Resilience of fundamentalist religions

[Albion]

LOL, I thought it was an excellent and thoughtful definition - not too far to the left and not too far to the right - just like Goldilocks.

Well, yes. It was a carefully worded definition that split the middle in every way. That may make it a marvel of imprecision, but it doesn't make it an especially good source if you want the actual meaning of the word Fundamentalist.

It would be like trying to find out what a blimp is and finding it described as ''Probably best characterized as a vehicle, most of the time, that is airborne on occasion but not always, and which is said by some people to be like a dirigible except that it's different from a dirigible and from a weather balloon in certain ways, tending to move slowly according to some observers but faster under favorable conditions."

 

[Adstar]

I have noticed that the most fundamentalist forms of religion seem to be the most resilient in the face of social trends that have eroded other religions. The fundamentalist Christian denominations are slowly increasing while the liberal denominations decrease. Globally, Islam seems to be increasing, and Islam seems quite fundamentalist to me (not claiming to be an expert of course). Part of the problem is birth rates. Fundamentalists tend to have more children for whatever reason.

If the future of the world must include religions, I would prefer for those religions to be harmonized with science, non-evangelistic, non-political, private rather than public, etc. Although belief in the infallibility of religious revelations (my definition of fundamentalism) does not necessarily imply that the religion will be a problem, in most cases it does. In some ways, I think the hard-line attitude of fundamentalist religions helps to prevent their members from following the slippery slope of open-minded research.

So it seems to me that fundamentalism is resilient for several reasons:
(1) concentration in cultures with high birth rates
(2) tendency to value family over career for religious reasons (?)
(3) hard-line attitude against skeptical information

Apparently atheism is going to decrease in the future due to China's aging population. As an atheist, that doesn't make me happy. LOL

Liberalisim in general seeks to embrace everything as being equal and legitimate..
Liberalism does not work in religion..

Religions who accept everything, stand for nothing.. And their followers eventually walk away..

Fundamentalists stand apart and stand for exclusive doctrines.. People are attracted to the exclusivity of a religion they are not attracted to wishy washy religions who proclaim that all roads lead to God.. Once a person believes that all roads lead to God then whats the point of continuing to follow that particular liberal religion??? They can go their own away...

 

[Cearbhall]

I mean Fundamentalist as in people who believe in the fundamentals: that Christ is God incarnate, born of a virgin, lived a perfect life, died a substitionary death, and was raised bodily from the dead.

Isn't that pretty much every single Christian? That definition of "fundamentalism" is not the topic.

I mean that Christ is the only way to God, and that people are saved by faith through grace, and not of works.

This one isn't a fundamental of Christianity by any definition. That's just a denominational difference.

 

[Galatea]

In other words, you're using it in the historic and correct sense rather than as a perjorative term.

Yes, I don't think of being a Fundamentalist as being a bad thing. I am happy to proclaim that I am a Fundamentalist.

 

[Galatea]

Isn't that pretty much every single Christian? That definition of "fundamentalism" is not the topic.

This one isn't a fundamental of Christianity by any definition. That's just a denominational difference.

No, many people who claim the label Christian do not accept these fundamentals. There are many people who do not accept the deity of Christ, or his virgin birth, or his bodily resurrection.

These are the fundamentals of conservative Christians, they cut across denominational lines.

 

[cloudyday2]

Liberalisim in general seeks to embrace everything as being equal and legitimate..
...
Once a person believes that all roads lead to God then whats the point of continuing to follow that particular liberal religion??? They can go their own away...

That does seem to be a good observation.

 

[cloudyday2]

I was watching an old episode of Dragnet called "Big September Man". It highlighted how much fundamentalism has grown since the 1950s. In the episode, the murder suspect is a born-again Christian who "goes to revivals every night" and "quotes the Bible constantly". To most 1950s TV viewers such fundamentalist behaviors were apparently signs of mental instability. Today the mainline Protestant denominations have shrunk and the fundamentalist Protestant denominations have grown. Nobody raises an eyebrow about a Christian who attends church more than once a week or quotes the Bible.

 

[Cearbhall]

No, many people who claim the label Christian do not accept these fundamentals. There are many people who do not accept the deity of Christ, or his virgin birth, or his bodily resurrection.

In all honesty, that's news to me.

 

[Albion]

In all honesty, that's news to me.

Really?

 

[Galatea]

In all honesty, that's news to me.

They are usually called Liberals. Liberals are not necessarily people in favor of abortion and homosexual marriage. The term originally meant people who do not accept the Bible truths as literal truths.

 

[cloudyday2]

Here is a Pew Forum survey showing the percentages of people from different religions and denominations that take their scriptures literally vs. non-literally. (EDIT: One problem with this survey is that it doesn't ask people what portions of the Bible they consider to be literal vs. non-literal. Lots of Christians consider the early stories of Genesis to be fables. Fewer Christians consider the virgin birth stories in Matthew and Luke to be fables. Even fewer would consider the stories of the resurrection to be non-literal.)

Religious Landscape Study

 

[MehGuy]

That is my hope. Unfortunately the Pew Forum surveys seem to show that all the losses are happening in the mainline Protestants and Catholics (to a lesser degree due to Hispanic immigration). The Pentecostals, Fundamentalist, and Evangelicals seem to be holding steady. I suspect that part of this can be explained by birth rate differences though. Probably the fundamentalists have more children.

Interesting.

As for me, I'm close to saying I grew up in a fundamental community. Recently I was browsing Facebook, and managed to find friend networks within my old church peers. Personally I'm amazed at the number of kids (now adults) who still seem religious. Albeit many seem more liberal minded now. Of course some atheist now too.

 

[Adstar]

I was watching an old episode of Dragnet called "Big September Man". It highlighted how much fundamentalism has grown since the 1950s. In the episode, the murder suspect is a born-again Christian who "goes to revivals every night" and "quotes the Bible constantly". To most 1950s TV viewers such fundamentalist behaviors were apparently signs of mental instability. Today the mainline Protestant denominations have shrunk and the fundamentalist Protestant denominations have grown. Nobody raises an eyebrow about a Christian who attends church more than once a week or quotes the Bible.

Well the media always portrays Bible believing Christians who are open about their Faith as being ""crazies"" or having some form of personality disorder.. It is the part of the general negative propaganda designed to undermine Strong Faith Christianity in the western world.. Most media is under the control of secularists and anti-christians.. Most media tolerates only the most liberal Christians because they know that once you get a fundamentalist Christian into a liberal church they are on their way out of Christianity.. Most liberal churches are just waiting rooms on the road to unbelief..

 

[Adstar]

They are usually called Liberals. Liberals are not necessarily people in favor of abortion and homosexual marriage. The term originally meant people who do not accept the Bible truths as literal truths.

Yes i have seen a lot of self claimed "Christians?" deny the virgin birth.. I have seen others deny the trinity.. Also some that deny Jesus was raised from the dead in His body..

 

[Galatea]

Yes i have seen a lot of self claimed "Christians?" deny the virgin birth.. I have seen others deny the trinity.. Also some that deny Jesus was raised from the dead in His body..

I think this describes people who are interested in the social gospel, but not really interested in theology. To them, Christ was a gentle and good teacher- but not God incarnate.

 

[Adstar]

Here is a Pew Forum survey showing the percentages of people from different religions and denominations that take their scriptures literally vs. non-literally. (EDIT: One problem with this survey is that it doesn't ask people what portions of the Bible they consider to be literal vs. non-literal. Lots of Christians consider the early stories of Genesis to be fables. Fewer Christians consider the virgin birth stories in Matthew and Luke to be fables. Even fewer would consider the stories of the resurrection to be non-literal.)

Religious Landscape Study

That study must have been run by either an atheist or a liberal Christian because it's basic question is faulty.. They asked if you believe the Bible literally.. Now every Bible literate fundamentalist Christian i have ever talked to, and i am one myself, would not answer yes to that question.. Most fundamentalists will say that a portion of the Bible is symbolic and needs symbolic interpretation while other parts are literal..

As an example::

In the book of Revelation you will read the following passage..

Revelation 17: KJV
3 "So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. {4} And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: {5} And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. {6} And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration."

Now i have never met a fundamentalist Christian in my life who believed this passage was talking about a literal monster beast with ten horns and 7 heads and a literal blood drinking woman that will be riding on this literal monster.. Every fundamentalist i have ever discussed this with believes the beast is symbolic of a world empire and the woman is symbolic of a world religion...

So the better question that survey should have asked is this:: Do you believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God.. Yes or no.. You could have asked the same thing to Jews about the Torah and the muslims about the quran..

So the Study is faulty and misleading because the question it asked is not the right question..

 

[Adstar]

I think this describes people who are interested in the social gospel, but not really interested in theology. To them, Christ was a gentle and good teacher- but not God incarnate.

True,, But there are also a lot of Christians who try to modify scripture so as to gain acceptance from the wider unbelieving community... So if the wider community laugh at and mock a Christian believer they will seek to distance themselves from it in order to gain that wider social acceptance..

The classic example of that is the virgin birth.. A lot of unbelievers find the virgin birth claim a source of comedy and there are Christians out there who will deny the virgin birth but keep calling themselves Christians as a way of trying to fit in with the wider community..

They think they can deny the virgin birth and still remain Christians. They are misguided..

 

[Cearbhall]

They are usually called Liberals.

Ah. I guess I'm not familiar with that.

Liberals are not necessarily people in favor of abortion and homosexual marriage.

Hmmm that's not what defines the political ideology of liberalism (even modern liberalism), but ok...

The term originally meant people who do not accept the Bible truths as literal truths.

It's interesting how many people don't know that the word has other definitions. I belong to a liberal religion, and many people assume that it's a political descriptor.

 

[Arthra]

The fundamentalist Christian denominations are slowly increasing while the liberal denominations decrease. Globally, Islam seems to be increasing, and Islam seems quite fundamentalist to me (not claiming to be an expert of course).

Islam also has aspects that are mystical and liberal... It's not solely "fundamentalist".

If the future of the world must include religions, I would prefer for those religions to be harmonized with science, non-evangelistic, non-political, private rather than public, etc.

Part of most religions has a public side as well as a spiritual side... I also believe there are ways in which religion can be in more harmony with science....

"...religion must be conducive to love of all, the cause of fellowship, unity and light. If it be the cause of enmity, bloodshed and hatred, its nonbeing is better than its being, its nonexistence better than its existence. Religion and science conform and agree. If a question of religion violates reason and does not agree with science, it is imagination and not worthy of credence."

(Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 169)

 

[Rajni]

Islam also has aspects that are mystical and liberal... It's not solely "fundamentalist".

Incidentally, a question about Islam that has been rolling around in my head lately, and perhaps you might know the answer to, is this: Is there any such thing as Muslim Universalism? I.e., Muslims who believe in the ultimate restoration of all things, or some form of apocatastasis?