Fundi vs. Fundamentalist - T/J

by Georgiegirl 22 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Georgiegirl

  I started following thread when it was first posted, got busy, and then came back it was 12 pages long...so I'm starting a new one.

  Last night in my psych of religion class (which is incredibly fascinating, btw), I learned this:

  "Fundamentalism" is a 20th century phenomenon. It means that the believer has boiled down his beliefs to 5 fundamental beliefs:

  1. Inerrancy of the Bible

  2. Virgin birth

  3. Substitionary atonement of Jesus.

  4. Body Resurrection of Jesus.

  5. Authenticity of Christ's miralces and a pre-millenial second coming.

  Reducing the body of Christianity down to these basics in scientific terms called reductionism. It's an over-simplification that disallows for complex and abstract thinking. So - you get a fundamentalist who is faced with direct contradictions either within the Bible or with something in the Bible and something provable by science (i.e. earth created in 6 days vs scientific fact that it's been around for millenia) and they are not psychology capable of complex abstract thinking and revert back to the fundamental thinking. They simply are incapable of accepting anything else.

  For example, last night my professor pointed out some very basic discrepancies in the Bible - there I was, looking at the two verses side by side and I was blown away. How many hundreds of times had I read the same thing and NEVER put it together that there were differences? I believed what I believed and simply did not see anything different.

  So, in my opinion, fundamentalism IS inherently dangerous because it doesn't allow for the natural development of abstract reasoning and logical thinking.

  Another interesting thing we learned is that religious identity is usually not connected with belief, but rather because of the social connections. Belief/commitment follows (thus the success of love bombing and shunning). It seems to me that faith is rather simplistic - I believe it because I believe it - and I don't care what else you have to show me (stomps imaginary foot). It's thinking that requires complexity and the ability to reason and make good belief-based decisions.
• 

  mindmelda

  I know what fundamentalism was originally based on in the early 1900s, but it's become more of a word to describe a political stance as much as a religious one anymore.

  Part of that is to not question literal interpretations of the Bible, which can be quite dangerous. It's always dangerous not to question.

  And yes, religion is often about "looking for group" as it's called on the internet. People want to belong to groups with similar values, beliefs and social status and religions have often been a good way to do that, especially in the past.

  Perhaps as other social ways of finding group replace that, religion may be less chosen as a social facilitator. It already is, actually, according to some studies.
• 

  Atman

  Very interesting Georgiegirl!

  I couldn't help but thinking cognitive dissidence when reading what you wrote. Most of what we believe what we believe because we've been taught very young to believe it.

  I'm also curious if you remember the Bible verses to see what they were.
• 

  brotherdan

  1. Inerrancy of the Bible

  2. Virgin birth

  3. Substitionary atonement of Jesus.

  4. Body Resurrection of Jesus.

  5. Authenticity of Christ's miralces and a pre-millenial second coming.

  How are any of these things contradicted in the Bible?

  Also, just being a "premillenialist" does not make you a fundamentalist. There are MANY types of views about the future that could STILL be classified into fundamentalism. It sounds like you may have a professor that is a bit slanted in their thinking.

  Anyhow, I believe that:

  1. The Bible is inerrant

  2. It teaches the birth of Jesus from a Virgin

  3. Jesus died in substitution of our sins

  4. Jesus was resurrected on the 3rd day

  5. He performed miracles and will return in the future

  So I guess that makes me a fundamentalist. But just having those BELIEFS is not what pop culture says a fundamentalist is. They say that a fundamentalist is one that says, "If you do not join me and my specific beliefs, then you are going to hell."

  Your professor would have been more honest to use that sort of description.
• 

  brotherdan

  Also, we are not supposed to believe. We are supposed to know what we believe and WHY we believe it. If we have cognitive dissonance, then we need to examine as much as possible until we either:

  1. Come to a conclusion that we can intellecually accept

  2. Realize that we cannot know what people think that they CAN know
• 

  BurnTheShips

  The definition they gave you does not jibe with what I have always read and understood fundamentalism to be.

  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fundamentalism

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism

  By the definition you gave, something like 90% of Christians would qualify as fundamentalist. Something doesn't fit.

  BTS
• 

  Georgiegirl

  Sigh. I guess this is the problem with internet boards instead of actual conversation. I'll try again.

  As mindmelda correctly pointed out, and as I thought I indicated by saying it was a 20th century phenomena, the term fundamentalism was rooted in the above five tenets. At BTS - perhaps this link will help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity (Let me know if you'd prefer an academic resource.) When you think about what was going on at the time, (Darwin, alot of rethinking of liberal theology where the Bible was not to be taken literally, it makes sense that this movement pushed back against this for a return to the basics.

  At brotherdan - sorry, but I will take the intelligence and knowledge of my professor against yours anyday. I find your insinuations about his honesty and deception both offensive and judgmental, although not surprising. What a rude, dismissive, and assumptive attitude. You do not know him, his background, or his experience.

  I do agree with you on one thing - I think you ARE a fundamentalist in the original sense of the word. Whether or not you are a "fundie" in the pop culture sense of the word, I do not know. I am merely giving you facts as to the origin of the term, not speculating on what it could mean to someone.

  @atman - the two in particular that I remember are: Matthew 5 vs Luke 6 - Sermon on the Mount vs Sermon on the Plain (2 very distinct different geographical locations, wouldn't you say?). In common culture, it's become the Sermon on the Mount. Some people will say - oh, same thing, or parallel texts, etc. etc. For me, as a JW I was raised to believe there were NO contradictions in the Bible whatsoever, and anyone who said any different was lying. It can't be both places. We looked at the 10 commandments as well - you'll notice the order of the commandments changes. Ok, that might be considered a "little thing" but when you put it into context of formerly believing the bible was always in agreement with itself, it's a bit jarring.
• 

  brotherdan

  At brotherdan - sorry, but I will take the intelligence and knowledge of my professor against yours anyday. I find your insinuations about his honesty and deception both offensive and judgmental, although not surprising. What a rude, dismissive, and assumptive attitude. You do not know him, his background, or his experience.

  Hmmm...I don't see how my post was rude, dismissive, and assumptive. I didn't talk about your professor, his background, or his experience.

  I was merely saying that, just like BTS said, if you go by that definition, then you would have to classify almost ALL Christians as fundamentalists. Sorry for offending you.
• 

  Georgiegirl

  Let me help you:

  "Your professor would have been more honest to use that sort of description"

  implies my professor is dishonest and lying. Surely you can see where that is offensive, rude, and assumptive. He was in no way being deceptive, he was teaching fact. Just because it doesn't jive with someone's opinion, doesn't mean he's being deceptive.

  (deep breath) And accepted and moving on. I'm sorry for triggering on you. I know you are on your own journey of discovering as well. :)
• 

  brotherdan

  he was teaching fact

  If you can find that offical definition that he gave you in a respectable place and not just a quote, then I'll accept that. But I wasn't saying that your professor was INTENTIONALLY being dishonest. I was saying that it would have been MORE honest to define "fundamentalist" as something that could be documented. I haven't found a definition that fits his.

  I don't know your professor. I wasn't judging him. But if someone is wrong, I'll say that they are wrong.

  You also said,

  I think you ARE a fundamentalist in the original sense of the word.

  What original sense of the word? Do I believe that EVERYONE must believe as I do? Do I believe the Bible is inerrant? Yes. Do I believe the ENTIRE Bible is to be taken literally? No. So what original sense?