NationStates Jolt Archive

Whatever the form, it's fundamentalism that blinds us to our fellow man's humanity. Christian, Islamic, Judaic, ALL forms are the real evil in our world.

Whatever the form, it's fundamentalism that blinds us to our fellow man's humanity. Christian, Islamic, Judaic, ALL forms are the real evil in our world.


So we are all agreed then...for once.

So we are all agreed then...for once.
I think you're agreeing with yourself... Isn't that a form of fundamentalism?

I think you're agreeing with yourself... Isn't that a form of fundamentalism?


no it's schizophrenia

no it's schizophrenia
lol

Whatever the form, it's fundamentalism that blinds us to our fellow man's humanity. Christian, Islamic, Judaic, ALL forms are the real evil in our world.
This observation is as accurate as it is useless, because you cannot fight "all fundamentalism". If you want to fight against fundamentalism, the first question to be answered is WHOSE fundamentalism you're up against this time.

Whatever the form, it's fundamentalism that blinds us to our fellow man's humanity. Christian, Islamic, Judaic, ALL forms are the real evil in our world.

On closer analysis, your statement is entirely contradictory.
By declaring that fundamentalism is 'evil' and 'blind', you are suggesting a radical absolute or precedent.
In truth, all you have done is made the crusade against fundamentalism a fundamentalist crusade.
Hence the contradiction.

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d140/jhbmw007/psychobitch.gif

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d140/jhbmw007/psychobitch.gif

Nice :p .

Whatever the form, it's fundamentalism that blinds us to our fellow man's humanity. Christian, Islamic, Judaic, ALL forms are the real evil in our world.

Yes, you are correct:

Any political, religious, or social system, that allows one group of people to demonise, dehumanise, or devalue another group of people - is to blame.

This observation is as accurate as it is useless, because you cannot fight "all fundamentalism". If you want to fight against fundamentalism, the first question to be answered is WHOSE fundamentalism you're up against this time.

Sorry, but this supposed reposte makes no sense.... But I could start with yours:fluffle: :fluffle:

On closer analysis, your statement is entirely contradictory.
By declaring that fundamentalism is 'evil' and 'blind', you are suggesting a radical absolute or precedent.
In truth, all you have done is made the crusade against fundamentalism a fundamentalist crusade.
Hence the contradiction.

Your ignorance precedes you...in truth all YOU have done is made an assumption that I propose a crusade...which I do not..I am only trying to see how many bigotted fundamentalist with pretentious aspirations to logic will try and find fault with a statement made by a collective of religious leaders after the London Bombing....so hey:fluffle:

Whatever the form, it's fundamentalism that blinds us to our fellow man's humanity. Christian, Islamic, Judaic, ALL forms are the real evil in our world.

"The Amish are fundamentalists, but they don't hijack a carriage at needlepoint." -Robin Williams.

How do you define fundementalists?

Some define it as believing in the sciptures word for word, and not interpriting it in today's context. What about doing exactly what said scripture says to do?
Because if this is how you define fundementalism, count me in. Am I evil?

"The Amish are fundamentalists, but they don't hijack a carriage at needlepoint." -Robin Williams.

no, they have the decency to stay out the way and only make an occasional foray into Harrison Ford Flicks

How do you define fundementalists?

Some define it as believing in the sciptures word for word, and not interpriting it in today's context. What about doing exactly what said scripture says to do?
Because if this is how you define fundementalism, count me in. Am I evil?

Anyone more sure of their beleifs than a vague sort of spiritualism is a whacked out fundy to some people. So yes, but you're in good company.

Anyone more sure of their beleifs than a vague sort of spiritualism is a whacked out fundy to some people. So yes, but you're in good company.

I believe it's possible to be a fundamentalist nihilist.

Anyone more sure of their beleifs than a vague sort of spiritualism is a whacked out fundy to some people. So yes, but you're in good company.

so if scripture told you to stone homosexuals, would you?

so if scripture told you to stone homosexuals, would you?

That's entirely irrelevent because scripture doesn't tell anyone to stone anybody. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and all that.

That's entirely irrelevent because scripture doesn't tell anyone to stone anybody. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and all that.

So what do you think of other faiths then?

So what do you think of other faiths then?

because you sound far too reasonable to be a fundamentalist.

That's entirely irrelevent because scripture doesn't tell anyone to stone anybody. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and all that.

Unless you are a Canaanite. Or a witch. Or a rebellious child. Or a girl who was raped IN a city, but nobody heard...

That's entirely irrelevent because scripture doesn't tell anyone to stone anybody. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and all that.

Also, "turn the other cheek". For a while, I didn't know what that meant. It means literally if someone slaps you give them the other cheek to hit as well.

And if someone steals your coat, give 'em your shirt as well.

So you'll excuse me if I think that Christian fundementalism isn't as big of a problem as the "Slay them where you find them" Islam extremists.

Unless you are a Canaanite. Or a witch. Or a rebellious child. Or a girl who was raped IN a city, but nobody heard...

That's more Old Testament Judaism.

"Oh but in Leviticus it says to kill people who have committed adultery"
Think about it. Adultery is still wrong, no? It's the punishment you have a problem with, luckily Christians believe in the whole "Christ took care of that bit" thing.

Also, "turn the other cheek". For a while, I didn't know what that meant. It means literally if someone slaps you give them the other cheek to hit as well.

And if someone steals your coat, give 'em your shirt as well.

So you'll excuse me if I think that Christian fundementalism isn't as big of a problem as the "Slay them where you find them" Islam extremists.

"Slay them where you find them"??? ....lest you be judged yourself matey, remember

Your ignorance precedes you...in truth all YOU have done is made an assumption that I propose a crusade...which I do not..I am only trying to see how many bigotted fundamentalist with pretentious aspirations to logic will try and find fault with a statement made by a collective of religious leaders after the London Bombing....so hey:fluffle:

Are you accusing me of fundamentalism?
If you are, then I must say, how little you understand me. I only wished to point out to you, in a friendly way, the contradiction of your statement in the hopes that you would reassess your position. But I digress...

Perhaps crusade was indeed the wrong word, I just thought it sounded good in the context of the sentence and that was an error on my part.
But nonetheless the point remains, regardless of whether or not you are crusading against fundamentalism, you are still declaring a radical and opinionated absolute in declaring it an 'evil' and 'blind' form of a belief or ideal and therefore you are fundamentalist in your opposition to fundamentalism which as I said earlier is a contradiction in terms.

Whatever the form, it's fundamentalism that blinds us to our fellow man's humanity. Christian, Islamic, Judaic, ALL forms are the real evil in our world.

fundimentalism is just a word- and thats a sweeping generalisation.
i am a Christian fundamentalist who believes...in loving others as Jesus loves me. evil spans from this? eh how?
the real evil in our world is man who is self centred, greedy and unaware of his fellow humans. i include myself in this-no one is exempt-we are all the same.

fundimentalism is just a word- and thats a sweeping generalisation.
i am a Christian fundamentalist who believes...in loving others as Jesus loves me. evil spans from this? eh how?
the real evil in our world is man who is self centred, greedy and unaware of his fellow humans. i include myself in this-no one is exempt-we are all the same.

You are correct. Fundamentalism cannot be simply labeled as 'evil'. (Though of course, I would doubt the very existence of 'good and evil')

Fundamentalism in the dictionary sense is simply the extreme belief in the fundamentals of your system of ideals sometimes (though quite often) to the exclusion of and the intolerance to all other systems of ideals.

That said, if it is your belief that fundamentalism is 'evil' in such a broad stroke, you are demonising it holding fundamentally that your 'moderation' is the best course; is this in turn not fundamentalism?

Isn't it fundamentalistic to say all of anything is evil? Only Sith deal in absolutes.

Whatever the form, it's fundamentalism that blinds us to our fellow man's humanity. Christian, Islamic, Judaic, ALL forms are the real evil in our world.

Let us examine the word.

Fundamentalism

Break it down.

Fundamental-ism

Fundamental-fundamental
Main Entry: 1fun·da·men·tal
Pronunciation: "f&n-d&-'men-t&l
Function: adjective
1 a : serving as an original or generating source : PRIMARY <a discovery fundamental to modern computers> b : serving as a basis supporting existence or determining essential structure or function : BASIC
2 a : of or relating to essential structure, function, or facts : RADICAL <fundamental change>; also : of or dealing with general principles rather than practical application <fundamental science> b : adhering to fundamentalism
3 : of, relating to, or produced by the lowest component of a complex vibration
4 : of central importance : PRINCIPAL <fundamental purpose>
5 : belonging to one's innate or ingrained characteristics : DEEP-ROOTED <her fundamental good humor>


ism:
Main Entry: ism
Pronunciation: 'i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: -ism
: a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory


SO what we have is a Distinctive Doctrine based on what amounts tothe essentials of a systems.

Any sports players here?

Ever heard this--"We need to get back to fundamentals"

Salemen?

Mechanics?

In religion it is especially true.

Fundamentalism is essential for any religion or ideology.

The point here, is who is REALLY the fundamentalist, and who is the Radical, truthfully who is the Radical Iconoclast.

good point

Let us examine the word.

Fundamentalism

Break it down.

Fundamental-ism

Fundamental-fundamental
Main Entry: 1fun·da·men·tal
Pronunciation: "f&n-d&-'men-t&l
Function: adjective
1 a : serving as an original or generating source : PRIMARY <a discovery fundamental to modern computers> b : serving as a basis supporting existence or determining essential structure or function : BASIC
2 a : of or relating to essential structure, function, or facts : RADICAL <fundamental change>; also : of or dealing with general principles rather than practical application <fundamental science> b : adhering to fundamentalism
3 : of, relating to, or produced by the lowest component of a complex vibration
4 : of central importance : PRINCIPAL <fundamental purpose>
5 : belonging to one's innate or ingrained characteristics : DEEP-ROOTED <her fundamental good humor>


ism:
Main Entry: ism
Pronunciation: 'i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: -ism
: a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory


SO what we have is a Distinctive Doctrine based on what amounts tothe essentials of a systems.

Any sports players here?

Ever heard this--"We need to get back to fundamentals"

Salemen?

Mechanics?

In religion it is especially true.

Fundamentalism is essential for any religion or ideology.

The point here, is who is REALLY the fundamentalist, and who is the Radical, truthfully who is the Radical Iconoclast.

good, then can I ask the question to all who consider themselves fundamentalist...what do you think of other religions?

good, then can I ask thetion to all who consider themselves fundamentalist...what do you think of other religions?

They're wrong?

Isn't it fundamentalistic to say all of anything is evil? Only Sith deal in absolutes.

I've always felt that the Jedi engaging in some absolutism--namely Obi-Wan making absolutely sure Vader was absolutely dead--would have done the galaxy quite a bit of good. :p

They're wrong?

and your religion is the only right one?

Also, "turn the other cheek". For a while, I didn't know what that meant. It means literally if someone slaps you give them the other cheek to hit as well.


Yes.. but do you understand the insult behind the gesture?


So you'll excuse me if I think that Christian fundementalism isn't as big of a problem as the "Slay them where you find them" Islam extremists.

There's no real difference. Many of those christians that sit and decry Islamic terrorists, were remarkably quiet during the Troubles in Ireland, with christian terrorists... and ignore the fact that - while Islam is 600 years younger than Christianity, it is far more civilised for that age.

One only has to look at what christians were doing 600 years ago...

One only has to look at what christians were doing 600 years ago...

I don't know if you can honestly compare them; Islam was very advanced in the Middle Ages when it was only 400-600 years old, while Christianity was in the Dark Ages at that age. The problem lies with the political leaders of the Islamic world who intentionally keep their people in poverty and encourage fundamentalism as leverage against the West and as a means of shifting attention from their own corruption and tyranny.

There's no real difference. Many of those christians that sit and decry Islamic terrorists, were remarkably quiet during the Troubles in Ireland, with christian terrorists... and ignore the fact that - while Islam is 600 years younger than Christianity, it is far more civilised for that age.
Of course they turned a blind eye!

Just like some Islamic folk turn a blind eye to the actions of their kin.

good, then can I ask the question to all who consider themselves fundamentalist...what do you think of other religions?

i think that theyre wrong but entitled to believe what they like, but thats not just cus im fundamentalist...most people believe theyre right and everyone else is wrong, not much point believing something you believe is wrong just for the fun of it is there?:rolleyes:

Originall posted by Grave_n_idle
Originally Posted by 5iam
Also, "turn the other cheek". For a while, I didn't know what that meant. It means literally if someone slaps you give them the other cheek to hit as well.



Yes.. but do you understand the insult behind the gesture?
Does the insult of what the "cheek-turner" does rest on the one turning the cheek or the one who hit? It could possibly be frustrating to the person doing the hitting, though not meant to be offensive by the one being hit, could it not?

Originally posted by Manganopia
(Though of course, I would doubt the very existence of 'good and evil')
Sweet! When I meet you, I am going to slam my fist into your nose and steal your wallet! :p :p :p

Goddistan']Sweet! When I meet you, I am going to slam my fist into your nose and steal your wallet! :p :p :p

Indeed, you might.

That however would be assault and theft and I would have the police find and arrest you.

You see, I see things in terms of 'good and bad' rather than 'good and evil'. This means things like 'law and order' and 'justice' are good because they improve overall human happiness and fulfillment and prevent things like widespread destruction and disorder which would have a 'bad' effect on overall human happiness and fulfillment.
Therefore, the concept of law in my view is perfectly valid outside of traditional religious 'good and evil' perspectives so therefore your action would be socially unacceptable and you would be arrested.

That is of course, in the event that the police could in fact catch you.

For me, I see the concept of 'good and evil' as lacking in responsibility and free will since I see them as superstitious and heavenly forces. By claiming that an act is 'evil' one excuses the person committing that act because they were 'evil'. Conversely, one persons 'good' deeds are eclipsed by the fact that the divine good is responsible, not the person.

I don't know if you can honestly compare them; Islam was very advanced in the Middle Ages when it was only 400-600 years old, while Christianity was in the Dark Ages at that age. The problem lies with the political leaders of the Islamic world who intentionally keep their people in poverty and encourage fundamentalism as leverage against the West and as a means of shifting attention from their own corruption and tyranny.

Which is exactly what the Christian church was doing in the west, 600 years ago, yes? It is only in the last few hundred years that any 'non-religious enlightenment' has been 'allowed' by the powers-that-be.

And, here we are, pointing and staring (collectively), at the self-same things our OWN cultures were doing a few years back. (Plus, of course, some believe that Bush is doing the self-same thing... encouraging the extreme Christians, as leverage against the middle-east, against homosexuals and other 'disruptive influences at home, and AWAY from real administration issues... like why the government continues to allow croneyism at the highest levels, or why nepotism is allowed in the awarding of government contracts).

Goddistan']Does the insult of what the "cheek-turner" does rest on the one turning the cheek or the one who hit? It could possibly be frustrating to the person doing the hitting, though not meant to be offensive by the one being hit, could it not?


The actual meaning behind the 'turn the other cheek' motion, is the insult that is presented to the opponent.

It is all to do with 'striking' people - and what is considered a 'fair hit', if you will.

It is possible to strike with the backhand, without 'hitting' someone (according to custom... it wouldn't stand up in a modern US court). Thus, to turn the other cheek, is to challenge the 'striker' to do something they perhaps dare not doing... which would be to present a front-hand slap.

and your religion is the only right one?

As a self proclaimed Christian Fundamentalist --Yes.

But, here is where the radical and not the Fundamentalist makes a Radical departure.

The Radical then proceeds to demonize that which is incorrect according to fundamental doctrine(this is being one of several typical radical behaviors).

The fundamentals of my religion dictate that no man--regardless of station OR of current belief is anymore righteous or holy then another. This idea is conviently abandoned by the Radical---He removes that which makes those who are different, equal.

A fundamental tenet of my religion is that I am equal to every other man, and every other man is equal to me--period.

The fact I have stumbled on to the correct path simply means I am now obligated to
1. Educate myself on the fundamentals of my faith
2. Assit those seeking grounding in those fundamental tenets.
3. Ensure that those fundamental tenets are not dilluted(s/p?)

This leads me to my anger with my cousins of the Islamic Faith--the Radical deface a beautiful and fundamentally peaceful and civilised faith, yet the true fundamentalists allow this trangression. The Qu'ran is clear on this matter, and the true Musilms are not fullfilling their obligation.

I myself am a Christian--you will note I harbor no hostility towards another Exclusionary faith. That would be against the fundamentals of my religion.

Just as it is against the fundamentals of Islam.

A faith being exclusionary in doctrine is rarely on the fundamental hostile in its tenets. It is the radical departure from fundamental doctrine which creates this schism-between the true fundamentalist and the Radical Iconoclast.

I however blame the media for misuse ofthe word fundamentalist and fundamentalism--and academics(including those most guilty Theologians(s/p) and other Religious Scholars) for not pointing it out.