Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 06/15/2010 8:15:52 AM PDT by markomalley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: markomalley

The average dimwit thinks “fundamentalist” is a catch-all term for anyone with whom he disagrees on social issues.


2 posted on 06/15/2010 8:20:40 AM PDT by Julia H. (Freedom of speech and freedom from criticism are mutually exclusive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley

“fundamentalists — think Pat Robertson or the late Jerry Falwell”

don’t post anti-protestant hitpieces please.


3 posted on 06/15/2010 8:36:30 AM PDT by chuck_the_tv_out ( <<< click my name: now featuring Freeper classifieds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley
....fundamentalist has to a large extent taken on pejorative connotations except when applied to groups that stress strict, literal interpretations of Scripture and separation from other Christians. In general, do not use fundamentalist unless a group applies the word to itself.

That might be how the AP Stylebook defines it, but the term originated with the Presbyterians' Doctrinal Deliverance of 1910 , more commonly known as the Five Fundamentals of the [Christian] Faith:

The term [Fundamentalism] was born when conservative Protestants in early-20th-century America committed themselves to defend the five "fundamentals" of their faith -- the inerrancy of the Bible, virgin birth and deity of Jesus, doctrine of atonement, bodily resurrection of Jesus, and His imminent return.
-- from the thread The many forms of fundamentalism
I find that a great many Catholic laypersons, apologists, priests, and bishops still use the term as a bigoted perjorative (see for example: Mark Shea, and the National Catholic Reporter's John L. Allen Jr).
5 posted on 06/15/2010 8:42:22 AM PDT by Alex Murphy (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2503089/posts?page=9#9)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley

Hmmm. I’ll bet there’s some ulterior motive for ‘evangelism’ being preferred over ‘fundamentalism’.

I would bet that ‘fundamentalism’ is a greater threat to the NWO, while ‘evangelism’ is more manageable.

JMO


6 posted on 06/15/2010 8:43:01 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley
Darryl Hart's Deconstructing Evangelicalism is a good one to read on fundamentalist vs. evangelical. Or, listen to the interview here (highly recommended). Modern evangelicals came they didn't want to be seen as mean. In the process they became the trainwreck you see now.

In the process of writing a history of evangelicalism he came to hold that the whole category of "evangelical" (in the modern sense) wasn't useful.

don’t post anti-protestant hitpieces please.

Actually, I thought it was an anti-media hit piece.

Yup. I basically don't trust anything I read from the MSM on the subject. Unless the reporter is in, is some sort or believer, they just won't have the categories.

13 posted on 06/15/2010 10:07:43 AM PDT by Lee N. Field ("Dispensationalists say the darndest things!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley
Hint to Mr. Greenberg:

If you're going to write an article about why "fundamentalist" and "evangelical" are not interchangeable, it would be helpful if you defined what those words mean, and how they differ.

(I note that the AP stylebook provides a very rough definition of fundamentalist, and by extension one supposes you define evangelicals as "not like them.")

Just a suggestion....

14 posted on 06/15/2010 10:07:52 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson