{MOVED} Does having an "Internal Narrative" effect one's likelihood of being a Religious Funde?

[Landon Caeli]

Please define "fundamentalist." That's a word that's mostly used as a pejorative today.

Properly speaking, "fundamentalist" means someone who believes in miracles, the Resurrection, the Deity of Christ, the Virgin Birth, etc. (the fundamentals of the Christian faith).

The Church has always (until modern times) been "fundamentalist," and personality types or thinking styles have never affected that.

By "Fundamentalist" I am referring to people who reject any attribute, feeling or notion about God or Christianity that is not explicitly stated in the bible... An example would be that it is absolutely sinful to own slaves. If someone feels like it is absolutely sinful to own slaves, but it is not explicitly stated as such in the bible, then to believe so is the opposite of Christian Fundamentalism.

 

[Radagast]

By "Fundamentalist" I am referring to people who reject any attribute, feeling or notion about God or Christianity that is not explicitly stated in the bible... An example would be that it is mortally sinful to own slaves. If someone feels like it is mortally sinful to own slaves, but it does not come from the bible, then that is the opposite of Chriatian Fundamentalism.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."​

I don't know of anybody who holds the opinion that you call "Fundamentalism."

 

[Landon Caeli]

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."​

I don't know of anybody who holds the opinion that you call "Fundamentalism."

What would you call a bible-only Christian then? Formally..?

 

[Radagast]

What would you call a bible-only Christian then?

What do you mean by a "bible-only Christian"?

Are you excluding people who have Creeds and Confessions, like Presbyterians and Baptists? Are you excluding people who believe in ongoing prophetic revelation, like Pentecostals? Who is left?

 

[pescador]

The only problem with that is that different people interpret the New Covenant in different ways. So someone may be convinced that the words they heard comport perfectly with the New Covenant as they themselves have decided to interpret it. So they end up relying upon their own interpretation to decide if the voices in their head are from The Holy Spirit and not just in line with their own interpretation of how to be in compliance with the New Covenant.

Here is an example of that sort of circular reasoning which could lead to problems.

A-I believe that to love my neighbors I must save them from Hell by converting them to Christianity because that is how I interpret the words of Jesus about love and the Great Commission.

B- A voice in my head tells me that to love my neighbor by converting my neighbor I must isolate (aka kidnap though the person in question would bristle at the use of the word.) him and use behavioral and attitudinal modification techniques (aka brainwashing though the person in question would bristle at the use of that word too . ) in order to convince him to see the light

C- That must have been the Holy Spirit telling me to do that because it does not contradict my personal understanding of the New Covenant.

You said, "So they end up relying upon their own interpretation to decide if the voices in their head are from The Holy Spirit and not just in line with their own interpretation of how to be in compliance with the New Covenant." Why "voices in their head"? Have you ever heard of knowing something in your Spirit?

For example, I know that I love my wife. That's not because of some "voice in my head" telling me that, it's because I know it spiritually.

Paul wrote this to the Galatians, "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control." I don't see anything about voices here; it's about manifestation of God's Spirit living in you.

 

[Landon Caeli]

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."​

I don't know of anybody who holds the opinion that you call "Fundamentalism."

Jehovahs Witness among others.

 

[Landon Caeli]

What do you mean by a "bible-only Christian"?

Are you excluding people who have Creeds and Confessions, like Presbyterians and Baptists? Are you excluding people who believe in ongoing prophetic revelation, like Pentecostals? Who is left?

7th day Adventists among other radical bible-only fundamentalists... They say if something is not explicitly mentioned in the bible, then it should be rejected. This includes the Trinity.

 

[grasping the after wind]

You said, "So they end up relying upon their own interpretation to decide if the voices in their head are from The Holy Spirit and not just in line with their own interpretation of how to be in compliance with the New Covenant." Why "voices in their head"? Have you ever heard of knowing something in your Spirit?

For example, I know that I love my wife. That's not because of some "voice in my head" telling me that, it's because I know it spiritually.

Paul wrote this to the Galatians, "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control." I don't see anything about voices here; it's about manifestation of God's Spirit living in you.

I was pointing out one flaw in the argument not denying the whole argument. We need to be careful not to overlook some possibilities just because other possibilities also exist.

 

[grasping the after wind]

By "Fundamentalist" I am referring to people who reject any attribute, feeling or notion about God or Christianity that is not explicitly stated in the bible... An example would be that it is absolutely sinful to own slaves. If someone feels like it is absolutely sinful to own slaves, but it is not explicitly stated as such in the bible, then to believe so is the opposite of Christian Fundamentalism.

Are those that say that something is ok because the Bible does not directly restrict it all Fundamentalists? I don't think so because I have heard that argument used by too man people that no one would consider a Fundamentalist.

IMO there is no one what doesn't interpret the Bible in some way. Even people that claim to be literalists don't take everything literally.

 

[Radagast]

7th day Adventists among other radical bible-only fundamentalists... They say if something is not explicitly mentioned in the bible, then it should be rejected. This includes the Trinity.

Are you sure?

 

[Landon Caeli]

Are you sure?

I'm sure that the Jehovahs witnesses believe that. But I tend to lump those sects who tend to be on that end of the spectrum together, so I include the SDA's. Generally, there does exist a side that rejects feelings and goes with literal text only -nothing else allowed.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Are those that say that something is ok because the Bible does not directly restrict it all Fundamentalists? I don't think so because I have heard that argument used by too man people that no one would consider a Fundamentalist.

IMO there is no one what doesn't interpret the Bible in some way. Even people that claim to be literalists don't take everything literally.

But isn't there a Christian perspective that exists that tends to exclude any and all things not mentioned in the bible? I've seen some Christians reject Christmas, calling it "pagan" and they say it should be rejected because the bible doesn't mention it. Though, this isn't the description of "literalism", it's actually more along the lines of Sola Scriptura-radicalism...

...In any case, these certain people (whatever their name) seem to focus entirely on linguistics, texts and words... To be all about 'words'... This takes us back to the OP, and the two types of thinking.

 

[ewq1938]

 

[Junia]

this is interesting.

has anyone does Myers Briggs Inventory? i dont know if there any real science to it or if it a load of bunkum? anyway i scored INFP. so a perceiving, feling introvert. dont really know how it would affect my faith or not.

my walk with God is mine only and cannot be put in any box

 

[Paidiske]

But isn't there a Christian perspective that exists that tends to exclude any and all things not mentioned in the bible? I've seen some Christians reject Christmas, calling it "pagan" and they say it should be rejected because the bible doesn't mention it. Though, this isn't the description of "literalism", it's actually more along the lines of Sola Scriptura-radicalism...

...In any case, these certain people (whatever their name) seem to focus entirely on linguistics, texts and words... To be all about 'words'... This takes us back to the OP, and the two types of thinking.

There are some folks like this; I remember reading about the early puritans, for example, refusing to wear wedding rings because they're not in the Bible and were seen as "pagan." However, I don't think it's accurate to use the term fundamentalists for them; as Radagast pointed out, that has a very clear definition and historical origin, and it isn't quite the same as what you're describing here. (That said, I'm not quite sure what the right term for what you're describing is).

I think that's a little different from what you raised in your OP about an internal narrative, though. Someone who holds this sort of view of the Bible and its place in their life might still themselves think about it largely in non-verbal ways.

 

[Lyrasong]

There are some folks like this; I remember reading about the early puritans, for example, refusing to wear wedding rings because they're not in the Bible and were seen as "pagan." However, I don't think it's accurate to use the term fundamentalists for them; as Radagast pointed out, that has a very clear definition and historical origin, and it isn't quite the same as what you're describing here. (That said, I'm not quite sure what the right term for what you're describing is).

I think that's a little different from what you raised in your OP about an internal narrative, though. Someone who holds this sort of view of the Bible and its place in their life might still themselves think about it largely in non-verbal ways.

Yes - your final statement seems right.

Maybe the way in which we connect with spirituality has more to do with temperament, such as that approximated by the Myers-Briggs test.

 

[Paidiske]

I remember years ago reading a book called Wake Up The Sun which set out all sorts of different prayer exercises, broken down by Myers-Briggs personality types.

 

[Radagast]

Maybe the way in which we connect with spirituality has more to do with temperament, such as that approximated by the Myers-Briggs test.

Personality tests, and the (flawed but still useful) Myers-Briggs test will at least generate some testable hypotheses.

They probably do relate to aspects of spirituality. But I would be very surprised if they related to the liberal/conservative theological divide.

 

[Radagast]

And I would still like to see "Fundie" removed from the thread title. It's purely pejorative, and very offensive.

 

[Paidiske]

They probably do relate to aspects of spirituality. But I would be very surprised if they related to the liberal/conservative theological divide.

It might be interesting to ask whether different spiritualities relate to the liberal/conservative divide. In my experience, conservative groups are very suspicious of the more, shall we say, subjective sorts of spirituality.