Fundamentalist - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

martureo · #16 10-18-2013, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

I've never argued it was. The fundamentalist project groups a whole set of characteristics together to identify fundamentalism. It's the only one of the list that I haven't seen Martureo express on here. Hence my question.

Ahem... I think my position is thus validated.

kerry · #17 10-18-2013, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martureo

To the extent that you have failed to answer correctly the questions prior to that one.

I am unwilling to let you build a case upon assumptions.

If you want to know what I believe ask.

I did ask and apparently you're still refusing to answer. I'm guessing it's because it would be the final nail in the coffin.

My case is not based on assumptions but the views you expressed pretty often on this forum.

JamesDean · #18 10-18-2013, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

Indeed.

MTI · #19 10-18-2013, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesDean

Indeed.

You have to admit that there is entertainment value in observing two minds, whose talents might otherwise engage in useful problem solving . . . intellectually circle jerk each other for days on end.

I think when aklim and huskyman lock horns in a thread, it winds up being quantity over quality.

martureo · #20 10-18-2013, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

I did ask and apparently you're still refusing to answer. I'm guessing it's because it would be the final nail in the coffin.

To have "final nail" you'd have to have at least one nail already in the coffin.

Quote:

My case is not based on assumptions but the views you expressed pretty often on this forum.

No, if you care to go back you'd find out that my opinion and your characteristic of my opinion are very different things.

I'd dare to bet that you couldn't tell me what points of the Fundamentals I actually agree with.

And because you're apparently too lazy to judge me by the correct standard, here it is for you.

-verbal inspiration of the Bible
-inerrancy of the Bible in all matters
-literal interpretation of the Bible
-Virgin Birth of Christ
-The bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ
-Premillenialism
-Substitutionary atonement/PSA
-the Trinity

And if you'd like a bit of reading, here's the Wiki page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fundamentals

davidmash · #21 10-18-2013, 12:56 PM

Is not possible for a word to be used in different ways? Some what simplistic but if I say that "you're a peach" as opposed to "I am eating a peach", I am using the same word with two distinct meanings.

Looking at this definition in Merrim would seem to bear that out.

Quote:

1. a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching
b : the beliefs of this movement
c : adherence to such beliefs

2
: a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles

Seems to me that Marty is only using definition 1. and refusing to accept the fact that there are different yet equally valid ways of using the word.

MTI · #22 10-18-2013, 01:04 PM

Catholics Have Their Own Definition?

Hey, we're not fundamentalist . . . but there are others . .

Evangelical vs Fundamentalist

Evangelicals are a very broad group. It's probably a third or 40 percent of the population of the United States. Fundamentalists are a subset of that. They are very conservative politically. Have a literalist view of the Bible.

Fundamentalist are all Evangelical . . . but not all Evangelicals are Fundamentalist, got it?

kerry · #23 10-18-2013, 01:05 PM

I know exactly the definition Ben is using and it's connection with a movement in Presbyterianism when J. Gresham Machen and pals broke away from Princeton Seminary and established Westminister Theological Seminary in Philadelphia.
It's not the way that scholars of religion in today's world use the term, hence my posting of the link to Martin Marty's work on the topic. This recent work is far more socially valuable because instead of focusing on a small group of deviant Presbyterians it realizes that the attitudes which caused those events in the early 20th century are common around the globe in religions.

I notice you're still utilizing the avoidance tactic.

martureo · #24 10-18-2013, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

Is not possible for a word to be used in different ways? Some what simplistic but if I say that "you're a peach" as opposed to "I am eating a peach", I am using the same word with two distinct meanings.

Looking at this definition in Merrim would seem to bear that out.

Seems to me that Marty is only using definition 1. and refusing to accept the fact that there are different yet equally valid ways of using the word.

....or DavidMash didn't peruse the OP.

Quote:

Originally Posted by martureo

In a recent discussion with someone, I came to the realization that the other individual didn't actually know what the term "fundamentalist" meant.

In case anyone didn't know, "fundamentalist" is a term describing a certain sect of Protestant Christianity. It is not merely a pejorative, nor a description of anyone considerably more conservative than yourself.

The term has been used for polygamous LDS sects and other religious groups, to describe a certain demographic who have reacted to the secular or scientific impact on their particular culture.

I have been accused of being a Fundamentalist on this forum quite a few times. I want to make it plainly clear that I am NOT a Fundamentalist, nor does my denomination have any room for the Fundamentalist label.

I'm not a Baptist.
I'm not Reformed.
I do not hold to the verbal inspiration and complete inerrancy of Scripture.
I am not premillenial.

The point of the OP is that I don't qualify for the descriptor under definition 1 or definition 2. Kerry (and others) are blithely unaware of the historical definition (#1), and don't actually know what I believe in regards to the second, extra-Christian definition.

martureo · #25 10-18-2013, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

I know exactly the definition Ben is using and it's connection with a movement in Presbyterianism when J. Gresham Machen and pals broke away from Princeton Seminary and established Westminister Theological Seminary in Philadelphia.
It's not the way that scholars of religion in today's world use the term, hence my posting of the link to Martin Marty's work on the topic. This recent work is far more socially valuable because instead of focusing on a small group of deviant Presbyterians it realizes that the attitudes which caused those events in the early 20th century is common around the globe in religions.

Good, then you'd also be aware that Fundamentalism has reached far beyond Presbyterian circles. And I've already acknowledged that it has two uses.

The issue is that I don't qualify for either, and you couldn't be bothered to find out why.

Quote:

I notice you're still utilizing the avoidance tactic.

I will not be encouraging your mischaracterization.

I have no issue in answering a question if the presupposition is accurate.

davidmash · #26 10-18-2013, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martureo

....or DavidMash didn't peruse the OP.

The point of the OP is that I don't qualify for the descriptor under definition 1 or definition 2. Kerry (and others) are blithely unaware of the historical definition (#1), and don't actually know what I believe in regards to the second, extra-Christian definition.

You don't fall under #2? Seriously?

kerry · #27 10-18-2013, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

The study concluded that, regardless of the religion, fundamentalism has several commonalities:

Men are to lead and women and children follow. Wives are to be subservient to their husbands. Often, this subservience applies to sisters toward their brothers. A woman's role in life is to be a homemaker.--You've told us that wives are to submit to their husbands
The rules of their religion are complex and rigid and must be followed. Therefore, to avoid any confusion, children of fundamentalists must be sequestered in an environment of like-minded adherents to the corresponding fundamentalist religion. Especially so in their schooling.This is where I'm still not certain but your lack of response gives me a strong suspicion
There is no pluralism. Their rules apply to everyone everywhere.You've been clear about your knowledge of God's rules and how they apply, especially in regards to sexuality
There is a distinct group of insiders and all others are outsiders. Insiders are nurtured and cared for. Outsiders are cast off and fought.We know for sure that you think Catholics and Mormons are not your equal and that you actually devote substantial parts of your live in attempting to convert Mormons to the true way.
They pine for an older age and a past when their religion was pure, as largely they no longer see it as such. Often, this time never truly existed, but they have a nostalgic view of a Utopian past and they long to acquire it.You've told us that the utopian age of early christianity up thru the first councils are the sources for your ideas about the world. Later sources, at least up thru the protestant reformation are not to be trusted, especially the Catholic Church.

Ok, I did as asked. Now the answer?

martureo · #28 10-18-2013, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

You don't fall under #2? Seriously?

No, I don't.

But understanding the difference between what I believe and #2 would require actual effort on your part.

martureo · #29 10-18-2013, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

Ok, I did as asked. Now the answer?

Just a few corrections first.

Quote:

Men are to lead and women and children follow. Wives are to be subservient to their husbands. Often, this subservience applies to sisters toward their brothers. A woman's role in life is to be a homemaker.--You've told us that wives are to submit to their husbands

And husbands are also to submit to their wives. Do you really think that's the same thing as in the study?

You've taken a statement and twisted it quite poorly. So, no, I don't fit this category.

Quote:

The rules of their religion are complex and rigid and must be followed. Therefore, to avoid any confusion, children of fundamentalists must be sequestered in an environment of like-minded adherents to the corresponding fundamentalist religion. Especially so in their schooling.This is where I'm still not certain but your lack of response gives me a strong suspicion

Well, my son currently goes to a pre-school in a Methodist church. But that's more of "I didn't want him to go to the Catholic pre-school" and it's what I could afford.

But I have no reason to think that my kids will attend anything but public schools and any college they wish to attend. I had no restriction on my education growing up, I find no reason to restrict my children's either.

So, that's a no for that one either.

Quote:

There is no pluralism. Their rules apply to everyone everywhere.You've been clear about your knowledge of God's rules and how they apply, especially in regards to sexuality

Yes, you are quite right when it comes to that.

But I also believe that murder is unacceptable... universally.
And that theft is unacceptable... universally.

Does that make you a Fundamentalist too?

(Just so it's clear... that's a "no" on this one too)

Quote:

There is a distinct group of insiders and all others are outsiders. Insiders are nurtured and cared for. Outsiders are cast off and fought.We know for sure that you think Catholics and Mormons are not your equal and that you actually devote substantial parts of your live in attempting to convert Mormons to the true way.

"Not [my] equal"?

Go find me making that statement. Go ahead... I'll be waiting.

I have never treated anyone as an "outsider." Catholics and Mormons are welcome to dine in my house, and have. They are welcome in my church. I have no us/them issues to speak of.

(again... that's a "no")

Quote:

They pine for an older age and a past when their religion was pure, as largely they no longer see it as such. Often, this time never truly existed, but they have a nostalgic view of a Utopian past and they long to acquire it.You've told us that the utopian age of early christianity up thru the first councils are the sources for your ideas about the world. Later sources, at least up thru the protestant reformation are not to be trusted, especially the Catholic Church.

No, I've tried to make the point that they are not original, regardless of how they present themselves.

And I'd love for you to find the word or description of "utopian" being applied to the first few centuries by me. They were hardly "utopian."

In fact I can't think of a single time period of Christian/Jewish history that I'd consider better than any other. I can think of a few that are worse than others.... but "utopian"? No.

So that's zero times I fit that description. Is that sufficient for you?

kerry · #30 10-18-2013, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martureo

Just a few corrections first.

And husbands are also to submit to their wives. Do you really think that's the same thing as in the study?

You've taken a statement and twisted it quite poorly. So, no, I don't fit this category. Well, my son currently goes to a pre-school in a Methodist church. But that's more of "I didn't want him to go to the Catholic pre-school" and it's what I could afford.

But I have no reason to think that my kids will attend anything but public schools and any college they wish to attend. I had no restriction on my education growing up, I find no reason to restrict my children's either.

So, that's a no for that one either. Yes, you are quite right when it comes to that.

But I also believe that murder is unacceptable... universally.
And that theft is unacceptable... universally.

Does that make you a Fundamentalist too?

(Just so it's clear... that's a "no" on this one too) "Not [my] equal"?

Go find me making that statement. Go ahead... I'll be waiting.

I have never treated anyone as an "outsider." Catholics and Mormons are welcome to dine in my house, and have. They are welcome in my church. I have no us/them issues to speak of.

(again... that's a "no") No, I've tried to make the point that they are not original, regardless of how they present themselves.

And I'd love for you to find the word or description of "utopian" being applied to the first few centuries by me. They were hardly "utopian."

In fact I can't think of a single time period of Christian/Jewish history that I'd consider better than any other. I can think of a few that are worse than others.... but "utopian"? No.

So that's zero times I fit that description. Is that sufficient for you?

No actually. The utopianism of early Christianity is a utopianism of theology, not life.
I never claimed that you wouldn't eat with Mormons or Catholics, only that they're not your equal. They are sinners and you are saved. If you didn't think this you wouldn't be evangelizing them. Your whole religion is a missionary religion which can only exist on a distinction between sinner and saver.

Not sure what you mean about me being a fundamentalist. I certainly don't think theft is universally bad and I endorse some murders.

I'll take your word on your children's education. But it does seem odd that your kid is attending a religious school. So that's a point where you don't fit the current usage of 'fundamentalist'.