Here’s Why Catholics are not Fundamentalists

[@TheologyandSpirituality]

Hey everyone! This excerpt is from a longer video, which can be found here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eZzEg5SQYr6rmcksi=chIaV354n6QowhX1

[@Folkstone1957]

This just sounds like a council of despair & I reject that.

[@glennlanham6309]

more like a council of common sense

[@sagapoetic8990]

Excellent conversation and food for thought.

[@TheologyandSpirituality]

Thank you so much for watching and commenting!

[@atheistcomments]

Have you considered that this is all just fantasy make-believe about imaginary characters? The girl in the dark shirt sure took the liberty to state things about the character of the god she speaks of. Let's put her on the spot and have her explain how she knows the character of a god no one can demonstrate in reality. I think she understands she's making it up too.

[@izzykhach]

An atheist and a vegan walk into a bar. I only know because they told everyone in the first two minutes.

[@atheistcomments]

@izzykhach Come on, if you are going to make a joke, make it a good one. Try another. There are books filled with religious jokes.

[@richardbradbury3658]

@@atheistcomments Unfortunately there are churches filled with them too.

[@TheologyandSpirituality]

Hey there, thanks for your comment. No intelligent person has gone through life without reconsidering their beliefs. So yes, we have considered that, and simply come to a different conclusion.

[@atheistcomments]

@@TheologyandSpirituality That's great but you are on the internet spreading "misinformation" to say the least. A god isn't a conclusion. It's pure fantasy make-believe. You know there are objections to religious claims, you know a god has never been demonstrated to exist in real-life. I think especially the girl in the dark blue, she's deliberately lying for sure.

[@ashplv663]

There is a fundamental (pun intended) problem about intellectual capacity, literal accuracy of word (language), history and its use and the very necessity of interpretation of The Bible!!! Trying to separate Catholic Church from “fundamentalists” is itself an intellectual argument that is based on assumptions of God’s existence, his nature, his ‘relation’ with the humans - both believers and outsiders - to be able to confidently declare oneself on the side of absolute truth!! There are myths, rituals, symbols, icons, stories, poetry, etc. that are contained in the Bible that neither is addressing. Using intellectual, historical, evidence or proof based approaches to that which is mythical and symbolic, mostly, are fruitless efforts.

[@Reason1717]

"Language is a poor medium which to communicate God." Yes, totally agree. Written word which than suffers from translations also a very poor medium. And yet, this was the format "Thee all knowing creator of the universe" sought to make humanity aware of his ways and wishes. Which is why one should clearly see the Bible is fiction. This was God's best plan??? In an ancient world ripe with illiterate peoples.

[@Outspoken.Humanist]

Firstly, it's important to distinguish between Catholicism and ordinary Catholics. Then we need to ask how do we define Christian fundamentalism? If it is only the narrow definition of a belief that the bible is God's direct word and thus without error, then Catholicism is not fundamentalist. However, Catholicism does insist upon certain dogmas and ritual practices, including at least one which is patently false; that of transubstantiation (all Catholics are supposed to believe in it but, privately, all of them know that what they eat and drink is just a wafer and some wine). As another example, Catholicism failed utterly in its handling of the child abuse scandal and sought to protect its clergy and itself rather than the children. In these things, I think it is reasonable to label Catholicism fundamentalist. What other adjective would apply?

[@TheologyandSpirituality]

Hey there, thanks for your thoughts. To get to the heart of your question, I agree that we need to start by defining Christian Fundamentalism. I asked Chat GPT, and heres what it said: "Christian fundamentalism is a conservative movement within Christianity that emphasizes a strict adherence to what its followers believe are the foundational principles of the Christian faith. It originated in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as a reaction against modernist theology, which sought to reconcile Christianity with new scientific discoveries, critical approaches to biblical interpretation, and cultural changes. Fundamentalism stresses the authority of Scripture and traditional Christian doctrines." It continued by stating that its primary key belief is "Biblical Inerrancy- Fundamentalists believe the Bible is the inspired, infallible, and literal Word of God. This means that the Bible is without error in all its teachings, including history, science, and morality." Which is what we discuss here. Your other thoughts- such as the Catholic belief in transubstantiation or the heinous way the Church handled the clergy sex abuse scandals, does not apply to Fundamentalism specifically.

[@Outspoken.Humanist]

@@TheologyandSpirituality Thank you for the, somewhat strange, response. I have already made it clear that I fully understand the technical definition of fundamentalism. My premise is that the word may be used slightly differently to cover the insistence within Catholicism of certain dogmas and traditions and the way the church has always placed its own authority, prosperity and security above all else. It is important to recognise that dictionary definitions are arrived at through common usage of words and that usage often changes over time. The dictionary or current definition is not the final arbiter of meaning, it is a merely a guide. My proposal was that the word fundamentalism could be expanded to include other things that the church insists upon, despite being patently false or morally wrong. As for Chat GPT, why would I have any interest in what a commuter programme states from whatever data it was fed? Especially when it makes a clear error. The fundamentalist view of scripture did not begin in the late 19th century. Indeed, for much of the church's history, it was the only view. The church even imprisoned and killed people who wrote anything contrary to what the bible tells us. It doesn't get more fundamental than that.

[@TheologyandSpirituality]

@@Outspoken.Humanist Hey there, you did not make it clear that you understand Christian Fundamentalism. You stated, "However, Catholicism does insist upon certain dogmas and ritual practices.." as your only pseudo-definition.. which is not the correct definition of fundamentalism... but merely an assertion that Catholicism is, in fact, a religion. As for the rest of the comment, it it nearly impossible to have the conversation without agreeing on the meaning of the term... so I suppose we part ways here.

[@Outspoken.Humanist]

@@TheologyandSpirituality You say I wasn't clear. Really? To quote myself, "Then we need to ask how do we define Christian fundamentalism? If it is only the narrow definition of a belief that the bible is God's direct word and thus without error, then Catholicism is not fundamentalist." How much clearer do you want me to be? Do you take issue with the assertion that Catholicism is a religion? That seems strange. I'm not sure whether you are deliberately misunderstanding me or if you struggle with English. Perhaps it's not your first language. I have not and do not have an issue with the standard definition of the term and I am not saying you are wrong. I am merely proposing a fresh idea. You don't have to agree with me but why not just say so? Why does it upset you so much? Anyway, thanks for playing.

[@jcbnyc2009]

I love it

[@TheologyandSpirituality]

Thank you!