Why do people sometimes use 'fundamentalist' in a negative connotation?

[Catherineanne]

Because people don't like to hear the fundamentals of Christianity. Because at it's core, Christianity is a terrifying religion for people whose entire faith is based on antinomian philosophies and the only time they spend with their Savior is the 60 minutes before the pregame show on sunday morning. American Christianity is a lawless thing, where most people accept God's grace, but never bear the fruits of a life transformed by Christ because that transformation would take them away from their idols. So they resist it and reject it either in full apostasy, or by just making Christ peripheral to the rest of their life.

Well, that was a nice digression into fantasy. I would say that some fundamentalist attitudes are indeed terrifying, or would be if I did not have faith in God to work all things for good. But that is not because it is radically Christian; I am pretty radically Christian myself, in my own small way.

It is because far too often it seems that beliefs are put before Christian love one for another. To me, nothing comes before Christian love; the kind that Christ showed to those around him before he berated them for their sins, or tried to change their lives. To me, Christ's love is the driving force for our faith, and without it nothing we do is worth doing.

Love has to come first. If we do not love in Christ those we are attempting to evangelise, or prophecy to, or teach, or heal, then we are wasting our time. I think this is in line with fundamentalist belief, because Paul says exactly the same. But I think it is too often forgotten.

 

[motherprayer]

Well, that was a nice digression into fantasy. I would say that some fundamentalist attitudes are indeed terrifying, or would be if I did not have faith in God to work all things for good. But that is not because it is radically Christian; I am pretty radically Christian myself, in my own small way.

The word "fantasy" applied to a person's belief system is not fruitful, loving, or Godly in any way.

 

[Tigger45]

Very well said. Your explanation sums up my biblical interpretation and practice. Definitions are good to help us avoid debates that might other wise be a difference of sematics. That being said as far as the catagories of fundamentalist and conservative Christian as defined by CF I felt I lean more towards a conservative Christian because of Romans 14:1. I don't know maybe I am a fundamentally conservative Christian or a conservativally fundamentalist Christian.:{).

That's actually what I meant. "Basic" may have been the wrong choice of words on my part. What I do believe is that the entire Bible (from Genesis through Revelation) is infallible, and that God gave it to us to teach us how to live the best Christian life possible, making mistakes, but making sure we learn from them and trying not to repeat the same ones. But even among fundamentalists, opinions and convictions will differ according to how certain Scriptures stand out to people. This is why some fundamentalists are KJVO, and some are not. Some believe women should always wear dresses, while others believe that pants are okay for a woman to wear. Some think it's a sin to watch TV and movies, while others think it's okay as long as we monitor what we view. These (and a number of other issues) are a matter of conviction, and could very well be examples of what Romans 14:1 refers to (in NKJV) as "doubtful things" on which opinions will differ, even among believers.

Here is a link along those lines:

Fundamentals and secondary issues « Stray Thoughts

 

[Catherineanne]

The word "fantasy" applied to a person's belief system is not fruitful, loving, or Godly in any way.

That depends on the belief system. If the belief is stereotypical and distorted then it is apt.

How refreshing that you are able to show such a charitable response in your turn; 'not fruitful, loving or Godly in any way,' And the OP asks why fundamentalists are regarded negatively.

It's a mystery.

 

[WannaWitness]

Very well said. Your explanation sums up my biblical interpretation and practice. Definitions are good to help us avoid debates that might other wise be a difference of sematics. That being said as far as the catagories of fundamentalist and conservative Christian as defined by CF I felt I lean more towards a conservative Christian because of Romans 14:1. I don't know maybe I am a fundamentally conservative Christian or a conservativally fundamentalist Christian.:{).

Thanks. I just feel that as a Christian, we should actually be set apart for our Lord Jesus Christ, and have standards using the Bible as a guideline. As a result, it goes without saying we will have our personal convictions based on our personal application of God's Word as best we, as individuals, understand it. But we don't need to be so rigid that we are walking on pins and needles and living our lives in constant fear, as I am sure that isn't the quality of life God wants us to have.

If our eyes are on Jesus and we are looking to Him in all aspects of our life, then we can't go wrong.

 

[everbecoming2007]

Catherine,

I think the love card has been here applied to suppress any perfectly legitimate objections to distorted information.

 

[motherprayer]

Catherine,

I think the love card has been here applied to suppress any perfectly legitimate objections to distorted information.

I would have pulled the same "card" on anyone in agreement with with me, and if you look at my posts, you will see that. There is a way to express disagreement without being hateful. See my sig

 

[everbecoming2007]

What about her statement was hateful?

 

[motherprayer]

That depends on the belief system. If the belief is stereotypical and distorted then it is apt.

How refreshing that you are able to show such a charitable response in your turn; 'not fruitful, loving or Godly in any way,' And the OP asks why fundamentalists are regarded negatively.

I'm not a fundamentalist. I stand up for truth, spoken with love. To tell a person, after they have described their faith, that it was a trip into fantasy was not loving. Christians fight too much, ESPECIALLY about their belief system. The fundamentalist belief system does not SEEM distorted to fundamentalists, and probably would not seem distorted to you, if you were willing to engage in edifying conversation with them, rather than cast their belief system as "fantasy." That just makes you look just as judgmental as you believe they are.

I do understand that fundamentalists hold some beliefs that look quite extreme in the face of our current culture, but that does not change how much heart they put into their belief. Fundamentalists believe just as passionately about Jesus Christ as Liberal Christians, even if the two groups disagree about other issues regarding Christianity.

All I'm saying is this:
1) Don't assume that just because someone is posting on a subforum for fundamentalists that they are in fact a fundamentalist. I am allowed to post here "in fellowship" and I enjoy that from time to time.
2) If you disagree enough with the fundamentalist belief system that you cannot post to their subforum "in fellowship" then I would suggest you post on a subforum that is closer to your own beliefs.
3) Remember that there is no need to go on the offensive when you meet a Christian who disagrees with you on matters of doctrine. Their beliefs are just as sacred to them as yours are to you.

I wasn't posting in defense of anything other than truth and love, and I wasn't attacking you personally, but saying that the wording you used was not loving.

My sig says, "Truth cannot be spoken without love, for without love there is no truth, regardless of how accurate the words may be." That is profound, because it explains why so many people can't get their point across in an argument.

 

[cubanito]

1- I'm not a fundamentalist.

2- I stand up for truth, spoken with love.

3- To tell a person, after they have described their faith, that it was a trip into fantasy was not loving.

4- Christians fight too much, ESPECIALLY about their belief system. The fundamentalist belief system does not SEEM distorted to fundamentalists, and probably would not seem distorted to you, if you were willing to engage in edifying conversation with them, rather than cast their belief system as "fantasy." That just makes you look just as judgmental as you believe they are.

I do understand that fundamentalists hold some beliefs that look quite extreme in the face of our current culture, but that does not change how much heart they put into their belief. Fundamentalists believe just as passionately about Jesus Christ as Liberal Christians, even if the two groups disagree about other issues regarding Christianity.

All I'm saying is this:
1) Don't assume that just because someone is posting on a subforum for fundamentalists that they are in fact a fundamentalist. I am allowed to post here "in fellowship" and I enjoy that from time to time.
2) If you disagree enough with the fundamentalist belief system that you cannot post to their subforum "in fellowship" then I would suggest you post on a subforum that is closer to your own beliefs.
3) Remember that there is no need to go on the offensive when you meet a Christian who disagrees with you on matters of doctrine. Their beliefs are just as sacred to them as yours are to you.

I wasn't posting in defense of anything other than truth and love, and I wasn't attacking you personally, but saying that the wording you used was not loving.

My sig says, "Truth cannot be spoken without love, for without love there is no truth, regardless of how accurate the words may be." That is profound, because it explains why so many people can't get their point across in an argument.

From my perspective, the above post violates it's own advice. It is not loving, it is a personal attack and debate by a non-fundamentalist in this sub-forum. This is not a fellowship post, but an unloving critical attack. That is how I see it. Is your vision all that clearer than mine? Then you again have made a judgment against me. As we all have unclear vision this side of the veil, let's go back to respecting the rules of the forum and stop judging who is more loving than whom.

It is rather common that those who spend the most efforts preaching about kindness are the most judgemental and unkind to those of us who hold the Bible as absolute. We read the Bible and have much difficulty finding this "Loving Jesus" you speak of. It seems Truth most often came from His lips ih very harsh sounding terms. You can read about how lovingly Jesus spoke the Truth in Mat 22, among many places. He referred to hell 3 times more often than Heaven.

Atheism has no basis for an objective morality, as we all are random accidents. Whenever an atheist complains he is being wronged, the Loving thing to do is to tell the Truth, and remind them, kindly, that their belief system considers all morality genetically determined and thus objective morality is, by their words, a fantasy. In Atheism there is no good or evil, just accidents.

I do thank you for noting that fundamentalism can best be understood in a respectful dialogue. At least that was not an attack on us. I suggest you read my post in that manner, rather than as a personal attack on you. It is very easy to play the victim as you can plainly see.

JR

 

[anglozaxon]

Atheism has no basis for an objective morality, as we all are random accidents. Whenever an atheist complains he is being wronged, the Loving thing to do is to tell the Truth, and remind them, kindly, that their belief system considers all morality genetically determined and thus objective morality is, by their words, a fantasy. In Atheism there is no good or evil, just accidents.

JR

I love this quote, I have always thought that atheism only has its morals based on the view of the majority, therefore they can change as the views of the majority change, also people can argue that the majority is wrong and has no right to impose its views upon them, no matter how extreme their actions maybe, after all its just someones opinion.

As christians we have an absolute authority which we must answer to, who does not change and is always perfect in his justice.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread is closed for staff review

Edit - this thread has undergone a clean up.

As a reminder, this thread is in a forum that is a safe house for Fundamentalist Christians. It is not okay to come here and criticize them.
Reopening, but remember this site wide rule:

Congregational Forum Restrictions, Christian Only Forums, and Off-Topic posts
Do not teach or debate in any Congregational Forum unless you are truly a member and share its core beliefs and teachings. Questions and fellowship are allowed, proselytizing is not.

 

[If Not For Grace]

I notice a lot of the time people use the word "fundamentalist" like it's almost a bad thing. Why? Fundamentalist, to my knowledge means one believes in the fundamentals of the faith? What's wrong with that?

The term has come to mean "narrow minded".. Sort of Like [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] has come to be a dirty word--now one is Intellectually Challenged, Secretary is another word that once acceptable is no longer now you have to be a something assistant. Just has to do with connotations.

 

[Syckological]

The religion has always and always will have critics. It's more of a movement-by taking the bible "as-is". They have been criticized widely as perceiving and showing god as

"a god of judgement and punishment than as a god of love and mercy." (Wikipedia article)

Because they take The Bible literally- this puts them in a corner with society that has and always will experience social and sexual revolutions that will put them at odds with 99% of society. If that is what they choose to believe, go for it.

 

[cubanito]

The religion has always and always will have critics. It's more of a movement-by taking the bible "as-is". They have been criticized widely as perceiving and showing god as

"a god of judgement and punishment than as a god of love and mercy." (Wikipedia article)

Because they take The Bible literally- this puts them in a corner with society that has and always will experience social and sexual revolutions that will put them at odds with 99% of society. If that is what they choose to believe, go for it.

Bingo! God IS a God of judgement, which is plain in Scripture. That, because He is also a God of Mercy, He has provided a way of escape does not remove the fact He WILL punish the unrepentant.

Western society today pretends God, if He even is, is a fluffy marshmallow of a senile doddering all man trembling as He begs us to all get along.

Since we declare Truth, they hate us.

JR

 

[Syckological]

Bingo! God IS a God of judgement, which is plain in Scripture. That, because He is also a God of Mercy, He has provided a way of escape does not remove the fact He WILL punish the unrepentant.

Western society today pretends God, if He even is, is a fluffy marshmallow of a senile doddering all man trembling as He begs us to all get along.

Since we declare Truth, they hate us.

JR

Keep in mind too- you are also at odds with the other forms of Christianity, so it is a case of an underdog.

I personally find it hard to believe - considering the first forms of Christianity were about a loving deity and expected the same standards as he would have in the day. And that is how you have gotten the different forms of Christianity, because other people find it and translate to what they heard or saw, so there are many different faiths.

Anyway, truth is not a proper noun

 

[cubanito]

Truth is one name for God, and as such, the most Proper of Nouns. Typically the Trinity is referred to as 3 Persons, though the gramar would dictated that God is 3 people.

As to the first forms of Christianity, Jesus spoke much more often about Hell than Heaven. He uttered more curses than blessings (see for example Matt 22). If you wish t ignore Jesus, you can go backwards to the OT or foward to the Apostles or even the first 1500+ years of Church History where you find the same.

The fluffy all-loving never-judging God is an invention of a few radicals of the Reformation which is now the main belief of Western countries. That is, those that even have a Judeo-Christian resemblance of God left at all.

As to being at odds, thank you, thank you very much! To be called peculiar and an underdog (in Biblical terms, a remnant) is quite a compliment. I only wish I were even odder to you, or even better, that you would become odd to yourself and see Truth, the Properest of Nounifications.

JR

 

[Syckological]

Truth is one name for God, and as such, the most Proper of Nouns. Typically the Trinity is referred to as 3 Persons, though the gramar would dictated that God is 3 people.

As to the first forms of Christianity, Jesus spoke much more often about Hell than Heaven. He uttered more curses than blessings (see for example Matt 22). If you wish t ignore Jesus, you can go backwards to the OT or foward to the Apostles or even the first 1500+ years of Church History where you find the same.

The fluffy all-loving never-judging God is an invention of a few radicals of the Reformation which is now the main belief of Western countries. That is, those that even have a Judeo-Christian resemblance of God left at all.

As to being at odds, thank you, thank you very much! To be called peculiar and an underdog (in Biblical terms, a remnant) is quite a compliment. I only wish I were even odder to you, or even better, that you would become odd to yourself and see Truth, the Properest of Nounifications.

JR

Back when I had my Sunday School, I was taught differently as to the origins - that despite his (Jesus Christ's) claims of damnation and the things to come that they only served as warnings, and that if you followed both paths - One of faith that is in the higher power's view of how everyone should be (loving, caring, acceptance, etc), and that you yourself out of free will lived a wholesome life, that you would be promised an afterlife (Going into what Christians call Heaven). But again, that was to my original point of faith, there are many different translations of Jesus' word and the word of those who had written the Bible. Because of that, that is where you get the different types of Christianity.

I was more going towards that your denomination of faith is the odd-ball out, that you have your own view of what Jesus had said and related words, and one that most if not all other forms of Christianity don't neccessairly preach today in American churches. Not that it is a bad thing - everyone chooses to believe their own form of Christianity that best suits their personal views, morals, and values. That is also a great thing about America, that because there are so many different forms of faith, and even one where you do not have a specific faith (Agnosticism and Atheism), is that no matter the faith differences, we all share a bond that we're human and that we all have the same aspirations towards life and moral standards.

If you are referring towards my choice of Agnostic Atheism, (I only wish I were even odder to you, or even better, that you would become odd to yourself and see Truth, the Properest of Nounifications.) I ask that you respect my views and not make jabs toward my choice of belief and choose to believe in on my own will.

 

[cubanito]

Most of the people that are saved are NOT fundamentalist on this Earth today. Fantastically wonderful work is being done by non-fundamentalist Christians in all sorts of denominations. My favorite writer outside the Bible, CS Lewis was not a fundamentalist. If you think that I claim that salvation is only by my definition I have left you with the wrong impression. My wife is a member of the Roman "Catholic" Church and she is very much a True Christian. She happens to be wrong on several minor areas, then again she criticizes her own RC Church far more bitterly and often than I do. Why she reamins in the RC is not clear to me after 30 years, but the point is, I do not have a narrow view of who is saved.

I do have a narrow view of Truth, as a Noun, Verb, Adjective.... but the Persons that are Truth can do as they please and not consult me about it. I am the slave of Christ, not the other way around. My conscience is bound primarily by the pages of Scripture, and I try not to lean upon my own understanding (of course, I often fail, and my own sin obscures me from seing the Truth of Scripture with much clarity-but I try, well, I try a little sometimes).

As to mocking, it was you who started it by mocking my grammar. English being my second language, I take exception now to your bigoted ways. I do not need to confine myself to the Queen's English. As a black hispanick, I can use ebonics or Hisponics and who are you to judge my immigrant ways? Since you advocate we all believe whatever we wish, who are you to judge my grammar? What do you know of Ebonics, Hisponics, Spanglish, Cubanichi or any other dialect I wish to lay claim to? Since you are your own judge, who are you to judge me?

So, go ahead and believe Christianity is or should be whatever you wish. just do not be so judgemental, intolerant, bigoted and narrow minded towards me.

As Cpt Kirk said before entering the Nebula to confound Ricardo montalvan, "Sauce for the goose, Mr. Spock." is sauce for the gander.

JR

 

[cubanito]

Should y'all miss the utter brilliance of my pun, "Kirk" is Scottish English dialect for Church. Thus the Capt of the Church, for whom I am named, as revealed oh so clearly in Romans, turns the tables on the supposedly tolerant agnistic/atheist by pointing out that anytime they claim there is Good or evil, they have entered into categories reseved for God, appointed themselves Judges above God, and thus can not claim tolerance.

If you are a consistent atheist, there is NO Good or evil, only accidents. So who is an atheist to judge anyone? If you are an agnostic, you do not know, so again do not judge.

Those that hold to an objective standard of Good, which can only be from an Eternal, Personal, Moral, Truth; well we CAN judge, though fearfully, gently and much in mind that the same standard we use will be used on us.

Oh, I am soooo briliant that it is difficult to also remain so stunningly humble.

JR