Information icon.svg The 2017 board of trustees election has started! We are electing 2 board members to serve 2017-19. Nominate users here and read their campaign slogans here!

Talk:Fundamentalism

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon religion.svg

This Religion related article has been awarded SILVER status for quality. We like it, and you should too!

This article is of HIGH importance to the wiki.

See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Silverbrain.png
Editorial notes
  • Could use a section on Hindu fundamentalism, Islamic section could also be expanded
This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Come on, people, this article is still the crappy stubbed toe I wrote days ago! It needs more brainz! humanbe in 20:20, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

Ooh, Robledo, you made it have more of the goodz! humanbe in 15:01, 3 June 2007 (CDT)
Um, now it's funny, etc., but where is mention of The Fundamentals pamphlets of 1915-20 or so? IE, the begnninnninnnning of the actual movement? humanbe in 03:23, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

jigsaw674's edits, part two[edit]

TallMan, you may have a point. The original article had a few details I thought should be addressed, and as a Christian Fundamentalist, I thought I would take a crack at it. It seems that the same article was cut and pasted for both fundamentalist and Christian fundamentalist.

First, in the section on inerrancy of the bible, the author pretends to know the original intent of the authors of the books of Job, Daniel, Jonah, and Revelation. I find it difficult to believe that someone writing with such sardonic language has a sufficient degree of knowledge of the intent of long-dead authors required in order to make such a sweeping judgment. It's sort of like judging statutory intent for a law passed by legislature - the judges are the only ones who get those memos.

There has been a great deal of study of these works over the past few thousand years, so I won't pretend to be able to condense all of that peer-reviewed research. I will, however, state for the record that prophesies contained in these books have not all come to pass. A rational author would note this, and would allow for the possibility that since (especially Revelation) they contain symbolism that cannot currently be conclusively attributed to past events, they could not (in their entirety) then be said to have been written only for the purpose of comforting an early church in crisis.

The exact authorship of the Book of Job, for example, is uncertain, but has been narrowed down to approximately seven possibles, and the exact date has been narrowed to and 1100 year period beginning as early as 1500 B.C. It would probably help to know the author before concluding intent. I recognize, however, the rationale for the argument that some believe the words to be literal while others are more figurative in their assessments. I tend toward literal, as do many other fundamentalists. Most of us don't want to sell our youngest daughters into slavery (Exodus 21:7). We can work on the sabbath in violation of Exodus 35:2. We don't think about Leviticus 11:7 while watching UT spank USC at the Rose Bowl. I planted different crops side by side this year in the garden, and once made it with a woman during her time (without being exiled). These, among many others, are rules from a different time. I cannot rationally explain them.

The thing that got me, though, about the unedited "inerrancy" post was the filthy socialist clause. I felt at the time that this clause was fairly prevalent among the more committed nonbelievers, so addressing the socialist argument was almost a given. Socialism is redistribution of wealth, while actual charity involves a much more personal relationship. Since charity is the command, I doubt even a truly gifted philosopher could convincingly argue that Christ was a socialist. I would appreciate feedback on that one, though.

Then there were some points I deducted for outright falsehoods under "sole source of faith". The New Testament repeatedly states that Christ is the key to the New Covenant. A prime example is John 14:6. There are others.

Some other points I wanted to make while debating charity: whereas the government may be able to reach broad swaths of the population, it creates unwieldy bureaucracies while doing little to address the actual causes of poverty. A charitable individual is apt to avoid waste, fraud, and abuse, while government seems to tolerate these conditions while abusing its authority to tax. Also, government can attribute causality to the awarding of entitlements, i.e., a political party can claim credit for seizing tax revenues to award to a particular group in return for political support. A government cannot tell a lazy person to get off his/her lazy ass, while a private individual or charity can. This is why private charities are preferable: it was the way it was done for thousands of years. Only now will the sky fall if we stop.— Unsigned, by: Jigsaw674 / talk / contribs

So in short "I didn't like the snarky tone about a subject I take way too seriously, so I went ahead and made it more fundy friendly for you." --Inquisitor (talk) 02:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Governments have been engaged in charity for thousands of years too. Keeping the hungry from rioting is a good way to stay in power. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I think Inquisitor has the right of it. I think there are legitimate issues with the original tone but the revisions are no better. TallMan (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and make some changes.TallMan (talk) 23:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

thanks gents.[edit]

changes are excellent. the passage is now what i would call an authoritative and complete description of some of the core similarities we share. i thank you for your work and contributions.

i wish there were a way to differentiate the a ---> b transaction of the act of giving/charity from the a ---> b ---> c where b takes from a using statutory authority and gives to c in a relationship which, absent the government construct, would be defined as theft, or unreasonable seizure, or an unjust taking. even in imminent domain, property is not seized for assignation but for public use, and must involve reasonable compensation. put another way, if you come to take my money and give it to your friend (who may or may not actually need it), i call you a thief and give you a whipping. if a politician comes and takes my money, gives it to the friend, i can lose my home or be imprisoned for refusal to submit to what would otherwise be violative behavior. — Unsigned, by: Jigsaw674 / talk / contribs

Please limit the content to the subject at hand, and keep World Nut Daily like topics concerning Tax protester arguments to their respective subject. ~ Subsound ~ 22:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

What idiots[edit]

These people are ultimate proofs of MBTI. They exactly fit the definition for ESTJ: traditional, meddling, literal-minded, unimaginative, dull, nearsighted, unable to think outside the box, acting before thinking, not caring about the freedoms or feelings of other people, and finding pleasure in accepting a fallible dogma as the absolute truth and denying all evidence to the contrary just because it saves them of thinking.

Updated External Link[edit]

The link for the All Fundamentalists Believe the Same Things article has changed, and the link needs to be updated. The new url is http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2004/12/evolutionary-theology-those-of-you-who.html — Unsigned, by: 108.131.50.84 / talk / contribs 23:50, 17 July 2014‎ (UTC)

Political fundamentalism[edit]

I think the article should be expanded to include fundamentalism of political ideologies like say marxism, libertarianism, objectivism and such. I mean Marxists (especially of the Marxist-Leninist variety but also left communists) adhere strictly to the original ideas and reject any form of alternative as revisionism. There's also the worship of Ayn Rand bordering on cult and Libertarianism support for free market dictatorships like Chile used to be (although one can argue that they were being merely assholes and not fundies). 89.152.85.96 (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Silver?[edit]

I would say bronze; citations lacking in several places. (And few citations overall.)--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 16:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

To me, this article is currently somewhere between bronze and no brainstar. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)