Are conservative evangelicals really fundamentalists?

[Recovering]

(02-21-2012 02:11 PM)Darrell Wrote:  Can you demonstrate to me any of the above who don't think that Mary was a Virgin? Or that Jesus was not Divine? Or that the Eucharist is not the blood and body?

Sure there's variation. But there are something that just aren't up for much discussion.

Oh, sure. I didn't mean to make it sound like anyone from an atheist to a Hindu could find a comfortable home within the Church. I just don't think it's necessarily any more exclusive than Protestantism.

By squiz's definition, the Catholic Church as it officially stands is a probably fundamentalist institution. I have no problem with that. I know what I've left behind, whatever it's name, and I'll never return to it. That said, there are definitely groups who parallel what we here call Protestant fundamentalists within the Catholic church.

Also, I did a quick double-check google search on Catholics who don't believe Mary remained a virgin, and this was the first hit. :-)

[Lady Julian]

(02-21-2012 12:34 PM)Darrell Wrote:  

Quote: *from Squiz* The meaning I use is the common meaning used outside of the evangelical subculture, whose members alone insist on the distinction.

But since the largest group on this site is one that will take the "insider" meaning as opposed to that of everyone else you really have to take that into account when defining your terms.

Probably this is a minor point, but I get the impression that even the "common meaning" of the word "fundamentalist" - in other words, in the circles outside SFL, in the world-at-large - has some distinction between "fundamentalist" and "orthodox".

"Fundamentalist Muslim", for instance, is a phrase our culture uses to refer to certain physical and cultural characteristics (often the full burqa, or women not attending college), rather than doctrinal beliefs (the importance of prayer, Jesus or Mohammed as a prophet, etc).

So, what you're actually trying to do is conflate two terms that are likely distinct, different, to most Americans, whether or not they are on SFL.

[squiz]

(02-21-2012 12:34 PM)Darrell Wrote:  There's plenty of Church history complete with Councils and other groups of people who sat down and hammered out the finer points of what is orthodox and what is heresy. I think we cannot take those things lightly.

Hammered is a good word (sword is perhaps better) . I can't understand why you give such credence to what these ancient councils decided. I suppose it has to do with when leaving your old sources of authority, you needed new ones to justify keeping to the beliefs that you were brought up with. Sorry if this comes across as a personal criticism - but we all do this sort of thing to some extent.

(02-21-2012 12:34 PM)Darrell Wrote:  Fair enough. But it is then up to you to demonstrate direct causality between believing in certain foundational principles of Christianity as being true and using them to "justify terrible deeds."

How about the crusades, the Spanish re-conquista, forced conversions, inquisitions, witch-hunts, pogroms, catholics-burning-protestants, protestants-burning-catholics? There was a direct causality between these terrible deeds and strong absolutist beliefs.

(02-21-2012 12:34 PM)Darrell Wrote:  There are thousands and millions of people who make a profession like this every week. And yet we see that the percentage of "radicals" in Christianity is remarkably small. If believing you're right without doubting inevitably leads to "an environment" that's conducive to radical behavior then exactly how do we account for the lack of radicals?

Well the IFB, for example? How about these Driscoll types who seem to be popping up all over the place? Maybe the lack of radicals in modern Christianity is really due to the influence of the Enlightenment and the fact that most people seem to maintain an illogical but perhaps sensible balance between faith and doubt.

[Darrell]

Quote:There was a direct causality between these terrible deeds and strong absolutist beliefs.

I don't know what to do with that kind of reductionism. There were political, social, economic, and psychological factors that played into all of these events. If it were simply a matter of straight belief to action then we would still see Crusades going on today. (unless you claim that we are)

Quote: most people seem to maintain an illogical but perhaps sensible balance between faith and doubt.

Do you care to demonstrate that claim with some kind of proof?

[squiz]

(02-22-2012 06:36 AM)Darrell Wrote:  

Quote:There was a direct causality between these terrible deeds and strong absolutist beliefs.

I don't know what to do with that kind of reductionism. There were political, social, economic, and psychological factors that played into all of these events. If it were simply a matter of straight belief to action then we would still see Crusades going on today. (unless you claim that we are)

Yes of course there were. There are also economic and sociological factors behind suicide bombers.

Quote:

Quote: most people seem to maintain an illogical but perhaps sensible balance between faith and doubt.

Do you care to demonstrate that claim with some kind of proof?

No proof, just anecdotal evidence. My wife is a good example.