Originally posted by sasquatch672We don't judge people it is the word of God that says you must be saved. Acts 4:12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."
Fundamentalists, to me, believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible.
There are good fundamentalists - the majority of them, in fact. Then there are bad fundamentalists. I think to me the difference is, do you go to church on Sundays, pretending you have some special kind of insight that nobody else has, then run around the other six days of ...[text shortened]... ion of Christian fundamentalism) bear more than a passing resemblance to fundamentalist Muslims.
Originally posted by ivanhoeI think fundamentalists are defined among other aspects, by their
[b]Sas: " Ivanhoe, while we've gone back and forth, doesn't strike me as particularly intolerant of others."
I have always wondered what the term "fundamentalist" stands for.
What does it stand for in case it is applied to Christians?
What does it mean in case it is applied to Muslems ?
What does it mean if it is applied to Hindus ?
...[text shortened]... ar fundamentalists as well roaming the RHP forums and waving their flags in an unmistakable way.[/b]
desire to make their religion a government. I think the
Christian right would qualify in that regard as well as the
muslim extremists as in Iran or the Afghan Taliban.
They all have one thing in common: Extreme pressure on
people to convert.
1 edit
Originally posted by echeceroEchechero: " I'm not sure how it would be possible to be a "secular fundamentalist."
Given that "fundamentalist" refers to a person who believes there is a need to return to stricter, more "fundamental" views, rules, and ways, often by supporting intolerance of secularism and other deviations away from traditional beliefs of their particular faith, I'm not sure how it would be possible to be a "secular fundamentalist."
A secular fundamentalist refers to a person who believes there has to be a strict more "fundamental" view, rules and ways, often by supporting intolerance of religionism and other deviations away from traditional beliefs of their own particular ideology.
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettI do not know that person. Please give an example of his secular fundamentalism in regard to the constitution as you see it.
Do you mean someone like arch-conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia who argues for a literalist intepretation of the US Constitution?
Originally posted by ivanhoeThat makes no sense at all. Please give an example of a strict fundamentalist secular country or ideology.
[b]Echechero: " I'm not sure how it would be possible to be a "secular fundamentalist."
A secular fundamentalist refers to a person who believes there has to be a strict more fundamental view, rules and ways, often by supporting intolerance of religionism and other deviations away from traditional beliefs of their own particular ideology.[/b]
Originally posted by sonhouseThe secular ideology of liberalism is also very keen of making their ideology the dominant one in the US, and not only there. They are actively seeking to take over governments.
I think fundamentalists are defined among other aspects, by their
desire to make their religion a government. I think the
Christian right would qualify in that regard as well as the
muslim extremists as in Iran or the Afghan Taliban.
They all have one thing in common: Extreme pressure on
people to convert.
Originally posted by ivanhoePlease give an example of "liberalism" (which kind?) adhering to a strict and LITERAL basic principle. Such a basic principle to be literal must be stated in some sacred or authoritative text which must be believed to be without the possibility of error. I would say that the classical definition of liberalism precludes fundamentalism as it stresses intellectual and spiritual liberty rather than enforced adherence to any set of basic principles.
Marauder: "That makes no sense at all."
Why not ?
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderOriginally posted by echecero
Please give an example of "liberalism" (which kind?) adhering to a strict and LITERAL basic principle. Such a basic principle to be literal must be stated in some sacred or authoritative text which must be believed to be without the possibility of error. I would say that the classical definition of liberalism precludes fundamentalism as it stresses intellectual and spiritual liberty rather than enforced adherence to any set of basic principles.
Given that "fundamentalist" refers to a person who believes there is a need to return to stricter, more "fundamental" views, rules, and ways, often by supporting intolerance of secularism and other deviations away from traditional beliefs of their particular faith, I'm not sure how it would be possible to be a "secular fundamentalist."
Echechero: " I'm not sure how it would be possible to be a "secular fundamentalist."
A secular fundamentalist refers to a person who believes there has to be a strict more "fundamental" view, rules and ways, often by supporting intolerance of religionism and other deviations away from traditional beliefs of their own particular ideology.
I wrote down a variation of what Echechero calls a religious fundamentalist.
Why doesn't it make any sense ? It does make sense to me.
I want to add that fundamentalists have no objections to killing if that killing brings closer their ideological ideals. They are perfectly willing to morally justify that killing.
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhat do they call that argument? Strawman I think.
The secular ideology of liberalism is also very keen of making their ideology the dominant one in the US, and not only there. They are actively seeking to take over governments.
I'm sure child pornographers would like to take over the
government too but that doesn't invalidate my point.
And the lack of real argument here makes me think you WANT
fundamentalists to control everyone's lives. If that happened I would
make myself a volunteer at McMurdo Station.
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderMarauder: "Please give an example of "liberalism" (which kind?) adhering to a strict and LITERAL basic principle. Such a basic principle to be literal must be stated in some sacred or authoritative text which must be believed to be without the possibility of error."
Please give an example of "liberalism" (which kind?) adhering to a strict and LITERAL basic principle. Such a basic principle to be literal must be stated in some sacred or authoritative text which must be believed to be without the possibility of error. I would say that the classical definition of liberalism precludes fundamentalism as it stresses intellectual and spiritual liberty rather than enforced adherence to any set of basic principles.
Ho ho ho .... you are implicitely using your own definition of what constitutes "fundamentalism" .... and that was exactly what we were discussing.
What do you think constitutes a "fundamentalist" ?
From your previous post a few of your criteria can be distilled:
- a fundamentalist must adhere to a strict and literal basic principle.
- such a basic principle to be literal must be stated in some sacred or authorative text, which must be believed to be without the possibility of error.
Are there more criteria you want to add ?
More criteria have been proposed by others in this thread. Which ones do you want to incorporate in your definition ?