Why are fundamentalist Christians so hated by most people?

[frienden thalord]

I've even encountered "fundamentalist" Buddhists. People can find all sorts of ways to be inhuman in the name of religion.

OH dear , if we cant see where this is headed we in serious trouble.
What was done to the jews will repeat . already society and churches
are building an all inclusive mindset and religion . anything that wont conform
to its views will be viewed as dangerous in time .
this is propaganda, but its selling .
History is not going to repeat, IT IS repeating , only this time ITS WORLD WIDE.
People like me who will put God first , Truth first above all things
Will be seen as dangerous . I guarantee it.
Our churches are being groomed for it
society is being groomed for it .
IF we cant see where this is leading , we in dire trouble.
Nothing can stop this , but we can warn and remind , encourage and remain
faithful to CHRIST only.
But mark these words well. In time true believers who would not
conform to this all inclusive mindset will be seen no different than ISIS.
people will become afraid of ones like me , who though I would not harm a soul
and even pray for those who hate me, and believe not even in self defense
it wont matter. I will be labled the same as dangerous ones.
The great tribulation IS ON the way
And this world peace all inclusive unity WILL lead many right to
the coming dark king , WHO by PEACE , yeah BY PEACE destroys many.

 

[Zoii]

Irenaeus said and believed the scriptures were "the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit;"

But remember that this is merely what a human being believed. So why his opinion to be taken as absolute truth. It is, after all, Irenaeus just stating his beliefs.

 

[tkolter]

Well when one puts the Scripture of God first and center sincerely and then upon that challenge the secular and Christians who are in error with love hopefully it makes many oppose you.

 

[JackRT]

Well when one puts the Scripture of God first and center sincerely and then upon that challenge the secular and Christians who are in error with love hopefully it makes many oppose you.

I suspect that this comment does not accurately convey what you actually wanted to say.

 

[1stcenturylady]

I believe there are some fundamentalists/evangelicals that are more so than others.

SDAs and Messianics use the whole bible but almost give the old testament more weight than the new testament.

Pentacostals called "full gospel" learn from the old testament as historical, but actually stand by the whole new testament, whereas cessationists only use part of the new testament and hate Pentacostals as do the rest of the world.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Pentecostals called "full gospel" learn from the old testament as historical, but actually stand by the whole new testament, whereas cessationists only use part of the new testament and hate Pentecostals as do the rest of the world.

Getting back to sources/ Scripture that is;
since many groups may be hated for a lot of reasons,
and some groups are hated because they are wrong,
what did Jesus say specifically in His Word about who is hated and why, accurately ?

 

[1stcenturylady]

Getting back to sources/ Scripture that is;
since many groups may be hated for a lot of reasons,
and some groups are hated because they are wrong,
what did Jesus say specifically in His Word about who is hated and why, accurately ?

The only verses where Jesus used the word hate was we will be hated, because He was hated.

I know I'm hated and scoffed at because I teach the scriptures that claim a true Christian cannot (willfully) sin.

 

[JackRT]

I am not so sure that fundamentalism is defined by the love of Jesus so much as it is defined by the love of a particular set of beliefs about Jesus. The fundamentals are:
1. The Bible is the literal, inerrant Word of God.

2. Jesus was literally born of a virgin.

3. Substitutionary atonement is the meaning of Jesus' death on the cross.

4. The miracles of the New Testament are real. They literally happened.

5. Jesus rose physically from the grave, ascended literally into the sky and would return someday in the "second coming."

Note that these are not about the teachings as Jesus but are about beliefs about Jesus himself.

 

[Abraxos]

I am not so sure that fundamentalism is defined by the love of Jesus so much as it is defined by the love of a particular set of beliefs about Jesus. The fundamentals are:
1. The Bible is the literal, inerrant Word of God.

2. Jesus was literally born of a virgin.

3. Substitutionary atonement is the meaning of Jesus' death on the cross.

4. The miracles of the New Testament are real. They literally happened.

5. Jesus rose physically from the grave, ascended literally into the sky and would return someday in the "second coming."

Note that these are not about the teachings as Jesus but are about beliefs about Jesus himself.

It is interesting because where I come from a "Fundamentalist" simply means dedication or commitment to the fundamentals of the Christian faith which is the Bible. Though your bullet points are correct, they are also quite superficial to the fundamentals of the Christian faith. If there is not a thorough study of the Bible then I suppose one would perceive this as not about the teachings of Jesus -- which I recall you cherry pick parts of the Bible and adhere to the gnostic books, correct?

For example your first point is inaccurate. The Bible uses many figures of speech. It depends on the context as the Bible is rich with different styles of literature. Not only that, but there is different layers to it as well which Jesus called parables, or prophetic speech which are sometimes both literal and written with both metaphorical expressions and historical context.

 

[Albion]

For example your first point is inaccurate. The Bible uses many figures of speech. It depends on the context as the Bible is rich with different styles of literature. Not only that, but there is different layers to it as well which Jesus called parables, or prophetic speech which are sometimes both literal and written with both metaphorical expressions and historical context.

It looks like the sticking point is the use of the word literal. What Fundamentalists normally have said is "the inerrant, infallible, and verbally Inspired Bible."

 

[Abraxos]

It looks like the sticking point is the use of the word literal. What Fundamentalists normally have said is "the inerrant, infallible, and verbally Inspired Bible."

It would appear that a fundamentalists views are quite diverse. Issues arise when folks generalise.
@Tree of Life said it in a way I agree with:

It should be enough to say that the Bible is truth.

Sadly, there's so much bad teaching concerning the nature of Scripture that we must clarify what we mean by "the Bible is truth". In clarifying it, we say that it is inspired, inerrant, and infallible. All of these words have a history of heresy that they were chosen to guard against.

Inerrant means that the Bible does not affirm anything contrary to fact.
Infallible means that the Bible, in the original languages, is incorruptible. The words we have today are the words that God intended for us to have.

It's possible to say "the Bible is truth" while denying inerrancy and infallibility. So we need these words.

The Bible is the inspired, inerrant, infallible word of God

 

[1stcenturylady]

I am not so sure that fundamentalism is defined by the love of Jesus so much as it is defined by the love of a particular set of beliefs about Jesus. The fundamentals are:
1. The Bible is the literal, inerrant Word of God.

2. Jesus was literally born of a virgin.

3. Substitutionary atonement is the meaning of Jesus' death on the cross.

4. The miracles of the New Testament are real. They literally happened.

5. Jesus rose physically from the grave, ascended literally into the sky and would return someday in the "second coming."

Note that these are not about the teachings as Jesus but are about beliefs about Jesus himself.

Count me in!

 

[Albion]

It would appear that a fundamentalists views are quite diverse. Issues arise when folks generalise.
@Tree of Life said it in a way I agree with:


The Bible is the inspired, inerrant, infallible word of God

The field of people who call themselves fundamentalists is quite diverse, I agree. And the ideas that other people believe are applicable to the term fundamentalist are also diverse. But if anyone consults the meaning of the term as given by the originators, or by the present day Fundamentalist organizations, or the definition used by Christian Forums (which accords very well with these other sources)...

it can be seen that the meaning is rather specific and not at all as diverse or vague as might have been supposed.

 

[1stcenturylady]

If one of the seven church ages of Revelation 2 and 3 describe, I would say fundamental evangelists would be the age of Philadelphia in the 3rd chapter.

 

[Abraxos]

The field of people who call themselves fundamentalists is quite diverse, I agree. And the ideas that other people believe are applicable to the term fundamentalist are also diverse. But if anyone consults the meaning of the term as given by the originators, or by the present day Fundamentalist organizations, or the definition used by Christian Forums (which accords very well with these other sources)...

it can be seen that the meaning is rather specific and not at all as diverse or vague as might have been supposed.

That appears to be a very shallow observation if we are to institutionalise a fundamentalists view on the basis of who coined the term in the first place. If that is the case, then many non-Americans that hold to the Christian faith and the Bible as foundational, I suppose are radically different to it's American counterpart, based solely on categorizing people.

For example, is @JackRT's #7 comment the accepted view of the Fundamentalist organisation?

I can no longer recall the source of the post below but it certainly is right on the money:

1. Fundamentalism is a preEnlightenment mindset that seeks to turn the cultural clock back 500 years.


2. Fundamentalism is hostile to the sciences. The science it cannot control, it attempts to bend to its own apologetic ends. It is hostile to biblical criticism and progressive theology, rejecting both out of hand. It strives to keep critical and scientific views from public presentation. It has lost its hold on the colleges and universities, except for the ones it has founded and controls.


3. Fundamentalism is moralistic. For those who have static-free transmission from the divine, all issues are black and white. An inerrant Bible or Qu'ran is the channel of that transmission.


4. Fundamentalists are arrogant and authoritarian. It is difficult to be civil when you have a corner on the ultimate truth. An exchange of views with a bona fide fundamentalist is all but impossible. Civility is the victim of arrogance and divine endorsement. This lack of civility produces a lack of humour. Fundamentalists rarely laugh and they never laugh at themselves. The ability to make fun of oneself is the hallmark of the liberal spirit.


5. Fundamentalism is militaristic and prone to violence. It is no accident that the Bible belt in the U.S.A. is also the gun belt. Jimmy Carter wrote “Fundamentalism, means the thinker is absolutely sure he is right ... you don't want to learn new facts, because they might disturb your previous opinions. You become convinced that your truths have come from God and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, and the next step is that they're inferior, and the ultimate case is they are subhuman. That leads to a lot of the persecution in the world.”


6. Racism. Many fundamentalists are latent racists, or at least segregationists. This seems to be rooted in a view that God has created the separate races and intends for them to remain that way.


7. Lack of ecological sensitivity. This lies in the conviction that humankind is the pinnacle of God’s creation and that we are mandated to rule the earth. Mother earth is ours to plunder.

When all of this comes with “attitude”, the fundamentalist becomes a fundie.

 

[Albion]

That appears to be a very shallow observation if we are to institutionalise a fundamentalists view on the basis of who coined the term in the first place

Maybe you should read it again. That ^ doesn't even come close to what I wrote there.

 

[Abraxos]

Maybe you should read it again. That ^ doesn't even come close to what I wrote there.

Ah. My apologies. What's your thoughts on the rest of my post?

 

[Albion]

I don;t know where Jack came up with point 7. It is not to be found on any Fundamentalist statement of beliefs so far as I know, and every fundamentalist whom I know personally would immediately whip out that verse which says that we are to be good stewards of the Earth the minute someone suggested that God gave a green light to mankind to despoil or plunder it.

 

[tkolter]

I'll keep my position simple (holding my Bible between hands now) ... this is all essential knowledge a Christian needs and the scripture explains scripture and that is that. Now there is outside knowledge and the new wisdom of science when its not conflicting with the Holy Scripture its fine if its in conflict then the Holy Scripture must always be considered the superior source its from God.

If people hate the Bible and its message which is clear on many topics then they will hate the messenger even when we turn on other Christians in error over issues. Such as accepting homosexuals, fornicators and adultery and being rich in their money and not helping the very poor but looking down on them its our place to point the finger. Then they don't like it much.

I'm not a joke and will never surrender what in my heart is true as a gift from God if people don't like me I'm turning 52 this month I'm at the age I don't care that much anymore.

 

[SamanthaMathis]

I don;t know where Jack came up with point 7. It is not to be found on any Fundamentalist statement of beliefs so far as I know, and every fundamentalist whom I know personally would immediately whip out that verse which says that we are to be good stewards of the Earth the minute someone suggested that God gave a green light to mankind to despoil or plunder it.

"
"every fundamentalist whom I know personally would immediately whip out that verse" I have had this experience as well, but even the term fundementalist is too big an umbrella. After a certain age it truly does not matter, no one will sway me, it is the culture we live in that makes our message turn into something unappealing