I like to know some answers?

Question

why are some people enrolling in very fundamentalists and exterme religious movements such as scientology, islam, hare krishna, bagawan sects and even mormonism?
This is the answer that i got from a well educated person,

we inhabit a world where science and new knowledge has wiped out practically all our ancient religious beliefs, and some weak people just cant accept this fact. They have reached the point of hysteria and as a result think that when they join some extreme religious movement that it would in some way give them hope. but its falls hope. fundamentalists dont have to think.
we need to understand god in this modern world as a modern deity and let go of the old one.
this answer to me makes a lot of sense, dont you think so?

Answer 1

Hell yeah

Answer 2

Actually when all else fails, go back to the basics... Fundamentalism is the basics.

Now this "new age" stuff, is a load of bunk. As you get Stars who want to find a "new thing" and embrass Dianetics or Scientology from Ron L Hubbard who was a Phsyciatrist, and proposed this, and because it went over so well, he got a big head on his shoulders and started to believe he was a god...WRONG.

Then there are Mormons, who think each of them are a god, when they die... WRONG.

The prophet of islam is dead. burried some place, and he preached hatred for "infidels", meaning anyone who wasnt a Muslim is good for killing! WRONG.

Harry Krishnas inhabit air ports and bus stations getting money any way they can to promote thier scams... They seek enlightenment, not through GOD, but through themselves..and thier scams to get money...
WRONG.

Never heard of bagawan... hmmmm But if it doesnt incorporate CHRIST as thier saviour, then they are WRONG.

The Bible says that the wise men will be made to look like fools in the end, and our Scientists, though they do a lot of good, (what the LORD lets them discover), will be shown up as fools they are, when the LORD comes to claim HIS OWN...

I wish you well..

Jesse

Answer 3

You can't hear it, but right now I'm applauding whoever said that. It is dead on.

People are superstitious and they fear the unknown. Since people have an irrational fear of not knowing why they exist they will cling to the quickest, simplest and most 'popular' trains of thought. They will clutch these things like a security blanket, because they are unable to wean themselves off of it. To do so would require them to mature as a human being and sadly the majority of the human race has the mentality of a retarded 3 year old. (No offense intended towards the mentally handicapped. I'm just using it as a metaphor.)
The problem with people's unnatural attachment to irrational belief systems is that it allows unsavory characters to manipulate them. If a politician or another authority figure wants things a certain way, they need not be blunt about it; just say god hates gay people. Or that god hates anyone who has an abortion. Or any of a number of oversimplified (and poorly thought out) 'religious' arguments.
The only way for one to become enlightened is to continually question one's own belief system.

Answer 4

Heck NO it doesn't make sense!!!

Understand God in this modern world and let go of the old one? God is God no matter what time, century, decade, week, month, year or day. What stood long ago, (God's word) still stands today.

God bless you

Answer 5

yes it does make sense

but i think there has been in religion sheeple always

there are also atheist sheeple


but i would think in a modern age people would THINK for themselves,

i think they do, i think this idea of sheeple in modern religion is just an excuse for people who are too busy on their cell phones and watching netflix to actually consider heh why is pastor joe so upset with gay people that i am too

Answer 6

I think (and many have said)that the Church as we know it is in for a "Shaking" from God,a"reformation".
The Church has become too "organised",too comersialised.
The next "move of God" will be very radical.

Answer 7

Most people were not raised to have faith in God. FAith is what you need in order to go about your everyday life and know that you are alright. Those people have either lost their faith or they never had it to begin with. They are truly lost!!!

Answer 8

no basically all you need to know is no religion has it right some are close but in the end they are all just a scam

Answer 9

yes.

Answer 10

Christian views
Main article: Fundamentalist Christianity
Self-described Christian fundamentalists see their scripture, a combination of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, as both infallible and historically accurate. The New Testament represents a new covenant between God and human beings, which is held to fulfill the Old Testament, in regard to God's redemptive plan. On the basis of this confidence in Scripture, many fundamentalist Christians accept the account of scripture as being literally true.

It is important to distinguish between the "literalist" and Fundamentalist groups within the Christian community. Literalists, as the name indicates, hold that the Bible should be taken literally in every part (though English language Bibles are themselves translations and therefore not a literal, word-for-word rending of the original texts). Many Christian Fundamentalists, on the other hand, are for the most part content to hold that the Bible should be taken literally only where there is no indication to the contrary. As William Jennings Bryan put it, in response to Clarence Darrow's questioning during the Scopes Trial (1925):

"I believe that everything in the Bible should be accepted as it is given there; some of the Bible is given illustratively. For instance: 'Ye are the salt of the earth.' I would not insist that man was actually salt, or that he had flesh of salt, but it is used in the sense of salt as saving God's people."

Nevertheless, they typically believe that it is the church's obligation (imperfectly realized) to understand the Scriptures, so far as that is possible, to believe what they say, and to act accordingly. Still, the tendency toward a literal reading of the Bible is criticized by mainline Protestant scholars and others.[2] [3] [4] .

According to Lionel Caplan, and expert on religious fundamentalism,

"In the protestant milieu of the USA, fundamentalism crystallized in response to liberals' eagerness to bring Christianity into the post-Darwinian world by questioning the scientific and historical accuracy of the scripture. Subsequently, the scourge of evolution was linked with socialism, and during the Cold War period, with communism. This unholy trinity came to be regarded as a sinister, atheistic threat to Christian America...Bruce [Chpt. 9 of Caplan 1987] suggests that to understand the success of the Moral Majority, an alliance between the conservative forces of the New Right and the fundamentalist wings on the mainly Southern Baptist Churches, we have to appreciate these fears, as well as the impact of a host of unwelcome changes - in attitudes to 'morality', family, civil and women's rights, and so on - which have, in the wake of economic transformations since the Second World War, penetrated especially the previously insular social and cultural world of the American South." (Caplan 1987: 6)

The term fundamentalist has historically referred specifically to members of the various Protestant denominations who subscribed to the five "fundamentals", rather than fundamentalists forming an independent denomination. This wider movement of Fundamentalist Christianity has since broken up into various movements which are better described in other terms. Early "fundamentalists" included J. Gresham Machen and B.B. Warfield, men who would not be considered "Fundamentalists" today.

Over time the term came to be, incorrectly, associated with a particular segment of evangelical Protestantism, who distinguished themselves by their separatist approach toward modernity, toward aspects of the culture which they feel typify the modern world, and toward other Christians who did not similarly separate themselves. Examples of things that fundamentalists might believe important to avoid are, modern translations of the Bible, alcoholic drinks or recreational drugs, tobacco, modern popular music including Christian contemporary music, folk instruments in worship, dancing, "mixed bathing" (men and women swimming together), and gender-neutral or trans-gender clothing and hair-styles. Such things might seem innocuous to the outsider, but to some fundamentalists they represent the leading edge of a threat to the virtuous way of life and the purer form of belief that they seek to protect and to hold forth before the world as an example. Many fundamentalists accept only the King James Version translation of the Bible and study tools based on it, such as the Scofield Reference Bible.

Because of the prevalence of dispensational eschatology, some fundamentalists vehemently support the modern nation of Israel, believing the Jews to have significance in God's purposes parallel to the Christian churches, and a special role to play at the end of the world.

The term, fundamentalist, is difficult to apply unambiguously, especially when applied to groups outside the USA, which are typically far less dogmatic. Many self-described Fundamentalists would include Jerry Falwell in their company, but would not embrace Pat Robertson as a fundamentalist because of his espousal of charismatic teachings. Fundamentalist institutions include Pensacola Christian College, and Bob Jones University, but classically Fundamentalist schools such as Fuller Theological Seminary and Biola University no longer describe themselves as Fundamentalist, although in the broad sense described by this article they are fundamentalist (better, Evangelical) in their perspective.
(The forerunner to Biola U. - the Bible Institute of Los Angeles - was founded under the financial patronage of Lyman Stewart, with his brother Milton, underwrote the publication of a series of 12 books jointly entitled The Fundamentals between 1909 and 1920.)

[edit]
Jewish views
Most Jewish denominations believe that the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible or Old Testament) cannot be understood literally or alone, but rather needs to be read in conjunction with additional material known as the oral law; this material is contained in the Mishnah, Talmud, Gmara and Midrash. While the Tanakh is not read in a literal fashion, Orthodox Judaism does view the text itself as divine, infallible, and transmitted essentially without change, and places great import in the specific words and letters of the Torah. As well, some adherents of Orthodox Judaism, especially Haredi Judaism, see the Mishnah, Talmud and Midrash as divine and infallible in content, if not in specific wording. Hasidic Jews frequently ascribe infallibility to their Rebbe's interpretation of the traditional sources of truth. On the other hand the Karaites according to themselves "are a Jewish sect which does not recognize the authority of the post-Biblical tradition incorporated in the Talmud and in the latter Rabbinic works."-

[edit]
Mormon views
Main article: Mormon fundamentalism
Mormon fundamentalism is a conservative movement of Mormonism that believes or practices what its adherents consider to be the fundamental aspects of Mormonism. Most often, Mormon fundamentalism represents a break from the brand of Mormonism practiced by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), and a return to Mormon doctrines and practices which adherents believe the LDS Church has wrongly abandoned, such as plural marriage, the Law of Consecration, the Adam-God theory, blood atonement, the Patriarchal Priesthood, elements of the Mormon Endowment ritual, and often the exclusion of Blacks from the priesthood. Mormon fundamentalists have formed numerous sects, many of which have established small, cohesive, and isolated communities in areas of the Western United States.

[edit]
Islamic views
Muslims believe that their religion was revealed by God (Allah in Arabic) to Muhammad, the prophet of Islam. However, the Muslims brand of conservatism which is generally termed Islamic fundamentalism encompasses all the following:

It describes the beliefs of traditional Muslims that they should restrict themselves to literal interpretations of their sacred texts, the Qur'an and Hadith. This may describe the private religious attitudes of individuals and have no relationship with larger social groups.
It describes a variety of religious movements and political parties in Muslim communities.
As opposed to the above two usages, in the West "Islamic fundamentalism" is most often used to describe Muslim individuals and groups which advocate Islamism, a political ideology calling for the replacement of state secular laws with Islamic law. The more radical of these Islamists may advocate violent overthrow of secular states, or even Islamist terrorism.
In all the above cases, Islamic fundamentalism represents a conservative religious belief, as opposed to liberal movements within Islam.

[edit]
"Non-Abrahamic" religions
Some argue that the religious idea of fundamentalism is limited to "Abrahamic religions", and have connected the phenomenon specifically to the notion of revealed religion. However, the answer to the question, Who is a fundamentalist? is in the eye of the beholder. It is not uncommon for detractors to apply the fundamentalist label to Wiccans or virtually anything else religious, describing an attitude rather than a self-perception or a doctrine. In the landmark series on fundamentalism, scholars led by liberal Christian scholar Martin Marty have identified fundamentalism also in Hinduism.

Followers of Hinduism generally adhere to the Vedic statement, "Truth is One, though the sages know it variously", which would seem to make relativism practically a fundamental tenet. However, a few sects within Hinduism do have a tendency to dogmatically view the Vedas as divinely inspired, superior or even flawless. Regardless, some claim that no Hindu can be found who considers his/her name of God to be that of the "only true God" or their scriptures to be the "only scriptures truly inspired by God" or their prophet to be the "final one". In fact it is normal that Hinduism is itself divided into many different sects and groups with new sects and new philosophies continuously being added; consequently, the fundamentalist enclaves identified by The Fundamentalism Project, which claim to be purer than others, are regarded as aberrant within Hinduism.

The Japanese Nichiren sect of Buddhism, which believes that other forms of Buddhism are heretical, is also sometimes labelled fundamentalist. However, Nichiren Buddhism contains influences from Shintoism and a strongly nationalistic streak that would disqualify it from being fundamentalist in the strictest sense.

[edit]
Non-religious fundamentalism
Some refer to any literal-minded or intolerant philosophy with pretense of being the sole source of objective truth, as fundamentalist, regardless of whether it is usually called a religion. For example, when Albania under Enver Hoxha declared itself an "atheist state", it was deemed by some to be a kind of "Fundamentalist Atheism" or more accurately "Stalinist Fundamentalism". There are people who in their attempt to live according to the writings of Ayn Rand seem to detractors to transgress respect for other perspectives in propagating their views, so that they are deemed to be a kind of "Objectivist Fundamentalist", and they are spoken of derogatorily as, "Randroids." In France, the imposition of restrictions on public display of religion has been labelled by some as "Secular Fundamentalism." The idea of non-religious Fundamentalism almost always expands the definition of "Fundamentalism" along the lines of criticisms. Occasionally, it represents an idea of purity, and is self-applied as signifying a rather counter-cultural fidelity to some noble, simple, but overlooked principle, as in Economic fundamentalism; but the same term can be used in a critical way.

[edit]
Arguments in favor of fundamentalist positions
Fundamentalists claim both that they practice their religion as the first adherents did and that this is how religion should be practiced. In other words, a Christian ought to believe and practice as those who knew and followed Jesus during his time on earth. A Muslim ought to give the same consideration to the followers of Muhammad. Analogous arguments can be made for most systems of religious belief. Fundamentalists justify this belief on the idea that the founders of the world's religions said and did things that were not written down; in other words, their original disciples knew things that we don't. For fundamentalist Christians, this claim is justified by the Gospel of John, which ends with the statement "there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." (John 21:25, NKJV) Further justification is adduced from the static or falling attendance of many liberal or reformed congregations, from the scandals that have struck, for example, the Roman Catholic church, and from the increasing difficulty of distinguishing between religiously liberal and avowedly secularist views on such matters as homosexuality, abortion and women's rights.

[