I must be getting alittle paranoid

[Canuckster1127]

So you want to put the "fun" back in fundamentalism?

[musician]

Just an off-topic question... but after reading the comments it came across my mind. Who hijacked the term 'fundamental' and made it into a bad word? Shouldn't we all want to be true to the fundamentals of our belief system?

It's just one of an almost limitless number of infectious political schemata that implies loading without thought. Garbage in, garbage out.

- Nathan

[Stu]

Just an off-topic question... but after reading the comments it came across my mind. Who hijacked the term 'fundamental' and made it into a bad word? Shouldn't we all want to be true to the fundamentals of our belief system?

Hating other people who disagree with you is not 'fundamental' to the Christian worldview, and is more like a heresy. Heretics would be a better term I would think....

Extremist seems like a more suitable term?

[narnia4]

Just an off-topic question... but after reading the comments it came across my mind. Who hijacked the term 'fundamental' and made it into a bad word? Shouldn't we all want to be true to the fundamentals of our belief system?

Hating other people who disagree with you is not 'fundamental' to the Christian worldview, and is more like a heresy. Heretics would be a better term I would think....

I agree with you, my Dad quotes Vernon McGee using that word all the time and I always bring it up. With Christians, the common sense definition of a "fundamentalist" would be "one who believe in the fundamentals of Christianity" (the Bible, Christ's death and resurrection, etc.). So how in the world can we consider being a "fundamentalist" a bad thing.

But unfortunately people with socio-political motivations can change the meanings of words and language is always fluid. Gay used to mean happy, right? Since popular culture has its own definition of "fundamentalist" now, I've kind of given up on the term in favor of others that can get the point across just as well without the confusion.

[MarcusOfLycia]

So you want to put the "fun" back in fundamentalism?

Heh... something like that.

[Reactionary]

With Christians, the common sense definition of a "fundamentalist" would be "one who believe in the fundamentals of Christianity" (the Bible, Christ's death and resurrection, etc.). So how in the world can we consider being a "fundamentalist" a bad thing.

I agree with your definition. In fact, I've read somewhere that "fundamentalist" Christians are bad exactly because they (we) believe in Christian truth claims, and consistently hold on to them. It turns out that in this time period, it's "bad" to hold on to anything - you should frequently change beliefs, spouses, jobs, residences, cars...
Otherwise, you're considered backward, or if it's about beliefs, then "closed-minded". Regarding that, I hold on (closed-mindedly ) to the saying, I think it was by Chesterton, “Do not be so open-minded that your brains fall out.”

[sandy_mcd]

Since popular culture has its own definition of "fundamentalist" now, I've kind of given up on the term in favor of others that can get the point across just as well without the confusion.

It seems to have had negative connotations for some time:
(from the OED)
1923 Daily Mail 24 May 8 Mr. William Jennings Bryan‥has been exerting the full force of his great eloquence in a campaign on behalf of what is termed ‘Fundamentalism’.
1925 K. Lake Relig. Yesterday & To-morrow 63 There has been in America some surprise at the sudden rise of Fundamentalism in the last five years.
1927 Observer 5 June 5/3 Fundamentalism and the Klux Klan are signs of alarm on behalf of the older ideals.
1955 Times 25 Aug. 14/1 ‘Fundamentalism’‥appears to have been used first in connexion with the (American) Northern Baptist Convention of 1920 to describe the more conservative delegates who desired ‘to restate, reaffirm, and re-emphasize the fundamentals of our New Testament faith’.
1955 Times 25 Aug. 14/1 Now ‘fundamentalism’‥appears to describe the bigoted rejection of all Biblical criticism, a mechanical view of inspiration and an excessively literalist interpretation of scripture.

[MarcusOfLycia]

Since popular culture has its own definition of "fundamentalist" now, I've kind of given up on the term in favor of others that can get the point across just as well without the confusion.

It seems to have had negative connotations for some time:
(from the OED)
1923 Daily Mail 24 May 8 Mr. William Jennings Bryan‥has been exerting the full force of his great eloquence in a campaign on behalf of what is termed ‘Fundamentalism’.
1925 K. Lake Relig. Yesterday & To-morrow 63 There has been in America some surprise at the sudden rise of Fundamentalism in the last five years.
1927 Observer 5 June 5/3 Fundamentalism and the Klux Klan are signs of alarm on behalf of the older ideals.
1955 Times 25 Aug. 14/1 ‘Fundamentalism’‥appears to have been used first in connexion with the (American) Northern Baptist Convention of 1920 to describe the more conservative delegates who desired ‘to restate, reaffirm, and re-emphasize the fundamentals of our New Testament faith’.
1955 Times 25 Aug. 14/1 Now ‘fundamentalism’‥appears to describe the bigoted rejection of all Biblical criticism, a mechanical view of inspiration and an excessively literalist interpretation of scripture.

Considering the 2000 year history of Christianity and the nearly 1000 year history of the English language, I wouldn't say 90 years is a "long time".

[EDIT]: Just saw you wrote 'some time', not 'long time'. I'm still thinking that this falls within the modern secularized view of Christianity though, and I think historically the term probably wasn't negative at all.

[sandy_mcd]

Considering the 2000 year history of Christianity and the nearly 1000 year history of the English language, I wouldn't say 90 years is a "long time".
...
I'm still thinking that this falls within the modern secularized view of Christianity though, and I think historically the term probably wasn't negative at all.

But the word fundamentalism seems to date from the early 1900's (OED reference above). [So the history of Christianity, English, the earth, the universe are irrelevant.]
And it seems to have acquired a negative connotation very early on. A cursory (just looking at first few pages) google book search through the early 1920's gives even the earliest usage [from 1919] negative:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Nu4gAA ... sm&f=false

We are living in a new age, when men are thinking new thoughts and meeting new problems. They must find in the church an institution in thorough sympathy with the upward strivings of the race, with the advancement of knowledge in the realms of science, sociology, and philosophy. The Church must live in the world and touch its life at all points, ministering to the needs of men, giving to their hungry souls the bread of life. The Church needs to proclaim a gospel that men can work as well as believe. Men's attitude toward life, the world and its affairs is determined by their thinking. If their thinking is individualistic the programs of their lives are necessarily narrow and cramped. If, on the other hand, their thoughts flow in broader channels, the program of their existence is larger and more expansive.
In these days when a section of the Christian Church under the slogan of fundamentalism is making a bold attempt by means of an insidious propaganda to lead the Church back to the day that is gone with its conception of faith and conduct, it becomes the duty of those of us who believe in a faith adequate to the needs of the world today to hold it higher and steadier before men than we have done in the past.

[wrain62]

Even so.

[Callisto]

Actually it's the complete opposite in my view; the new atheists had their moment during the late 90's. Since then it is in fact scientific progress that has been their downfall.
With each new discovery, the more we come to understand about life, the more things seem designed. Antony Flew is testament to this. I still hold to the view that the more science improves the more it will destroy the atheistic worldview.

For instance, for all our scientific knowledge and understanding we still don't know where the body plan (blueprint) for an organism resides. We're pretty sure it's not located within DNA. This in itself delivers a killer blow to the central dogma that "DNA makes RNA makes protein makes us", and so Darwinian thinking.

The multiverse is simply the latest in a long line of attempts to cling to a chance universe. According to their own "scientific" standards it is a God of the Gaps view, as a multiverse is beyond the boundary of science! Yet they have made an exception for it in the hopes it will validate their wordview.

I was also very impressed with men like Dawkins before I actually started doing a little research for myself. Just what is it that gives them this sense of command? Their confidence. He seems so certain, so convinced, so determined in his views that it makes you think that he just might be onto something.

But I wouldn't worry too much though, Dawkins' has already attempted to deliver his knockout punch; he's nothing but an old boxer on the ropes, his best punches already thrown, repeating old arguments, they're nothing but bluffs and most importantly he thrives on dumbing it down for the general public.

The main danger the new atheist movement presents is fundamentalism; shouting down the opposition, attempting to make your voice the only one heard, silencing the opposition. It's the number one reason they don't want to teach both the weaknesses and strengths of evolution in American schools, it would be devastating to it's legitimacy.

I'd agree completely with this entire statement. Every time I open one of my textbooks it mentions evolution. And it drives me nuts because I know that there are very big weaknesses with this "theory"! Atheists cling to evolution so much that when it's discredited to a larger degree, so will atheism.