"Bondage Of the Mind"

[metis]

"I consider religious fundamentalism to be of the most noxious forces in the history of mankind, and, lamentably, it is on the rise again.  Not a day passes that we don't witness Islamic fundamentalists wreaking havoc somewhere in the world.  Here, at home, we see Christian fundamentalists (now estimated at about a quarter of the electorate) elbowing their way into a powerful position on the American political landscape, with potentially far-reaching, deleterious consequences.  Orthodox Jews, the Jewish fundamentalists, are also becoming more aggressive-- more subtly here, more open in Israel-- but perhaps for fear of being labeled an anti-Semite there is little serious discussion of it.  I am a Jewish American myself, but I don't like the Orthodox trying to turn Israel into a Jewish Iran any more than I like evangelicals such as Kathleen Harris trying to turn the United States into a Christian Iran."-- R. D. Gold, "Bondage of the Mind: How Old Testament Fundamentalism Shackles the Mind and Enslaves the Spirit", 2008, p. xv.

Do you agree?

[Acumen]

What is a fundamentalist, and why assume that Christians, Jews, and Muslim fundamentalists belong in the same category?

[metis]

I don't agree if you consider the teachings of the Catholic Church (all and any of them) as fundamentalism.

No I don't and neither does the author-- at least thus far (I've only read about 1/4 of the book at this point). 

And as far as Acumen's question is concerned, the author defines fundamentalism as essentially a deification of the scriptures to the point whereas the word-for-word author is God and that there cannot be even a minute error anywhere found within being possible.  As you're undoubtedly aware of, the RCC does not take that position, but does believe scripture is inspired from God and inerrant as far as the general teachings are concerned.   

[metis]

The Church does not believe that the the Bible is the only source of authority, and recognizes that there may have been textual errors in the transliterations, but NOT in the interpretations of the Church.

So, just to be clear the Catholic Church believes in the absolute inerrancy of the Bible in the matters of faith and morals, which is the purpose of the Bible.  There is nothing of importance that can be considered in "error" throughout the entire Bible including history.

Exactly.  That is what I was saying-- or at least trying to say. 

[Acumen]

And as far as Acumen's question is concerned, the author defines fundamentalism as essentially a deification of the scriptures to the point whereas the word-for-word author is God and that there cannot be even a minute error anywhere found within being possible.

 


And why is this a bad or noxious thing?

As you're undoubtedly aware of, the RCC does not take that position, but does believe scripture is inspired from God and inerrant as far as the general teachings are concerned.

It appears to me that they DO take this position -- they DO believe the scriptures are infallible.

[metis]

I just realized that this is on the Judaism debate board and did not realize this, so I apologize for answering the question from a Catholic perspective.  I usually use the "show unread posts" feature and did not pay special attention to the board it was on, I thought we were on Christianity debate.

There's no need to apologize.  I don't think any of us here will be offended by reading Catholic theology now and then.

Shalom & have a great weekend.
Vern 

[Acumen]

El,

How many times are you going to make that same mistake?  Sheesh.  All you have to do is look at the heading above the message box you use to post, and it will tell you.

[Clyde5001]

There's no need to apologize.  I don't think any of us here will be offended by reading Catholic theology now and then.

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




 

[Howiedds]

As usual, regardless of the specificity of the definition offered by Vern from the author, we are dealing with words that have popular idiomatic baggage that accompanies them that makes moot the official definition.

Fundamentalism, as it is used popularly, describes a fanaticism that is usually directed with ill at others who don’t agree. It is not just the dependence on a literal scripture, but how the fundamentalist approaches others with his faith in hand, waving it as a bloody flag.

Although the Catholic Church would agree on the inerrancy of Scripture as El described it, practically speaking, it more closely resembles the Jewish view of the importance of tradition in interpreting and living the scripture than do Protestants. The Tradition of the Fathers plays an enormous role in how the scripture is to be understood.

From my copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1992.

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not[/] derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."

Clearly, the Catholic Church does not believe the scripture stands alone without the traditions of the fathers. There is tradition of “commentaries, as we Jews would call it, that go along with the actual words of scripture.

Protestants in the 16th century, having rejected what they perceived to be the layering on by Mother Church, the very traditions of the fathers that the Church put on equal footing with the scripture, that they thought to be human and not divine, thus diluting the divine role, rejected this human role whether or not it was the Holy Spirit at work as the Church insisted.  Protestants, therefore, relied more heavily on the words of Scripture than did the Catholic Church. It’s the reason you will see Protestants walking across the parking lot to church on Sunday morning with their Bibles under their arms and Catholics not.

So we need to be careful about what we mean by inerrancy and fundamentalism. The cold, hard definitions devoid of the idiomatic baggage with which they are heard do not convey the way we in the 21st century understand the words.

[Clyde5001]

Can someone please help me. I don't know how to contact the administrators and I don't where I would post this.

I can't log in with my wireless phone. I have full IE capabilities, and it rejects my login/password.

I can't log in with Beliefnet either. But I'm frustrated, because posting on websites was one of the few reasons I got a smart phone.

[Acumen]

Clyde,

I have an I-phone, and I have no difficulties getting on BC for posting.  What sort of problems are you having, and is it limited to these two websites, or is it a general internet issue?

[Clyde5001]

Just these websites.

When I put the login information here, I get this looooong error message. Beliefnet just says my info is wrong.

In general, I never have a problem with the Motorola Q.

I'm going away for a few days, and I though it would be fun to play around with posting from the train.

[Acumen]

Clyde,

I have to take off right now.  You should check the setting on your phone.  On each phone capable of internet usage, there should be an area where you can adjust internet settings such as cookies, pop ups, plug ins, java script.  Enable all of these features, and see if it allows you to surf BC or Bnet.

[Clyde5001]

Verizon doesn't allow Iphones.

I did an upgrade with Verizon. It worked. Then the phone fried. So I may have to go on vacation without the ability to check the news, etc. - which will mean no vacation.

[VLinvictus]

Fundamentalism appears to have two primary dynamics.

It requires first the inerrancy and infallibility of certain "fundamentals" which the believer accepts as absolutely true and devoid of any ambiguity or error. The Industrial Revolution caused a complete upheaval of traditional ways of life wherever it spread, destroying the ancient agricultural and communitarian social networks that had prevailed for centuries and throwing millions of people into the chaos of cities and factories. The titanic forces unleashed by modernity, whose terrifying power was revealed in the two World Wars, only added to the sense of rootlessness and uncertainty that had been roiling the western world since the 19th century. It is understandable that people would look to something, anything to provide an anchor, a rock to cling to in the storm. Fundamentalism provided that in the religious sphere just as certain ideologies like Communism, Fascism, and so forth met those needs in the secular and political sphere. It is no surprise to me that the declaration of Papal Infallibility in the first Vatican Council coincided in the same general time frame as the rise of "fundamentalism" proper in Protestantism and of "Orthodox Judaism." The Muslim world, in the post-WWII post-colonial era, is going through a similar period of upheaval and so the rise of Islamic fundamentalism at this time should not be a surprise.

Fundamentalism in this sense is not bad or good in itself. It is a style of belief that meets a real human need. What is bad or good is how it inspires people to act.

Once the "fundamentals" have been agreed upon, it is logical then for the believer to conclude that his beliefs are absolutely true and, therefore, are the only true beliefs. Anyone who disagrees is just plain wrong, inferior, and evil. The matter is settled: I'm right and you're wrong. Some fundamentalists can choose to separate themselves from the inferiority and evil of those in error and we can largely see that as the case of cults like the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day saints or Chareidi Jews outside of Israel. Some fundamentalists see themselves as justified in imposing their beliefs on the rest of the world, to rid the world of error. They can do this through established political channels or through violence. Christian fundamentalists have tended to work within the established system, largely because as members of the dominant religion they are not under the same pressure as subaltern groups. Fundamentalist Muslims, on the other hand, have opted for violence. This can be explained by the absense of established democracies that Christian fundamentalists benefit from and by the retarded level of their social and economic evolution. Chareidi Jews in Israel have partaken of both options.

[Atropos]

Fundamentalism appears to have two primary dynamics.
...

Very well said. I agree with you.

I've not read this book, but it's on my list.

[Atropos]

That's hilarious!

¿Qué? 

[Acumen]

That's hilarious!

¿Qué? 

Don't worry, we won't tell anyone.   

[SquirleyWurley]

I found Jay Lifton's "The Protean Self" to be enlightening.

He distinguishes between a 'protean', flexible, creative, multiple and adaptable potential  of self, and a 'fundamentalist' potential of self, within each of us, and the tensions between them, and the way the tension manifests in different people, particularly in people who are in dangerous cults or who engage in extremism, terrorism, etc.

The point seems to be that this world is changing so quickly, adaptability and flexibility are useful, but scary potentials.  Some of us retreat more to some fixture than others, some of us are more troubled or have achieved a degree of acceptance of the situation and cope with more or less composure.

He affirms the protean potentials as contrasted with negative extremes of fundamental rigidity, but he also studies those who mix the two potentials by for instance, maintaining a fundamentalist sort of evangelicalism and yet also embracing certain protean traits.

[river]

Reading the traditions and history of Christianity doesn't interest me.  I got enough of that in Comparative religion classes, and from kids in my neighborhood always trying to convert me.  I get it as much as I need to get, but I don't buy a word of it. 

I think fundamentalist are absolutely bonded in their minds.  If that's what the title applies to.