Are Religious Fundamentalists Theologically Correct?

[Fire Fly]

Are Fundamentalists Theologically Correct?

I ask a simple question. Are religious fundamentalists more theologically correct relative to other religious groups or people? For example, is a fundamentalist Christian who believes in young earth creationism, who believes that women should be good wives and not argue with their husband (even if the husband is mildly abusive), who actively writes to his/her local newspaper about the moral corruption of today’s society, and who believes that being gay will condemn a person to hell forever actually a better Christian than someone who is a Christian who thinks that women have an equal position in a marriage (that is, the woman is able to disagree with the husband), who believes that gays should be able to have a relationship (but not marry), who does not want to push religion onto others but is very happy to show a person the way about his/her own religion and who believes that God created the universe with the Big Bang and allowed life to come about through evolution? Is Christian fundamentalism the better of the two (in the context of only religion)?

I ask this because in the context of only religion, it would seem that the fundamentalist is the better Christian since they adhere to more of the principles espoused by the Bible. The fundamentalist has reasons for why they believe in what they believe, not great reasons but reasons nonetheless: the Bible says so. The fundamentalist accepts much of what the Bible has to say and takes little effort in subjective interpreting.

On the other hand, the Christian moderate is much more secular and more contemporary of the two. The Christian light wants people to be happy but in the process, he sacrifices principles and morals directly written in the Bible. The Christian moderate is willing to interpret what the Bible says to make sense of it in light of science and modern philosophy. The Christian moderate wants a middle ground between what the Bible says and what society says.

Given this, it would seem that the fundamentalist adheres most closely to what their deity/holy book says while the Christian moderate is willing to contort what their deity/holy book says. Then, is it not true, to be a better religious follower, you must become more fundamentalist (this includes things which may be antithesis to what modern society says)? Isn’t anything short of religious fundamentalism false, relative to what a holy book says?

[fgalkin]

Short answer: no. Fundamentalism is a very recent phenomenon that started about 150 years ago in response to the "threat" of modernity. Some of their ideas, like dispensational premillenialism, were considered heresies, at best, in earlier times. Moreover, Biblical literalism is a recent phenomen (that's right, people before the 19th century did not take the bible's word literally, although they did believe in its inerrancy), which has no real scriptural basis.

So, no, fundies are not theologically correct in the least.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Flagg]

Short answer: no. Fundamentalism is a very recent phenomenon that started about 150 years ago in response to the "threat" of modernity. Some of their ideas, like dispensational premillenialism, were considered heresies, at best, in earlier times. Moreover, Biblical literalism is a recent phenomen (that's right, people before the 19th century did not take the bible's word literally, although they did believe in its inerrancy), which has no real scriptural basis.

So, no, fundies are not theologically correct in the least.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

They also ignore a ton of shit that they disagree with, just like progressive Christians do. Except they ignore all of the good shit.

[Johonebesus]

...

I ask this because in the context of only religion, it would seem that the fundamentalist is the better Christian since they adhere to more of the principles espoused by the Bible....

Which principles? Those of the Pentateuch, of the later prophets, of the Gospels, or of Paul? Theology is an attempt, however misguided, of applying rational philosophy to the study of the Divine. Since the Bible contradicts itself so often, one could make the case that Biblical literalism is in fact theologically shallow.

Besides, religion is inherently irrational with no objective standard, so there is no such thing as "correct" theology, only orthodox as defined by this or that congregation. Traditionally, Christianity did not hold the Bible as the only and last Revelation, so later miracles, visions, and theological theses could supplement, refine, or even correct the Bible. Then there is the view that the Bible wasn't dictated by God, but composed by man as a record of his experience with the Divine. Both positions would reject Biblical literalism, and are just as theologically valid as fundamentalism.

[Broomstick]

As just one example of Fundamentalist departure from the Bible: the Rapture. The rapture is not in the Bible, if I recall it can traced to a 19th Century American preacher from New York, or somewhere in New England. Yet I've run into Fundies that believe it as Gospel. It's a lot of fun to ask them to look but the chapter and verse where it appears.

[Covenant]

Which principles? Those of the Pentateuch, of the later prophets, of the Gospels, or of Paul? Theology is an attempt, however misguided, of applying rational philosophy to the study of the Divine. Since the Bible contradicts itself so often, one could make the case that Biblical literalism is in fact theologically shallow.

There's very little room for waffling in the Bible:

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

Basically, if you don't follow the gospel as it was delivered, you're fucked. Even if the Pope, an Angel, or some of authority says otherwise, they're fucked and you're fucked if you believe them. Paul is a deranged madman, but he is at least highly consistant with his madness--all the word passes through him, as he states it, not otherwise.

Really, the Fundies are really off on a lot of their scripture, and take it too literally in many places, but if someone really wanted to be as 'close to the message' as possible, and actually read the Bible (something most of these people seem to not do), then a strict adherence would be preferable. Basically nobody follows it as stated. The Catholics even rearranged the damn Commandments, so you're screwed from the get-go.

There's a lot of deviations. You'd really be better off presenting us with the things you question, and then we can go look for it. I've got my Bible right here, actually. I was musing on the theory that the reason they know so much about the apocolypse as told in Revelations but not as told in Daniel is because it's at the end, and they skipped to the end to see how it turns out.

Maybe it's just our athiest character not being able to read it as a true believer, but I find very little of what they believe to be based in scripture to begin with. Their big issues aren't Biblical issues anyway--which is why the appointee to the evangelical megachurch was removed so quickly. He wanted to focus on issues like charity and poverty, but they wanted to focus on bashing gays and fundrasing. That kind of behavior is about as wrong as you can get--it's Jesus knocking over tables in the Temple era wrong. I honestly don't think they're reading the same book.

[Rye]

The notion of being "theologically correct" is problematic in the first place, since you invariably have to cut corners and synchronise differing accounts and teachings (for instance, what's the theologically correct last words of Jesus?). As for fundamentalists have a legitimate outlook on the Bible, it depends what you mean by legitimate. It's obviously going to be less accurate than an actual biblical scholar.

Now, on the other hand, things like a 6 day creation and the age of the Earth I would say were arguably theologically correct. Jesus and Exodus restate the creationist outlook, and Josephus and Ussher determined the actual age centuries ago. So in the first century AD the jews thought the world was young and created in 6 days, we can determine.

As for how seriously they take their faith, clearly the fundies are sincere for the most part and want to live in a biblical police state if christian reconstructionism is anything to go by. Modern christians are usually smart enough to know that'd be horrible.

[Johonebesus]

Which principles? Those of the Pentateuch, of the later prophets, of the Gospels, or of Paul? Theology is an attempt, however misguided, of applying rational philosophy to the study of the Divine. Since the Bible contradicts itself so often, one could make the case that Biblical literalism is in fact theologically shallow.

There's very little room for waffling in the Bible:

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

Basically, if you don't follow the gospel as it was delivered, you're fucked. Even if the Pope, an Angel, or some of authority says otherwise, they're fucked and you're fucked if you believe them. Paul is a deranged madman, but he is at least highly consistant with his madness--all the word passes through him, as he states it, not otherwise....

Even the Gospels contradict each other, and Paul himself added many ideas that aren't present in Jesus' own words. We could throw out everything besides the four Gospels and Paul's letters, and we'd still have lots of contradictions. You pretty much have to waffle to derive a consistent message from the Bible.

[Darth Wong]

Real theologians are generally not literalists, because they study the history and origins of Biblical texts and as such, tend to treat it more like the historical hearsay that it is than as Perfect Truth. Shouldn't that tell us how "theologically correct" fundamentalism is?

[Zixinus]

Is it even possible to be theologically correct in ANY religion?

[Darth Wong]

Hypothetically, if you made a religion based on written sources that were entirely self-consistent, ie- no internal contradictions anywhere, then it would be possible to be theologically correct. None of that applies to any of the existing major religions, though (don't know about Scientology, having never read the book).

[Junghalli]

Their big issues aren't Biblical issues anyway--which is why the appointee to the evangelical megachurch was removed so quickly. He wanted to focus on issues like charity and poverty, but they wanted to focus on bashing gays and fundrasing.

Because sitting there and furiously masturbating to your own superior morality and how everyone who disagrees with you is going to Hell is always so much easier than actually going out and actively doing good.

[Androsphinx]

This is one of the reasons moderate Christians are reluctant to condemn the fundamentalists - because they regard the Bible as sacred (if not immaculate), they find it hard to oppose people who use it for opposing social and political agendas - when your position is one of tolerance and open-ness, you can't really say that people who interpret your own texts differently are totally wrong.

[Frank Hipper]

As just one example of Fundamentalist departure from the Bible: the Rapture. The rapture is not in the Bible, if I recall it can traced to a 19th Century American preacher from New York, or somewhere in New England. Yet I've run into Fundies that believe it as Gospel. It's a lot of fun to ask them to look but the chapter and verse where it appears.

Actually, it's earliest ramblings date to 1820's London, and a preacher named Edward Irving.
In 1830, some back-woods lowlands Scots were having visions and such directly in-line with Irving's teachings; the trump event for Rapture Cults was the vision had that same year by Margaret MacDonald while she was in bed, delirious with fever.
Her fever dream is the primary source and motivator for modern Rapture "theology".
It was documented and spread by a preacher named MacPherson, and spread even further by a preacher named Darby thanks to his percieved authority; he's often mistakenly claimed to be the author of it.

Super import! Thanks, UK!

Of course, saying things like this would get you banned at Rapture Ready immediately.

[Kanastrous]

when your position is one of tolerance and open-ness, you can't really say that people who interpret your own texts differently are totally wrong.

Even when their policy is one of pure intolerance and absolute closed-mindedness?

Reminds me of the ConservChristian pastor I saw on CNN once, insisting that yes, he's intolerant, and the rest of us are obliged to tolerate his intolerance...

[Ma Deuce]

Hypothetically, if you made a religion based on written sources that were entirely self-consistent, ie- no internal contradictions anywhere, then it would be possible to be theologically correct. None of that applies to any of the existing major religions, though (don't know about Scientology, having never read the book).

As far as I can tell, Scientology has no serious internal contradictions, however I think this is mostly to do with the fact that the entire religion was conceived and crafted by a single person, L. Ron Hubbard. Most other religions evolve over the course of centuries with often dozens of individuals contributing the "canon" text upon which the religion is based.

[Androsphinx]

Even when their policy is one of pure intolerance and absolute closed-mindedness?

Especially when their policy is one of pure intolerance and absolute close-mindedness. If tolerance was just for the tolerant, it would be pretty easy. I didn't say that it had to make sense...

[Superman]

I seriously doubt that the average fundamentalist could define or even spell the word "theology."

[Covenant]

Their big issues aren't Biblical issues anyway--which is why the appointee to the evangelical megachurch was removed so quickly. He wanted to focus on issues like charity and poverty, but they wanted to focus on bashing gays and fundrasing.

Because sitting there and furiously masturbating to your own superior morality and how everyone who disagrees with you is going to Hell is always so much easier than actually going out and actively doing good.

It seems to be! They certainly do it an awful lot--even in defiance of the "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" doctrine. Their faith is so mired in hypocrisy and contradiction that it's really hard to call them strictly anything anymore. They're basically their own religion, and would be better off writing their own Bible than continuing to misread and reinterpert the one they claim to have some knowledge of. I find the idea of a fundie thinking they have it right to be pretty amusing, as well as dangerously wrong. They've essentially taken the 100 percent complete Sureness of Purpose element of the religion and married it to a political objective at odds with the Bible. That disturbs me in the sense that it shouldn't be that easy to get people to do whatever you want. It's one more reason to scrap all that shit. Even if these people went on to embrace science incorrectly, they'd be embracing a perspective that has change--not permanence--at it's core.

[Fire Fly]

If Christian fundamentalists aren't the most theologically correct, who among the Christians are, if there is such a group?

My knowledge of Islam is poor but I have been told that Islam is more consistent of the big three monotheistic religions. Can anyone confirm that?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

If Christian fundamentalists aren't the most theologically correct, who among the Christians are, if there is such a group?

My knowledge of Islam is poor but I have been told that Islam is more consistent of the big three monotheistic religions. Can anyone confirm that?

That's true, because the Quran is, instead of merely being written by humans, has been written by God, and is there 100% inerrant AND 100% unopen to interpretation, meaning that all Muslims to avoid being heretics must, by definition, be the equivalent of Christian fundamentalists.

Obviously Catholicism has the most logically consistent theology, in that the Pope as the infallible spokesman of God can interpret with absolute validity any contradictions in the Bible. The Orthodox method of saying any conference of Church bishops called in the traditional fashion can do the same thing has identical practical effect, and justification. As a general rule, however, the further from Catholicism you get the more ludicrous the beliefs; Catholics are by no means the best Christians, but they are the most consistent.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Short answer: no. Fundamentalism is a very recent phenomenon that started about 150 years ago in response to the "threat" of modernity. Some of their ideas, like dispensational premillenialism, were considered heresies, at best, in earlier times. Moreover, Biblical literalism is a recent phenomen (that's right, people before the 19th century did not take the bible's word literally, although they did believe in its inerrancy), which has no real scriptural basis.

So, no, fundies are not theologically correct in the least.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Wait, didn't the Calvinists and so forth practiced a very literal interpretation of the Bible? Moreover, most of the current fundamentalists groups have roots in the old Calvinist groups.

[Enola Straight]

IIRC, the word "trinity" appears NOWHERE in the Bible.

Are there any Christian sects which deny the Trinity?

[[R_H]]

Are there any Christian sects which deny the Trinity?

Pretty sure the Jehovahs do.

[[R_H]]

Are there any Christian sects which deny the Trinity?

Pretty sure the Jehovahs do.

ghetto edit. I meant pretty sure that they deny it.

http://www.carm.org/jw/history.htm

The Jehovah's Witnesses vehemently portray the doctrine of the Trinity as pagan in origin and that Christendom, as a whole, has bought the lie of the devil. Along with denying the Trinity is an equally strong denial of the deity of Christ, the deity of the Holy Spirit, the belief in hell, and eternal conscious punishment in hell.

I tried to get their view on the Trinity off the watchtower site, but the page on it was down.

http://contenderministries.org/jehovahs ... arison.php

The Trinity does not exist, and is an evil doctrine that teaches the existence of 3 gods.

I intentionally didn't hotlink to those sites.