Christian Fundamentalists and the Rise of the Radical Right
POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 22:02
VIEWED: 9272
PAGE 4 of 15
Quote:
But the issue with fundamentalism and the Christian right is that they push their agenda. They aren't just holding prayer meetings, they're lobbying hard, and they've got deep pockets which they don't mind digging into to support candidates who will support their hardline on the above issues.
Then we're on the same page.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No matey, I can't do numbers in woofer language. It's more in the paw movement and doesn't translate over the net.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I don't think I accused Hardware of anything at all, if you care to re-read that thread.
I honestly don't, that thread was a waste of space, but point taken. I used the words 'you all' to address the group at large, not you specifically.
Quote:
You have kind of summed up how I see the difference between Fundamental Christians and mainstream Christians. More mainstream Christians follow the New testament and the teachings of Christ. They might refer or enjoy sections of the Old Testament, but the main teachings for them are in the NT. Fundamentalists see the Bible in its entirety as the word of God, although the lord knows they pick and choose which bits to reference. They use parts of the old Testament to back up a whole host of their beliefs, including how the world was created and how it will end. They don't believe that Genesis is a metaphor or a way of explaining humanity's origins in a time prior to the existence scientific reasoning, but that it is actual fact, word for word. And they are often ambitious for political power. Difficult combination.
Not all Fundamentalist Christians are as you describe. Or perhaps we having varying definitions as to what makes a 'Fundamentalist Christian.' I don't like the way this article stereotypes a group of people and it does concern me how some who claim to be against discrimination appear to be blind to this form of bigotry.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:Quote:
I don't think I accused Hardware of anything at all, if you care to re-read that thread.
I honestly don't, that thread was a waste of space, but point taken. I used the words 'you all' to address the group at large, not you specifically.Quote:
You have kind of summed up how I see the difference between Fundamental Christians and mainstream Christians. More mainstream Christians follow the New testament and the teachings of Christ. They might refer or enjoy sections of the Old Testament, but the main teachings for them are in the NT. Fundamentalists see the Bible in its entirety as the word of God, although the lord knows they pick and choose which bits to reference. They use parts of the old Testament to back up a whole host of their beliefs, including how the world was created and how it will end. They don't believe that Genesis is a metaphor or a way of explaining humanity's origins in a time prior to the existence scientific reasoning, but that it is actual fact, word for word. And they are often ambitious for political power. Difficult combination.
Not all Fundamentalist Christians are as you describe. Or perhaps we having varying definitions as to what makes a 'Fundamentalist Christian.' I don't like the way this article stereotypes a group of people and it does concern me how some who claim to be against discrimination appear to be blind to this form of bigotry.
Well please don't refer to 'you all' if I am not included in there.
That is my understanding of Fundamentalist Christians, Christians who interpret the Bible literally.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
No matey, I can't do numbers in woofer language. It's more in the paw movement and doesn't translate over the net.
Crassic.
You know you're defeated, humiliated, and so you bail right away, and instead go full court press w/ the juvenile, attempted insults.
Thanks for proving my point.
My work is done here.
" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Really why should I respond sanely to you. You speak in meaningless cliches. You can't comprehend rational arguments or any argument that is even subtly more complex than 'Muslim bad - Christian good' and you probably add 'ug' to the end of that sentence.
I'm playing with you, Rappy it's cruel I know. Like poking at the village idiot when he's tied to the pole in the square. I must go and repent on my ways and endeavour to do better.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Really why should I respond sanely to you. You speak in meaningless cliches. You can't comprehend rational arguments or any argument that is even subtly more complex than 'Muslim bad - Christian good' and you probably add 'ug' to the end of that sentence.
I'm playing with you, Rappy it's cruel I know. Like poking at the village idiot when he's tied to the pole in the square. I must go and repent on my ways and endeavour to do better.
Beslan wasn't a "cliche' ", brain donor. It was an actual event. Wanna see the not too pretty pictures ?
Same as Mumbai. Bali, 9/11... you know the drill. Terrorist attack, after terrorist attack, and all you can do is respond with idiocy and moronic insults.
The saddest part of all this, is that you actually think you're getting the better of me here.
Yes, picking sides on such an issue... it's SOOOO Neanderthal, isn't it? Why not be like your obvious hero, AlGore, and make some sort of callous , extra chromosome remark. Seems right up your alley.
" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
How Wiki describes Fundamentalist Christians
The term fundamentalism was coined by Baptist editor Curtis Lee Laws in 1920 to designate Christians who were ready "to do battle royal for the Fundamentals"; the term quickly was adopted by all sides.
Fundamentalism had multiple roots in British and American theology of the 19th century.[8] One root was Dispensationalism, a rediscovery of early Christian premillennialism in the 1830s in England as an outgrowth of applying the historical-grammatical method of hermeneutics to all of the Bible. It was a millenarian theory that divided all of time into seven different stages, called "dispensations," which were seen as stages of God's revelation. At the end of each stage, according to this theory, God punished humanity for having been found wanting in God's testing. Secularism, liberalism, and immorality in the 1920s were believed to be signs that humanity had again failed God's testing. This means that the world is on the verge of the last stage, where a final battle will take place at Armageddon, followed by Christ's return and 1,000 year reign. [9] An important sign is the rebirth of Israel, support for which is the centerpiece of Fundamentalist foreign policy.
A second stream came from Princeton Theology in the mid-19th century, which developed the doctrine of inerrancy in response to higher criticism of the Bible.[10][11] The work of Charles Hodge influenced fundamentalists' insistence that the Bible was inerrant because it had been dictated by God and written by men who took that dictation. This meant that the Bible should be read differently from any other historical document, and also that modernism and liberalism were believed to lead people to hell just as much as non-Christian religions.[12]
A third strand—and the name itself—came from a 12-volume study The Fundamentals, published 1910-1915.[13] Sponsors subsidize the free distribution of over three million individual volumes to clergy, laymen and libraries. This version.[14] stressed several core beliefs, including:
* The inerrancy of the Bible
* The literal nature of the Biblical accounts, especially regarding Christ's miracles, and the Creation account in Genesis.
* The Virgin Birth of Christ
* The bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ
* The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross
By the late 1920s the first two points had become central to Fundamentalism.
A fourth strand was the growing concern among many evangelical Christians with the fruits of modernism and the higher criticism of the Bible. This strand concentrated on opposition to Darwinism.
A fifth strand was the strong sense of the need for public revivals, a common theme among many Evangelicals who did not become Fundamentalists.
Numerous efforts to form coordinating bodies failed, and the most influential treatise came much later, in Systematic Theology (1947) by Lewis S. Chafer, who founded the Dallas Theological Seminary in 1924.
Much of the enthusiasm for mobilizing Fundamentalism came from "Bible Colleges", especially those modeled after the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago. Dwight Moody was also influential in preaching the imminence of the Kingdom of God that was so important to dispensationalism.[15] The Bible colleges prepared ministers who lacked college or seminary experience with intense study of the Bible, often using the Scofield Reference Bible of 1909, which was the King James version with detailed notes explaining how to interpret Dispensationalist passages.
Organizing the fundamentalists
Fundamentalist movements were found in most North American Protestant denominations by 1919, with the debate between fundamentalists and modernists especially strong in Presbyterian and Baptist churches. Fundamentalism was especially controversial among Presbyterians, and had its greatest strength in the South, especially among Southern Baptists.
The most important leader in organizing a movement
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
cut and paste is not a response.
No matter how many paragraphs you copy, you've still lost the argument.
" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
MD, you're flat out wrong.
The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were not, in any way, religiously motivated. So you claims are completely invalid.
More muslims have killed muslims in Iraq than western forces have killed muslims. That's a fact.
The current fanaticism of muslims in undeniably more violent than anything found across the world w/ christians.
" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
Really, I'd get more sense having a discussion with my dog.
That's because your dog is smarter than Rappy. Your dog probably has a better grasp of economics, too. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME