Floods are a judgement on society, say bishops

[Pierre]

Any body got an ark???

[Saaf_laandon_mo]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Very well put! The fundamentalists are the true followers of the faith...

Its important that the word fundamentalist is not linked or used in tangent with terrorists. I believe you can be a fundamental follower of religion without having to resort to blowing people up.

I have noticed that recently muslim terrorists have been labeled 'extremists' whereas a few years back they were fundamentals.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo

Its important that the word fundamentalist is not linked or used in tangent with terrorists. I believe you can be a fundamental follower of religion without having to resort to blowing people up.

Though it would appear that the more fundamental a follower is, the more likely they are to 'go off the deep end'.....killing doctors who carry out abortions, not allowing their kids to have transfusions, burning widows, flying planes into buildings, genitally mutilating women......

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Though it would appear that the more fundamental a follower is, the more likely they are to 'go off the deep end'.....killing doctors who carry out abortions, not allowing their kids to have transfusions, burning widows, flying planes into buildings, genitally mutilating women......

Not at all - all you're doing is insisting on a definition of 'fundamental' other than the one SLM is offering.

If the fundamental tenets of a religion are non-violent - as Christianity is - then it is not, and can never be, fundamentalist behaviour to attack or kill doctors who perform abortions. It is extremist behaviour, but it is not fundamentalist.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Not at all - all you're doing is insisting on a definition of 'fundamental' other than the one SLM is offering.

I agree with SLM's definition....

If the fundamental tenets of a religion are non-violent - as Christianity is - then it is not, and can never be, fundamentalist behaviour to attack or kill doctors who perform abortions. It is extremist behaviour, but it is not fundamentalist.

But surely, in order to be an extremist you have to be a fundamentalist first and foremost?
Can you get a religious extremist who isn't a fundamentalist?

Originally Posted by Ramrod

I agree with SLM's definition....

You appear to, but then you say this:

But surely, in order to be an extremist you have to be a fundamentalist first and foremost?

Can you get a religious extremist who isn't a fundamentalist?

Fundamentalist: being a supporter of fundamentalism, which is strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles, often used in a religious sense (culled from Dictionary.com).

If the basic ideas or principles of the teachings of Jesus Christ are non-violent - and they are - then by definition, someone who commits a violent act is not strictly adhering to those principles. Therefore that person cannot be a fundamentalist follower of Jesus.

What they could be, is a fundamentalist follower of a cause or sect that does advocate violence. That, I suspect, is where the source of our disagreement lies. There are many such causes and sects on the fringe of what you might call 'mainstream' Christianity. I suppose it's a case of pick your fundamentalist really.

I think the thrust of SLM's point, and certainly mine, is to avoid using the word 'fundamentalist' in any way that implies that the mainstream of either Islam or Christianity demands or applauds the kind of activity we saw at Glasgow airport, or outside abortion clinics. Seeing as the word 'fundamentalist' is open to interpretations depending on whose fundamentals you're examining, we both applaud the recent media trend towards using the word 'extremist' instead. This word conveys the unusual nature of the act committed, but without any implied judgement of the belief system of other people not connected with the act.

[Ramrod]

Good points there Chris

What they could be, is a fundamentalist follower of a cause or sect that does advocate violence. That, I suspect, is where the source of our disagreement lies. There are many such causes and sects on the fringe of what you might call 'mainstream' Christianity. I suppose it's a case of pick your fundamentalist really.

Agreed. In some cases, religious fundamentalism can lead to extremism
And by that token, extremism can only come from religious fundamentalism (which can only come from a religion)

Isn't the problem with all religions though (well the mainstream ones) that their teachings can be interpretted pretty much how you want hence the way some use them for justification of the most terrible atrocities. I think it is time that religions stopped continuely beating the "we are peaceful" drum and started to modernise their texts\teachings to fit into the modern world as the more advanced we seem to become in some areas the more misinterpretated religion seems to be becoming.

[Ramrod]

The problem with that idea is (as SLM said), that would be an acknowledgement that god (or the religion) was wrong for the last one or two thousand years.....

[Mr Angry]

Chris,

"Basic" "non-violent" teachings of Christ aside

Luke 19:27 states

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay before me.

Anyone electing to follow that tenet of fundamentalism (ie. straight from the horse's mouth) could hardly be described as anything but a violent fundamentalist.

I appreciate, I think, where you're coming from but I think a deeper analysis of fundamentalism beyond the written word / actions is what is required.

Ultimately fundamentalists / extremists almost invariably have religious leanings.

Coincidence?

[Xaccers]

Well, it didn't take long did it?
Apparently discussing the opinions of a Bishop is bashing religion, I dunno, I'm still confused by that one, especially as the accusation from the usual suspects rarely turns up in threads regarding Islamic loonies.

Religion affects me in a detrimental way every single week.
Is that bashing religion or is that stating a fact?

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Good points there Chris
Agreed. In some cases, religious fundamentalism can lead to extremism
And by that token, extremism can only come from religious fundamentalism (which can only come from a religion)

Thank you .... however on your point about where extremism can come from, Karl Marx, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao and the Maoist rebels of Nepal and many other countries all say you might be wrong.

---------- Post added at 16:31 ---------- Previous post was at 16:29 ----------

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Chris,

"Basic" "non-violent" teachings of Christ aside

Luke 19:27 states

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay before me.

Anyone electing to follow that tenet of fundamentalism (ie. straight from the horse's mouth) could hardly be described as anything but a violent fundamentalist.

I appreciate, I think, where you're coming from but I think a deeper analysis of fundamentalism beyond the written word / actions is what is required.

Ultimately fundamentalists / extremists almost invariably have religious leanings.

Coincidence?

If you know the Bible well enough to pick a verse out of the air like that, I'm surprised you're unable to distinguish between passages devoted to instructing disciples for daily life, and passages that talk about a final punishment that is, incidentally, to be meted out by God, not by his followers.

Unless you are very well aware of that distinction and are trying to make mischief? Shurley not ...

[Saaf_laandon_mo]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Thank you .... however on your point about where extremism can come from, Karl Marx, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao and the Maoist rebels of Nepal and many other countries all say you might be wrong.

Extremism can manifest itself from whatever you believe in strongly enough, be it religion or say, Vogue and other fashion magazines.

For example there are some women who fundamentally believe that size 0 is the best thing since slice bread, and resort to the extreme behaviour of puking up their meals to keep to a size zero.

[Gareth]

The name Graham Dow seems familiar.

According to the Grauniad, this is the same Graham Dow who, in a 1991 document entitled Explaining Deliverance, insisted that clear signs of satanic possession include inappropriate laughter, inexplicable knowledge, a false smile, Scottish ancestry, relatives who have been miners and the habitual choice of black for dress or car colour.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Gareth

The name Graham Dow seems familiar.

According to the Grauniad, this is the same Graham Dow who, in a 1991 document entitled Explaining Deliverance, insisted that clear signs of satanic possession include inappropriate laughter, inexplicable knowledge, a false smile, Scottish ancestry, relatives who have been miners and the habitual choice of black for dress or car colour.

Describes Tony Bliar to me...

---------- Post added at 17:14 ---------- Previous post was at 17:11 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris T

If you know the Bible well enough to pick a verse out of the air like that, I'm surprised you're unable to distinguish between passages devoted to instructing disciples for daily life, and passages that talk about a final punishment that is, incidentally, to be meted out by God, not by his followers.

Does that make it acceptable then?

Also, would an extremist realise that god is supposed to do the slaying personally, rather than use his followers to do his bidding as he has reportedly used them to do so before?