I have several questions about Fundamentalism.

Neostarwcc

We are saved purely by the work and grace of God.
Supporter
Dec 13, 2015
5,228
4,189
37
US
✟909,909.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
So, I have several questions and statements about Christian Theology. Fundamentalism in particular.

Why is it, that Fundamentalists are called "extremists"? And are hated and criticized for taking the bible literally? Isn't the ENTIRE point of the bible to take it literally? Otherwise, what is the point in the bible being created at all? The bible was created so that God could share his word with all of creation!

The bible was created so that all of humanity can know the word of God! As times change and religious denominations slowly defecate all over the word of God, the bible is supposed to be the ONLY thing left in the world that we can turn to that is pure, perfect, and holy besides the Lord himself!

Yet, there are so many Christians out there that don't even BELIEVE in the bible yet, believe that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior. How contradictory is that? If you believe in Jesus Christ and salvation, you HAVE to believe in the bible! Because, the bible contains the ENTIRETY of Jesus's life and what is required for our salvation!

Jesus said that the old testament and the entirety of the bible is true. So if you don't believe the bible is true, you're calling Jesus a liar. And, how is that fair to Jesus. The man who gave his life on the cross for you so that you can be cleansed and forgiven for your sins!

There are also so many Christians out there that don't take the bible seriously and, keep throwing Matthew 7:1 in people's faces. Especially the faces of Fundamentalists. Yet, they use it so out of context that they only end up looking like ignorant 3 year old's. Matthew 7:1 does NOT tell Christians to not judge sin. In fact? For telling us to not judge sin? You're judging us. It warns us against sinning in HYPOCRISY. It tells us to Judge others RIGHTEOUSLY. And to not Condemn other people. Simply put? Jesus did not agree with Hypocrites. To him, you could not love God and call yourself a follower of God if you lived your life in sin and did not follow God's word like it says in Matthew 7:21. There also, are several places in the bible where it commands us to Judge for sin.

There are so many Christians out there, that don't even bother to study and learn the bible and only listen to like one or two verses. Or, they'll pick the parts of the bible that they like and call the rest of it "useless garbage" and "Just a story".

It's NOT just garbage! It's the word of God! Am I the only one that's slightly offended by these comments?

Then there are the people whom I find really offensive. The hypocritical Christians who claim that ALL Fundamentalist Christians are against helping the poor, and are for power and greed.

Probably because of Donald Trump and what's going on with him and what he protrays list Christianity to be. Donald Trump is NOT a Fundamentalist Christian.

If a Fundamentalist Christian is REALLY TRULY Fundamental than they would be FOR giving to the poor NOT against it! They would be AGAINST personal power and they would be AGAINST Greed. An immediate and OBVIOUS contradiction. Want to know why I know this? Because, the bible says so. The bible warns us repeatedly about greed and how we should cut it out of our lives, the bible warns us repeatedly to help the poor and the less fortunate, the bible warns us repeatedly about the lust for power. Fundamentalists take the bible literally so, if a person is truly fundamentalists than they'd follow the bible and word of God.

Then there's the Christians that claim that we're full of hate. No, we're not. We're full of LOVE. Despite what Satan wants you to believe? Educating people on Scripture is NOT hate. Despite what Satan wants you to believe? We don't hate you. We teach you scripture because, we LOVE you! We teach you scripture because, we want you to be SAVED! We teach you scripture because, we want you to prepare for Judgement day!

Fundamentalist Christians are among the most selfless people in the world. In actuality? Even the most are kind when you look at their original meanings and when you look at the word of God. For example, God won't let you abort your baby? Oh no! It's the end of the world that you can't murder your own fetus! You know? The gift that God gave you?

Or another example, Slavery. A very sensitive topic in the bible.

Despite popular belief? God (And the bible) did NOT give humanity the right to mistreat slaves. Also? Slaves were not exclusive to race. It wasn't until America came along that slavery, really changed for the worse. And also? The bible didn't COMMAND us to have slaves. It only said that, if we wanted slaves? We had the option.

The bible is, was, and always will be full of love. Just as we will always be full of love.

Just because we like to tell the word of God like it is, does not mean that we are Self Absorbed or Egotistical people. Wake up and quit being deceived by Satan!

It is a fact though, Fundamentalist Christianity didn't start until the late 19th Century. But, that's because the word of God started to disappear from our Churches. That's because the word of God started to disappear from our world. That's because people today, are worshiping more and more false idols than before without even realizing it.

That's because the day of the "new" started. And people started to "get with the times."

Fundamentalism? Had to start.

And that's okay, we can take the hate. The bible did warn us, that True Christians would be hated by the world. That many would disagree with us. The fact that so many Fundamentalists are flamed into oblivion, and are considered extremist jerks only proves the totality of the bible even more. It only proves that the day of the rapture? Is getting closer and closer. It only proves that the day of Judgement? Is near. Where will you be when the day of Judgement comes?
 

Gregory Thompson

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.
Supporter
Dec 20, 2009
28,362
7,742
Canada
✟721,286.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Fundamentalism is clinging to particular phrasing that has become archaic and becoming angry when people walk away and believe different. The "fundamentals of the faith" that are listed in CF's Fundamentalist Forum are generally accepted in evangelical congregations that are considered "moderates" .
.
So the vernacular definition through use of the word and the christian definition are at variance.
 
Upvote 0

Gregory Thompson

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.
Supporter
Dec 20, 2009
28,362
7,742
Canada
✟721,286.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
I'm more into the "foundations" this is a result of words disappearing from the bible or sentences changing frequently in the commercial translations. Understanding the foundational truths of the faith, it doesn't matter how it is written or what is left out, nothing can erase the core without ripping every page out at the same time.
.
The first foundation is the love your neighbour as yourself, because if you cannot love someone whom is made in God's image that you can see, there's no way that you can love the God who is unseen.
.
Another helpful foundation is understanding God from the seven/eight days of creation and looking for his character in that text, it is helpful when picking apart the prophetic texts, but also when looking at times when it is ambiguous why God did something. By examining the work of the creator, you can get to know the one who created.
.
I also find it helpful to understand what the bible says what "love" is, because it is the basis of all commandments.
.
Another helpful thing is to look at the old testament passages and see Jesus instead of the law, this foundation comes from Colossians chapter 2.
.
I suppose the list goes on but the perfect law of liberty is really important, it speaks about how we grow as new creations and also how we can stagnate our growth.
.
The fundamentals can lead people astray by becoming divisive over ideas, and then by enshrining the fundamentals as a law, become under a law of their own making .. repeating the trap mentioned in Galatians.
 
Upvote 0

Neostarwcc

We are saved purely by the work and grace of God.
Supporter
Dec 13, 2015
5,228
4,189
37
US
✟909,909.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Fundamentalism is clinging to particular phrasing that has become archaic and becoming angry when people walk away and believe different. The "fundamentals of the faith" that are listed in CF's Fundamentalist Forum are generally accepted in evangelical congregations that are considered "moderates" .
.
So the vernacular definition through use of the word and the christian definition are at variance.

I could explain why we get angry. It isn't right for ANY Christian to get angry. So on behalf of Fundamentalists everywhere, I apologize. But, Fundamentalists get angry because, we believe that the bible is meant to be taken literaly. We believe that if people don't listen to us, they won't be prepared for the day of Judgement.

Also, we don't respect other religions for the same reason. We expose "false" religions because, again we care about people being taught the truth as it says in the bible and we want people to be prepared for the day of Judgement.

Also, we're so "stuck" on Archaic English because the King James Bible has been proven to be accurate in the word of God department for over 4 centuries now. Unlike the recent translations that, have only been around for 50 years at maximum and have been proven to have been revised and edited (A big no,no God did not want the bible to be edited in any way, shape, or form). Many of them removed several paragraphs from the bible. Or changed the original meaning of the bible. And when you believe the bible is pure,perfect, and holy you don't want the bible to be revised.

We're taught to question everything and turn to the bible for answers so, if the bible has been revised than the word of God is incomplete.

Also, the bible isn't the only work of literature that hasn't been changed from Archaic English. Shakespeare hasn't been either. I don't know if you're a fan of theatre but, would you consider it an abomination to change the art of Shakespeare to modern English? It would take most of the theatrics out of the art wouldn't you think? Same with the bible.

Archaic English, is beautiful.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gregory Thompson

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.
Supporter
Dec 20, 2009
28,362
7,742
Canada
✟721,286.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
I could explain why we get angry. It isn't right for ANY Christian to get angry. So on behalf of Fundamentalists everywhere, I apologize. But, Fundamentalists get angry because, we believe that the bible is meant to be taken literaly. We believe that if people don't listen to us, they won't be prepared for the day of Judgement.

Also, we don't respect other religions for the same reason. We expose "false" religions because, again we care about people being taught the truth as it says in the bible and we want people to be prepared for the day of Judgement.

Also, we're so "stuck" on Archaic English because the King James Bible has been proven to be accurate in the word of God department for over 4 centuries now. Unlike the recent translations that, have only been around for 50 years at maximum and have been proven to have been revised and edited (A big no,no God did not want the bible to be edited in any way, shape, or form). Many of them removed several paragraphs from the bible. Or changed the original meaning of the bible. And when you believe the bible is pure,perfect, and holy you don't want the bible to be revised.

We're taught to question everything and turn to the bible for answers so, if the bible has been revised than the word of God is incomplete.

Well, I think the problem with the king james is that to get from the 1611 version to the version commonly sold in stores, there was a century or so of editing by people to correct whatever was wrong with the original translation. Furthermore, the apocrypha were torn out less apostolic authority .. so I think maybe the Geneva translation might be a good version to fall back on since a lot of the translators of the KJV went back to it after translating the bible for the king.
.
You may also find the ASV which is also public domain helpful since the english is closer to modern english.
.
But beyond the bible translation issue I think it is important to read each passage both literally and figuratively at the same time to get the full meaning of many of the passages.
.
So far as being prepared for the day of judgment, the 1st John letter says love is made perfect (or mature) in us so that we will have boldness on the day of judgment, because in this world/age we are like him. People can be pumped full of teaching but never learn love, this is what Paul means by resounding gong or clanging symbol in 1 Corinthians 13.
.
Since the wrath of man cannot accomplish the righteousness of God, I disagree the angry manner of fundamentalists will prepare people adequately for the day of judgment, simply because of what is written in the scripture.
 
Upvote 0

PuerAzaelis

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 4, 2016
479
233
NYC
✟181,110.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
The problem with a reading that insists on only one hermeneutics is that it creates unresolvable difficulties with respect to context.

"Fundamentalists" (whatever that really means, as with any question we first need to define our terms) appear, for example to have no issue with reading John 6:53 allegorically.

Joh 6:53 KJVA (Since we like the KJV so much)
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.


And when John the Baptist states:

Joh 1:36 KJVA
And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!


Presumably they do not mean that Jesus is about to grow wool and say "baa".
 
  • Like
Reactions: ShaulHaTarsi
Upvote 0

Neostarwcc

We are saved purely by the work and grace of God.
Supporter
Dec 13, 2015
5,228
4,189
37
US
✟909,909.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Good morning guys! Okay so, I just had a thought this morning about what I said about anger before. I had remembered that, several times over in the bible, Jesus Christ himself has gotten angry (Mark 1:25) (Matthew 23:13-17). So, I looked up those verses on google.

When a good point was been introduced to me in a few articles I found on the internet.
That, there is a difference between violent anger and righteous anger. So, the anger that fundamentalists show is actually, Justified anger in the context that I used it in in my previous reply. Since, we are angry about God's word not being fulfilled and we are angry for the people that we care about and who we're trying to help. Now, that doesn't mean that we can shout blasphemies or curses at people or that we don't have to treat people with respect while doing so like, I've seen some Fundamentalist Christians do. That isn't right. And that would violate commandments found in the bible.

Nobody is perfect, the point of Fundamentalism is to fight the modernization of the world and the modernization of the world and return God's word to the world. All the while, attempting to follow God's word yourself.

Also, I think that we have to believe at some point that a person just plain doesn't want to listen to us and that we're wasting our time in which case, we should be focusing our time and energy on people who actually will listen to us instead of endlessly debating back and forth (Matthew 7:6). some may argue that wasting time is sinful as well.

Anyway, that being said I'll get to replying to you guys.

The problem with a reading that insists on only one hermeneutics is that it creates unresolvable difficulties with respect to context.

"Fundamentalists" (whatever that really means, as with any question we first need to define our terms) appear, for example to have no issue with reading John 6:53 allegorically.

Joh 6:53 KJVA (Since we like the KJV so much)
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.


And when John the Baptist states:

Joh 1:36 KJVA
And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!


Presumably they do not mean that Jesus is about to grow wool and say "baa".

Several good points that I can explain and clear up for you. First off, you asked what Fundamentalism even meant in the English Language. The Meridian Webster dictionary covers its definition pretty well:

Fundamentalism

2: a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles <Islamic Fundamentalism> <political Fundamentalism>

So, Fundamentalism doesn't only exist in Christianity. While Fundamentalism is mostly a religious movement in many different religions, Fundamentalism is also, a movement in political issues (Like Pro Life or Pro Choice movements in US politics) and in other parts of the world. Fundamentalism even exists in Atheism.

Next, you asked if Jesus was speaking for us to literally eat his flesh and literally drink his blood. To answer your question, we have to go back to the book of Matthew. Specifically, Matthew 26:26-30.

We learn in these 4 verses that, during the last supper Jesus broke and blessed pieces of bread and said "This is my body" (In other words, the flesh described in your verse) and then he blessed his wine and said "This is my blood"

So we learn, that the Bread that Jesus blessed and that we eat during communion today is the body of Christ. It is so that Jesus Christ is always within us. The wine that we drink during communion is the blood of Christ which cleanses us from our sins.

When reading the bible, it is important to take the meaning of the passages literally, not the passages themselves. In other words, in this particular chapter we are taught the importance of communion, what communion is, and that we are commanded to perform communion regularly in remembrance of Jesus Christ's sacrifice for all of humanity and so that Christ is always with us and so that we are cleansed from our sins. Since eating the literal body and drinking the literal blood of Christ would be disgusting, wine and bread was blessed by Christ to replace them. But, these blessed items are not symbolic, they really are the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

Your verse is Jesus basically repeating and reminding people of what he said during the last supper.


As for John 1:36, no you're right it does not mean that Jesus is a literal Sheep. The statement "The Lamb of God" just means, the child of God. The Shepherd.

This article explains it perfectly and much better than I could if you're interested in reading it:

http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-Lamb-of-God.html


Well, I think the problem with the king james is that to get from the 1611 version to the version commonly sold in stores, there was a century or so of editing by people to correct whatever was wrong with the original translation. Furthermore, the apocrypha were torn out less apostolic authority .. so I think maybe the Geneva translation might be a good version to fall back on since a lot of the translators of the KJV went back to it after translating the bible for the king.
.
You may also find the ASV which is also public domain helpful since the english is closer to modern english.
.
But beyond the bible translation issue I think it is important to read each passage both literally and figuratively at the same time to get the full meaning of many of the passages.
.
So far as being prepared for the day of judgment, the 1st John letter says love is made perfect (or mature) in us so that we will have boldness on the day of judgment, because in this world/age we are like him. People can be pumped full of teaching but never learn love, this is what Paul means by resounding gong or clanging symbol in 1 Corinthians 13.
.
Since the wrath of man cannot accomplish the righteousness of God, I disagree the angry manner of fundamentalists will prepare people adequately for the day of judgment, simply because of what is written in the scripture.

Correct, but there wasn't anything wrong with the original translation. They just translated it as best as they could from the original text. It would be like going from Japanese to English today. It's impossible to get the translation EXACTLY correct. But, when translating from Japanese to English you can translate it to the point where all of the original meaning is still there.

If modern translations kept up with the original meaning of the bible than, nobody would be complaining about people using modernized bibles.

But, they didn't. And that's why Fundamentalists and many other Christians swear by the King James bible so much.

Because, in the modern translations they not only edited words into more clear English, they removed parts of the bible COMPLETELY, some of them say that previous sins like, homosexuality are good now (It's not the word of God doesn't change), that we're no longer held accountable for our sins (We are, several passages in the bible confirm this, including Jesus Christ himself) and they changed the bible to fit the belief of MAN and not God, so yes that becomes problematic and that's why the King James bible is considered "the" bible. Because, when they translated the King James bible to English, nobody changed the bibles original meaning. And like I said, nobody would be complaining if the modernized translations just changed the Archaic English to modern English. They claim they did but, they didn't as many scholars of the bible have proven.

How do we know that the King James bible is so accurate today? Like I said, over the course of the last 405 years scholars have been studying the King James bible for accuracy. It has been confirmed accurate from their original Hebrew and Greek meanings over and over again for 405 years now. Whereas, modern translations of the bible have been confirmed to have had changes, revisions, and deletions.
 
Upvote 0

stephen583

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
2,202
913
66
Salt lake City, UT
✟24,201.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I think the OP in this thread is "mischaracterizing" what religious "extremism", or "fundamentalism" is about. I don't necessarily equate someone who uses a "literal" interpretation of the Bible as a fundamentalist, or an extremist. Anymore than I would characterize someone who includes "figurative, metaphorical, or symbolic" interpretations of the Scripture as being a "Liberal" Christian.

There are all sorts of ways to interpret and translate the meaning of the Scripture. That's why there are over 300 different denominations of Christianity in America alone.

What I personally consider a "fundamentalist" or "extremist", is someone who erroneously takes one or two verses of Bible scripture, and tries to create an entire theology around it, to the exclusion of everything else the Bible teaches. You know who I'm talking about, the people who try to use the Old Testament to Judaize the New Testament (wanna be Christian/Jews) and people who think bringing a live poisonous snake into a building with a few exists is a good idea.

You also have that militant segment of Christianity that thinks it's o.k. to open up on ATF agents with heavy machine guns, because they represent the army of Gog and Magog. Then there is the "Christian Identity Movement" guys... The Christian white supremacists like the KKK.

I would characterize someone who behaves like that as an"extremist" or "fundamentalist". A few years ago, everyone just used to refer to them as "Whackos", but in the interest of promoting the "Christian Unity", or "Ecumenical Movement", I suppose the more acceptable terminology has become fundamentalist, which you have to admit sounds better than calling someone in an orange toga selling flowers at the airport a cult member.

Same goes for Christian militia members running around in Idaho wearing woodland camouflage in the desert and carrying military assault rifles everywhere they go. That would be my definition of an "extremist" whacko.

Given what everyone else is doing, I don't see what's stopping the LGBT movement from building their own churches, ordaining their own ministers and calling themselves Christians too. Unless they infringe on the beliefs of others, by insisting they be allowed to attend conventional churches that don't agree with their scandalous behavior... In that case, again, I would characterize that individual as an extremist whacko.

I mean I would never show up at a Jewish temple on Christmas Eve demanding they let me set up a baby Jesus manger scene on the front lawn of their synagogue. That would certainly be "fundamentalist-extremist" behavior, wouldn't it !
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gregory Thompson

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.
Supporter
Dec 20, 2009
28,362
7,742
Canada
✟721,286.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
When Jehovah witnesses came to my door some years ago, their spiel was "the answer to all of the world's problems is the bible" I replied that it was Jesus. I talked about scripture with them for a long time occaisionally highlighting examples of the trinity from the old testament and everywhere in the bible except the gospel of john.
.
Even with their bible that had been corrupted, I had no problem explaining to them my faith, because people who edit a bible to meet their preference do not understand the core nature of the text, and nuances remain. The KJV is good if you understand which verbs had a different meaning in 1611 than today but most people do not and make bad conclusions.
 
Upvote 0

Gregory Thompson

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.
Supporter
Dec 20, 2009
28,362
7,742
Canada
✟721,286.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Fighting the modernization of the world is pointless, it will keep modernizing long after we're dead. Read history, every change in society has been opposed and then accepted, and then embraced after the opposing generation died out. This concept is called a paradigm shift.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

stephen583

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
2,202
913
66
Salt lake City, UT
✟24,201.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
When Jehovah witnesses came to my door some years ago, their spiel was "the answer to all of the world's problems is the bible"

If you want to run off the Jehovah Witnesses from your house and ensure they never return, just have your wife use her red lipstick to draw three sixes on your forehead and answer the door that way. They won't come in and they won't come back.

Another strategy that seems to unnerve them, is to turn on the cable television news while they are visiting and scream.. "LOOK AT THAT" ! "IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD" ! Then grab your Bible and show them why. The last time I did that, they ran out the front door. They didn't even leave me a copy of the Watch Tower they ran out so fast. I don't think they can deal with the concept of the Apocalypse actually happening. It appears to absolutely terrify them.

I found these strategies work on the LDS as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PuerAzaelis
Upvote 0

Gregory Thompson

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.
Supporter
Dec 20, 2009
28,362
7,742
Canada
✟721,286.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
If you want to run off the Jehovah Witnesses from your house and ensure they never return, just have your wife use her red lipstick to draw three sixes on your forehead and answer the door that way. They won't come in and they won't come back.

Another strategy that seems to unnerve them, is to turn on the cable television news while they are visiting and scream.. "LOOK AT THAT" ! "IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD" ! Then grab your Bible and show them why. The last time I did that, they ran out the front door. They didn't even leave me a copy of the Watch Tower they ran out so fast. I don't think they can deal with the concept of the Apocalypse actually happening. It appears to terrify them.

I'd rather leave some nuggets of truth, some might actually be touched by the holy spirit through it sometime in the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: com7fy8
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I think the OP in this thread is "mischaracterizing" what religious "extremism", or "fundamentalism" is about. I don't necessarily equate someone who uses a "literal" interpretation of the Bible as a fundamentalist, or an extremist. Anymore than I would characterize someone who includes "figurative, metaphorical, or symbolic" interpretations of the Scripture as being a "Liberal" Christian.
I think you're right about that. Odd thing is that the term is not particularly elusive. The original set of principles adopted by the founders of the movement can easily be found online, and even the statement of principles for CF's fundamentalist forum replays them for anyone who cares enough to check it out.

The most critical thing to keep in mind is that the principles are not arrived at through nit-picking or splitting hairs; they are instead what the followers consider to be FUNDAMENTALS of the faith, the BASICS that just about every traditional Christian of whatever denomination ought to be able to affirm against the theological liberals of today for whom the mantra has become "everything is relative."
 
Upvote 0

stephen583

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
2,202
913
66
Salt lake City, UT
✟24,201.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I'd rather leave some nuggets of truth, some might actually be touched by the holy spirit through it sometime in the future.


Well I think someone has to be "receptive" in order to receive the Holy Spirit, don't you ? The Jehovah Witness and LDS aren't interested in hearing anything about what you believe, they're trolling for converts to their theology.

I actually ran into a LDS member in a Baptist Church here in Salt Lake City one Sunday. I asked him why he was attending a Baptist Church service, and he unapologetically told me he was there doing missionary work for the LDS Church.

Now there is a hardcore LDS. IMO, I think you'd have more success trying to convert a Moslem to Christianity, or convincing a U.S. Marine he's a sub-division of the Navy, than converting an LDS or Jehovah Witness to your denomination.
 
Upvote 0

Greg J.

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 2, 2016
3,841
1,907
Southeast Michigan
✟233,164.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
As has already been mentioned, the definition of fundamentalism is the problem. I can think of several different definitions being used today. To some, it refers to people who are judgmental and condemning. Oh, and they happen to use the Bible as their source of self-righteousness.

... We know that we all possess knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. (1 Corinthians 8:1b-2, 1984 NIV)

... That is why Scripture says: “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” (James 4:6b, 1984 NIV)

(I don't want to turn this thread into a pro- or con-KJV discussion, but I will only ask, which is more accurate, the original Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek or the KJV version? Also, to what degree should we have transformed the original languages into English vs. how much should we seek to learn to understand what God actually said? Isn't it the meaning of God's words that are important?)

Christians are children of God, and yet many behave as if they are God. Well, in fact, since we are fallen, we all behave like we are God in some fashion. This is one reason that humility is called for. It's inappropriate to have a condemning attitude towards anyone for any reason. In this case, we might be talking about how it is wrong to be condemning toward fundamentalists. But it could just as well mean being condemning of those condemners. Evil is at work in people and the world (read: all of us). We are to resist it, but not mock it.

It is only human to get angry, but it must be kept in check, because it leads to sin. Just because people are deceived and failing to keep their anger in check doesn't mean it is OK to express unrestrained anger toward them. Or to consider ourselves better than them (Philippians 2:3).

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. (bold mine, Ephesians 2:8-9, 1984 NIV)

For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.
(Romans 9:15-16, 1984 NIV)

bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. (Luke 6:28, 1984 NIV)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Te're'sa

Romans 6:1-14
Feb 2, 2016
74
33
31
Northern NY/Canadian border
✟44,873.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Since one of the issues at hand is the literal interpretation of the entire Bible, I'd like to point out Acts 28:26-27.

"...Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:
27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them."

Without Jesus Christ, the true meaning of the Bible, read literally or not, is likely or at least possible to be hidden from us, more so in some places than others. The problem with just assuming a literal interpretation of any part whatsoever, is that a sentence may have multiple meanings and allusions. That's how most languages around the world work. Automatically assuming the first interpretation that comes to mind is true, might lead readers of the Bible in the wrong direction.

OP, I don't believe this stumbling block necessarily applies to you, specifically, or to any specific fundamentalist, but it's clear from the way some of them can act, that they're clinging to their first interpretation. As you have defined fundamentalism in your OP, and later in the thread, the people who would stumble in this way might not be considered fundamentalist under your definition, though they will insist that they are. I'd also argue that your brand of fundamentalism is very different from what the news media would see as negative behavior from Christians.

There's nothing wrong with your approach, whatsoever. The danger, though, exists in closing your mind to other interpretations, even after the tenth time you've read a passage. Once you become familiar with an interpretation and begin to believe it true, the risk of this increases. Don't listen to the Word of God with your ears, but with your heart and mind, always.

Off-topic... I would have found the door-to-door-proselytizer jokes funny a couple years ago, but I don't think that's the most loving reaction to have, even towards people who refuse to hear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neostarwcc
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,339
26,779
Pacific Northwest
✟728,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
So, I have several questions and statements about Christian Theology. Fundamentalism in particular.

Why is it, that Fundamentalists are called "extremists"? And are hated and criticized for taking the bible literally?

That's probably not one of the really big criticisms against Fundamentalism. Though it can be due to the ramifications of such.

Isn't the ENTIRE point of the bible to take it literally?

Not even a little bit.

Otherwise, what is the point in the bible being created at all? The bible was created so that God could share his word with all of creation!

The Bible came about through the general consensus of the Church over centuries, the Bible is the result of which texts were accepted to be read as part of Christian worship. And the point is the point us to Jesus Christ, the Bible's purpose is to point us to Jesus, because Jesus is God's own Word, and Jesus is the whole point of everything.

"You search the Scriptures because in them you believe you have eternal life, it is these which testify of Me."

The bible was created so that all of humanity can know the word of God!

The Bible doesn't exist for those outside the Church, but for the Church. It's not the Bible's job to communicate the word of God to the world, that's the Church's job--to preach the Gospel.

Yet, there are so many Christians out there that don't even BELIEVE in the bible yet, believe that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior. How contradictory is that?

How many Christians do you know that go around saying, explicitly, that they don't believe [in] the Bible? Are you sure you're not making a sweeping judgment based on Christians not sharing your particular understanding of Scripture?

If you believe in Jesus Christ and salvation, you HAVE to believe in the bible! Because, the bible contains the ENTIRETY of Jesus's life and what is required for our salvation!

And Christians, across denominational lines, fully embrace that Holy Scripture points us to Christ and communicates to us the Gospel of our salvation. Do you know Christians who believe otherwise?

Jesus said that the old testament and the entirety of the bible is true. So if you don't believe the bible is true, you're calling Jesus a liar. And, how is that fair to Jesus. The man who gave his life on the cross for you so that you can be cleansed and forgiven for your sins!

By true do you mean literally true? Jesus never said everything in the Old Testament (which didn't exist in Jesus' time by the way but developed later) was literally true.

There are also so many Christians out there that don't take the bible seriously and, keep throwing Matthew 7:1 in people's faces. Especially the faces of Fundamentalists. Yet, they use it so out of context that they only end up looking like ignorant 3 year old's. Matthew 7:1 does NOT tell Christians to not judge sin. In fact? For telling us to not judge sin? You're judging us. It warns us against sinning in HYPOCRISY. It tells us to Judge others RIGHTEOUSLY. And to not Condemn other people. Simply put? Jesus did not agree with Hypocrites. To him, you could not love God and call yourself a follower of God if you lived your life in sin and did not follow God's word like it says in Matthew 7:21. There also, are several places in the bible where it commands us to Judge for sin.

There is a place for judging actions, specifically the actions which happen within the Church; what we do not have the right is to judge other people--it is the Lord who will separate the wheat and tares.

There are so many Christians out there, that don't even bother to study and learn the bible and only listen to like one or two verses. Or, they'll pick the parts of the bible that they like and call the rest of it "useless garbage" and "Just a story".

Who are these Christians you're encountering calling the Bible "useless garbage"?

It is a fact though, Fundamentalist Christianity didn't start until the late 19th Century. But, that's because the word of God started to disappear from our Churches. That's because the word of God started to disappear from our world. That's because people today, are worshiping more and more false idols than before without even realizing it.

Fundamentalism was an American response to the Modernity Crisis and German Liberalism; it has nothing to do with the availability of Scripture.

And that's okay, we can take the hate. The bible did warn us, that True Christians would be hated by the world. That many would disagree with us. The fact that so many Fundamentalists are flamed into oblivion, and are considered extremist jerks only proves the totality of the bible even more. It only proves that the day of the rapture? Is getting closer and closer. It only proves that the day of Judgement? Is near. Where will you be when the day of Judgement comes?

What is usually meant, today, by the term "Fundamentalist" isn't to refer to The Fundamentalists of the early 20th century; but to refer to a particular reactionary form of Protestantism that is largely native to the United States which tends to engage in black and white thinking, and us vs. them tribalism.

-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Like
Reactions: PuerAzaelis
Upvote 0

stephen583

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
2,202
913
66
Salt lake City, UT
✟24,201.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
(I don't want to turn this thread into a pro- or con-KJV discussion, but I will only ask, which is more accurate, the original Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek or the KJV version?

I think you have a valid point here. The KJV can sometimes be a pretty weird amalgamation of 16th Century English language and some seemingly arbitrary translations from the Greek and Hebrew. In some cases, you have to go back to the original Greek and Hebrew, both of which can have a number of definitions for the same word. Words were also used differently in ancient times, than they are today, or when the KJV was written. So interpreting words in the context of their historical usage, as opposed to their modern use is also significant. In other words, there's lots of room for misinterpretation, isn't there ?!

For instance, neither the Greeks nor the ancient Hebrews had any concept of the earth being a planet. The word "earth" in those days referred to either the ground beneath your feet, or it could refer to some part of the earth associated with a particular tribe or group of people. So, in ancient times even a phrase like, "the whole earth under the heavens" doesn't actually imply the entire planet Earth, as we know it today. At least not in the context of the way it was written back then.

In the Book of Genesis, in the KJV, it says "And God created the Great Whale. Naturally it does, because the only great sea creature they knew about in the 16th Century were whales. However, in the original Hebrew language the phrase "great and terrible sea creature" is used, and some modern versions of the Bible use the translation "sea monsters".

What if the Bible was actually talking about plesiosaurs and kronosaurs (prehistoric aquatic reptiles) instead of whales ?! There's an example of using the most modern scientific knowledge available, instead of 16th Century science to interpret ancient phrases used in the Bible. Sort of a "reverse" alternative translation from ancient languages, (Romans 1:20).

These distinctions only represent the proverbial "tip" of the iceberg, as far as possible methods of translation go.
What about "spirit" driven translations, where the Holy Spirit itself leads someone to a specific understanding of the meaning of a passage of Scripture ?! What some would call a "personal" spiritual revelation, or epiphany.

As for your original question, as to which is the most accurate translation, I suppose that depends on what you get out of it at the time. There are superficial ways of reading the Bible, and the same passages when read again after some pretty extensive study, often reveal a deeper, hidden meaning.
 
Upvote 0

Neostarwcc

We are saved purely by the work and grace of God.
Supporter
Dec 13, 2015
5,228
4,189
37
US
✟909,909.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
I think the OP in this thread is "mischaracterizing" what religious "extremism", or "fundamentalism" is about. I don't necessarily equate someone who uses a "literal" interpretation of the Bible as a fundamentalist, or an extremist. Anymore than I would characterize someone who includes "figurative, metaphorical, or symbolic" interpretations of the Scripture as being a "Liberal" Christian.

There are all sorts of ways to interpret and translate the meaning of the Scripture. That's why there are over 300 different denominations of Christianity in America alone.

What I personally consider a "fundamentalist" or "extremist", is someone who erroneously takes one or two verses of Bible scripture, and tries to create an entire theology around it, to the exclusion of everything else the Bible teaches. You know who I'm talking about, the people who try to use the Old Testament to Judaize the New Testament (wanna be Christian/Jews) and people who think bringing a live poisonous snake into a building with a few exists is a good idea.

You also have that militant segment of Christianity that thinks it's o.k. to open up on ATF agents with heavy machine guns, because they represent the army of Gog and Magog. Then there is the "Christian Identity Movement" guys... The Christian white supremacists like the KKK.

I would characterize someone who behaves like that as an"extremist" or "fundamentalist". A few years ago, everyone just used to refer to them as "Whackos", but in the interest of promoting the "Christian Unity", or "Ecumenical Movement", I suppose the more acceptable terminology has become fundamentalist, which you have to admit sounds better than calling someone in an orange toga selling flowers at the airport a cult member.

Same goes for Christian militia members running around in Idaho wearing woodland camouflage in the desert and carrying military assault rifles everywhere they go. That would be my definition of an "extremist" whacko.

Given what everyone else is doing, I don't see what's stopping the LGBT movement from building their own churches, ordaining their own ministers and calling themselves Christians too. Unless they infringe on the beliefs of others, by insisting they be allowed to attend conventional churches that don't agree with their scandalous behavior... In that case, again, I would characterize that individual as an extremist whacko.

I mean I would never show up at a Jewish temple on Christmas Eve demanding they let me set up a baby Jesus manger scene on the front lawn of their synagogue. That would certainly be "fundamentalist-extremist" behavior, wouldn't it !

Right, I personally like the title "Fundamentalist" I also like the title "Born again Christian".

But to me, the title Extremist is offensive. Extremist implies Elitism and, while there probably are some Elitist Christians out there, that doesn't mean that ALL Christians are Elitist. And that definitely doesn't mean that ALL Fundamentalists are Elitist yet, when you google Fundamentalist Christianity you get all kinds of negative stuff and all kinds of insults popping up and, It shouldn't be that way.

Like for example, they say that all Fundamentalists are for stoning people to death. The age of having to put people to death has long passed. Jesus Christ paid that price when he died on the cross for us. However, unless Jesus Christ or one of his Apostles said so in their life, the laws of the Old Testament still must be followed. We cannot completely ignore the Old Testament anymore like, many Christians believe because they think that Fundamentalists want to place all of humanity back in the Dark Ages.

It's true, in a perfect world this would happen. But, this isn't a perfect world. This is a corrupted world ruled by Satan and that's why the rapture has to happen so the world can be made whole again.

So, I agree with parts of what you have to say. And I also agree with some of your points.

When Jehovah witnesses came to my door some years ago, their spiel was "the answer to all of the world's problems is the bible" I replied that it was Jesus. I talked about scripture with them for a long time occaisionally highlighting examples of the trinity from the old testament and everywhere in the bible except the gospel of john.
.
Even with their bible that had been corrupted, I had no problem explaining to them my faith, because people who edit a bible to meet their preference do not understand the core nature of the text, and nuances remain. The KJV is good if you understand which verbs had a different meaning in 1611 than today but most people do not and make bad conclusions.

I don't agree with Jehovah's Witnesses either. Mainly because JW's deny Christ's deity, deny the Fatherhead, and deny Jesus' bodily resurrection and that they teach that Michael became Jesus.

None of this, really has any biblical evidence attached to it. It's mostly all just something that they made up. When JW's come to my door I usually just tell them "No thanks I'm confident in my Christian Beliefs" and they hand me a pamphlet anyway and I just throw it in the trash.

Fighting the modernization of the world is pointless, it will keep modernizing long after we're dead. Read history, every change in society has been opposed and then accepted, and then embraced after the opposing generation died out. This concept is called a paradigm shift.

It is pointless. The rapture is going to happen anyway no matter what we do. But, teaching that it's BECAUSE of modernization that the rapture is drawing closer and closer. Exposing what we consider to be false religions based (Bewaring of wolves in sheeps clothing) . Exposing the open worship of numerous idols around the world (Technology, Equality, Greed, Power, Man made religion, ..etc) is what Fundamentalists are all about.

I know what some people are thinking. If I consider Technology to be an idol why am I using a computer now? I'm using a computer now because, I'm preaching the word of God through Technology. Technology isn't bad in itself but, when it takes over our entire soul and we place it before God? It's an idol and, we're worshiping it without even realizing it. I know, I personally used to worship Technology.

Computers and Technology, was everything to me. Now, I still care about Technology but, It isn't the most important thing in the world to me anymore. God always comes first in my life. In fact, I almost don't really care about technology anymore.

An idol by definition is ANYTHING that we place first in our lives before God. It can be a car, it can be a spouse, it can be video games, it can be TV, it can be a rock, it can be a tree... anything. You would be right about why I keep an image of Jesus Christ in my signature though when God forbade us from keeping images of himself. I mean, I consider God and Jesus to be two separate entities but, I still probably shouldn't be openly displaying a false image of Jesus to the entire world. Especially when, nobody knows what Jesus really looks like.

As has already been mentioned, the definition of fundamentalism is the problem. I can think of several different definitions being used today. To some, it refers to people who judgmental and condemning. Oh, and they happen to use the Bible as their source of self-righteousness.

... We know that we all possess knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. (1 Corinthians 8:1b-2, 1984 NIV)

... That is why Scripture says: “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” (James 4:6b, 1984 NIV)

(I don't want to turn this thread into a pro- or con-KJV discussion, but I will only ask, which is more accurate, the original Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek or the KJV version? Also, to what degree should we have transformed the original languages into English vs. how much should we seek to learn to understand what God actually said? Isn't it the meaning of God's words that are important?)

Christians are children of God, and yet many behave as if they are God. Well, in fact, since we are fallen, we all behave like we are God in some fashion. This is one reason that humility is called for. It's inappropriate to have a condemning attitude towards anyone for any reason. In this case, we might be talking about how it is wrong to be condemning toward fundamentalists. But it could just as well mean being condemning of those condemners. Evil is at work in people and the world (read: all of us). We are to resist it, but not mock it.

It is only human to get angry, but it must be kept in check, because it leads to sin. Just because people are deceived and failing to keep their anger in check doesn't mean it is OK to express unrestrained anger toward them. Or to consider ourselves better than them (Philippians 2:3).

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. (bold mine, Ephesians 2:8-9, 1984 NIV)

For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.
(Romans 9:15-16, 1984 NIV)

bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. (Luke 6:28, 1984 NIV)

Right, when anger turns violent it becomes very problematic and usually leans towards cursing, Blasphemous behavior. Or it can turn to physical violence. Or, it could cause many of those shootings and murders that we keep hearing about on TV.

But, right. When you only choose to obey than you're not a Fundamentalist. Fundamentalist Christians take the ENTIRE bible as truth. They don't just pick one verse that they really like and choose to ignore all of the other pieces of scripture in the bible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BobRyan
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PuerAzaelis

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 4, 2016
479
233
NYC
✟181,110.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
... strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles

I think what you are saying is that the literal sense of scripture is different from "literal adherence" to any sense of scripture. It may be so. I don't know if it really gets us anywhere though since I can literally adhere to either a literal or allegorical sense of scripture.

To me, an example of the unresolved contradiction is:

Since eating the literal body and drinking the literal blood of Christ would be disgusting, wine and bread was blessed by Christ to replace them. But, these blessed items are not symbolic, they really are the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

I don't really get how something can be neither literal nor symbolic, simultaneously. We have to interpret it somehow.

PS: If a "proud nerd" is literally an oxymoron is such a person only an allegorical nerd?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0