What do people mean by christian fundamentalist

Soutra, taking this thread OT am sorry but are you actually from soutra? I live beside it.

I cannot see why this thread was started unless it was to give some justification for fundamentalism and Bible thumping. I do not discern any 3/4 - 1/4 split among those who are contributing to the thread "in favour" of this sort of belief and have to say that reading or listening to infinitely superior religious "brains" , Justin Welby, Christopher House, Jonathan Sacks et al, not to mention posters on GN, I am relieved that there is more common sense about than one might be led to believe.

God! This is a boring thread.

Couldn't you have googled it soon?

Yet another opportunity for soon to bang on in her determinedly naive way and to be the focus of attention.
Intelligent, rational comments waved away by 'explanations' which make no sense and demonstrate no understanding at all of the structure of the Bible or of conclusions put forward by serious students of Biblical texts and the philosophies behind them.
Total inability to see the myths and allegories which were attempts to explain concepts beyond the comprehension of relatively 'primitive' thinkers.
Complete disregard both for scientific proof and the development of rational thought.
Once before, I did ask (although I had no reply) whether soon's potential grandchildren will be fed this fundamentalist, creationist stuff and if so, how that will square with the teaching in any normal primary school.

How odd of God
To choose the Jews
But not so odd
As those who choose
A Jewish God,
Yet spurn the Jews.

So are the Jews still the chosen people in the eyes of fundamentalist Christians? (Obviously not among some fundamentalist sects in America whole believe that Jews forfeited their right to being the chosen people because of their responsibility for Christ's crucifixion and that this blessing has now passed to America – I'm not clear about why America.) But if Jews remain the chosen people, where does that leave Christians of any sort – fundamentalist or otherwise? But if not the chosen people, what kind of God led them up the garden path in the first place? Surely a nasty cruel trick for an omnipotent deity.

You can't prove a "belief". Believing in the absence of proof must be a definition of "faith" which is what these religions are.
penstemmon said it all beautifully I reckon.

I think you are nitpicking, Elegran. The main point for Christians (and Moslems and Jews) is that there is a Creator ie however it happened, there is and was a consciousness at work. For me, the existence of the universes are proof of the existence of God. Prove they aren't.

Mishap. I meant a few as in the context of the world.

In the OT God was definitely controlling. But for our own good. As parents try and guide theor children.
And yes, if the people persistently did not obey, they received punishment.

Your 4th paragraph.
There is not a contradiction in the statement. I am not sure how to say that any easier to understand.
But then I read your 5th paragraph. Yes, yes! Glad we understand each other a bit better now.

There are quite long answers to some of these posts, so it may take me a while to answer them all.

Greenfinch. 1st paragraph. That particlar verse is talking about judging peoples behaviour only, and telling us not to do it. Elsewhere, the Bible talks numerous times about judging behaviour. But remembering not to judge the actual person.

Your second paragraph. I dont know if you know that that is part of Jesus trying to teach his disciples and elders and people in the street that no one is without sin, no one, and therefore there is no one to stone the woman. And they all, that day, slowly walked away, as they realised that everyopne sins and therefore no one could throw the stone.

If God created the world in 6 days, why did he disguise his work so that every detail of it appears to have taken millions of years? Not just to a casual glance, but to every test, every comparison, every calculation done by the finest human minds - which, presumably, he also designed and created "in his own image" so that would be capable of it?

It should be possible to leave out the Bible account (yes, I know you don't want to, but do it temporarily) and the physical evidence alone should bring an open-minded enquirer to the same conclusion as Genesis. It doesn't.

As it happens Elegran, one of my son's is a science researcher, so I do know what researchers do, and how they do it, and collaborate etc etc.

I will have to look into your last paragraph, as I dont know the answer to that one.

Your third paragraph. No. That may well be the people in the second link of Ana's link, but not the first group.
This is why I started the thread, as their is widespread confusion about this now.
Personally I think that the words christian fundamentalit need now to mean the second group of people and not the first.
And that we need new words for the first group. As the two groups are vastly different. The second group are not doing the work of God.

I think that I am more than one of a "few" soon!

There is plenty to learn about god in the OT of course - vengeful, cruel, controlling to name but a few.

Of course there are things in the bible that are profound, poetic and moving, but, as a collection of books by different people, it is not the word of god or to be taken literally. It is akin to reading a book containing the reflections of different philosophers; they disagree, but each "take" on life has interesting ideas in it.

You say that the NT takes over rulewise. We would of course take that view because it accords with our liberal society, but, if you soon have said that you take it ALL literally you have to deal with the contradictions in that statement. Either you believe it all, as you have said, or you do not - you cannot choose to have the NT as superior rulewise if you also choose to believe the whole shebang.

Your adherence to the NT for a code of life, but not the OT indicates that you do in fact not believe it all, which is a relief! What you are doing is interpreting the OT through the filter of the NT - which thankfully means you do not take it literally.

I am so glad that you do not mind my "not understanding"!!

Penstemmon post.
a. yes to first part and scientific evidence is rejected where it doesnt fit with the Bible.

b. Absolutely definitely not. It is the other way round.
Anyone who is doing that, either doesnt have the New Testament, or is not reading it, or is misreading it, or doesnt understand it properly for some reason, or is being taught wrongly and needs to read it for themselves.

c. yes

d. definitely not.

Ana's link explains things very well indeed.

As well as the dictionary definition, fundamentalists also believe that anyone who points out a "fact" which was believed in Abraham's time, but has since been shown conclusively by overwhelming evidence to be mistaken, is an agent of Satan trying to completely destroy their faith, prevent them from "loving God and their neighbour" and destine them for eternal damnation in Hell.

No, we are pleased for you that you have found a secure faith, we just want you to know the amazing things that the hard work of researchers has discovered about this wonderful Universe.

If you are Muslim, replace "Abraham" in the first sentence with "Mohammed", and ""loving God and their neighbour" with "serving Allah".

"Judge not that ye be not judged"

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

This does not suggest separating the person from his behaviour.

re Joan's post. Ist and last paragraph, yes.

The New Testament takes over from the Old Testament, rule wise. But there is much to learn about God in the Old Testament. Plus happenings and context. And things like wise rules in the Book of Proverbs. Not to mention wonderful psalms, which I think were effectively the hymn book of the time.

Personally I dont mind absent having that opinion.

Yes to Grannyknots post.

Mishap. Definitely no to your second paragraph. It takes years of thinking to arrive where we are.
I dont mind you not really understanding by the way. You consistently dont understand what I say concerning the Bible, and there are always a few people in life like that.

Greenfinch. It judges behaviour, yes. The people themselves are in no way supposed to be judged.
Yes to the rest of your post.
I dont know what an ortodox christian is. I will look that up sometime today.

Penstemmon and Joan's posts take a bit more answering.

If only believers thought about the fact that the bible is not one book, but is in fact a library of religious texts. In many languages, words like Bibliotek mean library.

When you think about this, all the contradictions make sense. Of course the OT is different from the NT - they were written hundreds of years apart by many different people. We were taught that when there is conflict, the NT takes precedence.

Having said that, I ignore all the supernatural and unscientific stuff, which is much of it, but I do like some of the parables. I believe it was all written by people who thought it was the word of God, but it was in fact their own interpretations of the world, of what was going on, or their own interpretation of oral history.

I hate it when people use the bible as an excuse for prejudice and hatred.

This is an interesting question, I have also wondered in the past exactly what it means and where it came from. Here's the dictionary definition (and explanation):

fundamentalism

1. Christianity (esp among certain Protestant sects) the belief that every word of the Bible is divinely inspired and therefore true
2. Strict adherence to the fundamental principles (of any set of beliefs).

A movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.

Is faintly amusing, rather, say, than a major belly laugh, sneering? If so, why? I don't roll on the floor clutching my stomach; I just find it slightly ridiculous and totally illogical. That is my opinion – and, as has so often been said on GN, everyone is entitled to voice their own opinions.

I am puzzled by your OP soon - not sure what you are saying.

For what it's worth my definition of a Christian fundamentalist is someone who believes without thinking.

Wot Penstommen said.

Good definition Penstemmon - would you accept that soontobe?

I thought it was a very good article but I did wonder what was meant by "orthodox Christians" at the end. To me fundamentalism means a judgemental and uncompromising stance and the belief that anyone who doesn't believe the same as me is wrong.

I use the term Christian Fundamentalists to describe those who do at least one or any combination of the following

a) take the Bible literally & reject scientific evidence (e.g. world created in 6 days)

b) rely more on the OT than NT to justify their actions/ beliefs (e.g.an eye for an eye rather than turn the other cheek)

c) do not put the writings of the Bible in to their historical and social context (e.g. believe homosexuality is an abomination)

d) manipulate the stories of the OT/NT to justify their beliefs/actions (birthdays not mentioned in Bible so cannot celebrate birthdays!)

This will include all 'exclusive' groups such as Bretheren etc.