Fundamentalist..How do you feel about how the term evolving into something hateful?

Question

My last 2 questions had the term Fundy, which is short slang for Fundamentalist.
As with much of the English language slang dictates and changes word meanings. 20 years ago bad meant bad and now in many conversations it is used to mean something is good.
Since the 9/11 attacks and the word "Islam fundamenatlism" became a hot media word...the word findamentalist has since evolved to something more sinister, more like someone who is a zealot.
Often new definitions start out slang. Right now if you look up fundamentalist in the urban dictionary you get some rather negative definitions.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fundamentalist
Which may not seem important now...but I think this is the start of a trend for future use of the word.
So what I am wondering is those who belong to a "Fundamentalist Church" do you think in the future the church will stray from that term (even though I know it has historical perspective) because it is becoming a negative word?

Answer 1

Words have a very powerful impact, both positive and negative. And unfortunately, the word Fundamentalist has been termed a very negative word, even though many, many fundamentalists would not want to condemn anyone to hell, bomb any building, nor use it as a vehicle for hate.

Fundamentalists are people who are firm in their faith and convictions. We often have beliefs that don't make sense to people of other beliefs.

But, it may surprise you to find out that we do think. We have feelings, and we don't always (gasp) vote the same way.

But you are right on the fact that words can change connotation. What I've seen from being inside the Fundamentalist religion is that people don't always understand us. They see films like "Jesus Camp" and think that's the thoughts of ALL of us, or even most of us. It is not true in every case. But we get villified by the actions of a few people. Because it's easier to generalize what people hate.

I'm sure that there will be thumbs down for my statement here, but please understand that I am answering from the Fundamentalist perspective, not on whether it's right or wrong.

Answer 2

We, of the Fundamentalist Church of Latter-Day Heretics, know that we will never stray from the one true (or not) path. We know that Robert Dawkins is God's prophet, seer, and revelator (or not) for this fallen age.

Honestly, I think Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are each a load of crap in their own ways, but I have a lot more respect for the fundamentalists in each of these paths, than I ever will have for the liberals. The fundamentalists have the courage to believe that there is something enduring contained in the messages handed down by their followers. The liberals - the people who are "with the times" - want to imagine that Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad were really just modern spiritual humanists who wouldn't mind interpretations of their words that utterly defy reason. We need to be honest - Jesus would have condemned homosexuality and abortion as a sin -Moses would have been appalled by abandonment of Torah by the Jews of today - Muhammad would have been engaged in his own massive war with america nowadays. I think that deep down inside, everyone either knows this or is so invested in lying to themselves that they'll never admit this.

All the best,

Lazarus

Answer 3

Fundamentalist Protestantism (the big-f fundamentalism) *started* as a nasty reactionary movement.

I'd love to see a Bible-literate biblical literalist. Haven't seen one YET.

If a mentalist is focused on the mental, and a dogmatist is focused on dogma, doesn't that make a fundamentalist's focus the fundament?

EDIT: By the way, crashing a plane into a building isn't bombing the building. When the WTC was **bombed**, very little happened....HOWEVER, when the CHRISTIAN ANTISECULARIST terrorists McVeigh and Rudolph bombed Oklahoma City and Atlanta, scads were hurt and killed.
Christian antisecularist terrorists HAVE succeeded in bombing the US, period, end of statement.

Answer 4

"FUNDAMENTALISM: a CONSERVATIVE THEOLOGICAL movement which arose in American PROTESTANTISM in the 1920s in opposition to "MODERNISM."... The doctrines considered essential by Fundamentalists include: the VIRGIN BIRTH of JESUS, His RESURRECTION and DEITY, His substitutionary ATONEMENT and SECOND COMING. Finally, they lay great stress on the authority of the BIBLE which is usually expressed in terms of its INFALLIBILITY and INERRANCY.... Even though the original Fundamentalists were well educated scholars--some from leading universities, such as Graham Gresham Machen at Princeton-- the movement as a whole quickly became identified with a rejection of education and a reactionary rural nostalgia for earlier times."
What I see passing itself off as "fundamentalism" nowadays churns my stomach. It has nothing to do with hatred, jingoism, militarism, laissez faire capitalism, blind fideism, realpolitik, anti-intellectualism or any such distortion. It does have to do with trying to read the bible in a manner faithful to its original intent and then applying its concepts to one's own life.

Answer 5

I am glad that you see the parallels between Extreme Islamic Fundamentalism and Extreme Christian Fundamentalism. I hope that more and more people begin to see that whatever the religion, a fundamental perspective is destructive because you have to redefine reality to fit your faith, rather than using your faith to help describe reality.

Answer 6

I believe they are trying to throw us all into the same group so that the masses will think Christians are just like the ones bombing everyone. I think it is working and am wary of what the future holds for us.

Answer 7

I am disheartened that many people think that ALL of us are like the findamentalists. They seem to think that we all do nothing but preach to everyone with whom we come in contact.
I dislike the connotation of the word.
To me, it means an extremist.

Answer 8

they will call it positive spirituality in a forced environment of coerced believers hoping not to lose their salvation by daring to say "the emperors have no clothes"