All fundies are the same....

[segovius]

Working Hypothesis: All religious fundamentalists of any denomination or creed are by definition militant, aggressive and violent.

The degree to which they are able to express this in the wider world is commensurate with the power and support they exert from/over the populace. Thus in a secular society like the US (say) the violent rhetoric will not exteriorise in actuality because this is not mandated by the people. It will rather, manifest itself in the literature of the fundies - waiting latently to bloom into full expression at a later date (examples presently).

Oth, in a religious society like Saudi (say) then the violence will be externalised - in terrorist groupings, executions and religious pogroms for example.

Obviously a classic example would be the Spanish Inquisition but my thesis is that ALL religious perspectives based on 'judgement', 'sin' and 'reward/punishment' are, by definition, fundamentalist and will, given enough free rein, explode into oppression.

Btw - this cannot include the original teaching of Christ which stipulated 'judge not....', 'forgiveness' and 'love your enemies' etc

However we somehow get from that teaching to The Warrior Jesus. Do you feel lucky Punk ?



Actually, when you compare descriptions such as the following from the article (quoting LaHaye) you realise there is very little difference between the mindsets of these Xian fundies and (say) al-Qaeda:

"Men and women soldiers and horses seemed to explode where they stood," Dr. LaHaye and Mr. Jenkins write. "It was as if the very words of the Lord had superheated their blood, causing it to burst through their veins and skin.'' The authors add, "Even as they struggled, their own flesh dissolved, their eyes melted and their tongues disintegrated."

Clearly, the logic behind this 'thinking' (?) is one of revenge - based on purity and 'cleansing' but cleansing of what the fundies say is wrong. Leaving aside that this is as far from the spirit of Christ as one can get (though never bet against these guys raising the bar) my argument would be that there is no difference in the fundamentalist mindset between religions and that the argument that there is really is merely an expression of the fundie 'us and them' and as such, confirms it.

Err...that's it....feel better now. Kind of....

[Jubelum]

The "working hypothesis" needs some revision. Fundamentalism does NOT inherently mean a propensity for violence. Some violent people are fundamentalists. Not all fundamentalist people are violent.

Fundamentalism (n)
A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

If you are willing to leap from "intolerace" to "warlike" then I guess your hypothesis might work..

Most Christians who have actually studied their religion... that is, especially the Old Testament and Revelation, know full well that the Christian God is a God of peace AND wrath. As are most gods in most major religions.

(For the record: this thread is a flame war waiting for a match...)

[Stoo]

For NY Times articles, you can use "appleinsider" as both name and password.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Jubelum
(For the record: this thread is a flame war waiting for a match...)

Firstly, I want to address the above: I really hope not. That is absolutely not the purpose here. I have an interest in this area and it's the sort of thing I would wish to discuss. If it goes that way then I won't be participating. So...

I disagree with this definition:

Fundamentalism (n)
A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

Fundies demonstrably do not in reality return to first principles. Or, oth, if the definition is correct, then the label 'fundamentalist' is wrongly applied 100% of the time.

For example: the Qu'ran is at variance with the actions of terrorists, it also forbids attempted conversion of Christians and Jews as it regards them as believers.

How then can al-Q be a return to fundamental principles ? Or is the Qu'ran not fundamental ?

Similarly with Christianity, Jesus said 'do not take an eye for an eye' (amongst many other similar injunctions) yet Christain fundies always hark back to 'an eye for an eye'. How so ? They are referencing tachings before Christ - how can they be held to be returning to the basics ? Especially when they contradict his teaching ?

If you are willing to leap from "intolerace" to "warlike" then I guess your hypothesis might work..

Well, the link seems undeniable. How can violence exist without intolerance to some degree ? And we all know that intolerance can and does lead to violence unless constrained in some way. This was my point initially: if the 'fundies' find themsleves 'unconstrained' - ie they hold power, there will always be violence. You can check this for yourself historically with religious and political regimes of all types.

Most Christians who have actually studied their religion... that is, especially the Old Testament and Revelation, know full well that the Christian God is a God of peace AND wrath. As are most gods in most major religions.

Well, they don't "know" - they "believe". The two are very different.

My postion is not to bash them but to point out where they are behaving irrationally. They can believe whatever they like - it is not for me (or anyone else) to judge them. They may even be right for all I know - we'll find out one day.

My point is more that if they hold contradictory beliefs (and they do) we are entitled to point this out if we are interested in any sort of discourse (and I am personally) - all I am saying is: get your story straight and then I can say 'you might be right', even if I don't personally believe it. How can we say this if the 'story' is self-contradictory ? And with fundies of all religious persuasions it very often is.

[Jubelum]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by segovius

Fundies demonstrably do not in reality return to first principles. Or, oth, if the definition is correct, then the label 'fundamentalist' is wrongly applied 100% of the time.

Yea... colloquial language is a bitch. I think there is room for discussion about the difference between conservative and fundamentalist, but that is another thread. "Fundamentalist" has been equated with "extremist" for many years now. Of course, Falwell calling himself a "fundamentalist" does not help matters. "F'mtlst" is an "F" word in our public discourse. Indeed, we are moving the word toward a new definition.

For example: the Qu'ran is at variance with the actions of terrorists, it also forbids attempted conversion of Christians and Jews as it regards them as believers.

How then can al-Q be a return to fundamental principles ? Or is the Qu'ran not fundamental ?

I am a postmodern Christian, and use the same Bible that the Apostolics and Pentacostals do. There's a lot of wiggle room in these things, obviously. I have been told that I am committing a grave sin by being a PoMo, according to some Pentacostals in my community. They want it to the letter. I read deeper meaning. (Insert entire Protestant Reformation here)

Similarly with Christianity, Jesus said 'do not take an eye for an eye' (amongst many other similar injunctions) yet Christain fundies always hark back to 'an eye for an eye'. How so ?

The "turn the other cheek" thing has become trite for people saying all Christians who have a mean bone in their bodies are hypocrites. The full context does not bear that out. One point of that passage was that even after a Christian is struck down, and again, that he remains and does not shrink from his principles. But again, another thread.

Well, the link seems undeniable. How can violence exist without intolerance to some degree ? And we all know that intolerance can and does lead to violence unless constrained in some way. This was my point initially: if the 'fundies' find themsleves 'unconstrained' - ie they hold power, there will always be violence. You can check this for yourself historically with religious and political regimes of all types.

Intolerance is the first step toward degenerating into violence. You are correct. I do agree that social control plays a part, but it must also be said that social control comes from both within and without the religious community. Social control comes from laws and secular society. It also comes, especially with devoutly religious people, from their religious leaders. I lean toward thinking that if the govt broke down in the US, that Falwell and Robertson would not be chanting "kill the infidels"- but who knows.

Well, they don't "know" - they "believe". The two are very different.

True to my handle, I must agree with you.

... as an aside segovius, though we often disagree on things, I do appreciate your well thought-out post and willingness to have rational discourse in this thread. This is a topic worthy of consideration. Thanks for raising the bar around here...

[dmz]

Originally posted by segovius
Working Hypothesis: All religious fundamentalists of any denomination or creed are by definition militant, aggressive and violent.

I'm assuming this thread is meant to group Fundamentalist Cristians with groups like Al Qeada.


You need to check your History, and you need to study the aspects of how unity is gained under the various religions.

In Islam order is imposed top-down, and there is little that will change that. Since it is a works-based religion, the customs of the 6th century will be imposed on it's fundamentalist followers.

You should be aware of are the reforms that Christianity went trough when Luther nailed his thesis to the Wittenburg door---"The Just Shall Live By Faith"---not by an onerous works-based set of rituals laid down by the papacy. The history of christianity has been the history of freedom. Natural Law and the principles laid down in the American Declaration of Independence bear witness to a Christian one-many unity in that "we" have unalienalble rights endowed by a creator---the needs of the State do not outwiegh the needs of the populace. Christianity has been an enormous and constant source of volunterism since America's beginings, and was the impetus for the Abolistionist movement and the Civil Rights movements, among many other positive cultural shifts.

[Jubelum]

Furthermore, I would say that most "fundamentalist leaders" outside of the actual movement founder(s) use their own "twist" to make it work for them. Like an ideological erector set.

Hiter: Blended German culture with Norse Mythology, Socialism, the Occult, and totalitarian tendencies. He became a "fundamentalist leader" after bastardizing half a dozen other ideologies.

Crowley: The Church of Satan dude. Blended (read: plagarized) the writings of Ayn Rand, L. Ron Hubbard, Eliphas Levi, and Alister Crowley into a smelly mass of "religion" in San Francisco.

The point being that many of today's "fundamentalists" may consider themselves that, but in practice are actually throwing a few different things through the cuisinart. It is hard to find a true "fundamentalist" these days who has not accepted something askew or even totally counter to their stated beliefs. Once one diverts from the absolute basis of a belief system, they are technically no longer fundamentalists.

</end session from semantic discussion from Hell>

8)

[segovius]

Originally posted by Jubelum
I am a postmodern Christian, and use the same Bible that the Apostolics and Pentacostals do. There's a lot of wiggle room in these things, obviously. I have been told that I am committing a grave sin by being a PoMo, according to some Pentacostals in my community. They want it to the letter. I read deeper meaning. (Insert entire Protestant Reformation here)

I have not heard this term before (PoMo), it's very interesting. Is it something you apply to your belief or is it an actual movement ? How is it different form the charismatics (say) - or is it ?

The "turn the other cheek" thing has become trite for people saying all Christians who have a mean bone in their bodies are hypocrites. The full context does not bear that out. One point of that passage was that even after a Christian is struck down, and again, that he remains and does not shrink from his principles. But again, another thread.

Yes, I always took TTOC to mean that one should be able to do so, that is - not just react instinctively but choose to react consciously. the whole of Christ's life seems to centre on this imo.

Social control comes from laws and secular society. It also comes, especially with devoutly religious people, from their religious leaders. I lean toward thinking that if the govt broke down in the US, that Falwell and Robertson would not be chanting "kill the infidels"- but who knows.

Well, I don't know either. History suggests that in such a case someone would be shouting 'kill the infidels' and those two seem a good bet but who knows really ? You never know what a man (or woman) is really like before it goes down to the wire and then you find surprising things...

I don't agree with Falwell and co I must say, but in a sense they are correct in terms of their stated beliefs about a lot of things.

This is what I meant by the equivalence of fundamentalists - they all seem to be trying to remodel an image of God that was current thousands of years ago to modern sensibilities - it can't be done. But they (being fundies) seem wary of reinterpreting and go to extremes to 'cover it up' - that's why I was interested in your 'postmodern' approach. It seems something like this could be an answer but I'm rambling....

[Jubelum]

Well.. HERE is a decent place to start... the guy that made this is a good friend of mine. Not a bad overview. Try the "what's the difference" link..

Postmodern Christianity is akin to the charismatics, but in true PoMo fashion, is based upon indivdual experience. Some are liberal Unitarian PoMos and some, like myself, are more religously conservative.

The goal of my "tribe" - yea, we decided that better fits us than "congregation" for 15 people... is to help people to know Christ where and how they are- be that in gaol or on the 7th fairway.

GinkWorld is also great. Try their classic "10 reasons your church sucks."

I think most of this is born of my former-teenage rebellion issues, against my All White, Upright, and Uptight former congregation.

[BuonRotto]

PoMo = post-modern. We archies like it a lot too.

...and I don't see this thread as necessarily being flamebait. So long as people can be civil and maintain the separation of member and content, we'll be fine.

[segovius]

Originally posted by dmz
I'm assuming this thread is meant to group Fundamentalist Cristians with groups like Al Qeada.

No - it is to discuss the possibility that the distinction (if there is one) may be between literalists and symbolists, fort want of better phraseology and further, that this definition cuts across all belief systems. That is - it is a human proclivity rather than the property of a specific religion.

You need to check your History, and you need to study the aspects of how unity is gained under the various religions.

In Islam order is imposed top-down, and there is little that will change that. Since it is a works-based religion, the customs of the 6th century will be imposed on it's fundamentalist followers.

I'm afraid a lesson in Islamic theology is necessary. I'll keep it brief.

To be a muslim one thing, and one thing only, is necessary. That is called the Shahada this is the statement of faith and it is the one and only prerequisite for being considered a muslim. It is this:

"There is no God except God and Muhammad is his prophet"

Not to get into the finer exegesis of this (which is actually very interesting) but if you believe this you are a muslim. Nothing else. No church, no Pope no ruler can tell you what else to do or believe.

It is extremely democratic on the individual level but also causes many of the problems that you see: that is to say - you can believe whatever you like (over and above the statement of faith) and so in 'bad times' you could get al-Qaeda - in 'good times' you could get Jewish/Christian/Muslim intergration throughout 800 years of Islamic Spain.

So you see, it is an experiment (on one level) of empowering the individual and taking spritual responsibilty away from priests and Churches. Of course it can go wrong and the Mullahs are also free to grab power and define their own brands of the religion. And they do.

But the point is that to say 'order is imposed' is incorrect. It cannot be and remain Islamic. I don't deny that some people (Saudi) try it but I do argue that they are no more Islamic than the Nazis were Christian.

You should be aware of are the reforms that Christianity went trough when Luther nailed his thesis to the Wittenburg door---"The Just Shall Live By Faith"---not by an onerous works-based set of rituals laid down by the papacy. The history of christianity has been the history of freedom.

Well, I agree in parts, although Luther was certainly a fundie of sorts. Certainly he was an anti-Semite which is often a feature (I mean general racism here - not necessarily anti-Jewish) of fundamentalist thought.

I'd do some brushing up on the history too though if I were you - the history of Christianity in the US may have been a history of freedom but I think you'll find that there are many cultures (several of them no longer existant because of it) that could testify differently.

I'd prefer to ay something like "Christ's message is one of freedom and tolerance" and leave it at that but I do have to agree, US Christianity is a force for good and freedom in the main, Falwell and the rest of the dancing bears notwithstanding.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Jubelum
Well.. HERE is a decent place to start... the guy that made this is a good friend of mine. Not a bad overview. Try the "what's the difference" link..

Postmodern Christianity is akin to the charismatics, but in true PoMo fashion, is based upon indivdual experience. Some are liberal Unitarian PoMos and some, like myself, are more religously conservative.

The goal of my "tribe" - yea, we decided that better fits us than "congregation" for 15 people... is to help people to know Christ where and how they are- be that in gaol or on the 7th fairway.

GinkWorld is also great. Try their classic "10 reasons your church sucks."

I think most of this is born of my former-teenage rebellion issues, against my All White, Upright, and Uptight former congregation.

Hey, those sites are quite cool ! Reminds me a bit of the old Jesus Freaks but err....postmodernised....

I think this idea of a 'people centred' movement (if I understand it right) is a positive thing. It always used to be that the church reflected the community but for a while you could only ever find one with open doors for an hour or so on a Sunday.

But the "no doors" idea is even better ! It actually IS postmodern isn't it !

[dmz]

Originally posted by segovius
To be a muslim one thing, and one thing only, is necessary. That is called the Shahada this is the statement of faith and it is the one and only prerequisite for being considered a muslim. It is this:

"There is no God except God and Muhammad is his prophet"

C'mon now, Religions are more than a single sentence.


(I've got some rat killing to do today---more on this later)

[billybobsky]

Think about it this way... Islam is 600 years younger than christianity. 600 years ago, where fundamentalist christians violent? Yes, yes they were...

[New]

Originally posted by billybobsky
Think about it this way... Islam is 600 years younger than christianity. 600 years ago, where fundamentalist christians violent? Yes, yes they were...

And 600 years later, they still are...

[Frank777]

Originally posted by segovius
Firstly, I want to address the above: I really hope not. That is absolutely not the purpose here. I have an interest in this area...

I know. Your interest is in grouping people who often disagree with you politically with potentially violent terrorists. And it's appalling.

[segovius]

Originally posted by dmz
C'mon now, Religions are more than a single sentence.


(I've got some rat killing to do today---more on this later)

Well, they are more than that but in this case that belief is the basis. After that you can believe pretty much what you like - if you can argue the point.

It is based on the idea that only God can judge rather than another human being (yes, I know, it's gone wrong). The idea is that there is no (or should be no) intermediary between man and God. it's an individualistic approach and in many ways was a reaction to the empire building of the Christian church in the 7th century.

What people don't realise (or want to realise) though is that Christianity and Islam are inextricably linked. Muhammad himself developed the majority of his theological ideas with Christian monks and in many ways Islam is not so much a new religion as a Christian sect.

You may reject this idea but if I asked you to classify a belief (without naming it) that accepted the virgin birth, accepted Jesus as a prophet and believed in his second coming then you would probably say it was a Christian sect of some sort. In any event one could argue it convincingly.

Careful with the rodents...it's a jungle out there.....

[segovius]

Originally posted by Frank777
I know. Your interest is in grouping people who often disagree with you politically with potentially violent terrorists. And it's appalling.

How do they disagree with me Frank ?

[Jubelum]

Originally posted by segovius
But the "no doors" idea is even better ! It actually IS postmodern isn't it !

Actually, most of our gatherings are held outdoors, weather permitting, be that by a campfire or even on a school playground after hours. From our surroundings we look for what we can learn- last week we met at a soup kitchen, not to evangelize, but to listen and learn. It usually turns out to be deeply intellectual and introspective... something along the lines of "here are my troubles, here are my victories" and "here is what I think God is trying to teach me..." Overall it is scripturally sound, IMHO, but some of these local Texxus hardcore traditional people think we are a cult. It's how we know we are on the right track.

Our model is the small cell groups of the Early Church. Back when Christianity was not the largest religion in the world. We have forgone dogma for interpersonal relationships. Sometimes I just wish people on this board who are so turned off to Christianity could have a tribe meeting with me and the other "cult" members. Ecumenical par excellance.

[Jubelum]

segovius- This Recent Story

Insanity meets fundamentalism? Or just simply insane?

(Does talking to God on a 2-way radio make you "in-touch" or in-sane?)

According to testimony, Laney led two of her sons to a rock garden and crushed their skulls with heavy stones because she believed God commanded it. She also believed that she and Andrea Yates, the Houston mother serving a life sentence for drowning her five children, were chosen by God to witness the imminent end of the world.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

The other thread is addressing the topic too, so I'm making an executive decision to try and get this one addressing itself. If you see what I mean.

Originally posted by Jubelum
Christianity is not based in works, but in faith in Jesus the Christ. A person can give millions to charity, work as hard as Mother Teresa, but will not have a relationship with God, or eternal life, without accepting Jesus as his or her personal Christ.

Without a faith in Jesus, Christianity is just, well, Judaism.

Right. Well explained, I see - but this is clearly not what people like dmz understand by Christianity, surely?

Fundamentalist Christians turn to Genesis to explain the processes that made the world, contrary to all the evidence. They threaten abortionists and believe homosexuals have no business doing their business in the sight of the Lord, and they'll show you the bits in their book to prove it. If they ran a country it would be every bit as oppressive and brutal as life under sharia law in Saudi, no?

Fundamentalist religions are works based. Maybe dmz and you actually do not strictly speaking share the same faith?

[Jubelum]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
The other thread is addressing the topic too, so I'm making an executive decision to try and get this one addressing itself. If you see what I mean.

Right. Well explained, I see - but this is clearly not what people like dmz understand by Christianity, surely?

Fundamentalist Christians turn to Genesis to explain the processes that made the world, contrary to all the evidence. They threaten abortionists and believe homosexuals have no business doing their business in the sight of the Lord, and they'll show you the bits in their book to prove it. If they ran a country it would be every bit as oppressive and brutal as life under sharia law in Saudi, no?

Fundamentalist religions are works based. Maybe dmz and you actually do not strictly speaking share the same faith?

(From other thread... )

Well, not in my definition of fundamentalist... see earlier in this thread about that.

I think we have come full circle. Fundamentalists are a small part of Christians. They are also a small part of Islam. And a small part of Zoroastrianism... ad nauseam.

[Frank777]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
If they ran a country it would be every bit as oppressive and brutal as life under sharia law in Saudi, no?

I've got news for you Hassan:

There was a time in North America when the overwhelming majority of people believed firmly in the tenets of faith we describe today as 'Christian fundamentalism'.

That would be the generation that founded one of the most free republics on the earth today.

[New]

Originally posted by Frank777
I've got news for you Hassan:

There was a time in North America when the overwhelming majority of people believed firmly in the tenets of faith we describe today as 'Christian fundamentalism'.

That would be the generation that founded one of the most free republics on the earth today.

And then they progressed from that stage of history...




... or did they?

[Fellowship]

Come on you guys,, I hate to have to lock this thread because people are going to get personal about Religion / Nationality etc. etc.

Locking the thread is one option don't think we don't have other options as well. I hope none of the options have to be used.

Resume without the insults.

Fellowship

[New]

Originally posted by Fellowship
Come on you guys,, I hate to have to lock this thread because people are going to get personal about Religion / Nationality etc. etc.

Locking the thread is one option don't think we don't have other options as well. I hope none of the options have to be used.

Resume without the insults.

Fellowship

fair enough... sorry.

[murbot]

Damn. I thought you were on to a new type of Fundie.

[segovius]

Originally posted by murbot
Damn. I thought you were on to a new type of Fundie.

See, told you all fundies were the same - they're even unisex

That type looks like more fun at a party too.....

[billybobsky]

Originally posted by Frank777
I've got news for you Hassan:

There was a time in North America when the overwhelming majority of people believed firmly in the tenets of faith we describe today as 'Christian fundamentalism'.

That would be the generation that founded one of the most free republics on the earth today.

That is a complete and total lie.

[pfflam]

There are Philosophical ideas about this . . . but I have jet lag . . . needless to say that Post Modernism, in Philosophy, is radically opposed to the notion of any sort of' closure' . . . meaning; a regidified concept that one uses to outflank all other ideas and explain them . . . kind of a paradox, in that anti-foundationalism (no-closure-ideas: Post Modernism) is itself a kind of out-flanking manoevre . . . allthough one for openness . .

however, it is one of openness to the flow of ideas and the constant need to interpret . . . for real Post Modernists there are no facts only interpretations: ideas that aim towards closure are inherently totalitarian
Communism, for instance . . . and yes any idea of G-d that is literalist in any fashion
Literalist ideas that are also Ontological (meaning: about the essence of Being) move to encompass and overpower all other ideas . . . dismissing any other claim to validity through a kind of intellectual violence . . .

just jet-lagged thoughts . .

There are theological implications to this kind of Post Modernism . . . Jacques Derrida is the main philosophical POMO dude and often his writings are read with a crypto-mystic negative theology/ judaic bent . . . fascinating stuff

I also think that there is an ethics here that motivates PoMo thought: an anti-foundationalism which is also an ethics of otherness (or Otherness) . . and truly, the only way to respect an idea of G-d without that idea becoming some literalist selfish tool for power

[Frank777]

Originally posted by billybobsky
That is a complete and total lie.

You're disagreeing with the idea that the overwhelming majority of Americans in the 1700's subscribed to the fundamental tenets of the Christian faith?

[billybobsky]

I am saying that the majority of americans at that time were angelican or quaker. I am saying that these religions are not fundamentalist in their very nature. I am saying that most people, even those who happened to be religious (which was far lower proportion than now), were not fundamentalist christians.

[dmz]

Frank! 'Bobsky!


you're both wrong!!

[evil laughter]

I've been digging around, and it would appear that there was a small group of activist Christians at the end of the 18th century 5-10% of the total population. Societies are not run by majorities, most of the time they are run by a small, well-motivated minority. The rest were the scum of Europe, or simple opportunists. It is said that people on the other side of the Appalachians were not likely to have even heard of the Bible, let alone own one.

(that may still be true-I dunno)

I've always wondered how in 1808ish Lewis and Clarke were having the Massive Mandan Gang-Bang in what was supposed to be squeaky-clean pure-as-the-driven-snow-Whitey America.

That may be one reason.

[billybobsky]

d'oh i should have been clearer... those that considered themselves christian...

[Aquatic]

You gotta watch out for those ninja Buddhists man...

[midwinter]

Originally posted by pfflam
There are theological implications to this kind of Post Modernism . . . Jacques Derrida is the main philosophical POMO dude and often his writings are read with a crypto-mystic negative theology/ judaic bent . . . fascinating stuff

I wish you hadn't said that, because now I'm going to have to find it (most of my work is with Foucault, not Derrida [who drives me insane]), which means I'm going to have to read it, which means I'm going to have to read essays about Derrida written LIKE Derrida.

Damn you!

BB said:

I am saying that the majority of americans at that time were angelican or quaker. I am saying that these religions are not fundamentalist in their very nature. I am saying that most people, even those who happened to be religious (which was far lower proportion than now), were not fundamentalist christians.

Keep in mind, also, that the Quakers were absolute the absolute WHACKOS of the late c18. And the Anglicans who were here were of all kinds of stripes (although I'd wager they were all what's called "low church" and probably WHACKOS as well). Hell, Methodists were WHACKOS as late as the 1830s. And when I say "whacko," I mean it. WILDLY deviating from the normal, acceptable level of c18 and c19 evangelism (and there was LOTS).

The other thing to keep in mind is that the inheritance of the c18 in England and America is that we call it "the Age of Reason." It's called that for a reason: it was marked by the abandonment of superstition and mythology and yes, even religion (think the great Atheist David Hume debunking miracles all over the place) as a means of understanding the world and replacing it with what we would call science.

--

Is the distinction that's missing from all of this fundie discussion the modern (i.e. post-1750) notion of "evangelical"?

Cheers
Scott

[dmz]

Originally posted by midwinter
Is the distinction that's missing from all of this fundie discussion the modern (i.e. post-1750) notion of "evangelical"?

Cheers
Scott

Don't forget the "great awakening" of the 1750-60s that gave the Post-Mil movement the legs to go through with the American rebellion.

(also Hume was a strict empiricist---you basically had scientific "laws" as probability concepts---the baby and the bathwater.)

[dmz]

Originally posted by pfflam
. . . for real Post Modernists there are no facts only interpretations: ideas that aim towards closure are inherently totalitarian

but pfflam, how will this philosophy manifest at the societal level, except as totalitarianism? When the many must be absorbed into the One in order to achieve relevance, how to do you solve the practical dynamics?

[midwinter]

Originally posted by dmz
but pfflam, how will this philosophy manifest at the societal level, except as totalitarianism?

1) Cultural relativism
2) Revisionist history
3) "No objectively verifiable truth"
4) The interrogation of "master narratives"
5) The rejection of easy binary oppositions

Actually, my understanding (and pfflam, correct me if I'm wrong) is that the philosophy has its origins in the student rebellions in Paris in '68 (maybe '69) and was initially an attempt to undermine the power structures supporting totalitarianism--and the philosophy deconstructed its own political agenda.

So to answer your question about what it looks like in practice: very loose, but it's out there. But then, no one expects the PoMo inquisition!

[Jubelum]

Originally posted by midwinter
1) Cultural relativism
2) Revisionist history
3) "No objectively verifiable truth"
4) The interrogation of "master narratives"
5) The rejection of easy binary oppositions

Overall, a pretty good list. I am not sure what stake PostModerns have in revising history, though. Care to elucidate?

And some side points..

Let me just say, that when the above are applied to Christianity, some wonderful things happen. Not too popular with the Pastor or Monsignor, though. Question the Bible? <lightning> Cultural relativism? <brimstone> Being a PoMo is being the ultimate "moderate" in my experience. Answers to most questions are not as easy as black or white.
Not many knees jerk in my little group.

Modernity failed. Those of us left will need to devise our own theology, beliefs, and value systems based on our individual experience. Modernists, who have been routed, think we are taking a bad trip... PoMos are totally off the reservation. We are a little too close to "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" group.