What do you think the main differences are between mainline Protestants and fundamentalists?

[bluestateguy]

As someone who is fairly ignorant about religion, I'm curious to know how you see this question.

I don't know about you, but I get really aggravated when I hear fundamentalists purport to speak for all Christians.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

1. The only difference I see is the anger and hate in the latter. -nt

[doc03]

2. Fundamentalists are nuts n/t

[SoCalDem]

3. Breeding, culture, money

:)

[napi21]

4. Fundamentalists are very idealistic and committed to converting

EVERYONE to THEIR idealism. Mainline any other religious people may have similar beliefs but are willing to let other people subscribe to the religion of their choice, or suscribe to no religion at all.

[provis99]

5. here is the basic difference:

Fundamentalists take the Bible literally, while mainstream Protestants view it as an allegory. That's pretty much it.

[WCGreen]

10. Exactly....

[aquart]

11. Fundamentalists do NOT take the Bible literally.

But they pretend to. Trust me, they mix fibers.

What is especially irritating is their preference for the Old Testament, MY book, which they utterly misunderstand, over their own book, the New Testament.

[FamousBlueRaincoat]

13. ^what he said ^ n/t

[Mr Generic Other]

18. lots of xians prefer the old testament to the new.

they just can't accept that "turn the other cheek" bit. they want an eye for an eye.

[aquart]

20. Well, it's not their book and they need to go home.

Just put the book down and leave.

[Volaris]

21. In case you haven't seen it yet, (which I can't imagine is possible)

Lewis Black hit that ball out for you already=)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGrlWOhtj3g

[aquart]

25. I miss a lot not having cable. Thank you!

People are always beating me to my own thoughts.

[USArmyBJJ]

30. You wrote the Old Testament?

Awesome!!!! I can has autograph?

[aquart]

34. Oh, dear. A loose lolcat.

Anyone have a humane trap?

[ZombieHorde]

26. Both view some parts as literal and some parts as not literal. nt

[Goblinmonger]

28. mainstream Protestants take some of the bible as an allegory

I would venture to guess that pretty much all (of the Protestant sects) take the "son of God" part literally.

[trotsky]

31. Almost but not quite.

Fundamentalists and "mainstream" Protestants simply view different parts of the bible literally.

[RKP5637]

6. Sanity! I'm not a religious person, but mainline fair minded Protestants do not

bother me, but the fundamentalists IMO have some very serious mental issues, as well as denying civil rights for others.

[Poll_Blind]

7. Fundamentalists are like David Lynch fans who believe THEIR interpretation is the only right one.

The whole point of any holy book is half about teaching you something, and half about you teaching you about yourself.

Martin Luther was all about keepin' it real and putting Christianity back in Christianity.

Fundamentalists are lost in their own interpretations to which they typically project their own psychological bullshit into.

Same exact crazy shit goes on with fundamentalist Rabbis and to a lesser extent, fundamentalist Imams.

PB

[XemaSab]

22. Diane is Rita

n/t

[supernova]

8. Biblical inerrancy vs. Open interpretations

Mainline Protestants, Methodists, Presbyterians, Quakers, Episcopalians, some Baptists, don't believe that the Bible is literally true and don't preach that in their churches. Most focus on helping the community: peacemaking and conflict resolution, food pantries and soup kitchens. The bible is full of stories, metaphors, parables that are full of meaning and open to interpretation, discussion and debate.

Fundamentalist churches preach that the bible is literally true, every. word. That of course is not a sustainable viewpoint. At some point, if you are sane, you are going to have a breakdown in your thinking. They generally are distrustful of the outsiders. Scarily, the more extreme seem to be focusing on resubjugating women and girls.

[Art_from_Ark]

12. The mainstream churches you mentioned

believe in the Resurrection. Many of the mainstream churches I have attended include the Apostles' Creed as part of the regular service:

1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:

2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:

3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:

4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:

5. The third day he rose again from the dead:

6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:

7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:

8. I believe in the Holy Ghost:

9. I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints:

10. The forgiveness of sins:

1l. The resurrection of the body:

12. And the life everlasting. Amen.


One thing that distinguishes mainstream churches from the fundamentalist churches is that the mainstream churches tend to focus on the New Testament. If there is reference to the Old Testament in the church services, it is usually Psalms or Proverbs. Or, around Christmastime, Isaiah.

[Faryn Balyncd]

14. Some fundamentalists I know would choke on the 6th word in line 9.

(Now THAT'S partisanship!)

[Goblinmonger]

29. "catholic" in the creed does not mean Catholic in the sense of the RCC

The word "catholic" means universal.

[Faryn Balyncd]

35. That's exactly the point...(and over the fundamentalist's heads)

[DJ13]

9. The age of the escorts they hire?

:yoiks:

[OHdem10]

15. Big Difference: Fundamentalists believe in literal interpretation

of the Bible and that the Bible is infallible.

[ZombieHorde]

27. They both take some parts literally and some parts non literally. nt

[apocalypsehow]

16. Fundamentalists are true believers, while "mainline" Protestants are only one nudge away from

becoming Unitarians. Or out & out agnostics.

One of the (many) redeeming things about being raised in the bosom of Catholicism - I certainly disagree with practically all of the social conservatism - is that it is as much a cultural, almost tribal, phenomenon as a religious one. Mass is, or can be, transcendent, even if the priest's homily isn't.

Most fundamentalist Protestant's simply swallow whole the message with the hymns, and devoutly donate to the Sarah Palin for Prez 2012 campaign. Or whatever silliness they're told to.

[Mr Generic Other]

17. the protestant reformation was an enlightenment movement

and an intellectual response to the autocratic and authoritarian abuses of the catholic church.
the early sects within protestantism were literacy based groups who wanted to know god without a priest as an intermediary.
both the first great awakening and the second great awakening caused the established protestant churches in america to splinter into traditional and "new life" denominations.
the traditional sects were conservative and literacy based while the evangelical off-shoots developed emotional responses (less literary based)to the bible and its teaching.
while evangelicals claim to be believers in the literal words found in the bible, they tend to memorize a few verses and cling to these outside of the context of the whole book. evangelicals are not scholarly in their approach toward understanding the nature of religion and the universe while the traditional churches at least want to appear to have that approach.
evangelize means to "spread the word" so these sects tend to push their world view onto others more than their more conservative counterparts.

[Hardrada]

19. Theology

[XemaSab]

23. Do you think that the Bible is the ultimate word

about such things as government, international relations, and how a person should live his or her life?

Do you think that the Bible is the last word for geology, biology, and archaeology?

Most protestants would say no. :P

[Douglas Carpenter]

24. most mainline Protestant seminaries teach a critical thinking view of the Bible and Biblical history

Most fundamentalist seminaries and Bible Colleges teach a literal and noncritical thinking view of the Bible and Biblical history.

Most fundamentalist consider one a Christian if and only if one has had personal conversion experience which some describe as being "born again" or "accepting Jesus Christ as their personal savior". Also most fundamentalist would only consider someone a Christian if they do also embrace a literal and noncritical understanding of the Bible. While most mainline Protestants hold a much broader view of who is a Christian and would tend not to assert that one is not a Christian if someone defines themselves as one.

Also most mainline Protestants would recognize value in other religions. While most fundamentalist would view such a liberal attitude as blasphemous.

[jeepnstein]

32. Depends on what you're calling a "fundamentalist".

There are churches that hold to teaching the Bible and only the Bible. That's pretty fundamental. These congregations tend to go about their business without engaging in a culture war that doesn't do a thing to promote the Gospel message.

Then you have churches that pretty much make it up as they go and tend to call for some kind of imposition of their version of God's Law. They don't even really understand what Jesus was talking about when he was establishing His Kingdom here on Earth. The really interesting ones even go so far as to think their actions will determine if and when Jesus is able to return. These guys do far more damage to the Church than even the most militant anti-Christian.

[Igel]

33. Lots of groups purport to speak for all Xians.

Speaking as a 7th-day observing, Passover-and-Pentecost-keeping, (former) Xian who avoids pork and Xmas with equal alacrity and thinks of "the trinity" as equal portions of green pepper, onion, and celery, there's a lot of distance between Catholicism or even most Protestant sects and what I believed. If I got aggravated--even mildly--when I hear some mainstream or fundie speak for all Xians I'd be perpetually ranting. (Oh. Maybe that's the problem.) It does bring home the diversity that "Xianity" has to cover and the sheer variety of differing and mutually antagonistic views of Jesus that exist.

The easy difference between fundies and "mainies" is the degree to which they claim to stick to the Bible and only the Bible for doctrine. Take the 3 legs of Episcopal though--Bible, tradition, and inspiration (that's not quite right, but close enough) versus the "sola biblia" stance of most fundamentalists. The fundies differ not in absolute terms but in degree. Sometimes quantitative differences are viewed as qualitative and we ignore nuance: Fundies believe in Biblical inerrancy and literalness and mainies don't. This kind of privative opposition is fine since the fundies are typically newer congregations set up in opposition to the mainies.

That doesn't explain the attitudes, the difference in "feel" between them. It's this: In fundie congregations more of the people are there because of doctrine. A lot of them have thought out their doctrines and picked and chosen which church to join. Alternatively, they've been in the church and firmly feel that their church's doctrines are right and really both distinct from other sects' and important for salvation. The attitude is "this is right for me, and everybody else will come along before they die or burn in hell" (okay, my church didn't teach that, either). These are the partisan Xians. Often membership doesn't matter all that much. The more fundie, the more "church size isn't important" is heard. "Righteousness" and avoiding sin, two sides of the same coin, is important. Having the right set of beliefs is important in this, so it gives them a leg up. In this, they're vaguely gnostic, saved by knowledge and not grace or works. (Said mostly to toast their knickers.)

I'll ignore the entire prophecy-lunacy nonsense as nonsense. It's mostly, but not entirely, a fundie trait, but doesn't touch upon doctrine but tangentially.

In mainstream churches you get more people that are there for the socializing. They might be at another church, but perhaps they like the minister, it's more convenient where they are, or they like stuff that's not really "doctrine" sensu stricto. For example, no church has "disregard the poor" as a mission statement; but some churches act on helping the poor more than others. The churches are often less exclusive--"this is right for me, but maybe not for you." Often that's because they're big and established and don't have to fight. Often it's because they have had schisms and didn't like them, or have a need to maintain membership. You get worries about church size more often. You hear less about sin and more about love and mercy. The "law" is often just "loving your neighbor, whatever you think 'love' means" and they're otherwise antinomian.

Now, in the fundie churches you get mainstream-type people, the live-and-let-live crowd. Just much less often than in mainstream churches. In the mainstream churches you can get die-hard Bible-studiers and doctrine-aficionados--fairly infrequently. If you get fundies and mainies together you get frustration on the side of the fundie and confusion on the side of the "mainie": What's crucial to one is fairly trivially to the other. Apollo and Dionysus, fire and ice, in many respects.

They have trouble reconciling love and righteousness, and prefer to split the baby rather than keep it whole (so to speak), and so seem to lack a common language and framework. Consequently they typically condemn each other rather harshly in terms that the other don't see as applying in the slightest. There's a lot of that going around.