Poll: What religions are you?

Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected.

Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 126 to 150 of 210

Thread: What Is Your Religion ?

  1. #126
    Quote Originally Posted by mike435 View Post
    OMG I cant believe what you are saying
    when I watch the news I always say these people don’t exist it is just a right wing neo con propaganda
    OMG

    how can you consider the group(hezbolla) g-dly when it kills innocent people
    g-d is good, reason for creation is g-d’s expression of loving and kindness
    how can Hezbollah be this when it kills so easily so offensively
    Which God are you talking about? You don’t believe in holy Quran. How can you tell me what is Godly or not according to holy Quran? Do you even know the 99 names of Allah (swt) in Islam?

    اللهم اني ادعوك باسمائك الحسنى كلها

    From one side you defend the value of human life and from the other you bomb Lebanon and Palestine and else where and talk about collateral damage.
    Your governments are constantly in war inventing ever-deadlier WMDs.


    Count every single death that has been committed in the name of Shia Islam in Occupied Palestine and compare the figure with all the blood that Zionists in particular or other ideologies have spilled… it would be incomparable!

    Quote Originally Posted by mike435 View Post
    and if it is Islam that Israel is hurting either Israel is extremely powerful or Islam is extremely week
    Israel is nothing without the money of USA. Leaders of Islamic countries are weak. They are bunch of puppets from Maqreb to Bahrain.


    Quote Originally Posted by mike435 View Post
    Were do you see the g-dly ness in AMIA Bombing were 85 were murdered
    Were do you see the g-dly ness in starting a rocket war with Israel and sending thousands of rockets filled with ball baring at civilian sites deliberately solely to kill the civilian
    Were do you see the g-dly ness when these rockets were designed so even if they miss a target the ball baring shooting out kill the people around it


    how can you consider this group g-dly when it considers a mission is a success when innocent civilian are killed inside there shelters or home
    how do you consider this g-dly, good, holy , this is not al-h
    Problems didn’t start summer of 2006, you have to study the history from late 19th century to this day, and for Lebanon you have to go back all the way back to 1982.

    It is an occupied land, many of those so called civilians have migrated there from Russia, Poland, ... .

    Watch this documentary

    http://www.baabeilm.com/Audvid/video..._democracy.wmv
    Last edited by Inquisitor; 03-14-2007 at 06:59 PM.

  2. #127
    Quote Originally Posted by mike435 View Post
    I believe justice lies in g-ds hands while you believe justice lies in g-ds hands but you can be the administrator of it
    And they did nuke Japan and armed Saddam with Chemical weapons, Tragedy of Qana, Rwanda, ... .

    Is this Justice ?

    Quote Originally Posted by mike435 View Post
    i don't know if it directed towards me or you
    but me i have to live to the last breath and killing or suicide is wrong even excecution can be done by a single person becuase in religion i cant even have an executioner
    It is indeed unexpected as well as funny to read your comments because you have taken every “You” in my previous post as a reference to yourself as an individual; however I merely meant you as people or your government or what you stand for.

  3. #128
    Quote Originally Posted by mike435 View Post
    i am still waiting for your responce for you to explin to me how hezbolah is g-dly

    and how murduring and using terrorisom is doing g-ds work
    I 'll be online once a week or often not at all.

    If you want to get a quick respond, join http://www.shiachat.com

    My brothers and sisters in Islam will intercept your threads or posts quickly

    Wassalam

  4. #129
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Age
    50
    Posts
    2
    Atheist.

  5. #130
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Age
    99
    Posts
    5,034
    I don't think that you shoul've put sunni and shia as different vote, because christianity is similar or even worse. there are so many different types of christianity too. so i find it a little bit inappropiate. it just should've been muslim.

  6. #131
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Tajikistan, Dushanbe city
    Age
    36
    Posts
    2
    I am Ismaili Muslim hastam which as you might now is one of the branch in Islam. AND proudly can say that I am MUSLIM and NEVER NEVER change my relegion.

  7. #132
    To me, lack of self confidence along with weakness of humankind brings about religion. If we were not to die no religion in this world would have existed. I believe it is everybody’s wish that the heaven and hell, the life after death, were reality. Some of us have learned to put aside logic and believe in these goodies (bekhodemoon yaad daadim ke khodemoono gool bezanim). Yes it is hard to think that when we die, that’s the end of us. But to me that’s the reality of this life and nature.

    A lot of you may have questions like “why do we exist if there is nothing after death?”, “what’s the purpose of this life?” and …
    It is easy to find the answers to these questions but you have to have self confidence and look wisely. (Study Probability and Statistic, study it very deeply)

    All religions like everything else around us have goods and bads. What is destructive is to force religion on others and to think that the religions are created by god (a metaphysical power). If there exists a god hopefully it’s greater and better than the so called god who sent Koran, Bible, … that are full of flaws!

    People please read Koran before believing in Islam, read Bible before becoming Christian, study them, think about them and critique them. Don’t interpret them, it is not suppose to be hard. If you be tricked by the ones who tell you that “you have to look at what god meant then and in this verse” then all your life you have to be interpreting everyone’s words and sentences along with every book, because they are not any different . (If you read a mathematical book that had 2 x 2 is equal 12 would you say it is a mistake or would you say you can interpret the 2 by 2 as 6 by 2 or 12 as being 4?!?! I don’t think so!)

    And be open minded. Be debate friendly and talk to each other. Don’t think what you believe is the best, it is not! Listen and think about what others have to say.

    Finally here is something I believe in: be good for yourself and for the sake of others. Be kind to everyone from any religion and any country, not for god, not for heaven, just for yourself and them, for your conscience. Teach this to yourself. This is much greater and stronger than believing in any religion. This is you believing in yourself and goodness of others. Be strong.

    Wish you all the best.

  8. #133
    Member maryam9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Age
    34
    Posts
    644
    Quote Originally Posted by mike435 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Inquisitor View Post
    You are neither a scholar nor an high school graduate yet, therefore I do not care what you want to call someone/something that you have no clue of, because it is not academic.
    Tell me what is your definition of Fundamentalist and I will give you mine
    take the oppertunity and clarify
    i definitly can use it
    Inquisitor - you didnt actually say what it was

    I am genuinley interested in knowing the difference between extremists and fundamentalists.
    Can you please clarify the difference for me . Thankyou.
    __________________________________________________ ___________

    reza1st - you raised some interesting things. I wanted to reply to one of your topics but im going out right now and am in a rush.
    Mary's back, back again

  9. #134
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Age
    99
    Posts
    5,034
    Extremism is a term used to describe the actions or ideologies of individuals or groups outside the perceived political center of a society; or otherwise claimed to violate common standards of ethics and reciprocity. It is usually considered by those to whom it is applied to be a pejorative term. It is typically used in reference to political and social ideologies seen as irrational, counterproductive, unjustifiable, or otherwise unacceptable to a civil society. The term connotes the illegitimacy of certain ideas or methods.

    The terms "extremism" or "extremist" are almost always exonymic—i.e. applied by others rather than by a group labeling itself. Rather than labeling themselves "extremist", those labeled as such tend to see the need for militant ideas or actions in a particular situation. For example, there is no political party that calls itself "right-wing extremist" or "left-wing extremist", and there is no sect of any religion that calls itself "Extremism."

    Radicals as extremists
    The term "extremist" is used to describe groups and individuals who have become radicalized, in some way, even though the term radical originally meant to go to the root of a (social) problem. The term "radical" is a somewhat less negatively-connoted label sometimes used by radical individuals or groups to label themselves.

    The terms "extremist" or "radical" are often used to label those who advocate or use violence against the will of the larger social body, but it is also used by some to describe those who advocate or use violence to enforce the will of the social body, such as a government or majority constituency. Ideology and methodology often become mixed under the single term "extremism".

    The idea that there is a philosophy of extremism is thought by some to be suspect. Within sociology, several academics who track (and are critical of) extreme right-wing groups have objected to the term "extremist", which was popularized by centrist sociologists in the 1960s and 1970s. As Jerome Himmelstein states the case: "At best this characterization tells us nothing substantive about the people it labels; at worst it paints a false picture." (Himmelstein, p. 7). The act of labeling a person, group or action as "extremist" is sometimes claimed to be a technique to further a political goal—especially by governments seeking to defend the status quo, or political centrists.

    On the other hand, according to George and Wilcox, the use of the "extremist" label has been historically applied to both the extreme right and extreme left, but they claim that some academics on the left wish to change the frame of reference to one in which only the far right, but not the far left, lies outside the pale of societal acceptability.

    Uses of the term in mainstream politics
    John Fitzgerald Kennedy paraphrased Dante by saying "The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in time of moral crisis, maintain their neutrality" (from Dante, Inferno, The Divine Comedy).

    Barry Goldwater said, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue" at the 1964 Republican Convention in a phrase attributed to his speechwriter Karl Hess.

    Robert F. Kennedy said, "What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents."





    Fundamentalism originally referred to a movement in North American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism (see below, "History"), stressing that the Bible is literally inerrant, not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record. This original "fundamentalism" holds as essential to Christian faith five fundamental doctrines:

    the inerrancy of the Bible,
    the Virgin birth,
    physical resurrection,
    atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and
    the Second Coming.
    In its broadest usage in general terms, it denotes strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles; or, in the words of the American Heritage Dictionary: "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."

    History
    Fundamentalism, as the term is used today, is a fairly recent creation closely linked with the historical and cultural contexts of 1920s U.S. Protestantism (e.g. the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy in the Presbyterian Church). Since then the term has been 'exported' abroad and applied to a wide variety of religions including Buddhism, Judaism, and Islam. Fundamentalism should not be confused with Revivalist movements which can be traced back much further in time and are not specific to 20th Century America.

  10. #135
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Age
    99
    Posts
    5,034
    Origins and Development of the term
    Fundamentalism, as a movement, arose in the United States starting among conservative Presbyterian academics and theologians at Princeton Theological Seminary in the first decade of the Twentieth Century.

    It spread from there to conservatives among the Baptists and other denominations during and immediately after the First World War. The movement's purpose was to reaffirm orthodox Protestant Christianity and to defend it zealously against the challenges of liberal theology, German higher criticism, Darwinism, and other "-isms" it regarded as harmful to Christianity.

    Since then, the focus of the movement, the meaning of the term, and the ranks of those who willingly use the term to identify themselves have changed several times. Fundamentalism has so far gone through four phases of expression while maintaining its central commitment to its orthodoxy.

    The earliest phase involved identifying the fundamentals of Christianity and initiating an urgent battle to expel those inimical to orthodox Protestantism from the ranks of the churches.

    The series of twelve volumes called The Fundamentals (1910-1915) provided a wide listing of things considered inimical to the Faith: Romanism (i.e., Catholicism), Socialism, modern philosophy, atheism, Eddyism (i.e., Mary Baker Eddy and her Christian Science), Mormonism, spiritualism (i.e., "channeling" and the like), but above all, "liberal theology"[1], which rested on a naturalistic interpretation of the doctrines of the faith, German higher criticism, and Darwinism, all of which appeared to undermine the Bible’s authority. The writers of the articles were a broad group from North America and the United Kingdom and from many denominations. The doctrines they defined and defended covered the whole range of traditional Christian teachings.

    Almost immediately, however, the list of inimical movements became narrower and the “fundamentals” less comprehensive. Some defenders of the fundamentals of Christianity began to organize outside the churches and within the denominations. The General Assembly of the Northern Presbyterian Church in 1910 affirmed five essential doctrines regarded as under attack in the church: the inerrancy of Scripture, the Virgin Birth, the Substitutionary Atonement of Christ, Christ’s bodily resurrection, and the historicity of the miracles. These were reaffirmed in 1916 and 1923. Another version put the Deity of Christ in place of the Virgin Birth.

    The term "fundamentalist" was perhaps first used in 1920 by Curtis Lee Laws in the Baptist Watchman-Examiner; but it seemed to pop up everywhere in the early 1920s as an obvious way to identify someone who believed and actively defended these doctrines of Christianity. The Baptist John Roach Straton called his newspaper The Fundamentalist in the 1920s. The Presbyterian scholar J. Gresham Machen disliked the word, and only hesitatingly accepted it to describe himself, because, he said, the name sounded like a new religion and not the same historic Christianity that the Church had always believed.

    Through the 1920s in the United States, the fundamentalists and modernists struggled against each other for control of the large northern denominations. Fundamentalists viewed this struggle as nothing less than a struggle for true (i.e., historical) Christianity against a new non-Christian religion that had crept into the churches themselves. In his book Christianity and Liberalism (1923) Machen called the new naturalistic religion "Liberalism" but later followed the more popular fashion of calling it "Modernism".

    Even though people like Harry Emerson Fosdick professed to be Christian, fundamentalists felt Fosdick and other nonfundamentalists could not be regarded as such because they denied the traditional formulations of the doctrines of Christianity and created modern naturalistic statements of the doctrines. The issue was as much a struggle over a view of the identity of Christianity as it was over a method of doing theology and a view of history. Fundamentalists believed that the ways the doctrines were formulated in an earlier era were true and that modern attempts to reformulate them were bound to be false. In other words, the fundamentals were unchanging.

    Church struggles occurred in the Methodist Episcopal Church, the Protestant Episcopal Church, and even in the Southern Presbyterian Church, but the grand battles were fought in the Northern Presbyterian and Northern Baptist denominations. Machen was the undisputed leader among Presbyterians, joined by Clarence E. Macartney. Baptists created the National Federation of the Fundamentalists of the Northern Baptists (1921), the Fundamentalist Fellowship (1921), and the Baptist Bible Union (1923) to lead the fight. The battles focused upon the seminaries, the mission boards, and the ordination of clergy. In many ways, however, the real strongholds of the Fundamentalists were the Southern Baptists and the countless new independent churches spread across America’s South and Midwest, as well as the East and West.

    Late 1920s to the early 1940s
    By 1926 or so, those who were zealous for the fundamentals had failed to expel the modernists from any denomination. Orthodox Protestants, who still numerically dominated all the denominations, now began to struggle amongst themselves. During the Depression of the 1930s the term "fundamentalist" gradually shifted meaning as it came to apply to only one party among those who believed the traditional fundamentals of the faith. This party embraced a policy of separation – if they could not remove modernists from the Church, they would remove the Church [meaning themselves] from the modernists. Meanwhile, neo-orthodoxy associated with Karl Barth’s critique of modernism found adherents in America as well as Europe.

    During this period, "fundamentalist" came to refer principally to those advocating a separatist practice as a means of maintaining the fundamentals of the faith. These separatist fundamentalists split off from the modernist mainline churches, forming various new orthodox denominations. These fundamentalists also identified themselves with what they believed was pure in personal morality and American culture. Thus the term "fundamentalist" came to refer largely to orthodox Protestants outside the large Northeastern denominations.

    Early 1940s to the 1970s
    In the 40s, a split occurred among these separatist fundamentalists, specifically over the issue of separatism. While the persistent separatists continued to identify themselves as "fundamentalists", the other sector came to regard the term as undesirable, having connotations of divisiveness, intolerance, anti-intellectualism, lack of concern for social problems, and possibly even ignorance or foolishness. This second group wished to regain fellowship with the orthodox Protestants who still constituted the vast majority of the clergy and laity in the large Northeastern denominations – Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, and Episcopalian. They began calling themselves "evangelicals" rather than "fundamentalists". The champions of this movement were Carl F. H. Henry and Kenneth Kantzer, and later Billy Graham. While the two groups still had much in common organizationally, methodologically, and theologically, the fundamentalists believed they were more zealous than evangelicals in their opposition to apostasy, Communism, and personal evils, and they were far less willing to cater to social and intellectual respectability. The evangelicals regarded the separatists’ approach as unduly antagonistic and counter-productive; furthermore, by abandoning ecclesiastic, academic, and social institutions, the separatist fundamentalists had essentially surrendered control of these fields to the modernists. The separatist hard-liners tended to oppose Billy Graham, the reading of Christianity Today, and patronage of Wheaton College and Fuller Theological Seminary, while evangelicals supported these.

    Late 1970s and the 1980s
    During this period, dismayed by changing social conditions, many of the separatist fundamentalists also rethought the withdrawal from society, and became politically active, and as such were sometimes described as neo-fundamentalists. They formed coalitions with other conservative Christians. Jerry Falwell, and Tim LaHaye together with Pat Robertson became leaders of the trend. Religious and moral conservatives of all kinds also went on the offensive at that time, all trying to re-assert conservative (orthodox) control of the churches and other institutions. However, this shift has tended to blur the lines between fundamentalist, evangelical, and all other conservative Christians, and even social conservatives of all religious persuasions.

    The fundamentalist phenomenon
    This formation of a separate identity is deemed necessary on account of a perception that the religious community has surrendered its ability to define itself in religious terms. The "fundamentals" of the religion have been jettisoned by neglect, lost through compromise and inattention, so that the general religious community's explanation of itself appears to the separatist to be in terms that are completely alien and fundamentally hostile to the religion itself.

    Some fundamentalist movements, therefore, claim to be founded upon the same religious principles as the larger group, but the fundamentalists more self-consciously attempt to build an entire approach to the modern world based on strict fidelity to those principles, to preserve a distinctness both of doctrine and of life.

  11. #136
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Age
    99
    Posts
    5,034
    The term itself is borrowed from the title of a four volume set of books called The Fundamentals published in 1909. The books were published by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles (B.I.O.L.A. now Biola University), and edited by R.A. Torrey, who was a minister affiliated with the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago. Initially the project was funded by Lyman Stewart, president and cofounder of the Union Oil Company of California (currently known as UNOCAL), and cofounder of B.I.O.L.A. The books were a republication of a series of essays that were sent by mail to every minister in the United States. They were called "The Fundamentals" because they appealed to all Christians to affirm specific fundamental doctrines such as The Virgin Birth and bodily Resurrection of Jesus. This series of essays came to be representative of the "Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy" which appeared late in the 19th century within the Protestant churches of the United States, and continued in earnest through the 1920s.

    The pattern of the conflict between Fundamentalism and Modernism in Protestant Christianity has remarkable parallels in other religious communities, and in its use as a description of these corresponding aspects in otherwise diverse religious movements the term "fundamentalist" has become more than only a term either of self-description or of derogatory contempt. Fundamentalism is therefore a movement through which the adherents attempt to rescue religious identity from absorption into modern, Western culture, where this absorption appears to the enclave to have made irreversible progress in the wider religious community, necessitating the assertion of a separate identity based upon the fundamental or founding principles of the religion.

    Fundamentalists believe their cause to have grave and even cosmic importance. They see themselves as protecting not only a distinctive doctrine, but also a vital principle, and a way of life and of salvation. Community, comprehensively centered upon a clearly defined religious way of life in all of its aspects, is the promise of fundamentalist movements, and it therefore appeals to those adherents of religion who find little that is distinctive, or authentically vital in their previous religious identity.

    The fundamentalist "wall of virtue", which protects their identity, is erected against not only other religions, but also against the modernized, nominal version of their own religion. In Christianity, fundamentalists can be known as "born again" and "Bible-believing" Protestants, as opposed to "mainline", "liberal", "modernist" Protestants. In Islam there are jama'at (Arabic: (religious) enclaves with connotations of close fellowship) fundamentalists self-consciously engaged in jihad (struggle) against the Western culture that suppresses authentic Islam (submission) and the God-given (Shari'ah) way of life. In Judaism fundamentalists are Haredi "Torah-true" Jews. There are fundamentalist equivalents in Hinduism and other world religions. These groups insist on a sharp boundary between themselves and the faithful adherents of other religions, and finally between a "sacred" view of life and the "secular" world and "nominal religion". Fundamentalists direct their critiques toward and draw most of their converts from the larger community of their religion, by attempting to convince them that they are not experiencing the authentic version of their professed religion.

    Many scholars see most forms of fundamentalism as having similar traits. This is especially obvious if modernity, secularism or an atheistic perspective is adopted as the norm, against which these varieties of traditionalism or supernaturalism are compared. From such a perspective, Peter Huff wrote in the International Journal on World Peace:

    "According to Antoun, fundamentalists in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, despite their doctrinal and practical differences, are united by a common worldview which anchors all of life in the authority of the sacred and a shared ethos that expresses itself through outrage at the pace and extent of modern secularization."

    Controversy over use of the term
    The Associated Press' AP Stylebook recommends that the term fundamentalist not be used for any group that does not apply the term to itself. Many scholars, however, use the term in the broader descriptive sense to refer to various groups in various religious traditions, and the massive five-volume study The Fundamentalism Project published by the University of Chicago takes this approach. In popular discussions, the term fundamentalist is frequently used improperly to refer to a broad range of conservative, orthodox, or militiant religious movements.

    Christian fundamentalists, who generally consider the term to be positive when used to refer to themselves, often object to the placement of themselves and Islamist groups into a single category. They feel that characteristics based on the new definition are wrongly projected back onto Christian fundamentalists by their critics.

    Many Muslims protest the use of the term when referring to Islamist groups, and object to being placed in the same category as Christian fundamentalists, whom they see as theologically incomplete. Unlike Christian fundamentalist groups, Islamist groups do not use the term fundamentalist to refer to themselves. Shia groups which are often considered fundamentalist in the western world generally are not described that way in the Islamic world.

    Basic beliefs of religious fundamentalists
    For religious fundamentalists, sacred scripture is considered the authentic, and literal word of their religion's god or gods. Fundamentalist beliefs depend on the twin doctrines that their god or gods articulated their will precisely to prophets, and that followers also have a reliable and perfect record of that revelation.

    Since a religion's scripture is considered the word of its god or gods, fundamentalists believe that no person is right to change it or disagree with it. Within that though, there are many differences between different fundamentalists. For example, many Christian fundamentalists believe in free will, that every person is able to make their own choices, but with consequence. The appeal of this point of view is its simplicity: every person can do what they like, as much as they are able, but their god or gods will bring those who disobey without repentance ("turning away from sin") to justice. This is made clear by the commands of Jesus in the New Testament concerning any kind of revenge ("Vengeance is Mine, sayeth the Lord" for one). The Judaist belief is similar, but they do not believe that it is wrong to take vengeance. The fundamentalist insistence on strict observation of religious laws may lead to an accusation of legalism in addition to exclusivism in the interpretation of metaphysical beliefs.

  12. #137
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Age
    99
    Posts
    5,034
    Christian views
    Main article: Fundamentalist Christianity
    Self-described Christian fundamentalists see the scripture, a combination of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, as both infallible and historically accurate. The New Testament represents a new covenant between God and human beings, which is held to fulfill the Old Testament, in regard to God's redemptive plan. On the basis of this confidence in Scripture, many fundamentalist Christians accept the account of scripture as being literally true.

    It is important to distinguish between the "literalist" and Fundamentalist groups within the Christian community. Literalists, as the name indicates, hold that the Bible should be taken literally in every part. English language Bibles are themselves translations and therefore not a literal word-for-word rendering of the original texts; the King James Version is notable, which while poetic, uses arcane language. Literalism can also encompass only believing one translation of the Bible, usually the KJV, is valid for use.

    Many Christian Fundamentalists, on the other hand, are for the most part content to hold that the Bible should be taken literally only where there is no indication to the contrary. As William Jennings Bryan put it, in response to Clarence Darrow's questioning during the Scopes Trial (1925):

    "I believe that everything in the Bible should be accepted as it is given there; some of the Bible is given illustratively. For instance: 'Ye are the salt of the earth.' I would not insist that man was actually salt, or that he had flesh of salt, but it is used in the sense of salt as saving Ebba's people."

    Still, the tendency toward a literal reading of the Bible is criticized by mainline Protestant scholars and others.[4] [5] [6] .

    According to anthropologist Lionel Caplan,

    "In the Protestant milieu of the USA, fundamentalism crystallized in response to liberals' eagerness to bring Christianity into the post-Darwinian world by questioning the scientific and historical accuracy of the scripture. Subsequently, the scourge of evolution was linked with socialism, and during the Cold War period, with communism. This unholy trinity came to be regarded as a sinister, atheistic threat to Christian America...Bruce [Chpt. 9 of Caplan 1987] suggests that to understand the success of the Moral Majority, an alliance between the conservative forces of the New Right and the fundamentalist wings on the mainly Southern Baptist Churches, we have to appreciate these fears, as well as the impact of a host of unwelcome changes - in attitudes to 'morality', family, civil and women's rights, and so on - which have, in the wake of economic transformations since the Second World War, penetrated especially the previously insular social and cultural world of the American South." (Caplan 1987: 6)

    The term fundamentalist has historically referred specifically to members of the various Protestant denominations who subscribed to the five "fundamentals", rather than fundamentalists forming an independent denomination. This wider movement of Fundamentalist Christianity has since broken up into various movements which are better described in other terms. Early "fundamentalists" included J. Gresham Machen and B.B. Warfield, men who would not be considered "Fundamentalists" today.

    Over time the term came to be associated with a particular segment of Evangelical Protestantism, who distinguished themselves by their separatist approach toward modernity, toward aspects of the culture which they feel typify the modern world, and toward other Christians who did not similarly separate themselves. Examples of things that fundamentalists might believe important to avoid are modern translations of the Bible, alcohol and recreational drugs, tobacco, popular music (often including Christian contemporary music), the use of instruments in worship, dancing, "mixed bathing" (men and women swimming together), gender-neutral or trans-gender clothing and hair-styles, and clothes that are immodest, i.e. show an excessive amount of flesh. Such things might seem innocuous to the outsider, but to some fundamentalists they represent the leading edge of a threat to the virtuous way of life and the purer form of belief that they seek to protect and to hold forth before the world as an example. Many fundamentalists accept only the King James Version translation of the Bible and study tools based on it, such as the Scofield Reference Bible.

    Because of the prevalence of dispensational eschatology, some fundamentalists vehemently support the modern nation of Israel, believing the Jews to have significance in God's purposes parallel to the Christian churches, and a special role to play at the end of the world.

    The term, fundamentalist, is difficult to apply unambiguously, especially when applied to groups outside the USA, which are typically far less dogmatic. Many self-described Fundamentalists would include Jerry Falwell in their company, but would not embrace Pat Robertson as a fundamentalist because of his espousal of charismatic teachings. Fundamentalist institutions include Pensacola Christian College, and Bob Jones University, but classically Fundamentalist schools such as Fuller Theological Seminary and Biola University no longer describe themselves as Fundamentalist, although in the broad sense described by this article they are fundamentalist (better, Evangelical) in their perspective. (The forerunner to Biola U. - the Bible Institute of Los Angeles - was founded under the financial patronage of Lyman Stewart, with his brother Milton, underwrote the publication of a series of 12 books jointly entitled The Fundamentals between 1909 and 1920.)

  13. #138
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Age
    99
    Posts
    5,034
    Jewish views
    Main article: Jewish fundamentalism
    Most Jewish denominations believe that the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible or Old Testament) cannot be understood literally or alone, but rather needs to be read in conjunction with additional material known as the Oral Torah; this material is contained in the Mishnah, Talmud, Gemara and Midrash. While the Tanakh is not read in a literal fashion, Orthodox Judaism does view the text itself as divine, infallible, and transmitted essentially without change, and places great import in the specific words and letters of the Torah. As well, adherents of Orthodox Judaism, especially Haredi Judaism, see the Mishnah, Talmud and Midrash as divine and infallible in content, if not in specific wording. Hasidic Jews frequently ascribe infallibility to their Rebbe's interpretation of the traditional sources of truth.

  14. #139
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Age
    99
    Posts
    5,034
    Mormon views
    Main article: Mormon fundamentalism
    Mormon fundamentalism is a conservative movement of Mormonism that believes or practices what its adherents consider to be the fundamental aspects of Mormonism. Most often, Mormon fundamentalism represents a break from the brand of Mormonism practiced by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), and a return to Mormon doctrines and practices which adherents believe the LDS Church has wrongly abandoned, such as plural marriage, the Law of Consecration, the Adam-God theory, blood atonement, the Patriarchal Priesthood, elements of the Mormon Endowment ritual, and often the exclusion of Blacks from the priesthood. Mormon fundamentalists have formed numerous sects, many of which have established small, cohesive, and isolated communities in areas of the Western United States.

  15. #140
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Age
    99
    Posts
    5,034
    Islamic views
    Main articles: Islamic fundamentalism and Islamism
    Muslims believe that their religion was revealed by God (Allah in Arabic) to Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, the final Prophet delivered by God. However, the Muslims brand of conservatism which is generally termed Islamic fundamentalism encompasses all the following:

    It describes the beliefs of traditional Muslims that they should restrict themselves to literal interpretations of their sacred texts, the Qur'an and Hadith. This may describe the private religious attitudes of individuals and have no relationship with larger social groups.
    It describes a variety of religious movements and political parties in Muslim communities.
    As opposed to the above two usages, in the West "Islamic fundamentalism" is most often used to describe Muslim individuals and groups which advocate Islamism, a political ideology calling for the replacement of state secular laws with Islamic law. The more radical of these Islamists may advocate violent overthrow of secular states, or even Islamist terrorism.
    In all the above cases, Islamic fundamentalism represents a conservative religious belief, as opposed to liberal movements within Islam.

  16. #141
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Age
    99
    Posts
    5,034
    "Non-Abrahamic" religions
    Some argue that the religious idea of fundamentalism is limited to "Abrahamic religions", and have connected the phenomenon specifically to the notion of revealed religion.[citation needed] However, the answer to the question, Who is a fundamentalist? is in the eye of the beholder. It is not uncommon for detractors to apply the fundamentalist label to Heathens or virtually anything else religious, describing an attitude rather than a self-perception or a doctrine.

    Buddhism
    H.H. the Dalai Lama has agreed that there exist also extremists and fundamentalists in Buddhism,[2] arguing that fundamentalists are not even able to pick up the idea of a possible dialogue.[2]

    The Japanese Nichiren sect of Buddhism, which believes that other forms of Buddhism are heretical, is also sometimes labelled fundamentalist. However, Nichiren Buddhism contains influences from Shintoism and a strongly nationalistic streak that would disqualify it from being fundamentalist in the strictest sense.

    At the height of the Dorje Shugden Controversy Robert Thurman claimed: "It would not be unfair to call Shugdens the Taliban of Tibetan Buddhism" referring to the Muslim extremists of Afghanistan, who believe in swift and brutal justice.[3] A statement which was rejected by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, founder of the NKT, arguing: "This really is a false accusation against innocent people. We have never done anything wrong. We simply practise our own religion, as passed down through many generations.";[4]

    David N. Kay argued in his doctoral research that the New Kadampa Tradition (aka NKT) fit into the criteria of Robert Lifton’s definition of the fundamentalist self.[5] Inken Prohl stated: "Kay’s argument shows that, due to the NKT’s homogenous organizational structure, its attempts to establish a uniformity of belief and practice within the organization, and an emphasis on following one tradition coupled with a critical attitude toward other traditions, the NKT fits into Lifton’s category of “fundamentalism”. Kay describes how struggles for control of NKT’s institutional sites and NKT’s repressed memory of its institutional conflicts both contribute to NKT’s later 'fundamentalist' identity."[6] However Prohl states also: "Although this observation presents a convincing and challenging observation of a mechanism at work in Buddhist organizations in the West, I would hesitate to characterize, as Kay does, such organizations as 'fundamentalist' due to the vague and, at the same time, extremely political implications of this term.

    "Militant atheism"
    "Miltant atheism" has been criticised as being 'fundamentalist' because of its aggressive criticism towards theism[citation needed]. For example, when Albania under Enver Hoxha declared itself an "atheist state", it was deemed by some to be a kind of "Fundamentalist Atheism" and where Stalinism was like the state religion which replaced other religions and political idealogies. Any one practising a non-Stalinist religion or setting up a different political party would be sent to prison[citation needed].

    In The Trouble With Atheism, Rod Liddle has criticised atheism in that it can be dogmatic and intolerant. He criticised Peter Atkins and Richard Dawkins as Britain's fundamentalist atheists for their dogmatic intolerance to theists. Lord Winston has made similar comments[citation needed].

    'Faith and Reason online' has criticised the Rational Response Squad as uneducated, dogmatic, aggressive and thoroughly ignorant of theology

  17. #142
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Age
    99
    Posts
    5,034
    Arguments in favor of fundamentalist positions
    Fundamentalists claim both that they practice their religion as the first adherents did and that this is how religion should be practiced. In other words, a Christian ought to believe and practice as those who knew and followed Jesus during his time on earth. A Muslim ought to give the same consideration to the followers of Muhammad. Analogous arguments can be made for most systems of religious belief. Fundamentalists justify this belief on the idea that the founders of the world's religions said and did things that were not written down; in other words, their original disciples knew things that we don't. For fundamentalist Christians, this claim is justified by the Gospel of John, which ends with the statement "there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." (John 21:25, NKJV) Further justification is adducted from the static or falling attendance of many liberal or reformed congregations, from the scandals that have struck, for example, the Roman Catholic church, and from the increasing difficulty of distinguishing between religiously liberal and avowedly secularist views on such matters as homosexuality, abortion and women's rights.

    JohnRenesch 16:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)==Criticism of fundamentalist positions== Many criticisms of fundamentalist positions have been offered. One of the most common is that some claims made by a fundamentalist group cannot be proven, and are irrational, demonstrably false, or contrary to scientific evidence. For example, some of these criticisms were famously asserted by Clarence Darrow in the Scopes Monkey Trial.

    Another possible criticism is that the rhetoric of a fundamentalist group offers an appearance of uniformity and simplicity; yet within the group, one actually finds different texts of religious law that are accepted or each text has varying interpretations. Consequently, a fundamentalist group is observed to splinter into many mutually antagonistic subgroups. They are often as hostile to each other as they are to other religions.

    A criticism by sociologist of religion Tex Sample is that there is no such thing as a Muslim, Jewish, or Christian Fundamentalist. Rather, a fundamentalist's fundamentalism is their primary concern, over and above other denominational or faith considerations.[9]

    A criticism by Elliot N. Dorff: "In order to carry out the fundamentalist program in practice, one would need a perfect understanding of the ancient language of the original text, if indeed the true text can be discerned from among variants. Furthermore, human beings are the ones who transmit this understanding between generations. "Even if one wanted to follow the literal word of God, the need for people first to understand that word necessitates human interpretation. Through that process human fallibility is inextricably mixed into the very meaning of the divine word. As a result, it is impossible to follow the indisputable word of God; one can only achieve a human understanding of God's will." (A Living Tree, Dorff, 198

    Another possible criticism: Members of a fundamentalist group are overly attached to the group's leaders. Followers believe the leaders can direct them infallibly in the interpretation of sacred text. For this, the leaders are either inspired or infallible. This criticism can lead to the conclusion that a fundamentalist group is a cult.

    A general criticism of fundamentalism is the claim that fundamentalists are selective in what they believe and practice. For instance, the book of Exodus dictates that when a man's brother dies, he must marry his widowed sister-in-law. Yet fundamentalist Christians do not adhere to this doctrine, despite the fact that it is not contradicted in the New Testament. However, defenders of fundamentalism argue that according to New Testament theology, large parts, if not all of the Mosaic Law, are not normative for modern Christians. They may cite passages such Colossians 2:14 which describes Jesus Christ as "having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us" (NKJV). Other fundamentalists argue that only certain parts of the Mosaic Law, parts that rely on universal moral principles, are normative for today. Therefore, in their view, there is no contradiction between such passages in the Old Testament and their belief in biblical infallibility. Critics contend that unreasonable literal readings of the Bible and other religious texts by fundamentalists necessarily result in advocating contradictory and even hypocritical positions.

    Christian fundamentalists often insist that the Bible is infallible in its various prophetic assertions. However, in the book of Ezekiel, specifically Ezekiel 26:1-14, we find a prophecy (the conquering of the city of Tyre) that, according to Ezekiel 29:18-20, seems to have not been fulfilled in exactly the way the prophet had predicted. This prophecy is the subject of much scholarly debate in regard to interpretation of the prophecy itself and the interpretation of the actual events that took place. At any rate, it is clear that Nebuchadnezzar did in fact conquer the city of Tyre as prophesied, although the spoils of the battle apparently were not as extravagant as Ezekiel predicted they would be, and the city has been rebuilt (modern day Sur, Lebanon) contrary to prophetic claims it would never stand again.

    Another discrepancy found in the actual recorded words of the Bible is found in Mark 2:26 when Jesus asks the Pharisees if they remembered how David “went into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest and ate the bread of offering.” According to 1 Samuel 21, however, the high priest was Abiathar’s father, Ahimelech. This contrast between these two passages of the Bible is used by many to criticize the view that the Bible is absolutely inerrant.

    Fundamentalist teachings are criticised by questioning the historical accuracy of the religious texts in question when compared to other historical sources; as well as questioning how documents that some believe to contain many contradictions could be considered infallible.

    One of the best descriptions about the psychology of religious fundamentalism was stated by civil rights activist Reverend Howard Thurman [7] who was interviewed in the late 1970s for a BBC feature on religion. Here’s what he told the interviewer: "I say that creeds, dogmas, and theologies are inventions of the mind. It is the nature of the mind to make sense out of experience, to reduce the conglomerates of experience to units of comprehension which we call principles, or ideologies, or concepts. Religious experience is dynamic, fluid, effervescent, yeasty. But the mind can't handle these so it has to imprison religious experience in some way, get it bottled up. Then, when the experience quiets down, the mind draws a bead on it and extracts concepts, notions, dogmas, so that religious experience can make sense to the mind. Meanwhile religious experience goes on experiencing, so that by the time I get my dogma stated so that I can think about it, the religious experience becomes an object of thought."

    American futurist John Renesch [8] expands upon this notion by stating, "For me, fundamentalism is an attempt to comprehend that which cannot be comprehended, to rationalize the unfathomable, “effing” the ineffable. It is similar to trying to measure the immeasurable or the “indefinitely extensive.” It is the human mind doing what it is supposed to do, making sense of things. But some things are ineffable and attempts to make sense of them are fruitless unless one is willing to settle for any explanation just to have one. Again, this goes for business, law, medicine, romance, politics…anything, not just religion."

    This last sentence points to fundmentalist tendencies in other diusciplines and human endeavors such as Soros' "market fundamentalism" and other areas where people adhere to strict adherence to a dogma or belief of some sort.

    Fundamentalism and politics
    "Fundamentalism" is a morally charged, emotive term. It is often used as a pejorative term, particularly when combined with other epithets (as in the phrase "Muslim fundamentalists" and "right-wing fundamentalists").

    Very often religious fundamentalists, in all religions, are politically aware. They feel that legal and government processes must recognise the way of life they see as prescribed by their gods and set forth in their scripture. In their eyes, the state must be subservient to their God: this, however is a basic belief of most religions, even if their practitioners do not insist upon it.

    Most "Christian" countries go through a similar stage in their development. The governments of many Muslim countries, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, are Islamic, and include people with fundamentalist beliefs. More secular politicians are often to be found working in opposition movements in these countries.

  18. #143
    Member maryam9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Age
    34
    Posts
    644
    thanks, IQ
    Last edited by maryam9; 07-01-2007 at 06:42 PM.
    Mary's back, back again

  19. #144
    Newbie sooz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    35
    As a newbie here, I'm late into this discussion. I've selected Jewish for the poll but that's only the religion of my birth.

    To me, lack of self confidence along with weakness of humankind brings about religion.
    I think there's more to that. Much more. When you read history, it's fairly evident that religion was also a controller of the people in an age when people had much superstition, little knowledge of science, and a need to explain life.

    At the risk of being criticised, although I'm Jewish in my heart and in my culture, in my daily life I am no religion. A few times a year, I am Jewish out of respect for my late parents and my heritage.

    The major pre-requisite of most of monotheistic religions is that you must believe in God. Unfortunately, I sit on the fence with this one and have done since I was 12. But I can still take the "good" parts of my religion, of any religion really, and it's taught me how behave towards others, sometimes when I didn't know the right thing to do. I'm a fan of Richard Dawkins and Christpher Hitchens, both of whom have some scathing criticisms of religion. I tend to agree with much of what they say.

    All the anti-religion books and lectures in the world make such complicated and convoluted comments. For me it's much simpler. In one way or another, religion, mostly in the hands of the powerful, has caused humanity such unacceptible suffering in the history of the world. It still does. That's reason enough for me to ask... what have we learned in thousands of years? Seems to me that some people haven't learned much at all.

    I have the greatest respect for anyone who is imersed in their religion and uses it to live their lives with a peaceful and meaningful purpose. It's when certain people use it to hurt others, whether that be in a small way (for example in a conversation) or in a big way to physically hurt others, that the whole concept of religion will get me angry.

    In the words of my late father: Live and let live.
    Sorry, replies only in English please.

  20. #145
    Senior Member Rasputin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Jupiter
    Posts
    62,630
    27 Bahai persons we have..Intresting .




  21. #146
    Member maryam9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Age
    34
    Posts
    644

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by RedWine View Post
    27 Bahai persons we have..Intresting .
    az che lahaaz?
    Mary's back, back again

  22. #147
    Senior Member abadani69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Naghle makan dadim
    Age
    36
    Posts
    21,043
    nesfeshooon bahaihaye Arizona hastan
    Quote Originally Posted by RedWine View Post
    27 Bahai persons we have..Intresting .

  23. #148
    Member Dokhtar Bandari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Beyond north star somewhere
    Age
    50
    Posts
    1,086
    Quote Originally Posted by reza1st View Post
    To me, lack of self confidence along with weakness of humankind brings about religion. If we were not to die no religion in this world would have existed. I believe it is everybody’s wish that the heaven and hell, the life after death, were reality. Some of us have learned to put aside logic and believe in these goodies (bekhodemoon yaad daadim ke khodemoono gool bezanim). Yes it is hard to think that when we die, that’s the end of us. But to me that’s the reality of this life and nature.

    A lot of you may have questions like “why do we exist if there is nothing after death?”, “what’s the purpose of this life?” and …
    It is easy to find the answers to these questions but you have to have self confidence and look wisely. (Study Probability and Statistic, study it very deeply)

    All religions like everything else around us have goods and bads. What is destructive is to force religion on others and to think that the religions are created by god (a metaphysical power). If there exists a god hopefully it’s greater and better than the so called god who sent Koran, Bible, … that are full of flaws!

    People please read Koran before believing in Islam, read Bible before becoming Christian, study them, think about them and critique them. Don’t interpret them, it is not suppose to be hard. If you be tricked by the ones who tell you that “you have to look at what god meant then and in this verse” then all your life you have to be interpreting everyone’s words and sentences along with every book, because they are not any different . (If you read a mathematical book that had 2 x 2 is equal 12 would you say it is a mistake or would you say you can interpret the 2 by 2 as 6 by 2 or 12 as being 4?!?! I don’t think so!)

    And be open minded. Be debate friendly and talk to each other. Don’t think what you believe is the best, it is not! Listen and think about what others have to say.

    Finally here is something I believe in: be good for yourself and for the sake of others. Be kind to everyone from any religion and any country, not for god, not for heaven, just for yourself and them, for your conscience. Teach this to yourself. This is much greater and stronger than believing in any religion. This is you believing in yourself and goodness of others. Be strong.

    Wish you all the best.
    Bravooooooooo....
    I would be true, for there are those who trust me;
    I would be pure, for there are those who care;
    I would be strong, for there is much to suffer;
    I would be brave, for there is much to dare.
    I would be friend of all—the foe—the friendless;
    I would be giving and forget the gift;
    I would be humble, for I know my weakness;
    I would look up and laugh—and love—and lift.
    Howard Walter
    http://www.farsinet.com/poetry/images/poemvatn.gif

  24. #149
    Member maryam9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Age
    34
    Posts
    644
    Quote Originally Posted by reza1st
    To me, lack of self confidence along with weakness of humankind brings about religion. If we were not to die no religion in this world would have existed. I believe it is everybody’s wish that the heaven and hell, the life after death, were reality. Some of us have learned to put aside logic and believe in these goodies (bekhodemoon yaad daadim ke khodemoono gool bezanim). Yes it is hard to think that when we die, that’s the end of us. But to me that’s the reality of this life and nature.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dokhtar Bandari View Post
    Bravooooooooo....
    I disagree

    I think that the same way how religion should not be forced on people (eg for people who believe in God to criticise those who dont believe in God), atheists or people who dont believe in religion shouldnt criticise those who believe in a religion or God.
    Last edited by maryam9; 01-13-2008 at 09:32 PM.
    Mary's back, back again

  25. #150
    Member Dokhtare_Malous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Rooye Zamin
    Posts
    1,819
    everybody should be proud of their religion there is no difference between any religion becasue everybody believe in one God, and for ur info REZA1st reading Bible or Koran or anyother holy books doesnt make you Muslim or Christian or anyother religion sit and read the holy boooks all over and over again if you dont believe in what the holy book is saying then you wasted your time, all you have to do its just believe in your own religion and yes ofcourse respect other religions as well.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •