exemplified quite well.
- Status
J
josephback
Guest
I think of military fervor more as a political disposition. It could fall under a millenarian Christian nationalism. One of the reasons Israel’s government can be so unconcerned with and trample on Palestinian rights is because Dispensationalist Premillennial Christian Zionists believe that ethnic Jews have to inhabit Israel and trigger a literal Armageddon for Jesus to return. Left Behind was a best seller for a reason. This feeds into Manichean black-white attitudes and is mirrored by a subset of Muslims taking a stand against “the Great Satan,” aka us on the other side.
V
Vic_Taltrees_UK
Guest
Much depends on the quality of the teaching hung on the aide-memoire-like, bullet-point-like skeleton of Scriptures.
That quality needs to be critiqued by each individual for themselves.
A literally literal approach cloaks the values described in post 19 and by Joseph Back.
That quality needs to be critiqued by each individual for themselves.
A literally literal approach cloaks the values described in post 19 and by Joseph Back.
E
eddie_too
Guest
“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.”
i believe there are far more aspects to faith and religion than the two characterizations expressed above. to limit faith and religion to only these two, i find very shallow and doubt that doing so will provide much of value.
i believe there are far more aspects to faith and religion than the two characterizations expressed above. to limit faith and religion to only these two, i find very shallow and doubt that doing so will provide much of value.
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
Bahai believe Jesus remained dead. Orthodox Christians believe Jesus rose from the dead to glory. We just went through Easter which celebrates our faith in that event. Both cannot be true. If your friend is an Orthodox Christian he denies the truth of your religion that Jesus’ body is a corpse in the ground.
Part of believing in one religion is denying aspects of all others. Bahai might naively believe otherwise but that is the truth.
W
worldcitizen
Guest
I think fundamentalists believe more in themselves than God. Because God gave us a mind to reason and rationalise with but the fundamentalist usually clings to one literal meaning and cannot admit that maybe his/her views may be incorrect.
Caiphas was a fundamentalist and look what he did to Christ.
Caiphas was a fundamentalist and look what he did to Christ.
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
Do Bahai who insist on a literal Virgin birth of Jesup count as fundamentalist then?
W
worldcitizen
Guest
No, actually we are very flexible. Some passages of the Bible are indeed literal and some are metaphorical so we don’t insist that all are of one kind or the other but that each circumstance is depicting a certain meaning. But we do not interpret the Bible nor are we allowed to present any interpretation as truth to others except the interpretation by the Bible’s authorised Interpreters.
The fundamentalist interprets his own scriptures and in his/her own mind pronounces it as truth but the Baha’i does not interpret scripture and is not permitted to do that but refers to the Bible’s authorised interpreters for an authoritative interpretation.
The Bible tells us Daniel to go his own way and the Books are sealed and also that the only Ones Who can ‘unseal’ the meanings are not Christians but the Lion of the tribe of Judah the root of David and the Lamb that was slain not crucified meaning another Lamb not Jesus.
So we get our interpretation of the Bible from the Bible’s recognised ‘authorised interpreters’ and not ourselves or from any other men.
Not even our leaders are allowed to interpret the Holy Books or our own Holy Books so the Bahais have absolutely no interpreters except thos authorised by the Bible itself.
The Bible’s authoritative Interpreters say the Virgin Birth was true.
The fundamentalist interprets his own scriptures and in his/her own mind pronounces it as truth but the Baha’i does not interpret scripture and is not permitted to do that but refers to the Bible’s authorised interpreters for an authoritative interpretation.
The Bible tells us Daniel to go his own way and the Books are sealed and also that the only Ones Who can ‘unseal’ the meanings are not Christians but the Lion of the tribe of Judah the root of David and the Lamb that was slain not crucified meaning another Lamb not Jesus.
So we get our interpretation of the Bible from the Bible’s recognised ‘authorised interpreters’ and not ourselves or from any other men.
Not even our leaders are allowed to interpret the Holy Books or our own Holy Books so the Bahais have absolutely no interpreters except thos authorised by the Bible itself.
The Bible’s authoritative Interpreters say the Virgin Birth was true.
D
DaveBj
Guest
Actually, Caiaphas, like all the high priests of that time, was a Sadducee, which made him more of a modernist. The Pharisees were the fundamentalists of that day.
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
Denying yourself your own standard on the word fundamentalist when it applies to you is inconsistent. Do you believe that your so called manifestations are literally eternal divine figures sent to earth in order to reveal true knowledge? Yes. If you insist on this literal understanding as opposed to a figurative understanding of the manifestations, perhaps they were enlightened men and not divinities who reflect the very nature of God, then you are guilty of the same kind of fundamentalism you accuse of Christians who actually believe what their religion says (ie resurrection of Jesus).
If however you are willing to say nothing in Bahai religion is literally true, that it is possible Jesus was not born of a virgin birth or that your manifestations are not literally divinities, then I will grant that according to your own definition you are not a fundamentalist. Perhaps we could go further and say God is not literally a figure beyond existence who is the cause of all being but merely a symbolic metaphor to describe the universe. Or will you insist on the reality of God? Wouldn’t that be very literal as regards your scripture? Are you so narrow minded as to not allow yourself to believe God isn’t really a being who exists but is a symbol for something in our collective conscience as humanity?
Do you believe in your own opinions concerning God more than others? Doesn’t that make you a fundamentalist?
W
worldcitizen
Guest
Caiphas pronounced the sentence of His death and for me that is far worse than any moderate.
T
TheAtheist
Guest
Just passing through and felt the need to ask a question on this one:
It is to my limited understanding that the Baha’i is a syncretist faith.
IE: Fundamental agreement of all religions of the world, and that any perceived conflicts are actually misinterpretations or interpolations within the sacred texts of a tradition?
uts on his Adovcatus Diaboli hat since he’s in a Catholic forum:
Doesn’t that then predispose you and your fellows to the idea of this “Fundamentalist vs. Non-Fundamentalist” rubric?
Because technically, you could interpret any person interpreting their texts within the context of their religious tradition as a fundamentalist…
It is to my limited understanding that the Baha’i is a syncretist faith.
IE: Fundamental agreement of all religions of the world, and that any perceived conflicts are actually misinterpretations or interpolations within the sacred texts of a tradition?
uts on his Adovcatus Diaboli hat since he’s in a Catholic forum:Doesn’t that then predispose you and your fellows to the idea of this “Fundamentalist vs. Non-Fundamentalist” rubric?
Because technically, you could interpret any person interpreting their texts within the context of their religious tradition as a fundamentalist…
D
DaveBj
Guest
I didn’t say he was a moderate; I said he was the 1st-century Jewish equivalent of a modernist.
Scripture makes it clear that his primary fear was that Jesus would provoke a revolt that would bring the Romans down on them like a ton of bricks, which is exactly what happened 40-ish years later. He “adjured” Jesus to answer the question about whether or not he was the Son of God, and Jesus answer gave him what he needed to find him guilty of blasphemy, a death-penalty offense under the law.
None of this has anything to do with whether or not he was a fundamentalist. He wasn’t.
W
worldcitizen
Guest
Of ourselves we have no real knowledge. It is all borrowed and handed down to us. So what do we have then to be able to know and worship God? We understand that God has given or endowed man with the innate capacity to know Him and to love Him but not directly, only through His Teachers, I.e Christ, Moses etc that He sends from time to time for the advancement of our spiritual education.
By turning to these God sent Embodiments of true knowledge we can learn anything and unravel any mystery but we cannot do it alone and unaided. That is the difference. A fundamentalist seeks to assert his own will over God’s Teachers and Educators while the true believer submits to Their Decree and Wisdom.
A fundamentalist will never humble himself before God but a true believer accepts whatever God sends to us. That is why in Iran they treat us so badly because they worship not God but their own ideas of God. Bahais are people who were once a member of other Faiths but once God sent another Teacher then didn’t rebel but accepted Him thankfully instead of clinging to their own ways and traditions.
If God says night is day and day is night we don’t question it but fundamentalists always dispute with God and prefer themselves above His Will and they are always the very first to oppose, ridicule, condemn and attack any new Messenger God sends as they worship their own ideas and are not open to God’s Will.
God does whatever He wants but fundamentalists tie God’s Hands saying He cannot do this or do that but He is God and can do anything even things we don’t like or agree with. The fundamentalist has a view that even God must conform with but the true believer humbly accepts whatever God ordains even if it against what he has been taught for centuries because whatever is from God is beloved to them whereas to a fundamentalist the only beloved is his own views. His own views are his God and he does not accept God’s will unconditionally but places conditions on it.
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
The bahai could be accused of the very same thing. For instance you not so subtly hinted at all Christians being fundamentalists earlier for believing in the resurrection. You insisted part of the reason someone is fundamentalist is that they insisted on a literal meaning to the text.
As a bahai you have to deny the literal meaning of the Gospel because you believe Jesus is dead and not alive. Yet here you are suggesting whether or not someone is a fundamentalist is to do with them being ‘humble’ and listening to God. This blows off the hinges to the door of the word ‘fundamentalist’ because everyone would accuse each other of being a fundamentalist and thus the word has no meaning.
So who is truly the humble one here? The Bahai who discards what God has clearly revealed literally in the bible or the Christian who accepts what God has given them with simplicity and the whole Christian tradition backing them since the apostles? Who is then the fundamentalist? You say if God says its day or night you won’t question it. Whose to say the words of God you personally interpret are literal or figurative? Has God said so? You are left with your opinion which you insist on. Seems very fundamentalist.
I have a better term for those who persecute Bahai in the Middle east, Islamists.
W
worldcitizen
Guest
It all comes back to what God says not us. If God says the Virgin Birth was true it’s true. And if He says the resurrection was only a spiritual one then He is right for He is God. In the Bible it says The Spirit of Truth will come Who will guide us into all truth, Who will come to this earth and explain things we weren’t able to comprehend then.
To obey and follow that Spirit of Truth is to be faithful to God’s Covenant with us. And we are told by the Spirit of Truth, authorised by the Bible, that the resurrection was not physical, so we don’t argue with what God has said.
But fundamentalists always insist that they are right and all others wrong even God’s Spirit of Truth. All we can do is pray for these souls. God can and will open their eyes one day and they too will see that He has come.
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
We’ve been over the ‘Spirit of Truth’ before, it’s not Ali Nuri.
Christ says to his disciples to give him fish and then proceeds to say ‘Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.’
Christians are fundamentalist for following the text as its original historical and theological context demands. What does the word fundamentalist mean at this point? It no longer denotes the movement in the 1900s that sought to counter Christian theological liberalism and insisted on literalism in every aspect of the Bible but now includes all Christians throughout the centuries. Including your friend. Ask your Orthodox friend if he believes in the physical resurrection, if he answers yes (as he should if he is a faithful Orthodox) then he is a fundamentalist and you probably question your choice of friends.
You add another definition to fundamentalist that they always say others are wrong and they are right. If I pressed you, you would be forced to say much of what Christians believe is wrong. Then you would then say that what you believe is right.
My point in these responses is that every time you insist on others being a ‘fundamentalist’ you have broadened the definition so much as to include yourself. Here are the points of the term fundamentalist you seem to apply to everyone:
- Believes a literal interpretation of their scripture. (Bahai comply with this as regards their own scripture but not as regards other scriptures which are only literal if they comply with Bahai Scriptures, regardless of what the texts themselves say.)
- Believes that others are wrong and they are right. (Bahai obviously believe this or else they would not be Bahai)
- Fundamentalists are proud and lack humility. (I think this is a weak criteria personally as there are individuals in various different perspectives that no doubt think this of different theologies or Philosophies. Still if you are to accuse certain Christians of lacking humility and thus deserving the title fundamentalist, presumably because they do not trust in Bahai revelation or ideas, then you open yourself up to the same charge from those who disagree with you. The Christian could just as easily accuse you of having haughty arrogant pride and not being humble enough to see the Gospel. This is why I think this criteria is so weak, virtually everyone will end up accusing the other side of it.)
W
worldcitizen
Guest
We’re speaking about fundamentalists. There’s no reference to any religion as thry can be in any religion so I’m not speaking about any particular religion just fundamentalism and fundamentalists.
I believe fundamentalists follow their own interpretation not the truth and that their God is their own idea of God and that is what thry worship not the truth.
In other words a fundamentalist worships his/her imagination not the Divine Reality otherwise he/she would accept all of God’s decrees, Teachets etc and not just the one’s he/she cherry picks that suit him or her.
A fundamentalist sets himself up as God by turning away from God if God does something contrary to his wishes or understanding. For instance, if God were to send another Messenger, the fundamentalist is always the first one to oppose Him because he worships his own idea of what God can and can’t do and cannot face the truth that God does whatever He wants and can send Who He wants when He wants. The fundamentalist, in his mind only believes in the God he personally has constructed in his own imagination and not the One True God Who is unconstrained and does whatever He wants.
So a fundamentalist will argue for eternity that Muhammad was the last Prophet and that the meaning Seal of the Prophets could not have another meaning. And the fundamentalist Christian will argue that God could not have sent Christ again without the fundamentalist having Known about it so we have a situation where the fundamentalist is closed minded to anything but the promptings of his/her own ego and self and oblivious to whatever God may decree which is against his/her understanding.
If God does something not in accord with what the fundamentalist believes, he opposes and condemns it even though it’s from God Himself. Of course he will say that it is all a lie and not from God. So the fundamentalist is in denial and never allows for any personal error or mistake because he more or less believes his interpretation which he gets from his own self, is infallible. The true believer does not interpret but accepts the interpretations of God’s Messengers and does not argue any further because They speak on God’s authority.
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
World what do you mean follow their own interpretation instead of God’s? Each person beyond their respective religions has to interpret and decide on doctrinal elements and they are either convinced of those interpretations or not. Bahai follow the interpretation of Ali Nuri’s son and the ‘house of Justice’ and each individual has to determine whether or not they agree with those people whom are decidedly not manifestations am I correct?
If in agreeing with those non manifestations they are following God’s will you have effectively made anyone who is not Bahai a fundamentalist.
What is the value of the word fundamentalist then since everyone, liberal episcopalian to conservative LCMS Lutheran is now possessing that title. Not only Christians but every single Muslim since the faithful Muslim believes Muhammad to be the last Prophet.
I think you have a naive view of reality if you think the only people on earth to accept without question without an interpretive framework are Bahai.
If in agreeing with those non manifestations they are following God’s will you have effectively made anyone who is not Bahai a fundamentalist.
What is the value of the word fundamentalist then since everyone, liberal episcopalian to conservative LCMS Lutheran is now possessing that title. Not only Christians but every single Muslim since the faithful Muslim believes Muhammad to be the last Prophet.
I think you have a naive view of reality if you think the only people on earth to accept without question without an interpretive framework are Bahai.
W
worldcitizen
Guest
Only by accepting Jesus can we be saved isn’t that true? If He says something and we turn against His Words and cling to our own views what does that make us? If we reject what God sent through Jesus and prefer our ideas and interpretations over Jesus’s then my understanding is that we are turning against God.
And on Jesus return the same applies. If we prefer our will over His then we have rejected God even though we may be the author of every righteous deed and profess loyalty to Him.
It’s God"s will that should always come first above ours.
- Status