Comments on: Dawkins Part 6: The Problem With Fundamentalism http://toddhdow.org/2007/09/21/dawkins-part-6-the-problem-with-fundamentalism/ Thoughts, opinions and various writings Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:33:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: darla http://toddhdow.org/2007/09/21/dawkins-part-6-the-problem-with-fundamentalism/#comment-540 Sun, 23 Sep 2007 23:17:36 +0000 http://toddhdow.org/2007/09/21/dawkins-day-6-the-problem-with-fundamentalism/#comment-540 Christianity has turned to a fundamentalist thinking…and for some things I think it is..example-does the Bible say that? Some times everyone is guilty of listening too long to what someone thinks instead of going to the source. i have experienced lots of fundamentalists who bank more on what the commentaries interpret than what did God actually say. I will continue to call my self a Christ follower. It seems like all religions the bad has changed the meaning of the word Christianity. Religion is full of rules mostly made by man. relationship is driven by devotion, and a loving response to the love that is given. Jesus is all about relationship, and I do not feel like I have a bunch of rules to abide by, I follow HIM and his ways because i love him, and HE takes care of all my needs, and goes over and above! Ask HIM for relationship, and then check it out…HE is real!

]]> By: びっくり http://toddhdow.org/2007/09/21/dawkins-part-6-the-problem-with-fundamentalism/#comment-518 Sat, 22 Sep 2007 02:36:05 +0000 http://toddhdow.org/2007/09/21/dawkins-day-6-the-problem-with-fundamentalism/#comment-518 Fundamentals are the basis of belief. We have fundamentals that we accept in arithmetic, science, engineering, and so on. How many of you have revisited the fundamentals of basic math since elementary school? How many of you have revisited them ever? In most cases being a fundamentalist has little to do with being inflexible or violent.

Unfortunately, many people like to confuse the terms radical, extreme, and fundamentalist; it certainly helps to sell a certain world view.

As noted: a person who bombs an abortion clinic, is going against the fundamentals of Christianity. It doesn’t matter what he calls himself: he is not a fundamentalist, nor even an extremist, but he could be labeled radical. The same would apply to Buddhists, Hindus, and most other faiths.

A key indicator here is how these religious communities and leaders respond to these acts. Overwhelmingly they will condemn the radical acts.

There is one world faith that often gets labeled as peaceful; however, whose leaders and followers will rarely condemn extremist or radical behavior because they are supported by the fundamentals. Anyone reading their holy book from front to back would be hard-pressed to deny that fundamental belief in this faith is dangerous. I’ll leave that as an exercise for those who really want to get to the bottom of the issue.

]]> By: oldspacetoby http://toddhdow.org/2007/09/21/dawkins-part-6-the-problem-with-fundamentalism/#comment-513 Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:14:35 +0000 http://toddhdow.org/2007/09/21/dawkins-day-6-the-problem-with-fundamentalism/#comment-513 Religious fundamentalism taken to the extreme in almost any religion results in violence. If I stick with your examples of Christianity and Islam one needs only to remember the crusades and the terrorism that has occurred on their behalf. Too often religious zealots seize the thought of, “I am right. You are wrong. If that does not prove it, my weapons should.” This lack of perspective has been a major flaw throughout all of history.

I find it interesting that you cite the cultural insensitivity of the Spanish conquistadors in your post. Truly this perfect example could spread not just to the Spanish but the majority of the French and English colonists as well. Here were people in their technological and ‘orderly’ prime. The basic of their theology was far more truthful and their technology was far advanced. What attitude resulted from it? Insensitivity. This was evident in their domination over the Native Americans. “We’re right! We have the truth! But you have to become like us in order get it!”

Stepping out into someone else’s perspective is a must. Too often we think that people’s views and beliefs are completely ridiculous, but if we take the time to imagine, we will discover why they think the way they do. And if their views are destructive, horribly false, or theologically flawed, we will know why, and we will also know how to approach these views. The center of this method of perspective is building a relationship. True genuine relationships is what the colonists omitted in their ministry to the Natives. The desire to build true relationships is what is missing these days. Jesus did not say, “You have to be like me before I help you!” No, it was Jesus who took the form of a man in order to relate to us first. He experienced our perspective of a life so that we may trust him. I suggest we do the same.

]]> By: storbakken http://toddhdow.org/2007/09/21/dawkins-part-6-the-problem-with-fundamentalism/#comment-511 Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:07:27 +0000 http://toddhdow.org/2007/09/21/dawkins-day-6-the-problem-with-fundamentalism/#comment-511 Thanks for sharing this post. Fundamentalism, whether it be religious or atheistic, is stagnating in that it doesn’t allow any movement to take place within the conversation. I totally embrace Christ’s teachings, but also admit that many of his followers (myself included) have, at times, been a hypocrite. That doesn’t mean Christ’s teachings are wrong, it simply means that human nature has been corrupted by sin. Thank God he forgives us and continues to redeem us when we fall. I look forward to reading more of your posts in this series.

Every blessing in The Most High!

]]> By: Bad http://toddhdow.org/2007/09/21/dawkins-part-6-the-problem-with-fundamentalism/#comment-509 Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:40:45 +0000 http://toddhdow.org/2007/09/21/dawkins-day-6-the-problem-with-fundamentalism/#comment-509

We’re all fundamentalists in some way.

If that were true, the word would be effectively meaningless. I don’t think it’s true: some positions are based on dogma, and others are based on a commitment to reason, debate, and evidence.

Merely strongly advocating a point of view is not fundamentalism. Fundamentalism requires an unswerving allegience to a dogma and an unwillingness to consider the possibility that you might be wrong.

]]>