"Fundamentalist religions make this choice because they uniformly place a high priority on doctrinal conformity, with such force that it takes higher priority than love, compassion and service."
Not sure what they mean by fundamentalist religions, but we know the Bible says...
"Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world."
back to the article
"This emphasis on doctrinal conformity seems to be the result of the belief in the requirement of absolute conformity to doctrine to achieve salvation. Yet at the same time, many will also officially claim that simple acceptance of that sect's doctrine is sufficient for salvation. This dichotomy is often seen in the same sect; some of the fundamentalist Christian sects being good examples. The contradiction seems to go unnoticed or if it is noticed, it is ignored."
Perhaps it is not ignored, yet there is an internal battle being waged within the church? Seems the author is drawing his own results here.
"It seems that another facet of fundamentalist thinking is belief in the correctness of their thinking. Invariably, they will make the claim that they are right to the exclusion of others, even all others, and that they, and they alone offer the path to salvation."
It seems he is making more assumption here, perhaps the people are merely stating their opinions. As far as the last sentence goes, any one that says that they alone offer the path to salvation, must be an anti-christ.
2 Timothy 2:10
"Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory."
Back to the article...
"Fundamentalist religions regard their missions with great seriousness. Many claim that the salvation of the world depends on them, and some will seriously contend that the earth will end without them."
Fundamentalist scientists think the same way, this is not exclusive to religion, this is an all pervasive problem throughout society, it is often referred to as "maintaining the status quo".
Alot of the article is based on other assumption that are akin to the logic of racism where in conclusions are drawn from false generalizations. None the less the quotes he provides are an interesting reflection of prominent people that state they are fundamentalist Christians. But are they?
"Does God really need the fundamentalist's efforts?
To make the claim that God needs one's efforts is a flat-out denial of the power of God. Claiming that God is omnipotent and omniscient is to imply that nothing happens in the universe that isn't happening with the knowledge and consent of God. How could it happen without the knowledge of God? It has to be that way if you accept the omniscience of God. If God doesn't allow it, how can it happen? Otherwise, God would not be omnipotent. If God allows it, it implies at least knowledge and consent.
Why, then, must God require the services of the fundamentalist to ensure that His will happens in the Universe?"
If the homosexual were as abhorrent to God as most fundamentalists imply, the homosexual wouldn't last a millisecond. Otherwise, God cannot be omnipotent. Why would an omnipotent God need someone else to persecute the homosexual for Him?
If God is saying, "I'll let him live, but he's still abhorrent" it implies that God's behavior isn't consistent with what He wants. Why would God want something abhorrent to him to continue to exist?"
Good questions, the Logic put forward has provided the answer.
"So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment."
Back to the article...
"There is a saying in Buddhism that where the student is ready, the teacher is provided. Such a concept certainly affirms the power of God to bring the word of God to the sincere seeker. Why then, does the fundamentalist almost always assume that God needs him to go out and spread God's word? If God is omnipotent, He doesn't need anyone to proselytize on His behalf. He's quite capable of steering the seeker in the direction of His word all by Himself."
Just as there are people that work to warn others of a out of control bus, or a tsunami, so too are there those who stand on street corners telling people they should repent, or stop eating junk food,etc. Just as there are anti-christians on this forum that challenge Christians and test them to the point of frustration, proselytizing their own Infinite potential beliefs and LIEquid truth, so too are there Christians that proselytize the defense of the reality of truth, sometimes people need to speak out. And thank God for those that do. Better that than having physical enforcement without a chance for understanding.
"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose."
The author goes back to making more assumptions about others beliefs, so I am going to skip forward to something more interesting...
"Why Fundamentalism Contradicts The Intent Of Founding Prophets"
"Those who sincerely seek spiritual growth intuitively know this. This is why sincere followers are attracted to the words of the founding prophets like bees are drawn to nectar laden flowers. The sincere seeker already knows he is going to have to work on himself, and is looking for the best method by which to do it. As he seeks that path, and he finds his personal insights match those of the prophet, the seeker is drawn to the prophet's wisdom.
Unfortunately, for every sincere seeker, there are a thousand people driven to religion by fear, guilt and shame. These negative emotions are then played upon by religionists who seek to fill the pews with compliant, profitable members. It is my contention that many, if not most fundamentalist organizations have fallen into this trap."
This is an interesting section, because it directly reflects the problem with all fundamentalist organizations, whether they be religious or scientific. Yet at the same time it acknowledges the sincere individuals. I think his numbers may be a bit exaggerated, but none the less, just as with science, effect of the exposure to the scriptures is not always an immediate thing, and people often do see the organizations as ways of making a living off of others.
1 Timothy 6:10
"For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."
"How Fundamentalism Promotes Ignorance"
This section is fallacious from its premise. Because not all fundamentalists think or act the same.
"numerous contradictions, obvious errors and serious problems "
I'll have to analyze this link in a separate message.
"Why Fundamentalism Is A Force For Evil In Society"
This is his opinion, no real evidence or logic backing up this section in particular.
"Why Fundamentalism Should Be Fought"
More opinion here. Talk of Fundamentalism vs science...What about fundamentalist science?
and then he goes to the slavery example...
"An example of this is the hard fight that the Southern Baptists fought in the last century to preserve the institution of slavery, and the fight to preserve segregation in this century. Those fights were all based on Biblical scripture, of course, but few fundamentalists today would still defend these positions."
The Civil war was not a battle for the rights of slaves, this is a common misconception of that war, it was fought over states rights. He says the fights were based on Biblical scripture, well so is his fight, that is the arena he has projected himself into. The scripture were also used to fight against slavery.
"With so many problems facing humanity, the notion that we can even afford the luxury of even tolerating politically active brands of fundamentalism is rapidly becoming impossible."
This statement is totally contrary and incongruent to his former section entitled "Why Fundamentalism Promotes Intolerance".
"The world gets continually smaller as it gets more crowded, and the imposition, by public policy, of religious doctrines on others who know better is a sure recipe for strife. It has been the cause of enormous death and suffering over the centuries."
The greatest problem will most likely be a scientific takeover of the religious institutions, which will cause humongous death, as history as we know it has never experienced. Some of latest blood baths in history were done by scientific dictatorships of China, USSR, Nazi's and Cambodia's Pol Pot. A combination of religio-scientific world corporatism is the biggest danger.
"Environmental pressures caused by rapidly expanding human populations, make public policy decisions based on the best available information and hypotheses, elucidated by honest intellectual inquiry, increasingly urgent."
The insertion of this statement shows us where this guy is probably coming from... its the over-population panic button. The environmental pressures over simplified to blame rising populations as the ultimate problem. If the leaders and mega rich corporations weren't so concerned about the economic bottom line and more concerned with caring for their people the problems could be mitigated.
The closed minded thinking has come full circle and now we can see the lopsided fundamentalist argument from an environmental fundamentalist. But ultimately what can be drawn from this is that these are not fundamentalist people at all because love for your fellow man is the most fundamental precept of Christianity.
"If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right."
"Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."