Comments on: Are Christian Fundamentalists Boogeymen?

By: Adam Greenwood

Adam Greenwood — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 20:28:14 +0000

Actually, “fundamentalist” used to have an even more well-defined meaning. It meant someone who agreed that the following were *fundamental* to Christianity:

# Inerrancy of the Scriptures
# The virgin birth and deity of Jesus
# The doctrine of substitutionary atonement
# The bodily resurrection of Jesus
# The bodily second coming of Jesus Christ

The modern-day equivalent might be TMatt’s 3 questions over at GetReligion.org:

(1) Are the biblical accounts of the resurrection of Jesus accurate? Did this event really happen?

(2) Is salvation found through Jesus Christ, alone? Was Jesus being literal when he said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6)?

(3) Is sex outside of the Sacrament of Marriage a sin?

By: Bruce Nielson

Bruce Nielson — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:59:00 +0000

Excellent definition, Vader. You always were a Jedi / Sith fundamentalist.

By: Vader

Vader — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:54:21 +0000

“Fundamentalist” used to have a fairly well-defined meaning. It meant a person whose observance of his faith (whatever faith it is) is based on the founding scriptures of that faith (interpreted according to a conscious or unconscious system of hermeneutics) to the exclusion of any subsequent authoritative interpretation. Thus, a Christian fundamentalist claims to base his faith on readings of the Bible uncolored by later Catholic or Protestant tradition. A Muslim fundamentalist claims to base his faith on Q’uran, uncolored by any later Muslim traditions. A Mormon fundamentalist claims to base his faith on the four standard works, uncolored by any later prophetic revelations or interpretations.

Meaning, that there have been few if any real fundamentalists in the history of any religion. Though Muslim fundamentalists come close, and Christian fundamentalists come closer than Mormon fundamentalists.

The fact that no written work has any meaning at all, of itself, but has to be read, means that no written work can ever be a self-contained statement of truth.