Fundamentalist Christian Intolerance

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Nicolaas, in a previous thread:

"Individual views are important, but so is accepting other people views as well."

Now Nicolaas is well known to readers of this forum as a fundamentalist Christian. However, he is my favorite fundamentalist Christian right now because of the post I quoted above. In fact, I think he should become the standard bea ...[text shortened]... Christian community. Do you all agree with Nicolaas' statement? Or do you think another way?

You views, mine, and Nicolaas are just that, our views. Truth, what is
real, what is authentic is more important than how I view it in reality.
If for example I build a house using the scenery around the house
as a guide for how I line things up, I will more than likely have a
house not built properly, it would be off plumb if that is the correct
term. Our views are important as they are part of us, but we need to
grasp for reality, not the 'group' views on any matter. That should
also take the 'personal' out of more discussions too, we are all after
all, all in this together.
Kelly

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Nicolaas, in a previous thread:

"Individual views are important, but so is accepting other people views as well."

Now Nicolaas is well known to readers of this forum as a fundamentalist Christian. However, he is my favorite fundamentalist Christian right now because of the post I quoted above. In fact, I think he should become the standard bea ...[text shortened]... Christian community. Do you all agree with Nicolaas' statement? Or do you think another way?

Sas: " Ivanhoe, while we've gone back and forth, doesn't strike me as particularly intolerant of others."

I have always wondered what the term "fundamentalist" stands for.

What does it stand for in case it is applied to Christians?

What does it mean in case it is applied to Muslems ?

What does it mean if it is applied to Hindus ?

The term is also used to refer to certain secular groups in society, the secular fundamentalists.

If intolerance and bigotry are two of the main features of being a fundamentalist then we certainly have a few secular fundamentalists as well roaming the RHP forums and waving their flags in an unmistakable way.

we all agree the word of god not man, but we do live and let live as we should let god judgement be final. They however should preach the word of god then if you do not head the words they are blameless when the time of attonement comes, but would be guilty if they keep quiet.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
I have always wondered what the term "fundamentalist" stands for.

What does it stand for in case it is applied to Christians?

For some reason they go around punching a book called The Book. Weird, isn't it?

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Fundamentalists, to me, believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible.

There are good fundamentalists - the majority of them, in fact. Then there are bad fundamentalists. I think to me the difference is, do you go to church on Sundays, pretending you have some special kind of insight that nobody else has, then run around the other six days of ...[text shortened]... ion of Christian fundamentalism) bear more than a passing resemblance to fundamentalist Muslims.

How about secular fundamentalists ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
How about secular fundamentalists ?

They must interpret something literally. What?

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Nicolaas, in a previous thread:

"Individual views are important, but so is accepting other people views as well."

Now Nicolaas is well known to readers of this forum as a fundamentalist Christian. However, he is my favorite fundamentalist Christian right now because of the post I quoted above. In fact, I think he should become the standard bea ...[text shortened]... Christian community. Do you all agree with Nicolaas' statement? Or do you think another way?

I personally think his wishy-washy attitude on top of his fundamentalism, doesn't demonstrate anything other than that he has no real understanding of the stance he has chosen.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
They must interpret something literally. What?

Let's say. The constitution of the USA.

There could be other "Scriptures" as well, of course.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Define "secular fundamentalist" for me and give me an example of someone here who argues from that viewpoint.

"a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles"

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fundamentalist

Sas: " .... an example of someone here who argues from that viewpoint."

You go first ..... ha ha ha ..... 😉

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Define "secular fundamentalist" for me and give me an example of someone here who argues from that viewpoint.

Given that "fundamentalist" refers to a person who believes there is a need to return to stricter, more "fundamental" views, rules, and ways, often by supporting intolerance of secularism and other deviations away from traditional beliefs of their particular faith, I'm not sure how it would be possible to be a "secular fundamentalist."

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Let's say. The constitution of the USA.

Do you mean someone like arch-conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia who argues for a literalist intepretation of the US Constitution?