I first heard this idea that “fundamentalism is a modern term” on Krista Tippet’s Speaking of Faith. It is a liberal Christians’ way of saying that fundamentalism is not really Christianity, that is some new form of it. But I never heard any more explanation of it. Doing my own research, I found the history of the pamphlet titled “The Fundamentals” and some other lists of fundamentals that came out around the turn of the last century. They were a reaction to the archaeology and textual analysis of the Bible that was changing Christianity. But that doesn’t answer if they are right. Are the fundamentals, such as believing in salvation, believing in miracles and for some, believing the Bible is the word of God, correct?
That doesn’t mean they are true in a scientific sense, but are those beliefs the heart of Christianity intended by the founding members. To answer that, you would have to analyze the original texts, but that has proven very difficult. Even the earliest canonization of official texts includes different versions of the same stories and is quite open about arguments and disagreements going on between those authors. Christians themselves can’t agree on these terms even today.
The closest match to these modern lists of fundamentals is 4th century Christianity. And if you just left it at that, it wouldn’t be a problem. But if you look at how those early Roman Kings who first made Christianity legal actually acted, then you start to wonder what the fundamentalists are really up to. This was the time of book burning, destruction of pagan religious icons and buildings and expelling apostates, not to mention what they did to people who didn’t agree with their fundamental beliefs. Fortunately many, perhaps most, fundamentalist Christians today distance themselves from such violence, but enough do not. And suggesting that we teach a 6,000 year old world in science class is still horribly wrong, even if you are using legal means to get people to do it.
The question is, is fundamentalism some passing fad of Christianity, or is it what Christianity is designed for, a complete take over of the world with people who claim divine rights at the head?
I’m not sure if fundamentalism is a passing fad, but I hope so. I understand the fundy mindset because I used t be one, and it is a scary place. Rational thinking is not only discouraged, it is considered evil, literally the Devil playing mind tricks on you to make you doubt God’s Word®.
While I was a fundy I studied the Bible, which led me away from God and the church. From my readings it seems the fundamentalist interpretation is the only honest interpretation of scripture. However, only the most ardent fundies take the whole Bible literally. Fortunately there are very few of those. As you mention, most fundamentalists today do not advocate violence, but the ones I hung with eagerly anticipated the End Times and Jesus riding back on his White Horse to save mankind from annihilation.
I don’t think Christianity was designed for a complete takeover of the world, but more as a means of granting local kings divine legitimacy so the peasants would not question their decisions. Hmmm… not much of a stretch from there to world domination, is it?
I don't think Christianity was designed for a complete takeover of the world, but more as a means of granting local kings divine legitimacy so the peasants would not question their decisions. Hmmm.. not much of a stretch from there to world domination, is it?Anyone with a knowledge of history would know that the divine rights of kings is a Pagan tradition, not Christian. Anyone who has studied the Bible as it pertains to Christianity would know there's no such teaching as the divine rights of kings. John Adams writes about this in his introduction to Defence of the Constitution: "It was the general opinion of ancient nations, that the divinity alone was adequate to the important office of giving laws to men. The Greeks entertained this prejudice throughout all their dispersions; the Romans cultivated the same popular delusion; and modern nations, in the consecrations of kings, and in several superstitious chimeras of divine rights in princes and nobles, are nearly unanimous in preserving remnants of it: even the venerable magistrates of Amersfort devoutly believe themselves God's vicegerents; Is it that obedience to the laws can be obtained from mankind in no other manner? — Is the jealousy of power, and the envy of superiority, so strong in all men, that no considerations of public or private utility are sufficient to engage their submission to rules for their own happiness? Or is the disposition to imposture so prevalent in men of experience, that their private views of ambition and avarice can be accomplished only by artifice? — It was a tradition in antiquity that the laws of Crete were dictated to Minos by the inspiration of Jupiter. This legislator, and his brother Rhadamanthus, were both his sons: once in nine years they went to converse with their father, to propose questions concerning the wants of the people; and his answers were recorded as laws for their government. The laws of Lacedæmon were communicated by Apollo to Lycurgus; and, lest the meaning of the deity should not have been perfectly comprehended, or correctly expressed, were afterwards confirmed by his oracle at Delphos. Among the Romans, Numa was indebted for those laws which procured the prosperity of his country to his conversations with Egeria. The Greeks imported these mysteries from Egypt and the East, whose despotisms, from the remotest antiquity to this day, have been founded in the same solemn empiricism; their emperors and nobles being all descended from their gods. Woden and Thor were divinities too; and their posterity ruled a thousand years in the north by the strength of a like credulity..." John Adams concludes in this way, "Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favour of the rights of mankind. The experiment is made, and has completely succeeded: it can no longer be called in question, whether authority in magistrates, and obedience of citizens, can be grounded on reason, morality, and the Christian religion, without the monkery of priests, or the knavery of politicians." http://www.constitution.org/jadams/ja1_pre.htm It was in fact the Christian religion that encouraged the rights of the people rather than the kings in the understanding that we are all equal under God.
I first heard this idea that "fundamentalism is a modern term" on Krista Tippet's Speaking of Faith.Fundamental: a central or primary rule or principle on which something is based. When early 20th century modernists began to use science and teachings of that time, including eugenics and race, to change the Christian understanding, those who believed in Christianity fought back with the basic teachings of the faith--the fundamentals. They are simple: 1. The inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture 2. The deity of Jesus Christ 3. The virgin birth of Christ 4. The substitutionary, atoning work of Christ on the cross 5. The physical resurrection and the personal bodily return of Christ to the earth. Anyone who denies these fundamentals of Christian teaching should simply stop calling themselves Christians and move on. But they don't do that. Instead they seek to pervert the faith and rewrite it. This too, however, has been expected: "But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping." 2 Peter 2 In the end, God will judge. In the mean time we must all do what we think is right. You can continue to discredit the faith, and I will continue to defend it.
To answer that, you would have to analyze the original texts, but that has proven very difficult. Even the earliest canonization of official texts includes different versions of the same stories and is quite open about arguments and disagreements going on between those authors. Christians themselves can’t agree on these terms even today.I believe you continually over emphasize the notion that a person can't know what the early texts say. I suggest you do some study yourself on this subject rather than relying of Bart Erhman and others whose information is outdated and biased. There are new discoveries of early Christian manuscripts which give us knowledge of what the texts say and support the understanding that any differences in manuscripts are minor and usually obvious scribal errors. There are no "different versions of the same stories." They are witness accounts that give us a full picture of what took place and the teachings of Christ. You have to try to miss it.
To answer that, you would have to analyze the original texts, but that has proven very difficult. Even the earliest canonization of official texts includes different versions of the same stories and is quite open about arguments and disagreements going on between those authors. Christians themselves can’t agree on these terms even today.I believe you continually over emphasize the notion that a person can't know what the early texts say. I suggest you do some study yourself on this subject rather than relying of Bart Erhman and others whose information is outdated and biased. There are new discoveries of early Christian manuscripts which give us knowledge of what the texts say and support the understanding that any differences in manuscripts are minor and usually obvious scribal errors. There are no "different versions of the same stories." They are witness accounts that give us a full picture of what took place and the teachings of Christ. You have to try to miss it.I suspect those making your so-called "new discoveries" are actually apologists so uncertain of their own beliefs, like you, that they have this need to constantly revise history, muddle up explanations, and basically twist things so that folks like you can feel good about believing in what any reasonable person would consider outdated nonsense. Needing a psychological crutch will do that. And in any event, I have a feeling god herself, and Jesus too, would be mad as hell at folks like you. You portray god as some small minded old man (She's a she actually) who needs books and commandments to "rule". That's just so small minded and honestly unbecoming of a deity who's supposedly timeless, omnipotent, etc.
There are no "different versions of the same stories." They are witness accounts that give us a full picture of what took place and the teachings of Christ. You have to try to miss it.We've covered this. Start your own thread if you want to discuss again. Just because I referenced Bart Ehrman once doesn't mean he's the only guy I've read. Once again, use the Principle of Charity if you want to have a discussion with me.
I don't think Christianity was designed for a complete takeover of the world, but more as a means of granting local kings divine legitimacy so the peasants would not question their decisions. Hmmm.. not much of a stretch from there to world domination, is it?It would be great if we could get into the heads of those ancient kings. They must have known that they had a better sense of the world and their own ability to conquer it than almost anyone else alive at the time. Did they really think they could conquer it? We have some sense from stories like Spartacus when soldiers figured out that the leaders were going too far, but we still can't know the private thoughts of those leaders. We have a lot more of the subtleties of the conversations that went on while creating democracies. Those leaders had options to set themselves up with very few limits. Some of them they decided to take, some not. A good case study is the movement started by Frank Schaeffer, L'Abri. He had a philosophy that said you have to base your morals on something, and he couldn't find any human philosophy that was solid enough, so he said the morals in the Bible were divinely inspired, and we should follow those. At that point, it wasn't that big of a deal, but then he built a movement, and that movement gained power, and the power took on a life of it's own. The fundamental philosophy might be innocuous, but once you get people who start having ideas about how to bring it about, on a larger scale, it becomes dangerous.
I suspect those making your so-called "new discoveries" are actually apologists so uncertain of their own beliefs, like you, that they have this need to constantly revise history, muddle up explanations, and basically twist things so that folks like you can feel good about believing in what any reasonable person would consider outdated nonsense.I was actually thinking of the NT Papyri discoveries that where found to exist in Egypt dating back to the 2nd century AD. They shed a great deal of light on the subject and show that there are no wild variations of New Testament texts as later critics charged. They also show that very early on the writings used as Christian Scripture were written in rolls indicating their use in churches, unlike non-scriptural writings. "These earliest manuscripts also confirm that the ancient Christian preference for the codex book-form, especially, it appears, for those texts that Christians treated as scripture, goes right back earlier than all of our extant evidence, into the second century and possibly earlier. This has to be seen in the context of an overwhelming preference for the roll in the larger literary and cultural environment of the 2nd and 3rd centuries." http://larryhurtado.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/nt-papyri1.pdf Here's a list of the NT papyri that has been discovered: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri But hey, I understand that you and Lausten may only want to hear what supports the beliefs you've chosen to hold, and anything that may upset that belief can be disturbing. I thought perhaps "free thinkers" would want to hear all truth, but apparently not. Repeating things that are clearly in error can still be comforting when we don't want to accept the truth. If that's a crutch that makes you feel good about yourself, I understand.
We've covered this. Start your own thread if you want to discuss again. Just because I referenced Bart Ehrman once doesn't mean he's the only guy I've read. Once again, use the Principle of Charity if you want to have a discussion with me.Sadly, you're making the same false accusation in this thread that has been disproved before. Try updating your information if you don't like being corrected--again. If you want to be treated with the "Principle of Charity" by others, try using rational arguments about the subject rather than always resorting to attacks against the person--the ad hominem fallacy.
I may have been on to something earlier. Sen. Ted Cruz’ father advocates dominionism].
A sermon Rafael Cruz delivered in August 2012 at an Irving, Texas, mega-church has also come under scrutiny. At that event, he asserted that Christian true believers are "anointed" by God to "take dominion" of the world in "every area: society, education, government, and economics." He was preaching a particular form of evangelical Christianity known as Dominionism (a.k.a. Christian Reconstructionism) that holds that these "anointed" Christians are destined to take over the government and create in practice, if not in official terms, a theocracy.Whether it is in the Bible to not, some Christians are working to take over the world. Also, Lily, just because so-called pagan religions preached divine right of kings does not mean Christianity cannot do the same. Again, it need not be Biblically based for Christians to practice it.
I may have been on to something earlier. Sen. Ted Cruz' father advocates dominionism].I had to laugh. The left is trotting out Dominionism again! The last time was when they accused George Bush of being a Dominionist when in reality he was a moderate Methodist. They do this for the fear factor, not for anything based in reality. Even true Dominionists aren't anything close to the boogey men they portray. You're being hood winked. Here's the charge: "There is a desire felt by tens of millions of Americans, lumped into a diffuse and fractious movement known as the Christian right, to destroy the intellectual and scientific rigor of the Enlightenment, radically diminish the role of government to create a theocratic state based on “biblical law," and force a recalcitrant world to bend to the will of an imperial and “Christian" America. Its public face is on display in the House of Representatives. This ideology, which is the driving force behind the shutdown of the government, calls for the eradication of social “deviants," beginning with gay men and lesbians, whose sexual orientation, those in the movement say, is a curse and an illness, contaminating the American family and the country. Once these “deviants" are removed, other “deviants," including Muslims, liberals, feminists, intellectuals, left-wing activists, undocumented workers, poor African-Americans and those dismissed as “nominal Christians"—meaning Christians who do not embrace this peculiar interpretation of the Bible—will also be ruthlessly repressed." And how are these scary Christians going to eradicate deviants and oppress everyone? Easy, "It [dominionism] seeks to reduce government to organizing little more than defense, internal security and the protection of property rights. It fuses with the Christian religion the iconography and language of American imperialism and nationalism, along with the cruelest aspects of corporate capitalism." Dominionists are going to eradicate the deviants and oppress every non-Christian by reducing government to the role of defense, internal security and property rights protection! Do you not see the contradiction here? This is absurd and I'm sorry you fall for it. It's nothing more than political hate speech and lies about those on the other side of the political aisle by Democrats who do want to increase government and force everyone to live by their dictates.A sermon Rafael Cruz delivered in August 2012 at an Irving, Texas, mega-church has also come under scrutiny. At that event, he asserted that Christian true believers are "anointed" by God to "take dominion" of the world in "every area: society, education, government, and economics." He was preaching a particular form of evangelical Christianity known as Dominionism (a.k.a. Christian Reconstructionism) that holds that these "anointed" Christians are destined to take over the government and create in practice, if not in official terms, a theocracy.Whether it is in the Bible to not, some Christians are working to take over the world.
Also, Lily, just because so-called pagan religions preached divine right of kings does not mean Christianity cannot do the same. Again, it need not be Biblically based for Christians to practice it.Divine right of kings is not Biblical and it isn't Christian and doesn't come from Christian teaching. It was practiced in Europe because it was a Pagan tradition. If a Christian practices it, he is leaving Christian teaching.
Dominionists are going to eradicate the deviants and oppress every non-Christian by reducing government to the role of defense, internal security and property rights protection! Do you not see the contradiction here? This is absurd and I'm sorry you fall for it. It's nothing more than political hate speech and lies about those on the other side of the political aisle by Democrats who do want to increase government and force everyone to live by their dictates.I expect one of your "no true Christian" responses, but I'll ask anyway because no libertarian has ever given an answer to this before. Sorry if you don't like the libertarian label, but that's what reducing the gov't to defense and property rights protection is. Please ignore it if it offends you. I agree government should be involved with internal security, so we can leave that one out. The question is, why those two things? Why, out of all the things that modern democratic gov'ts do around the world, do you think those two things are ones they should do? If having an army base in the Phillipines is so important, why don't you get together with some friends and contract that out yourself? Why should I have to contribute to it? What about the CIA? Is that defense? A lot of people say it is. Or are you advocating building a big wall and only having a strict definition of defense? Same for property rights. Or some say interstate commerce. Private roads, private security firms, non-government organizations to enforce patents, why not? Would my iPhone not work if it didn't have that little folded up piece of paper with it with all the legal language?
I had to laugh. The left is trotting out Dominionism again!Apparently you did not read the article to see what Rafael Cruz preaches. He is the one trotting out Dominionism.
Divine right of kings is not Biblical and it isn't Christian and doesn't come from Christian teaching. It was practiced in Europe because it was a Pagan tradition. If a Christian practices it, he is leaving Christian teaching.Ah yes, the no True Scotsman fallacy. Constantine was a pagan in your eyes, I guess.
Dominionists are going to eradicate the deviants and oppress every non-Christian by reducing government to the role of defense, internal security and property rights protection! Do you not see the contradiction here? This is absurd and I'm sorry you fall for it. It's nothing more than political hate speech and lies about those on the other side of the political aisle by Democrats who do want to increase government and force everyone to live by their dictates.I expect one of your "no true Christian" responses, but I'll ask anyway because no libertarian has ever given an answer to this before. Sorry if you don't like the libertarian label, but that's what reducing the gov't to defense and property rights protection is. Please ignore it if it offends you. I agree government should be involved with internal security, so we can leave that one out. The question is, why those two things? Lausten, I'm not a Libertarian and don't believe the government should be reduced to only these things. This is the charge of those who call Ted Cruz's father a Dominionist. My point is that their charge against him is nonsensical since on the one hand they accuse him of wanting to "dominate" all things and oppress all non-Christians (which is not even a belief of a true Dominionist), while on the other hand they accuse him of wanting to reduce government to bare bones and functions. How are you going to dominate and oppress everyone if you don't have a powerful government? That's why it's purely political fear mongering by those accusing Ted Cruz's father of wanting to take over everything and everyone by not taking over anything. I suspect that since Rafael Cruz is an older man from Cuba, that he knows a thing or two about the Communist take over there and has a worldview from that vantage point. I remember the story that after Castro took over, he would have all the school children bow their heads and ask God for candy. Then when they raised their heads there was no candy there. Then they were to bow their heads and ask Fidel for candy. When they raised their heads there was candy on each desk. In Communist regimes, they did indeed replace any belief in God with belief in government and its dictators/leaders. Christians have been a powerful force in the US since its founding. Yet at no time did they seek to build a powerful government to exterminate the "deviants" and non-Christians, and no one is calling for that now.
Your inherent dishonesty is showing again, Lily. Some Christians are calling for a theocracy. No they are not calling for exterminating deviants and non-Christians, but I don’t recall anyone here saying they are. You are trying to deflect the argument to something you can win. This is merely a straw man.
Please try to quit using logical fallacies to defend your beliefs.
I'm not a Libertarian and don't believe the government should be reduced to only these things. This is the charge of those who call Ted Cruz's father a Dominionist. My point is that their charge against him is nonsensical since on the one hand they accuse him of wanting to "dominate" all things and oppress all non-Christians (which is not even a belief of a true Dominionist), while on the other hand they accuse him of wanting to reduce government to bare bones and functions. How are you going to dominate and oppress everyone if you don't have a powerful government? That's why it's purely political fear mongering by those accusing Ted Cruz's father of wanting to take over everything and everyone by not taking over anything.Hard to tell what you are defending, since you are only laughing at others. Anyway, the way you take over by reducing government is you reduce oversight and regulations so you can make whatever you want, pollute however you want and treat employees however you want. You reduce education so people don't know they could have it better and aren't taught how to figure things out for themselves. Tell them school is bad for them and teach them some simple comforting story that involves honoring some people in funny hats for no reason. If you can do that for a generation, and keep out any outside influence, it's pretty easy after that. Keeping out outside influence is getting tougher these days however. I'm reading "I Am Malala". This is pretty much how the Taliban took over the Swat Valley. They had it a lot easier because the government was already very weak.
Ah yes, the no True Scotsman fallacy. Constantine was a pagan in your eyes, I guess.The No True Scotsman Fallacy was fabricated by the atheist Antony Flew. The problem is he didn't take into consideration the difference between a religion--which is a set of beliefs--and ancestry. It's a ridiculous fallacy which makes no sense when used against Christianity. Atheists should seriously stop using it. It only makes them look bad. Many here, including yourself, are an example of people who once believed in God and Christian teaching, only to reject it later in life. But no one can change their ancestry. They are simply born with it and will have it their entire life. So, yes, the divine right of kings is a Pagan tradition, not a Christian teaching. It does not come from Christianity no matter who practiced it and that will never change. The divine right of kings is not a part of Christianity's set of beliefs. That's not a fallacy, but a fact. The fact also remains that no one, including Ted Cruz's father, is calling for Dominionism, especially according to the twisted view the left has invented of it. You are falling prey to political hate speech which is not based in any reality.
Hard to tell what you are defending, since you are only laughing at others. Anyway, the way you take over by reducing government is you reduce oversight and regulations so you can make whatever you want, pollute however you want and treat employees however you want. You reduce education so people don't know they could have it better and aren't taught how to figure things out for themselves. Tell them school is bad for them and teach them some simple comforting story that involves honoring some people in funny hats for no reason. If you can do that for a generation, and keep out any outside influence, it's pretty easy after that. Keeping out outside influence is getting tougher these days however. I'm reading "I Am Malala". This is pretty much how the Taliban took over the Swat Valley. They had it a lot easier because the government was already very weak.Early Protestant Christians were responsible for making this county the most literate and educated in the world. They built hospitals and schools to help and to educate people. They sought freedom for people to follow their dreams and make something of their lives. Christians still want that today and they hope for a government that will join them in setting this nation on a course that will afford freedom and prosperity for all our citizens. No one wants pollution. No one wants ignorance. Christians are not the Taliban, and to make that comparison is sick and twisted at its core. If that's what you truly fear, that is just sad. It's a bogey man of your own making, and your own fears will bring this country down. I feel bad for you.
Early Protestant Christians were responsible for making this county the most literate and educated in the world. They built hospitals and schools to help and to educate people. They sought freedom for people to follow their dreams and make something of their lives. Christians still want that today and they hope for a government that will join them in setting this nation on a course that will afford freedom and prosperity for all our citizens. No one wants pollution. No one wants ignorance. Christians are not the Taliban, and to make that comparison is sick and twisted at its core. If that's what you truly fear, that is just sad. It's a bogey man of your own making, and your own fears will bring this country down. I feel bad for you.Maybe you want prosperity and freedom for all, but there are plenty of people saying you should speak English and be a Christian or get out of America. Of course no one wants pollution in their back yard, but many are willing to create it and dump it on someone else if it profits them. And people do want ignorance, as in "ignore the man behind the screen", they don't want people who are smart enough to catch them at what they are doing. I didn't say Christians are the Taliban, I was pointing out that the tactics being used are the same. They haven't changed in centuries, just the names of the actors.