I appreciate all the personal stories being shared here. People have taken real time to do this. In doing so many of them are running their hands over the rough edges of some memories that are not all pleasant. Thanks to all of you.
Fundies: they understand you because they have worn your shoes.
Nem-Jug:
What people love to do is point out how some avowed Christian says or does something counter to their own ascribed theology, only to bring the whole of Christendom in to ill-repute. That kind of reasoning is flawed, as it only serves to confirm that the people espousing it are wrong, not the doctrine itself.
Ah yes. When in doubt, retreat into the parallel universe... and feel persecuted.
The reality, as we see from the personal histories being shared here, is that the people sharing them well understand the many differences of approach that exist within Christendom. Far from wanting to bring 'the whole' into 'ill-repute', as you say, they just found--without wanting to--that the Christianity they encountered did a thorough job of returning to sender any credibility they gave it. Our colleagues speak of what they know.
What you describe here more resembles your own habits. Only recently I caught you generalizing about 'eastern religions' in a way that placed them in an inferior category to your own beliefs. Yet you could produce no reasonable grounds for doing so. It was clear you knew next to nothing about Asian religions. And you showed not the slightest willingness to familiarize yourself with any of them.
How did you put it? 'That kind of reasoning is flawed.'
Its only been in the last decade that the term "fundy" was representative of a legalist. But there does not seem to be consensus concerning the word.
A high correlation has existed between fundamentalists and 'legalists' since
The Fundamentals first appeared in the US in the nineteenth century. We could debate the terms, but it's obvious that both phenomena are based on (1) strictly literal interpretations of ancient texts considered to be both (2) inerrant and (3) authoritative in mandating and prohibiting personal choices.
The best working definition of 'fundamentalist' is the one arach provided earlier. It also happens to be precise. It comes straight from the book responsible for the term's coinage. It's as valid a definition today as when the book appeared.
The short form 'fundy' is slang. It's not unaffectionate. People use it for fundamentalists the way you might use the word 'daffy' of an uncle or aunt who likes to knock on your door at odd hours, talk too loudly without listening, spout ignorant opinions, and tell you your air conditioner is a tool of the Devil.
Since at least the 1960s the word 'fundamentalist' has been adapted by English-language journalists to describe sects in other world religions. The word conveyed the stringent
flavour of more extreme sects but said nothing about actual
beliefs. It was simply an analogy. Journalists were comparing the exotic with the known to give their readers a sense of it. This group, they said, operates within the mainstream of its society a bit like fundamentalists operate within the mainstream of ours.
We have many such 'journalistic quickie' terms that are easy to adopt instead of doing any real thinking. We speak of 'Liberal' and 'Conservative,' 'Eastern' and 'Western' societies. To the extent these terms are useful it's good to have them around. But often they inhibit and constrain thinking instead of enabling it. We don't have to use terms invented for us by the press. It is far better to speak precisely. But then one is obligated to know what one is talking about.
_____
Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.
™ Version 4.2
