Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,121
What is a fundamentalist?
- Thread starter ned flandas
- Start date
-
- Tags
- fundamentalist
kurious_kathy
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Messages
- 2,142
Oh and this is definitely what we strive for, intillectual understanding. But to care about something is to value it. So keeping in mind that caring about something is an emotion that drives us to ponder the definition makes us reflect that one without the other doesn't quite cut it, we need both to have conviction. Our conviction is what I believe drives a person.
I believe the definition of fundamentalism is a return to the fundamental basics of a religion, not neccesarily extremism.
A fundamentalist Christian, for example, would be one who returned to the teachings of Jesus Christ, throwing away all the trappings Christianity has gathered in the last two millenia. Only the words of Jesus Christ would apply.
A fundamentalist Buddhist would throw away all the trappings that Buddhism has collected over the last two and a half millenia, including a multitude of supernatural beliefs and godhoods, and return to the basic teachings of Gautama Buddha, like the Four Noble Truths.
Of course, very few Buddhists will label themselves as fundamentalist, because of the connotations of the words. But as long as people understand what the word really means, I would have no problem identifying myself as a fundamentalist Buddhist.
ETA : Of course, I'm a pot and I'm calling the kettle black. I've used the word fundamentalist when I meant extremist numerous times.
A fundamentalist Christian, for example, would be one who returned to the teachings of Jesus Christ, throwing away all the trappings Christianity has gathered in the last two millenia. Only the words of Jesus Christ would apply.
A fundamentalist Buddhist would throw away all the trappings that Buddhism has collected over the last two and a half millenia, including a multitude of supernatural beliefs and godhoods, and return to the basic teachings of Gautama Buddha, like the Four Noble Truths.
Of course, very few Buddhists will label themselves as fundamentalist, because of the connotations of the words. But as long as people understand what the word really means, I would have no problem identifying myself as a fundamentalist Buddhist.
ETA : Of course, I'm a pot and I'm calling the kettle black. I've used the word fundamentalist when I meant extremist numerous times.
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,121
Well, you know what I meant. The teachings of Jesus Christ, as portrayed by the Bible.
Most Christians that are labeled fundamentalists are nothing of the sort. Remember, Jesus taught that poverty is superior to wealth.
ETA: I think the closest thing to organized Christian fundamentalism is probably the Jehova's Witnesses.
Last edited:
sphenisc
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 6,233
Why the Jehovah's Witnesses in particular?
Because of their interpretations of the Bible, which is pretty close to the interpretations of most atheists. They don't even believe in the divinity of Jesus or the trinity, for example, because the Bible never mentions it. They don't change stuff to fit in with modern day views, for the most part, but follow the book strictly. One of the few Christian groups, IMO, that take their Bible seriously.
In short, they're fundamentalists, in the true sense of the word.
In reality, none of today's religious groups go back to the original meanings of the Bible, even those who have that intent. Why not?
1) The original manuscripts do not exist and even if they did, it's impossible to translate complicated ideas literally from one language to another. Even simple ideas cannot always be translated literally between closely related languages like Germand and English. And religious ideas are rarely simple.
2) Our world view is so different than that of the people who wrote the Bible thousands of years ago, that we cannot even begin to understand what they "really meant" when they wrote. In addition, the categories of "fiction" and "nonfiction" did not exist at the time. Mythological stories were not intended to represent historical accuracy. That does not mean they were just "made up" as today's novels are. They were meant to elucidate on the humand condition. In a way, they were an early form of psychology. The purpose of such writings was to give meaning to life through metaphor and analogy.
That said, fundamentalists do intend to try, at least, to return to early versions of their religion. Unfortunately, they most often try to do that via a misinformed idea that taking their scripture literally brings them closer to the original meanings. This is far from the truth.
Regarding the difference between extremists and fundamenalists, I think that's an important distinction to make. It is the reason we have the words Islamist and Muslim, which carry hugely different connotations. I have noticed that many writers have started calling extremist Christians "Christianists" to differentiate them from other people who follow versions of Christianity.
1) The original manuscripts do not exist and even if they did, it's impossible to translate complicated ideas literally from one language to another. Even simple ideas cannot always be translated literally between closely related languages like Germand and English. And religious ideas are rarely simple.
2) Our world view is so different than that of the people who wrote the Bible thousands of years ago, that we cannot even begin to understand what they "really meant" when they wrote. In addition, the categories of "fiction" and "nonfiction" did not exist at the time. Mythological stories were not intended to represent historical accuracy. That does not mean they were just "made up" as today's novels are. They were meant to elucidate on the humand condition. In a way, they were an early form of psychology. The purpose of such writings was to give meaning to life through metaphor and analogy.
That said, fundamentalists do intend to try, at least, to return to early versions of their religion. Unfortunately, they most often try to do that via a misinformed idea that taking their scripture literally brings them closer to the original meanings. This is far from the truth.
Regarding the difference between extremists and fundamenalists, I think that's an important distinction to make. It is the reason we have the words Islamist and Muslim, which carry hugely different connotations. I have noticed that many writers have started calling extremist Christians "Christianists" to differentiate them from other people who follow versions of Christianity.