An Interesting Idea About The Origin Of Fundamentalist Christianity

Religion, as I said, is a path to higher states of consciousness, and this is its only true purpose. It defines certain character traits, rituals and observances as per the times so that the individual can access this higher consciousness in the shortest time span possible.

Jesus stated God is love, and the only qualification for his discipleship is that one should have love for each other and one should love God with all his soul and strength. Love is the prominent part of his teachings. And deep love thus properly cultivated can catapult a person to higher levels of consciousness.

Fundamentalism starts becoming a problem with changing times, as the character traits, rituals and observances too have to be modified or adapted to modern times or else it can create a conflict between the inner state and outer state, and creater more unconsciousness in the process instead of making a person more loving and conscious. Religion thus becomes a tool for fostering unconsciousness.

 

I'd say the problem is more that fundamentalists refuse to adapt to modern times, scientific knowledge etc. In fact it can be seen as a reaction against that. Hence they want to ignore scientific facts such as the age of the earth, origin of the human race and many other things.

It's easy to generalize about Christianity as a religion of love and ignore all the nasty bits of which there are many. For instance the NT supports slavery, subordination of women, the concept of eternal damnation and much more.

 

Some people are simply too uneducated to understand the concept of figurative writing. Also, some people are anti- personal ministry such as came from the likes of Sylvester Graham. Once accepted, the door is wide open to all sorts of wild radical ideas that are not in the Bible.

 

I believe this had as much or more to do with it than civil war politics;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentecostalism

Pentecostalism or Classical Pentecostalism is a renewal movement[1] within Christianity that places special emphasis on a direct personal experience of God through the baptism with the Holy Spirit. The term Pentecostal is derived from Pentecost, the Greek name for the Jewish Feast of Weeks. For Christians, this event commemorates the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the followers of Jesus Christ, as described in the second chapter of the Book of Acts.
Like other forms of evangelical Protestantism, Pentecostalism adheres to the inerrancy of scripture and the necessity of accepting Christ as personal Lord and Savior. It is distinguished by belief in the baptism with the Holy Spirit as an experience separate from conversion that enables a Christian to live a Holy Spirit–filled and empowered life. This empowerment includes the use of spiritual gifts such as speaking in tongues and divine healing—two other defining characteristics of Pentecostalism. Because of their commitment to biblical authority, spiritual gifts, and the miraculous, Pentecostals tend to see their movement as reflecting the same kind of spiritual power and teachings that were found in the Apostolic Age of the early church. For this reason, some Pentecostals also use the term Apostolic or full gospel to describe their movement.
Pentecostalism emerged in the early 20th century among radical adherents of the Holiness movement who were energized by revivalism and expectation for the imminent Second Coming of Christ. Believing that they were living in the end times, they expected God to spiritually renew the Christian Church thereby bringing to pass the restoration of spiritual gifts and the evangelization of the world. In 1900, Charles Parham, an American evangelist and faith healer, began teaching that speaking in tongues was the Bible evidence of Spirit baptism. The three-year-long Azusa Street Revival in Los Angeles, California, resulted in the spread of Pentecostalism throughout the United States and the rest of the world as visitors carried the Pentecostal experience back to their home churches or felt called to the mission field.

 

not really. like any writing it must be considered within the context of the times and culture. There were very good reasons Paul was against women teaching, having short hair and men having long hair, etc. etc.
Those were practices followed by certain other religions at the time and the emphasis was on not appearing as they did. It is actually plainly stated as such as well.
it also did not condone slavery, it simply dealt with it as part of the culture, laws and social practices of the time, but certainly does not condone or encourage it.

Remember, it wasn't written in a vacuum of time and space, especially the epistles as they were more often than not personal communications dealing with issues OF THAT TIME and not written with the idea or intent that they would comprise what has come to be considered scripture.

 

One thing I can say about colloquial additions to text is that they need to be discounted as mainstream. a colloquial addition would be Paul's or whoever's personal preferences.
associated with this is the enigma of why are we left with an account that requires so much effort to unravel. Why didn't the sage presenter write things down in a distinctly apprehendable way. Why don't we have an account from the horses mouth? For one and simply they aren't carrying around something to write with. The other reason is the information must be transmitted orally from the one who has it to the one who wants it to preserve integrity, or personal recognizance. As well the information is being supplied not in a predetermined but spontaneous manner.

 

there's no "enigma" about it. the pauline herrisy was made cannon at the second mycian convention of 420 something a.d. 425, somewhere along in there.

that's when 'christianity' basically rejected wholesale the teachings of its own christ.

 

Yes the enigma remains for you, you don't know what they are.

 

I'm aware of the cultural context issue.
But that's the whole point of this idea about the origins of fundamentalism in the slave owning south. There's no doubt that St.Paul says slaves should obey their masters, so if you were looking more to justify your own position as a slave owner than see the truth or whatever it is that people say should be the goal of reading the Bible, you could interpret it to suit your own agenda.

It's hard for me to asses if or to what extent that might have happened. As I said, I came across the idea articulated by Sheldrake, himself a Christian, and just thought it sounds plausible, although obviously not the whole story.

Anyway - I'm not trying to suggest that people who believe in Christianity generally promote slavery, and I'm not on some anti-American rant - the Brits were just as bad in their day.

 

you say it does not condone or encourage it but any school of thought that tolerates slavery, or inequality of the sexes is wrong. the only right stance is to be against inequality and slavery. there is absolutely no excuse or wiggle room for this.


@blake
how can the north claim that scripture supports their stance (against slavery)?

 

I'm not particularly interested in talking about the origins of Fundamentalist Christianity but I would like to say something about this;

Although there are those who seem to believe this, the Bible does not endorse slavery, it merely puts regulations on an already ongoing practice. Kind of like his telling his people not to make a king for themselves and then tells them what to do when they make a king for themselves.

 

the correct possition is to be against slavery, not tollorant of it. this is not the bibles position. the bible is wrong here. it is just that simple.

 

Are you this close minded about everything or just the Bible?

 

why would you say that? im very open minded. when i go to restaurants, i like to try new things.

 

back to the topic at hand:

the bible may not condone slavery like you say, but it clearly accepts it and tollerates it. i believe that this is the wrong stance to take.


i dont understand how my beliefs can be closed minded, but maybe you would like to redeem yourself and reply with a valid argument?

 

Saint Paul says slaves should obey their masters.

To me that seems to condone slavery whichever way you look at it.

 

So it's just the Bible you are so close minded about, okay.

 

Valid argument? Kind of like saying, "I believe that this is the wrong stance to take" is valid argument?

 

A slave cannot serve 2 masters

 

Would be difficult.