Talk:Fundamentalist Christianity
|
|
| Contents |
Archive
Should this external link be here?
Text below taken from the "history" section of the article.
- The bodily second coming of Jesus Christ [1] (http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/non_fundamentalist_christianity/52921)
Should the above link be here?? I think it should be removed and or placed below in the external links... Any comment.
- The link listed here actually contains another link as a source. I have replaced the original with the precedent source, which is from an article about a famous preacher of the time, Harry Emerson Fosdick. This new link makes clear that two of the "five fundamentals" had alternative expressions, which I have included in the article. --Blainster 21:15, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
high view / low view
In the section headed "A Label" the last paragraph is confusing to me. Particularly the use of the terms-of-art "high view" and "low view".
Can someone knowledgeable in this area rewrite with more generic verbage? Is it necessary to use these particular (and undefined, unlinked) terms?
Also, the phrase "much higher than the popular stereotypes can account for" adds no meaning, just mystery.
Ian Paisley?????
Is Ian Paisley theologically fundamentalist? I don't think that Northern Ireland Presbyertians considered themselves or are considered fundamentalists.
- I think we're up against the difference in usage again. In common parlance I can easily imagine Paisley being described as 'fundamentalist' where the term is used pretty synonymously with 'radical'. DJ Clayworth 16:37, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Ian Paisley is very much considered a fundamentalist here in Northern Ireland. He also has had a long running association with Bob Jones University. He is not and never has been a Northern Ireland Presbyterian [sic]. He is the moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster. He holds to the inerrancy of scripture and has opposed the pope face-to-face in the European Parliament.
Public Schools
Let's not forget the movement to have school prayer constitutionalized. I think it deserves a mention, at least. Nikki 18:49, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Witnessing
What about witnessing?
Sociological analysis and F't perspectives on Sects/Cults
There has been a lot of study on seperatist, authoritarian groups in sociology. Most fundamentalist groups would be of the sect type, and at the extremes the cult type. Two errors are possible from a fundamentalist perspective, one accommodating to the world, the other going on a frolic of one's own. Where do extremists such as David Koresh, the Children of God and Jim Jones fit in. No mention is made of this. Paul foord 11:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
- additional notes
- Jones started with AoG, went to the Disciples of Christ maybe not in Fundamentalist camp?
- David Koresh/Branch Dravidians were Seventh-day Adventist origin
- Are snake handlers fundamentalist?
Just goes to show popular (mis)conceptions. So some clarification req in the article Paul foord 11:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Disappointing Article
I am disappointed with the article as a whole. While there is good information here and there, it is a patchwork that borders on incoherence. It tries to do too much by overlapping and essentially equating Christian Fundamentalism with every conservative extreme in the American church today. I agree with the "NPOV dispute label" and considered adding an "accuracy dispute" in several paragraphs if not appended to the entire article.
IMHO this article should be scrapped and completely redone -- perhaps under the more descriptive and somewhat more limiting title: Christian Fundamentalism in the U.S.
Jim Ellis 15:58, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Catholicism
Roman Catholicism also has those members who could be considered fundamentalists, but they most often are called Traditional Catholics or Catholic traditionalists. Well known traditional Catholics include the actor Mel Gibson and his father Hutton Gibson. This group of members rejects the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. In some cases they have broken away from the mainstream church and reject those Popes who they see as heretics - which usually they consider to be every Pope from John XXIII on.
This needs clarification. The article defines "fundamentalism" as divisions of Christianity that adhere to the five fundamentals, but even the most traditional or conservative of Catholics do not believe in two of the five fundamentals, namely inerrancy of the Bible and salvation through faith alone. -- Temtem 22:00, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Good point, Temtem. This article was obviously intended to define the Fundamentalist movement within U.S. Protestantism. It is really beyond the logical scope to include "fundamentalism" in the Catholic church and "Christian fundamentalism" abroad. In the absence of a complete re-write (which I would be willing to tackle) we are stuck trying to patch up a poor article. I would suggest making clarification statements and particularly removing the entire section entitled "Christian fundamentalism within Christianity" -- it has an inappropriate title and contains erroneous claims. Jim Ellis 22:20, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
24.69.255.205's edits
Welcome aboard 24.69.255.205 (I wish you'd sign in at take a user name!). You are tackling one of the more difficult pages. There's some good stuff here, but a lot is disjointed, some inaccurate, and some biased. Some of your edits have added perspective as one who seems to understand Christian fundamentalism. But you have also deleted a lot. If something is wrong or biased, you should correct as much as possible, rather than delete. If it's not wrong or biased, you are disrespecting other past editor's work in deleting. I restored some information you deleted, and you deleted it again. At that point you should be on the talk page explaining why the deletion, and seeking consensus first. Pollinator 01:42, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Some additional minor changes
I think the article is getting better through subsequent changes and modifications. However, I feel the opening (introductory) section still falls short. E.g. (1) The reference to Islamic Fundamentalism seems inappropriate here. (2) The statements on infallibility would be better placed under General Beliefs.
The intro should hit the main historical fact -- that this was a movement at the turn of the century which came about in reaction to the rising Liberalism in mainline denominations.
Jim Ellis 03:00, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
- It seems extremely important to me, because of the instant negative connotation in the modern secular mind. We should make it clear that we are talking about the classic meaning, which has few elements in common with the modern idea. Pollinator 03:22, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
why 19th cent? why 2ooo yrs ago?
this is odd and quite suspect. why does the article, the argument, the entire thesis of this subject begin in the 19th century? should it not begin with christians butchering pagan romans after the first christian leaders of the roman empire? i cant see a reason why the history is limited to the modern age. christian fundamentalism - terrorism began quite literally since its inception. i couldnt find this being discussed in the talk page, or on the actual page .. i could begin with detailed history, wars raged in the name of christianity and the sort, i have a feeling that would be frowned upon.
- I personally appreciate you moving your expressed concern to this discussion page rather than the body of the article itself. I have added a couple of phrases (in the article) to indicate the limited scope and context for this article's use of the term "fundamentalist". I believe your concern is more accurately associated with "violence in the name of religion," which is not the intent of this article at all. You are taking (what I see as) a fairly modern term and applying it to ancient history. Feel free to consider initiating an article addressing your concern, although I'm not sure the term "fundamentalist" is crucial to it. See also, "Religious Violence" and "Fundamentalism" (as a general term) in Wiki-articles which touch on your issue and may be places where you could more appropriately add info on your concern. Regards, Jim Ellis 14:03, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)