Fundamentalism
- Thread starter Lordpendragon
- Start date
JustAsking
Sexy Member
Yes, and my point is that not all atheism is like that. I am pointing out this particular group in the science community who are as closeminded about the history of empiricism as religious fundamentalists are about the thousands of years of tradition in theology.dxjnorto said:
Its the rabid close-mindedness and insistence on a single source of truth to which they assign too much authority and from which they derive their philosophy.
I find their comments hilarious, though. The only other place you can go for such funny comments about religion is probably The Onion.
My point as well. Birds of a feather, although they wouldn't flock together.JustAsking said:
I have no problem with the term atheistic fundamentalist - they are ascribing to tenets that put them in opposition to theists. I have discussed this with JA before and it is a positon that I don't wish to be held to. Stronzo's assertion of perhaps being a fundamentalist humanist is more difficult and it would be easier if he had said fundamentally humanist - perhaps bills of rights are examples of fundamental humanism.
The concept of western civilisation is generally agreed to have begun in Mesopotamia (IRAQ - irony that maybe it's ending there as well). I can't possibly attempt to give a potted history down to the Babylonians, but in regard to religion they had creationist stories almost exactly the same as the old testament as well as the eartlhy paradise as in Adam and Eve and the great flood.
We somewaht arrogantly think of the westerners or those we consider to be part of our culture to have created everything, but in reality, many of the concepts that we first see in western philosophy from 500 BC onwards are reworkings of existing philosophy from further east and south.
Akenhaten is very interesting because he created a monotheism from a trinity of Amon, Ra and Osiris. There was judgement for the afterlife and a single god was conceptualised as the creator of all things and visualised through a representation of the sun which at the time was as good as we could have imagined. This is the halo.
The link to Moses is factual in that Akenhaten's elder brother was Tutmoses and another Tutmoses may have been his chief general cousin.
Politically the monotheism served to undermine the existing hierarchy, so when he died, the old status quo destroyed his new captial and every reference to him in their recorded history. His followers fled or resettled in the marshlands. Perhaps the general Moses or a descendant was their leader. Akenhaten's successor was Tutankhamun.
The cataclysmic explosion of the Thira volcano, perhaps up to 150 years later (there is a lot of debate as to the relationship of the dates) turned the whole region on its head.
Anyway enough from me.
The concept of western civilisation is generally agreed to have begun in Mesopotamia (IRAQ - irony that maybe it's ending there as well). I can't possibly attempt to give a potted history down to the Babylonians, but in regard to religion they had creationist stories almost exactly the same as the old testament as well as the eartlhy paradise as in Adam and Eve and the great flood.
We somewaht arrogantly think of the westerners or those we consider to be part of our culture to have created everything, but in reality, many of the concepts that we first see in western philosophy from 500 BC onwards are reworkings of existing philosophy from further east and south.
Akenhaten is very interesting because he created a monotheism from a trinity of Amon, Ra and Osiris. There was judgement for the afterlife and a single god was conceptualised as the creator of all things and visualised through a representation of the sun which at the time was as good as we could have imagined. This is the halo.
The link to Moses is factual in that Akenhaten's elder brother was Tutmoses and another Tutmoses may have been his chief general cousin.
Politically the monotheism served to undermine the existing hierarchy, so when he died, the old status quo destroyed his new captial and every reference to him in their recorded history. His followers fled or resettled in the marshlands. Perhaps the general Moses or a descendant was their leader. Akenhaten's successor was Tutankhamun.
The cataclysmic explosion of the Thira volcano, perhaps up to 150 years later (there is a lot of debate as to the relationship of the dates) turned the whole region on its head.
Anyway enough from me.
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2004
- Posts
- 5,842
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 2,611
- Points
- 333
- Location
- Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
- Gender
- Male
I have not had a chance to read all the posts but of the ones I read some questions came up. My late father had a degree in ancient history. I learned several thiings from him that I can repeat here. I wish he were alive and I could ask him about all of this.
1. The Persians influenced the Jews AFTER the Jews were in exile in Babylon. The Persians captured Babylonia and ruled ancient Israel until Alexander the Great came through and conquored Persia. Then the Jews were influenced by the Greeks.Though much of that is not in the present day Bible.
2. The Bible is a record of the people's understanding of God. Therefore it is changing constantly throughout the Old Testament as the ancient Jews "borrored" dieas about God from other religions.
3. Ancient Jewish ideas of salvation. The Jewish people believed that their sins had to be forgiven or atoned for. So once a year on the Day of Atonement," All the sins of the people were done away in elaborate services. I don't recall what all they did. But I do know that the ancienet Hebrews sacrified their best lamb to God to atone, or be forgiven, of their sins. The Christian concept of God coming to earth to "atone" for the sins of the world comes directly from the Hebrew concept of atonement. The New Testament refers to Jesus as the Lamb of God; the spotless "Lamb" that had to be sacrified. To Christians, Jesus was the perfect Lamb because Jesus never sinned. Today the Jewish people still celebrate the Day of Atonement. I don't know how they celebrate it. But I have read in the paper comments to that day in reference to Israeli/Muslim conflicts.
There was an excellent article on fundamentalism which I will try to find. In it fundamentalism is defined. As a recall, fundamentalism in any culture occurs when changes are happning too fast or the changes themselves are contrary to what the people in that area believe. Fundamentalism is a reaction ro unwanted changes in culture and society.
One of the basic tenets of fundamentalism is to "return to the original beliefs and practices of the favored religion." Christianity has changed throughout the centuries to reflect the culture of its adherants. Christianity is different from culture to culture and from one era of time to another era of time.
Fundamentalism is usually led by leaders, prophets, evangelists etc who have the "call" to lead and fundamentalists follow the "leader, preacher etc." A cult develops. The insuing cult may or may not reflect the original, but its adherants swear that they are purists in following whatever religion they believe in.
There are fundamentalists in Christinaity, Islam, Judasim, and any other religion practiced. There are even fundamentalists within a religion such as the "pure" Catholics, or Baptists etc.
Another feature of fundamentalism is that is becomes a political movement as well. Its goal is to gain control of whatever it is they wish. In the Southern Baptist Convention, the fundamentalist used a variety of "tricks" to gain control of that denomination. The majority of Baptist in the pew are not fundamentalists. But the eladers are and as a result a majorit of the children and youth under fundamentalist leadership is also fundamentalist. More on that later.
Most fundamental movements die out within one hundred years as the original leaders die off and the cultural circumstances change. Often one fundamental movement dies away only to be replaced by another fundamental movemnt.
I will try to locate that article. It was so well written and really describes what fundamentalism really means and as I recall, it was written by a man with a doctorate who had researched the subject well.
In American culture, the various movements civil rights, gay rights, unmarried couples, changes in music and the arts, mainline Christianity involving to a more liberal agenda, and most importantly a different understanding of the Bible are some of the causes or the rise of this particular fundamental movement in America. Though this movemnt is not very large in numbers, the Republican Party has learned that they have just enough votes to influence an election and thus gain control of the government and the Republicans have to reward this small group as the Republicans know that they would lose elections if this group either stayed home or voted for some other person in an election. A group can only have five percent of the vote and yet use that five percent in a way to totally control the party that they are in and consequently the government that results.
This is what has happened in America. The fundamentalists who are a decided minority are currently running the federal government thanks to George Bush who is no more a fundamentalist than the "Oh so liberal Sen. Edward Kennedy, The height of a put down from the fundamentalists is to be compared to Edward kennedy. That to them is the kiss of death.
The favorite ploy now is to always paint the Democratic candidate as anti family. The Democrat is pictured as favoring gays adopting children, gays teaching in school and on and on. This candidate is against abortion and says his oponant favors the killing of babies, letting murderers out on the stret, and letting child molesters teach school, and the list goes on that this fundamental candidate will spew forth in an attempt to paint his oponent as something no one would want for a neighbor. Doesn't matter if the charges are true or not. Doesn't matter what the other candidate really beleives. It is about perception and an attempt to smear the other person and get all people who are even remotely Christian to vote for this candidate.
What is so ironic is that poll after poll shows that a majority of Americans don''t even agree with the views of this candidate. But it is a matter of WHO ACTUALLY GOES AND VOTES and the goal is to get every fundamentalist and all their kin folks out to vote for their candidate.
1. The Persians influenced the Jews AFTER the Jews were in exile in Babylon. The Persians captured Babylonia and ruled ancient Israel until Alexander the Great came through and conquored Persia. Then the Jews were influenced by the Greeks.Though much of that is not in the present day Bible.
2. The Bible is a record of the people's understanding of God. Therefore it is changing constantly throughout the Old Testament as the ancient Jews "borrored" dieas about God from other religions.
3. Ancient Jewish ideas of salvation. The Jewish people believed that their sins had to be forgiven or atoned for. So once a year on the Day of Atonement," All the sins of the people were done away in elaborate services. I don't recall what all they did. But I do know that the ancienet Hebrews sacrified their best lamb to God to atone, or be forgiven, of their sins. The Christian concept of God coming to earth to "atone" for the sins of the world comes directly from the Hebrew concept of atonement. The New Testament refers to Jesus as the Lamb of God; the spotless "Lamb" that had to be sacrified. To Christians, Jesus was the perfect Lamb because Jesus never sinned. Today the Jewish people still celebrate the Day of Atonement. I don't know how they celebrate it. But I have read in the paper comments to that day in reference to Israeli/Muslim conflicts.
There was an excellent article on fundamentalism which I will try to find. In it fundamentalism is defined. As a recall, fundamentalism in any culture occurs when changes are happning too fast or the changes themselves are contrary to what the people in that area believe. Fundamentalism is a reaction ro unwanted changes in culture and society.
One of the basic tenets of fundamentalism is to "return to the original beliefs and practices of the favored religion." Christianity has changed throughout the centuries to reflect the culture of its adherants. Christianity is different from culture to culture and from one era of time to another era of time.
Fundamentalism is usually led by leaders, prophets, evangelists etc who have the "call" to lead and fundamentalists follow the "leader, preacher etc." A cult develops. The insuing cult may or may not reflect the original, but its adherants swear that they are purists in following whatever religion they believe in.
There are fundamentalists in Christinaity, Islam, Judasim, and any other religion practiced. There are even fundamentalists within a religion such as the "pure" Catholics, or Baptists etc.
Another feature of fundamentalism is that is becomes a political movement as well. Its goal is to gain control of whatever it is they wish. In the Southern Baptist Convention, the fundamentalist used a variety of "tricks" to gain control of that denomination. The majority of Baptist in the pew are not fundamentalists. But the eladers are and as a result a majorit of the children and youth under fundamentalist leadership is also fundamentalist. More on that later.
Most fundamental movements die out within one hundred years as the original leaders die off and the cultural circumstances change. Often one fundamental movement dies away only to be replaced by another fundamental movemnt.
I will try to locate that article. It was so well written and really describes what fundamentalism really means and as I recall, it was written by a man with a doctorate who had researched the subject well.
In American culture, the various movements civil rights, gay rights, unmarried couples, changes in music and the arts, mainline Christianity involving to a more liberal agenda, and most importantly a different understanding of the Bible are some of the causes or the rise of this particular fundamental movement in America. Though this movemnt is not very large in numbers, the Republican Party has learned that they have just enough votes to influence an election and thus gain control of the government and the Republicans have to reward this small group as the Republicans know that they would lose elections if this group either stayed home or voted for some other person in an election. A group can only have five percent of the vote and yet use that five percent in a way to totally control the party that they are in and consequently the government that results.
This is what has happened in America. The fundamentalists who are a decided minority are currently running the federal government thanks to George Bush who is no more a fundamentalist than the "Oh so liberal Sen. Edward Kennedy, The height of a put down from the fundamentalists is to be compared to Edward kennedy. That to them is the kiss of death.
The favorite ploy now is to always paint the Democratic candidate as anti family. The Democrat is pictured as favoring gays adopting children, gays teaching in school and on and on. This candidate is against abortion and says his oponant favors the killing of babies, letting murderers out on the stret, and letting child molesters teach school, and the list goes on that this fundamental candidate will spew forth in an attempt to paint his oponent as something no one would want for a neighbor. Doesn't matter if the charges are true or not. Doesn't matter what the other candidate really beleives. It is about perception and an attempt to smear the other person and get all people who are even remotely Christian to vote for this candidate.
What is so ironic is that poll after poll shows that a majority of Americans don''t even agree with the views of this candidate. But it is a matter of WHO ACTUALLY GOES AND VOTES and the goal is to get every fundamentalist and all their kin folks out to vote for their candidate.
Freddie, that was awesome... Thanx for all the info! I learned SO MUCH from this thread! Hats off to LordPenDragon for coming up with such an awesome thread, that weaved it's way in and around fundamentalism, so as to give a VERY well rounded synopsis. It's so great to be involved with such smart people. I live in a rural area where I am usually the smartest guy around (hard to learn anything), which leads to a softening of my intellect over time. I actually feel smarter now. You guys ROCK!
fortiesfun
Sexy Member
- Joined
- May 29, 2006
- Posts
- 4,619
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 78
- Points
- 268
- Location
- California (United States)
- Sexuality
- 60% Gay, 40% Straight
- Gender
- Male
I too have found this thread interesting, and learned a lot from the tour of ancient religions. I wonder, however, what Lord Pendragon's origional point was and if we are getting to it. The introductory post seemed to me to ask if all religious belief is the same as fundamentalism, and if the reference to "Fundies" in a number of threads lately was interchangeable with anyone with religious convictions. Since the working definition that has evolved in this thread has gone in another direction (for shorthand's sake equating fundamentalism with anti-modernism) I wonder if it might be worth getting back to figuring out what that reveals about the threads Pendragon was referencing.
Did I understand you correctly Pendragon?
Did I understand you correctly Pendragon?
Very pertinent and I have been considering this too.
I do not have much time this instant but I would say.
There is a clear issue of intransigence. The question is at what level of the belief - is it at the fundamental tenet level or an offshoot level such as all the issues covered by received scriptures. This would be different for Islam and Christian scriptures.
What are the fundamental tenets without which you can not be considered an adherent to a faith.
The offshoots (for want of a better word) find themselves at odds with the evolution of science and culture and the commonly understood fundies stick their heals in.
But why shouldn't everything evolve as we have seen from the history of religious practice and it's sharing. In a sense then, as per my original definition, to be intransigent to a simple tenet can be conceived as fundamentalist - perhaps it is just a time perspective - fundies come and go within a few generations, whereas religions wax and wane over longer periods.
I do not have much time this instant but I would say.
There is a clear issue of intransigence. The question is at what level of the belief - is it at the fundamental tenet level or an offshoot level such as all the issues covered by received scriptures. This would be different for Islam and Christian scriptures.
What are the fundamental tenets without which you can not be considered an adherent to a faith.
The offshoots (for want of a better word) find themselves at odds with the evolution of science and culture and the commonly understood fundies stick their heals in.
But why shouldn't everything evolve as we have seen from the history of religious practice and it's sharing. In a sense then, as per my original definition, to be intransigent to a simple tenet can be conceived as fundamentalist - perhaps it is just a time perspective - fundies come and go within a few generations, whereas religions wax and wane over longer periods.
To add a little flesh to the bones of my last post now that I have an unexpected minute.
When religions involve themselves in issues of human activity beyond the purely spiritual or allegorical/metaphorical, they will ultimately face problems with their received dogmas as people and culture evolve. The rate of change in the last hundred years has been exceptional in human history. You may say, ah but the human spirit never changes, to which I might agree and say in which case, stick with spirituality.
I think that the Catholics for example face a real challenge in their refusal to change their dogma regarding abortion and homosexuality.
You may also consider that even the most fundamental tenet of a religion, such as God exists, may at some point be proven to be untrue.
Of course the conflicts arise between the fundamentalists who are resisting human behavioural and environmental changes. Disagreements about the nature and existence of God should not lead us to throw punches at each other, I hope.
Islamic fundamentalists are havng a particularly difficult time with the modern world because their scripture is held to be the direct word of God from 1400 years ago. It would be a lot easier if God could pop in every fifty years or so just to update us relative to the context. Even better perhaps is to acknowledge that our relationship to God can only be spiritual, not rational, not moral, not existential and not a lot of other things.
When religions involve themselves in issues of human activity beyond the purely spiritual or allegorical/metaphorical, they will ultimately face problems with their received dogmas as people and culture evolve. The rate of change in the last hundred years has been exceptional in human history. You may say, ah but the human spirit never changes, to which I might agree and say in which case, stick with spirituality.
I think that the Catholics for example face a real challenge in their refusal to change their dogma regarding abortion and homosexuality.
You may also consider that even the most fundamental tenet of a religion, such as God exists, may at some point be proven to be untrue.
Of course the conflicts arise between the fundamentalists who are resisting human behavioural and environmental changes. Disagreements about the nature and existence of God should not lead us to throw punches at each other, I hope.
Islamic fundamentalists are havng a particularly difficult time with the modern world because their scripture is held to be the direct word of God from 1400 years ago. It would be a lot easier if God could pop in every fifty years or so just to update us relative to the context. Even better perhaps is to acknowledge that our relationship to God can only be spiritual, not rational, not moral, not existential and not a lot of other things.
JustAsking
Sexy Member
Excellent, excellent posts. One comment to Lord P. You asked a question about going back to first principles, I think. Fundamentalists don't actually go back to first principles. They only think they are. For example, Christian fundamentalists would claim that they have taken the church back to 1st century Christianity. Nothing is further from the truth. It is a reactionary and dogmatic reading of only selected portions of the original doctrine.
In fact, in the excellent book, The American Religion, Harold Bloom points out very convincingly that modern Christian fundamentalism is more Gnostic than it is Christian.
Fredde, you did it again. An excellent post.
Speaking of "the epic struggle of good and evil", you can hear Bush sending the fundie code words out over the last couple of days.
In fact, in the excellent book, The American Religion, Harold Bloom points out very convincingly that modern Christian fundamentalism is more Gnostic than it is Christian.
Fredde, you did it again. An excellent post.
Speaking of "the epic struggle of good and evil", you can hear Bush sending the fundie code words out over the last couple of days.
- Doc,
Well my hats off to all of you, this is the most interesting thread I've read in a long time.
In terms of the subject, I think I have a bit of interesting additions since I live in the heart of what some people consider the fundamentalist world. I live in Abu Dhabi, next to Dubai in the UAE squarely in the Persian Gulf. And here Muslims, Christians, Hindus, and all other religions, except perhaps Jews openly anyway, and ethnicities exist quite harmoniously. However, everyone watches the news, and they all know what is going on, and what is at stake. If some fundie decided to blow up the Ski Mall, or worse the tallest building in the world, all the business would dry out, and our way of life would change for the worse. So the Muslim government, and the police infrastructure do their best to dance around the issue of whether their religious tolerance encourages of discourages fundamentalism of any kind, in particular muslim fundamentalism, since that is the hot trend.
For me Fundamentalism, is the adherence to a faith in a dogmatic fashion. Now faiths could be anything. Religious fundamentalism, is the definition above, but to a religion or its interpretation by one scholar, many scholars, or a school. Fundamentalism can happen practically anywhere, and whether it is good or bad is arguable, it happens in the business world all the time, to some good effects. Religious fundamentalism is the same, except that it is based on readings of ancient texts. I think this is where the huge mistakes come in. I see all the time. Like Pendragon said, in Islam the religion is fixated on the text since it is supposed to be the word of God. But it takes only a very educated few, to understand what the text is really trying to say. These scripts, whether they be Latin based, Aramaic, Arabic, or Sanskrit, all are written in incredibly complex poetic imagery, that could mean completely different things now, than when they were written, by God or otherwise. So the problem I see, is that some people who feel they are ignorant in spirituality, or feel they lack faith, look toward religion to provide them some structure. And then they become convinced that they have found the path, due to some clerics interpretation of some text, and before you know it you have a cult. Suicide bombers, truly believe, they are acting in God's interest. This is because of their conditions, the politics, and the skewing of the texts teachings. It all comes in to play.
Myself I try to stay away from Fundies, but I myself am one, if I say so. Because I'm on the moderate humanist side of things. I've got my pole, and they have theirs. However being a fundamentalist in the speed at which snails move for example, is probably not going to hurt anyone, where as others faiths, ideologies, or practices ... have been known to be a bit more ... problematic.
Does this resolve the issues. No, of course not, it just clears up a bit, or what a fundamentalist is. I am a humanist, and have been for a very long time. That means I believe in the ability of any human being to overcome almost any challenge it meets, through its mental, spiritual, and physical power. Being an artist, I picked up this while I was studying about the Renaissance. At that time, there were a lot of humanists. Am I a fundamentalist. Perhaps. Perhaps not. Depends how much I want to be in the grey I suppose.
In terms of the subject, I think I have a bit of interesting additions since I live in the heart of what some people consider the fundamentalist world. I live in Abu Dhabi, next to Dubai in the UAE squarely in the Persian Gulf. And here Muslims, Christians, Hindus, and all other religions, except perhaps Jews openly anyway, and ethnicities exist quite harmoniously. However, everyone watches the news, and they all know what is going on, and what is at stake. If some fundie decided to blow up the Ski Mall, or worse the tallest building in the world, all the business would dry out, and our way of life would change for the worse. So the Muslim government, and the police infrastructure do their best to dance around the issue of whether their religious tolerance encourages of discourages fundamentalism of any kind, in particular muslim fundamentalism, since that is the hot trend.
For me Fundamentalism, is the adherence to a faith in a dogmatic fashion. Now faiths could be anything. Religious fundamentalism, is the definition above, but to a religion or its interpretation by one scholar, many scholars, or a school. Fundamentalism can happen practically anywhere, and whether it is good or bad is arguable, it happens in the business world all the time, to some good effects. Religious fundamentalism is the same, except that it is based on readings of ancient texts. I think this is where the huge mistakes come in. I see all the time. Like Pendragon said, in Islam the religion is fixated on the text since it is supposed to be the word of God. But it takes only a very educated few, to understand what the text is really trying to say. These scripts, whether they be Latin based, Aramaic, Arabic, or Sanskrit, all are written in incredibly complex poetic imagery, that could mean completely different things now, than when they were written, by God or otherwise. So the problem I see, is that some people who feel they are ignorant in spirituality, or feel they lack faith, look toward religion to provide them some structure. And then they become convinced that they have found the path, due to some clerics interpretation of some text, and before you know it you have a cult. Suicide bombers, truly believe, they are acting in God's interest. This is because of their conditions, the politics, and the skewing of the texts teachings. It all comes in to play.
Myself I try to stay away from Fundies, but I myself am one, if I say so. Because I'm on the moderate humanist side of things. I've got my pole, and they have theirs. However being a fundamentalist in the speed at which snails move for example, is probably not going to hurt anyone, where as others faiths, ideologies, or practices ... have been known to be a bit more ... problematic.
Does this resolve the issues. No, of course not, it just clears up a bit, or what a fundamentalist is. I am a humanist, and have been for a very long time. That means I believe in the ability of any human being to overcome almost any challenge it meets, through its mental, spiritual, and physical power. Being an artist, I picked up this while I was studying about the Renaissance. At that time, there were a lot of humanists. Am I a fundamentalist. Perhaps. Perhaps not. Depends how much I want to be in the grey I suppose.
What makes you think the people commenting on the article are "scientists?" I highly doubt it. [SIZE=-1]It's a well-known fact that [/SIZE]one of the more unfortunate consequences of the way modern science evolved in the 17th century was the overemphasis on the laboratory environment and the "experiment." The idea that science is limited to what we can observe in an experiment actually crippled biology until about 1800, when biologists coined the term and began to give it an independent existence. The idea that all science must conform to the methods of physics actually lingers on in a lot of creationist babble.JustAsking said:
"If you need science to prove why you should be a Christian, I think you're missing the point of being Christian. The fact is, I get more out of the bible than I do out of science, but I'm not threatened by ideas in science that contradict a fundamentalist reading of the bible." - my mother (paraphrased)JustAsking said:
Also, do you have *any* evidence of these purposeful distortions and misquotes you're talking about?
My apologies Pecker. Osiris was the son of Nut and grandchild of Ra. So I should have told JustAsking :
malakos
Superior Member
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2012
- Posts
- 8,377
- Media
- 30
- Likes
- 6,580
- Points
- 223
- Location
- Cumming, GA, USA
- Sexuality
- No Response
- Gender
- Male
