There is no such thing as a Fundamentalist Christian.

Great Debates
1

From Merriam-Webster OnLine Dictionary:

Main Entry: fun·da·men·tal·ism
Pronunciation: -t&l-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1922
1 a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs
2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles

Okay, maybe if we use the first definition of the word, then yes, you can be a Fundamentalist Christian.

However, using the more literal definition (and to me, the most gramatically correct one), there cannot be a Fundamentalist Christian.

Why?

Well, it seems to me that the initial followers of Christ had to by the nature of Christ’s existance could not follow the Torah with a “strict and literal adherence,” because they would still be Jewish if they did!

I make this commentary - and please feel free to find fault with it if fault is there - because of the way a good chunk of “fundies” feel about things.

The whole “God said it. I believe it. That settles it.” attitude shouldn’t exist, except in really Orthodox Jews, right? And the people who pretty much DEMAND that you take everything literally - from flood stories and a universe only several thousands of years old to what is okay medically and even legally - you know, the ones who are so heavily into the whole trip to begin with WOULDN’T EXIST IF THEY WERE AROUND AT THE TIME JESUS LIVED, because they couldn’t be able to COMPREHEND the changes Christ brought.

Their heads would have exploded as surely as they do when the Book of Mormon comes into conversation.

Anyway, just something I’ve been thinking about lately. The irony, you know?

That and, if I am somehow mistaken, I would love to be corrected…

Yer putz,
Satan :wally

I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Two months, two weeks, four days, 17 hours, 15 minutes and 33 seconds.
3188 cigarettes not smoked, saving $398.59.
Life saved: 1 week, 4 days, 1 hour, 40 minutes.

2

**

I do believe that the early followers did consider themselves Jewish. It was only much later than “christianity” became a seperate religon as opposed to a sect. The vast changes also happened at a latter time.

3

Before I post, let me be clear that I’m an atheist-David B. style-so this is just for the exercise.

Well, that was a big controversy in the early church. In Acts 10:1-35, Peter has a vision that says God has done away with the old restrictions of the Law. So Christians are followers of a new covenant that supersedes the Old.(according to fundie thinking)
There are different flavors of fundie. A former co-worker who is now my friend is a fundamentalist Christian, but he never preaches or condemns. He prays for my salvation, but he has never treated me like an object to be witnessed to. He has compassion and a good heart, and while we disagree with each other’s philosophical position, we have strong mutual respect.
FriendofGod, on the other hand, needs to re-read I Corinthians 13 on the subject of charity. FoG has treated the folks on this board as targets to be witnessed at, but he has not bothered to listen to what people say to him.
He also would be wise to stop saying faith is logical. It’s not. Hebrews 11:1 says, “Faith is the evidence of things hoped for, the conviction of things unseen.” Faith, by its very nature, is an untestable proposition. Either you have the revelation of grace, or you don’t, but nobody can be driven by the toils of logic into the arms of Jesus, Thomas Aquinas and the rest of the Scholastics to the contrary.
If FoG needs to witness, he would be smart to read the classics of Christian apologetics, such as Mere Christianity, William Law’s** A Serious Call to A Devout and Holy Life**, and St. Augustine’s Confessions.
A side note-I notice that people who believe JC was the Son of God call him Jesus, while those who think he was merely a Jewish carpenter/preacher call him Christ.

4

You know, I am kinda tired of having to say this over & over. JC made it very clear, that while he was alive, the only way to get into (Jewish) heaven was by following the OT Law. But, by his death & sacrifice, any who accepted this mercy would no longer have to follow the Law. His sacrifice made a “New Covenant”.

Thus, for Christians, the OT becomes Holy history, not a Book of Laws*. If you are a 'fundamentalist", you beleive in the literal meaning of this Holy History, ie that the Flood covered the ENTIRE world, as opposed to the entire world as they knew it. You believe that a “day” = a 24 hr day, even before the Earth was created. These are mainly people who do not want to think for themselves.

This does meet with some logical contradictions. You must believe, then, that the Sun goes around the Earth, and that Pi = 3.00, ie that wheels are not round.

  • and, yes, that does mean that the 10 Commandments are just “moral guidance”, and no longer Law to be followed literally. Thus, Christians (mostly) no longer observe the Sabbath on Saturday, for example.
5

Right. A “new covenent” which was not talked about in the Torah, with unfulfilled prophesies, an unmentioned “second coming,” and a total repeal of what was supposed to be the “inerrent and inspired word of G-d.”

Hypothetical: Someone comes along and claim to be the new messiah. Followers believe this - only a few at first - and start to write about it. Soon, we have a third book of the Bible, called “The Really, Really New Testament.”

Some of the things don’t jibe particularly well with the NT, but those are minor quibbles which the RRNT explains away nicely.

Now, how likely are you, a Christian who believes the NT to be the “inerrent and inspired word of God and Jesus,” to suddenly drop that and follow the prophet of the RRNT that just made it out in paperback?

I would say that if you are very “fundamental” of your faith, you would not. Ever. Because it goes against what you knew.

So, bearing this in mind, I say (possibly a little clearer than I did before) that if all of the Jews at the time of Christ followed their faith in the same manner that Fundamentalists follow their faith today, there would have been no Christians at all, let alone Fundies.

Yer putz,
Satan :wally

I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Two months, two weeks, four days, 17 hours, 55 minutes and 36 seconds.
3189 cigarettes not smoked, saving $398.73.
Life saved: 1 week, 4 days, 1 hour, 45 minutes.

6

Satan

You remind me so much of Peter. What a beautiful spirit you have! Your point is irrefutable. If the early believers had not opened their hearts to a reinterpretation of scripture, there would be no Christianity today, fundamentalist or otherwise.

7

There are a lot of OT mentions of the coming of a Messiah, which will bring about great change. The original Christians simply believed that JC was that Messiah. Remember that later OT Prophets had on some occassions “changed” (re-intrepreted) OT Law, so there is nothing that says the Messiah could not do s o, but in a much bigger way.
There were then, as there are now, several major divisions of Judiaism, all of whom believed they WERE following the Word of G-d. In many ways, early Christianity was an offshoot of the Pharisees. And, of course, the “fundamentalists” then, did not change to Christianity.

And is not the Book of Mormon much like the “RRNT” that you mention?

8

**

Yes, and a lot of change WHICH DID NOT, IN FACT, HAPPEN! Ask our Jewish friends on the board for more details, but essentially, it took some wrangling (as in, shady NT Reagan-speak for lack of a better description) to even make it close, a lot was not done, and what wasn’t done was somehow explained away that you had to wait for a second coming that the Torah (OT) says NOTHING about!

I’m sorry if you don’t feel this way - actually, you’re a Christian, and as such, you by definition have to feel this way - but what I am saying (that if you felt this way back then you would not have become a Christian) is true.

[b/]

They sure did! But a bunch of the Jews did not believe this. If it was so clear and cut & dried, why was this?

**

A ha! Exactly! They DID “change” and “re-interpret” things - whether because times changed, or they just needed to get something more or less out of it for their own comfort.

Fundamentalists do NOT do this. It goes against everything they stand for! These are the people who try to get evidence that the universe is only several thousands of years old here, Dan! Not exactly the kinds of people who would say, “Well, even though there is no mention that messiah would need to come back to get the job done, we can assume it is in there.”

**

Interesting, given what JC exposed a good chunk of them as being… And what they eventually diud to Him…

**

Well, the word was not around then to my knowledge, but I’m guessing that even if this is true in spirit, it only bolsters my point again.

**

Well, yes and no.

Al Smith is not a Messiah-figure or a God AFAIK (I am not up on my LDS doctrine to be honest), but Mormons DO look at that book as a necessary and inspired book which needs to be used in conjunction with the rest of the Bible.

The analogy there is not great, but most Protestant Christians (and those stemming from Catholicism as well) have issues with the BoM because they don’t see it as inspired while Mormons do. Hence the (slightly flawed) analogy.

Yer putz,
Satan :wally

I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Two months, two weeks, four days, 18 hours, 51 minutes and 48 seconds.
3191 cigarettes not smoked, saving $398.93.
Life saved: 1 week, 4 days, 1 hour, 55 minutes.

9

I’d just like to throw a couple thoughts out there.

The second coming.
Isn’t actually the third coming. Born, died, rose again. That is twice. I think second coming is a misnomer. And no where does is say that it would take two, let alone three times to accomplish everything prophesied about the messiah.

The first “Christians”.
Does anyone realize that these people, the apostles, were expecting Jesus to return and do the things foretold the messiah would do. In fact, they were promised such and they died waiting. When it didn’t happen, the christian ideology began to form to explain it away. I say that they were just misguided Jews who died disappointed.

Jesus
He was not the only one to claim to be the messiah. Just the most well known. And goboy, I think you have it just the oppostite. Christ means “anointed one” and Jews don’t believe he is the Christ, the Anointed One. Jesus, after translation, was his given name so they refer to him as such.

As for the OP, I think the definition hits it on the head. The Fundamentalist Christian is a rather new type of Christian, going on sola sriptura. They then take biblical verses and intrepret it, sometimes very fast and losely, to fit around their current theology.

I think if the original apostles were around now, they wouldn’t even recognize what Christianity has become.

10

goboy said:

Woohoo! I have my own style of atheism!

:smiley:

11

oldscratch wrote:

That’s not the impression I got from the New Testament. One of its main messages seems to be, “Thanks to Jesus, you don’t have to be a Jew to be one of God’s chosen people! You only have to believe!”

12

Matthew certainly believed that Jesus was the Messiah, and that all the prophesies and pieces fit. He was a strong Jewish “Fundamentalist”. It is true, that some argue that some of his pieces are “from another puzzle” and others were “forced to fit”, but Matthew was completely sincere. he was the leader of a large group of early Jewish/Christians. He, and his group, were devoutly sincere in their “Fundamentalist” beliefs. Even if some of these beliefs are 'proved" wrong, that is meaningless, as the belief were sincere.

13

and you are scum.

14

dpr: why so hostile? We are not all satan, and even his thread here is not so bad, if you get over his attitude. There are far worse, such as lindsay, who apparently wants to attack a religion she knows nothing about, and won’t learn, and others.

15

No, the early Christains were not fundamentalist. This is because fundamentalism had not been invented yet. See Karen Armstrong’s “Battle for God” for a good explaination of fundamentalism as a very modern reaction to the modern world. 2000 years ago they did not think about scripture (or much of anything else) in the same terms people do today.

Daniel your post totally baffles me. What’s with the quotes around “proved”? Are the beliefs wrong or arn’t they? If the are…sincerity makes belief in untruth acceptable??? I hesitate to argue with you 'cuz i really don’t know what you mean.

Tracer, it depends on what you mean by much later. If 70 years is much later, the whole NT is much, much later. The transformation of Christianity from a Jewish sect to a seperate religion took at least that long- it was a gradual and difficult process, and had more to do with stuff Paul said than what Jesus said.

16

bete: there is a thread here that purports to show that Isa. 7:14 is not a Christian Messianic verse, based mainly on the translation of one word. Some, who claim (with some justification) that they have better translations, says this “proves” Matthew, and thus the entire Christian religion wrong. Absolutely wrong. Even it was “young woman” instaed of “virgin”, it could well have meant virgin, as young women so often are. Also, even if that is not an actual Messianic verse, and refers to a contempory of Isaiah, it just shows that Matthew sincerely BELIEVED it was a prophesy, which is enuf.

As another example- Even if we “proved” that the Flood did not drown the entire World, but only the KNOWN world, that does not invalidate the Bible, or the Faith therein. Just as, altho Darwin was apparently incorrect about some of the mechanisms of Evolution, that does not prove the basic fact of Evolution wrong.

17

Excuse me? What “attitude” might this be?

**

Would you care to give me a nickel for every time at LBMB I’ve heard the likes of the following:
[ul]
[li]“If you question part of the Bible, you question all of it.”[/li][li]“You can’t pick and choose what parts of the Bible to believe.”[/li][li]“You either believe all of the Bible or none of it.”[/li][/ul]

**

Trust me, you don’t have enough money to pay me for every time I’ve seen a Creationist point out gleefully that their one tiny bit of (what turns out to be false anyway) information totally falsifies the entire idea of evolution, abiogenesis and the Big Bang, lock stock and barrel.

You seem to not grasp what a lot of “Fundamentalist Christians” think, Dan.

For what it’s worth, I believe that you should be able to look at the Bible in different ways, that you can “change” your views, you CAN look at parts or even the whole Bible as metaphors. Saying the flood is a grand story designed to show the clensing powers of the old, vengeful God is great!

But Fundamentalists take exception to this, and if you don’t know this, I don’t know where you’ve been the past couple of decades on this matter.

betenoir - I love that book. It would behoove a lot of Fundamentalists (not just Christians, but Orthodox Jews and Muslims too) to read it.

Yer putz,
Satan :wally

I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Two months, two weeks, five days, 16 hours, 23 minutes and 39 seconds.
3227 cigarettes not smoked, saving $403.41.
Life saved: 1 week, 4 days, 4 hours, 55 minutes.

18

Satan: but you have not heard ME use any of those arguements, in fact I have pointed out that the Bible is NOT inerrant, even tho it is a great book, and very accurate history for its day. If pressed, the best I will grant, that even if the Bible is Divinely inspired, the L-rd explained things in a way that was understandable to pre-scientific ancients.

Those self-same arguements are being used by the Anti-Bible crowd here at the SDMB, and they are just as stupid comung from an atheist as from a fundamentalist. Showing one verse of the Bible to be in doubt does not invalidate the rest, just as showing one hole in a Scientific theory does not invalidate it. Showing that some self-professed “Christians” have done terrible things in the name of G-d, does not invalidate Christianity, just as showing some half-baked psuedo-scientists who based a racist theory on Darwins work - does not invalidate evolution.

And I suppose that YOUR excuse is that “they did it too, mommy”, which is not up to your usual rather witty level of arguement.

19

**

I agree with you.

Fine, if you were around 6,000 years ago, and believed in the same MANNER as you do now, you would probably have been able to be a Christian.

Mazel Tov.

But this is not about you.

I don’t see you as being a “Fundamentalist” as I am defining the term here.

They miss out the irony that with their zeal, they could never have come to Christ at almost any time besides now.

They miss out on the wonderment of true spirituality because they’re always so pissed off at the Scopes Trial or some such nonsense.

These Fundamentalists are whom I am talking about here, and I feel I have been plainly obvious about that.

So, knowing that this does not apply to you, do we have any more problems here, Dan?

**

I will assume that you are speaking metaphorically about this, since I am not an atheist and never claimed to be one.

I will also say that a few Christians above AGREE with me, and in fact if you weren’t being so defensive, you would as well.

You then repeat a bunch of stuff which is all true, which are all things I never said not to be true, and all things that the people THAT I AM TALKING ABOUT claim to be true.

Argue with them, thanks. Not me.

No, my argument is that we are being blasted with a couple of fundies lately. I was hoping that this thread might make them realize the irony and glory that I mentioned above in this post. Because, as much as they long to follow The Word so Fundamentally, they are also ignoring the way their spiritual ancestors followed those same words.

Instead, you are getting defensive and taking this personally. Why?

Yer putz,
Satan :wally

I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Two months, two weeks, five days, 17 hours, 39 minutes and 0 seconds.
3229 cigarettes not smoked, saving $403.68.
Life saved: 1 week, 4 days, 5 hours, 5 minutes.

20

Libertarian commented:

Well, Lib., IIRC The Boss did once call Peter by that name, so you’re in definitely good company. :smiley:

Other than that, as you might expect, I agree wholeheartedly with “Stan A.”

I think I’ve mentioned before my strong hunch that, just as the first century conservatives were convinced that the Messiah was going to come as a righteous warrior monarch who would restore the Law, throw those meshuganah Romans out, and bring back the throne of David, while the liberals interpreted all the messianic stuff as referring to Israel as the light of the world and were of the opinion that no actual person in history would be the Messiah, and nobody expected a Messiah that would serve as itinerant rabbi and then get executed as a petty criminal, I think everybody is all wet about the Second Coming too.

And, to forestall Tracer’s obvious pseudo-blasphemous pun, He’s been saving it up for 2000 years now, so yeah, it will be quite an event. :stuck_out_tongue: