[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Yorick, you can't pick a part of my definition that applies to you and find offense. I listed several characteristics that I was discussing, and they do not all apply to the religions you discussed. Just because your father calls his church "fundamentalist" doesn't mean he fits the definition of what I'm talking about. I spelled it all out.

You're talking about the largest church in Australia Timber. Not the words of one man. Liberal churches like the Uniting Church, also regard the Sydney Anglicans as being fundamentalist. So it's self identification, and external identification.

Your definition is incorrect. If you're quoting then their definition is incorrect, or a definition that only applies to their narrow American experience. Find a new word or phrase if the current one doesn't fit.

[quote]These family resemblances include:
>
-religious idealism as basis for personal and communal identity;
-fundamentalists understand truth to be revealed and unified;
-it is intentionally scandalous, (similar to Lawrence's point about language -- outsiders cannot understand it);

-fundamentalists envision themselves as part of a cosmic struggle; -they seize on historical moments and reinterpret them in light of this cosmic struggle; -they demonize their opposition and are reactionary;

This is not unique to fundamentalism, nor is fundamentalism the exclusive domain of this idea.

-fundamentalists are selective in what parts of their tradition and heritage they stress; -they are led by males; -they envy modernist cultural hegemony and try to overturn the distribution of power.

Relative to the beliefs Timber. Literalist Christians will choose male leadership due to their interpretation of Pauls letters. Fundamentalists can be literalists or not.

-fundamentalists are concerned "first" with the erosion of religion and its proper role in society;

Only if that is fundamental to their beliefs, view and gospel. It's relative.

-fundamentalism is selective of their tradition and what part of modernity they accept or choose to react against; they embrace some form of Manicheanism (dualism);

-fundamentalists stress absolutism and inerrancy in their sources of revelation;

The ones I have known, yes do do this. Again though, it's relative to what thay gospel or revelation is. A fundamentalist cultist will be adamandt that their cult leaders revealations are innerant. A fundamentalist Christian will reject individuals words as being inerrant and instead regard the gospel as being inerrant. This is not radical nor extreme, but a quite common belief.

- > The organizational characteristics include: > -an elect or chosen membership;

The Anglican church do this, but if the beliefs were anarchistic, or egalitarian, then fundamentalism would be to have no leadership.

-sharp group boundaries; -charismatic authoritarian leaders; and -mandated behavioral requirements.

Not always the case. Wrong.

I don't recall you detailing how your situation fit all of these. Note that there are 3 groups of characteristics to address: general, ideological, and organizational. Now, if your situation fits into all of these things discussed above, chance are you may have a bone to pick. But I don't think you do. But, sure, find offense if you like. And thanks for tossing ignorance at me again as an insult. At least that's a problem that, if present, I can remedy. [/QB]

[ 08-25-2004, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]