• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Religious fundamentalism vs extremism

Skeptic Bob

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,488
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
What do you see as the difference between religious fundamentalism and religious extremism? To me the difference is between belief and action.

In the US, for example, we have quite a few Christian fundamentalists, meaning they believe the Bible is the literal and inerrant word of God. However, they don't, for the most part, act on those beliefs. They don't go around stoning sinners or force their daughters to marry their rapists and so forth. They talk the talk but don't walk the walk. Don't get me wrong, I'm GLAD they don't walk the walk.

To me, extremists walk the walk. ISIS is an extremist group because they actually act on their religious beliefs. Of course they have the means to do so. I wonder how many fundamentalists of other religions would be extremists if they had the means to do so.

How do you define the difference, if any?
 
stoning sinners or force their daughters to marry their rapists? Examples?

How about not letting their daughters marry Leftists? ;)
 
WCH said:
stoning sinners or force their daughters to marry their rapists? Examples?

How about not letting their daughters marry Leftists? ;)
Click to expand...

Deuteronomy 17 commands the stoning of a few different types of sinners, to include stoning people to death for worshiping other gods.

And Deuteronomy 22:28-29
if a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
Click to expand...

I am very happy that Christians and Jews lack either the will or means, in this day and age at least, to take their religion as seriously as ISIS does.
 
Looks like another movable thread.
 
But Obama says we're not at war with a religion!
 
BrewerBob said:
Deuteronomy 17 commands the stoning of a few different types of sinners, to include stoning people to death for worshiping other gods.

And Deuteronomy 22:28-29

I am very happy that Christians and Jews lack either the will or means, in this day and age at least, to take their religion as seriously as ISIS does.
Click to expand...

Rape my daughter and see how Biblical I get. 8)
 
WCH said:
Right but, Bush did say we were at war with Radical Islamic extremists. Therein lies the difference.

Plus Obama thinks if we give them jobs (or money) they'll go away.
Click to expand...
You're splitting hairs. And I agree with the president that this is a socio-economic issue first and foremost, not a religious one.
 
BrewerBob said:
What do you see as the difference between religious fundamentalism and religious extremism? To me the difference is between belief and action.

In the US, for example, we have quite a few Christian fundamentalists, meaning they believe the Bible is the literal and inerrant word of God. However, they don't, for the most part, act on those beliefs. They don't go around stoning sinners or force their daughters to marry their rapists and so forth. They talk the talk but don't walk the walk. Don't get me wrong, I'm GLAD they don't walk the walk.

To me, extremists walk the walk. ISIS is an extremist group because they actually act on their religious beliefs. Of course they have the means to do so. I wonder how many fundamentalists of other religions would be extremists if they had the means to do so.

How do you define the difference, if any?
Click to expand...

First, Christian fundamentalists understand that Jesus taught a new understanding of God's will and that he fulfilled the old law and set a new covenant nto place. So that is why Christian fundamentalist (and almost all other Christians) by and large understand that it is not God's will that they stone adulterers or whatever even as they understand Paul's teaching that the law, though it is no longer to be obeyed to the letter, is still useful in informing us of what God expects us to be, how he expects us to live, how he expects us to organize our societies and conduct ourselves. But almost all understand that it is our duty to be the light of the world and to love God and lead by example in everything that is honest, good, and edifying. (None of us ever do that all the time or perfectly of course--we know that we are all sinners--but we understand that this is what God wants from us.)

The extremist, whether Christian or Jew or Muslim or any other faith, plucks at least one concept from their religion and assigns himself the responsibility to force all others to accept or obey that concept. Some try to do this via legislation. Some try to do this by verbally dangling people over the pit so to speak, i.e. via judgment. Some try to do this via bullying. And some try to do this via terrorist act.
 
BrewerBob said:
What do you see as the difference between religious fundamentalism and religious extremism? To me the difference is between belief and action.

In the US, for example, we have quite a few Christian fundamentalists, meaning they believe the Bible is the literal and inerrant word of God. However, they don't, for the most part, act on those beliefs. They don't go around stoning sinners or force their daughters to marry their rapists and so forth. They talk the talk but don't walk the walk. Don't get me wrong, I'm GLAD they don't walk the walk.
Click to expand...

FYI stoning people is Old Testament / Old Covenant. Jesus, for all intents and purposes, outlawed stoning when he said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

BrewerBob said:
To me, extremists walk the walk. ISIS is an extremist group because they actually act on their religious beliefs. Of course they have the means to do so. I wonder how many fundamentalists of other religions would be extremists if they had the means to do so.

How do you define the difference, if any?
Click to expand...

Jesus was a religious fundamentalist. Was he dangerous?
 
I asked this on Facebook as well and got this biting answer:

A fundamentalist will threaten you with burning alive for eternity. An extremist will put you in a cage and light the match.
Click to expand...
 
Christian fundamentalists invite you to church, don't like gay marriage and oppose abortion.


Certain other "fundamentalists", not namin' any names here, come conquer your town at gunpoint (if you're unlucky enough to be in the wrong part of the world) and invite you to convert or be beheaded.


It's not a question of are/aren't walking the talk, but that the fundamental nature of different religions is different.
 
BrewerBob said:
Deuteronomy 17 commands the stoning of a few different types of sinners, to include stoning people to death for worshiping other gods.

And Deuteronomy 22:28-29

I am very happy that Christians and Jews lack either the will or means, in this day and age at least, to take their religion as seriously as ISIS does.
Click to expand...


Just to point out, according the law and tradition, a woman would not have to marry that man, if she chose not to. This was to basically say that if man tried to sweet talk his way into a woman's pants (modern terminology) with promises of marriage, why, then, if discovered, he is sort of forced into that. If it is force, the woman can reject that person.
 
WCH said:
But Obama says we're not at war with a religion!
Click to expand...

There are plenty of Mulsims that are not cra cra. I mean, in the Netherlands, in Oslo, after the attack in Copenhagen, a group of young Muslims chose, with permission, to ring themselves around a synagogue on the Sabbath to protect the Jews from attack of extremists.
 
Logicman said:
FYI stoning people is Old Testament / Old Covenant. Jesus, for all intents and purposes, outlawed stoning when he said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."



Jesus was a religious fundamentalist. Was he dangerous?
Click to expand...

Depends who you were at the time.
It's an irrelevant question anyway, when asked of the guy who said it was extremists who are the dangerous ones.
 
WCH said:
Right but, Bush did say we were at war with Radical Islamic extremists. Therein lies the difference.

Plus Obama thinks if we give them jobs (or money) they'll go away.
Click to expand...


He is wrong - the extremists who picket and bomb abortion clinics do not go away with the promise of getting something - they, like all extremist radicals are mentally deficient zealots
 
rjay said:
He is wrong - the extremists who picket and bomb abortion clinics do not go away with the promise of getting something - they, like all extremist radicals are mentally deficient zealots
Click to expand...

You speak of picketing and bombing as if they are the same. I think this is odd because there really is an enormous difference between holding a sign and planting a bomb.
 
rjay said:
He is wrong - the extremists who picket and bomb abortion clinics do not go away with the promise of getting something - they, like all extremist radicals are mentally deficient zealots
Click to expand...

That comparison is ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom