Talk:Christian fundamentalism/Archive 2

message: *Talk:Fundamentalist Christianity / Talk:Fundamentalist Christianity/Archive 1
Pollard Thinks Its Odd (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive

message: There should be some mention of the Amish, Mennonites, Hutterites and Anabaptists in general in this article since they are fundamentalists in the strict sense that they adhere to the core Fundamentalists beliefs with the exception that most Amish, except for the Beachy Amish, are not evangelical.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.226.176.110 (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amish and Mennonites 

message: Text below taken from the "history" section of the article.
* The bodily second coming of Jesus Christ [http://[blacklisted URL deleted]/article.cfm/non_fundamentalist_christianity/52921]
Should the above link be here??  I think it should be removed and or placed below in the external links...  Any comment.
:The link listed here actually contains another link as a source.  I have replaced the original with the precedent source, which is from an article about a famous preacher of the time, Harry Emerson Fosdick. This new link makes clear that two of the "five fundamentals" had alternative expressions, which I have included in the article.  --Blainster 21:15, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this external link be here? 

message: Is Ian Paisley theologically fundamentalist?  I don't think that 
Northern Ireland Presbyertians considered themselves or are 
considered fundamentalists.
:I think we're up against the difference in usage again. In common parlance I can easily imagine Paisley being described as 'fundamentalist' where the term is used pretty synonymously with 'radical'. DJ Clayworth 16:37, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ian Paisley????? 

message: Let's not forget the movement to have school prayer constitutionalized. I think it deserves a mention, at least. Nikki 18:49, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public Schools 

message: What about witnessing?
:Witnessing is also known as evangelizing. It gave the name to Evangelicals, that is, people who tell other people about the Gospel (because it is only through faith in the work of Jesus Christ--the Gospel--that the human soul saved). Fundamentalists are a type of Evangelical. 
:Much could be written about evangelism, even just that within the confines of fundamentalism. Pooua 03:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Witnessing 

message: There has been a lot of study on seperatist, authoritarian groups in sociology. Most fundamentalist groups would be of the sect type, and at the extremes the cult type. Two errors are possible from a fundamentalist perspective, one accommodating to the world, the other going on a frolic of one's own. Where do extremists such as David Koresh, the Children of God and Jim Jones fit in. No mention is made of this. Paul foord 11:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sociological analysis and F't perspectives on [[Sects]]/[[Cults]] 

message: Roman Catholicism also has those members who could be considered fundamentalists, but they most often are called Traditional Catholics or Catholic traditionalists. Well known traditional Catholics include the actor Mel Gibson and his father Hutton Gibson. This group of members rejects the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. In some cases they have broken away from the mainstream church and reject those Popes who they see as heretics - which usually they consider to be every Pope from John XXIII on.
This needs clarification.  The article defines "fundamentalism" as divisions of Christianity that adhere to the five fundamentals, but  even the most traditional or conservative of Catholics do not believe in two of the five fundamentals, namely inerrancy of the Bible and salvation through faith alone. -- Temtem 22:00, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
: Good point, Temtem.  This article was obviously intended to define the Fundamentalist movement within U.S. Protestantism.  It is really beyond the logical scope to include "fundamentalism" in the Catholic church and "Christian fundamentalism" abroad.  In the absence of a complete re-write (which I would be willing to tackle) we are stuck trying to patch up a poor article.  I would suggest making clarification statements and particularly removing the entire section entitled "Christian fundamentalism within Christianity" -- it has an inappropriate title and contains erroneous claims. Jim Ellis 22:20, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
:Small point of correction.  I am a person who would qualify as a Catholic fundamentalist in a country like, say, France.  The official position of the Church regarding the Bible is the doctrine of norma scriptura.  This means that no Catholic belief or practice can contrdict the Bible.  What we reject is the doctrine of sola scriptura, the idea that the Bible is the ONLY source of the Faith.
:It is nevertheless true that the term "Christian fundamentalism" is used almost exclusively to describe a movement that is largely Protestant and North American in character.  Strictly speaking, "Protestant fundamentalism" might be a more accurate term, but it seems that "Christian fundamentalism" has stuck.--TheMcManusBro 04:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholicism 

message: Welcome aboard 24.69.255.205 (I wish you'd sign in at take a user name!). You are tackling one of the more difficult pages. There's some good stuff here, but a lot is disjointed, some inaccurate, and some biased. Some of your edits have added perspective as one who seems to understand Christian fundamentalism. But you have also deleted a lot. If something is wrong or biased, you should correct as much as possible, rather than delete. If it's not wrong or biased, you are disrespecting other past editor's work in deleting. I restored some information you deleted, and you deleted it again. At that point you should be on the talk page explaining why the deletion, and seeking consensus first. Pollinator 01:42, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
yeah it
 was disappointing i did not find out what i needed to know for my RE homework but i did for conservative Christians,at least that gave me what i wanted to know 
by ktb  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.35.153 (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  24.69.255.205's edits 

message: this is odd and quite suspect.  why does the article, the argument, the entire thesis of this subject begin in the 19th century?  should it not begin with christians butchering pagan romans after the first christian leaders of the roman empire? i cant see a reason why the history is limited to the modern age.  christian fundamentalism - terrorism began quite literally since its inception. i couldnt find this being discussed in the talk page, or on the actual page .. i could begin with detailed history, wars raged in the name of christianity and the sort, i have a feeling that would be frowned upon.
: I personally appreciate you moving your expressed concern to this discussion page rather than the body of the article itself.  I have added a couple of phrases (in the article) to indicate the limited scope and context for this article's use of the term "fundamentalist".  I believe your concern is more accurately associated with "violence in the name of religion," which is not the intent of this article at all.  You are taking (what I see as) a fairly modern term and applying it to ancient history.  Feel free to consider initiating an article addressing your concern, although I'm not sure the term "fundamentalist" is crucial to it.  See also, "Religious Violence" and "Fundamentalism" (as a general term) in Wiki-articles which touch on your issue and may be places where you could more appropriately add info on your concern. Regards, Jim Ellis 14:03, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
:: I would like to point out that the very differences stressed earlier between Catholic beliefs and Fundamentalist beliefs should not be excluded here.  Many of the early Christians killed by Catholics are commonly considered Fundamentalists or so similar to those called such today as to have very little distinction.  When you talk of the Roman empire, you're speaking of the Catholic Church, which I consider un-Christian, or at least Bible believing fundamentalists would say so.  The Waldenses, Paulicians, Anabaptists, Movatians, and many others are among the groups who were slaughtered by the Catholic church for some 1200 years for "heresies" like practicing baptism by immersion, pacifism, and rejecting unBiblical traditions like transubstantiation, confession to priests, Mary-ology, and observance of holidays (which often have pagan roots in all circumstances, and can even be referenced as pagan within Jeremiah and elsewhere).  I am not trying to start an argument here with Catholics, but those attacking Fundamentalism often make this mistake of confusing it with Catholocism, which forces me to point out what I believe obvious mistakes.  --Jzyehoshua 07:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  why 19th cent? why 2ooo yrs ago? 

message: ===Fundamentalist Bible scholars===	 
 *Norman Geisler	 
 *Gary Habermas	 
 *FF Bruce	 
 *Gleason Archer	 
 ===Fundamentalist authors===	 
 *Francis Schaeffer	 
 *A.W. Tozer	 
 ===Fundamentalist archeologist===
 *Bryant G. Wood
Of these, the only one that really looks right to me, is creation science archaeologist, Bryant Wood - but if he is SDA, I think it's stretching things to list him.  I don't know his religious affiliation. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: One person at a time

message: *Norman Geisler	Strongly supports Bible inerrancy 
 and a lack of Bible errors. Debated Farrel till who argues
 the Bible has errors in it (see: http://www.skeptictank.org/debate.htm ). 
 *Gary Habermas  Teaches at fallwell's Liberty University. (also see: http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/rev_habermas.htm ). 
	 
 *FF Bruce -  I removed him as a fundamentalist
	 
 *Gleason Archer -  Has been called the Apostle of Bible inerrrancy.
  Wrote a encycyclopedia defending bible inerrancy.  
	 
 
 *Francis Schaeffer	 I recall him affirming a inerrant Bible, but
 I will withdraw his name for now.   
 *A.W. Tozer  - Arminian fundamentalist. See the website at 
  this location http://faith.propadeutic.com/authors/nonref.html 
  Also, see: http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/lochurch/reverenc.htm )
 
 *Bryant G. Wood  He is a fundatmentalist (see:  Not a member 
  of seventh day adventist
  to my knowledge.  No search results for Bryant wood and seventh day adventist.
ken 17:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fundamentalist Bible scholars

message: darby - see http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/j/jo/john_nelson_darby.htm
scofield - see: http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/c/cy/cyrus_i._scofield.htm
Walvoord - see: http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/j/jo/john_walvoord.htm
BB warfield - see: http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/b/be/benjamin_breckinridge_warfield.htm
John Gresham Machen -  http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/j/jo/john_gresham_machen.htm
ken 18:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: These are obsolete uses of the terms.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Added more fundamentalist scholars based on further research

message: I found the following which I quote:
"The "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" was produced at an international Summit Conference of evangelical leaders, held at the Hyatt Regency O'Hare in Chicago in the fall of 1978. This congress was sponsored by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. The Chicago Statement was signed by nearly 300 noted evangelical scholars, including James Boice, Norman L. Geisler, John Gerstner, Carl F. H. Henry, Kenneth Kantzer, Harold Lindsell, John Warwick Montgomery, Roger Nicole, J. I. Packer, Robert Preus, Earl Radmacher, Francis Schaeffer, R. C. Sproul, and John Wenham.
taken from: http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html
ken 19:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: These are not part of the fundamentalist movement as it is found today.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding more individuals to fundamentalist scholars and authors

message: Three points:
1.  Is Liberty Univesity run by Fallwell a fundamentalist college?  Gary Habermas chose Liberty as a place he wants to be a professor at.  Is Habermas a fundamentalist scholar?  Also, Is Dallas theological seminary a fundamentalist school? 
2.  It seems to me that just because you wish to not to do cooperative efforts with liberal churches (such as crusades)  that does not make anti-intellectual.  I see now reason to not have fundamentalist scholars.  Do you have an objection to the "fundamentalist scholars" category.   
3. I read the neo-evanglicalism subject area. I realize some fundamentalist neglect good works or being salt in the society and spend all their time focusing on doctrine.  However,  there are plenty of charitable and salt like fundamentalist who are active in politics and do not just focus on abortion, homosexuality, etc.   I think that overly broad brush strokes  are being employed.  I also think that not all fundamentalist are confrontational which the article seems to imply.   
After all is said and done, I am merely asking for reasonable balance and not overly broad brush strokes. I am trying to be fair and reasonable here and realize that fundamtalist have had their shortcomings but neo-evangalicalism article seems to be pushing neo-evangelicalism.  
ken 22:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Referring to slavery doesn't mean it endorsed the Deep South's preposterous inhumanity, and believe it or don't, that verse about woman submitting to their husbands? If you actually read beyond that one verse and read, say, the whole paragraph, you might find the Bible isn't exactly advocating a raw deal there since there's more than just women there. Homestarmy 19:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: to: mark

message: I consider myself a intelligent person, with some knowledge of Fundamentalist Christianity to start with, but this article is really hard to read. They're all linked, but when the first couple of paragraphs force me to read the first parts of substitutionary atonement and dispensationalism to understand what's going on, it makes me wish the article itself was simplified. (I would consider the sentence "In particular, fundamentalists reject the documentary hypothesis—the theory held by higher biblical criticism that the Pentateuch was composed and shaped by many people over centuries." from the article a good example of one solution to this problem.) 
Also, sentences like "The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, for instance, was signed in 1978 by nearly 300 conservative scholars, including James Boice, Norman Geisler, John Gerstner, Carl F. H. Henry (founder of Christianity Today), Kenneth Kantzer, Harold Lindsell, John Warwick Montgomery, Roger Nicole, J. I. Packer, Robert Preus, Earl Radmacher, Francis Schaeffer, R. C. Sproul, and John Wenham." need some explaination about what the Chicago Statement is, and the names trimmed down to a handful, preferrably with notes as to why they're notable (like "(founder of Christianity Today)"). As is, it's a pack of names, of which the average person (like me) will recognize none of them, and enough blue links to discourage clicking through them.
I think there's a very important question of audience here. While Wikipedia doesn't really define a target audience, I think it reasonable to hope that any article the average person might type in, like Fundamentalist Christianity, should be fairly easily understood by them, whereas articles like dispensationalism can expose the pedantic complexities for the more select audience. Alternately, this article could at least make the introduction and a brief history and summary easily understandable to a general audience. --Prosfilaes 05:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ease of comprehension 

message: Looking at the discussion I think that there is room for starting several subsections/articles on the different forms of Christian fundamentalism.
What I want to know is: many fundamentalists condemn homosexuality because it is condemned in the Bible. However - one of the Ten Commandments is "Thou shalt not kill" - how many of the fundamentalists condemn murder thrillers, and "Thou shalt not covert..." and Dallas-the-series etc?
212.85.6.26 17:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: A brief, interesting and informative article on Christian fundamentalism, past and present, is Dead Right: The Failure of Fundamentalism, by Phil Johnson. Pooua 04:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So only worldy gain is a valid intent to improving the world? Homestarmy
I really doubt that's exactly what he means, but whatever. It's nice to assume bad things about people.
Mister Mister 21:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I assumed an assumption about his ideas, not about whoever it is made this comment :/. Homestarmy 21:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Reading 

message: 'This explains why they [the fundamentalists] oppose the "social gospel" today advocated by liberals, and doctrines such as Dominion Theory advocated by some conservatives.'
:I strongly disagree with this statement. Dominionism is a brandmark of the fundamentalist movement, though not shared by all groups in the same manner. This paragraph needs to be redone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.78.20.110 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 14 May 2006  (UTC)
:Frankly, its a vague term, and is probably useless to Fundamentalism.  It depends entirely on the meaning of it.  If the meaning depends on the Churches having a direct control over the government, I would disagree entirely.  "Theocracy" is never truly a theocracy, but in a reality more of a Ecclesi-ocray (for a lack of a better way of putting it.  No one wants the hands of the government in the hands of the religious leaders, because if they are corrupted, both the churches and the governments become corrupted simultaneously.
:If the meaning is that Christians should do all they can to have policy enacted which preserves Christian beliefs, then it is very awkward, and doesn't seem to imply a "dominion" over politics.
:The purpose of dominion was to take control of the earth, and harness it for the benefit of humanity.  It has little or nothing to do with policy or polity.
:Besides the very nature of Fundamentalism leads one to believe that true believers will always be in the minority, and in a democratic nation, that will imply impossibility of any domination of government control.--The Saxon 03:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fundamentalism / Dominionism 

message: I have removed the reference to Evangelicalism in the first paragraph.  In historical context, evangelicalism and fundamentalism are parallel movements.  Fundamentalist christianity did not solely develop from evangelical christianity or vice versa.  It was largely a reaction to modernism over the breadth of most of American Christianity.
I put the evangelical reference back.  But the differences between Evangelicalism and modern neo-evangelicalism need to be clarified.  There are many evangelical churches who were never fundamentalist churches and vice versa.
As a Fundamentalist, I would say that Fundamentalism is an evangelical movement (I left the word uncapitalized to state it as what the word actually means, as opposed to the movement of the last century or so).  I would also say that Fundamentalists and New Evangelicals come from the same original Evangelical movement, dating back to the nineteenth century.  I would be careful in defining evangelicalism, depending on what is meant.--The Saxon 00:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evangelicalism 

message: This article would be better titled "Fundamentalist Protestantism" because it is a movement within Protestant Christianity that has no bearing upon Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. Within the broader context of the history of Christianity, Eastern Orthodoxy is the truest form of fundamentalist Christianity because it rejects the theological, political and cultural developments of the second millenium.
--64.93.1.67 18:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is problematic as well, since it was primarily derived from the United States, and other countries have protestant movements which didn't develop this way on a parallel timeline. The article would likely have to be compleatly re-written.Homestarmy 19:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fundamentalist Christianity

message: I'm not sure what the protocol is and I don't have time to find it, so I'll leave to someone else. Footnote three points to  but the link is broken. Should the link and/or footnote be removed? --Ephilei 05:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Either that, or put a note next to the citation reading "Link broken". Homestarmy 05:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken link 

message: I'm a bit concerned about the addition of  to the external links section, but I only have a limited grasp of the spanish language. It appears to be some sort of school, but the front page is offering different degrees for what appear to be monetary units, and I think this seems very unusual. Is this like a Spanish diploma mill or something? Homestarmy 19:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spanish Link?

message: Fundamentalist Christianity, or Christian fundamentalism, is a movement that arose mainly within British and American Protestantism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by conservative evangelical Christians, who, in a reaction to modern "fundamental" set of Christian beliefs: the inerrancy of the Bible, Sola Scriptura, the virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the imminent return of Jesus Christ.
The subordinate clause makes no sense. How is "set" being used as a noun or verb? What did Conservative Evangelical Christians react   to?
81.174.151.35 08:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "who adopted a set of "fundamental" Christian beliefs: the inerrancy of the Bible, etc. etc...."? Dunno how the clause got out of order in the first place though, or how long its been like that, I don't look at this article much... Homestarmy 14:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening para 

message: The media portrays fundamentalists as wacky which is a common misconception. We are just normal conservatives.secular...
Is this an error, or is it supposed to be here? I haven't seen a sentence on Wikipedia that looked like this.--64.131.37.26 22:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find it with ctrl+f, where in the article is it? Homestarmy 00:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this a problem? 

message: In the spirit of WP:Bold, I thought I would try redoing the lead to Fundamentalism to focus less just on Christianity, since we have that article here.  I figured I would insert the material directly into this article, but since I'm not entirely sure where best to put it, I'll just paste it here. It seems we may already have a good discussion of the history here, so maybe only some of it would be needed, or maybe the section is good as it is.  Material pasted below:
The term "fundamentalism" gained currency in the early 1920s and derives from two main sources: 
(1) The Fundamentals, a series of pamphlets defending traditional Christianity against modernism published between 1910 and 1915 (and in a collected version in 1917), edited by Congregationalist evangelist Reuben Archer Torrey and funded by Lyman Stewart, who was a devout Presbyterian in addition to being the founder of Union Oil.
(2)  The so-called "Five Fundamentals", five propositions which the 1910 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the USA declared to be "necessary and essential" to the Christian faith:
*  The inspiration of the Bible by the Holy Spirit and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result of this.
*  The virgin birth of Jesus Christ.
*  The belief that Christ's death was an atonement for sin.
*  The bodily resurrection of Christ.
*  The historical reality of Christ's miracles. 
Would appreciate any input.  Thanks, Mackan79 18:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical material from [[Fundamentalism]]

message: American protestantism is a "diet" version of christianity blended with strong patriotism for white people. --62.245.207.18 00:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for pointing out that  needed to go at the top of this page. ;) Groupthink 06:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christians? 

message: I, being an Evangelical Christian, prefer to be called as such, rather than by the derogatory term "fundie" or "fundamentalist". I take offense at being called as such, and would politely wish the bias to stop. Why is there so much hatred against Christianity? Please do not be offensive. I, for one, must announce that, this article violates the Neutral Point of View policy. Please, refrain from bias against Christians. 71.76.153.217 19:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Evangelicals predate by more than a century the fundamentalists, who took their name from a series of (originally) twelve volumes entitled The Fundamentals: A Testimony To The Truth and subscribed to the "five fundamentals". It's a self identification, and if you don't identify with it, so be it. Why do you hate Christians who subscribe to that doctrine?.. dave souza, talk 20:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why call it "fundamentalism" 

message: One editor on this page is very attached to his own prose, and has asked that I explain why I object to its addition to the article. The following statement has been repeatedly added to this page:
“Additionally, after the events of September 11, 2001, and the resulting War on Terrorism, there has been renewed controversy over the term "fundamentalism," due to further acts of aggression toward the West by some Fundamentalist Muslim groups (specifically Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, and others).”
My objections to this statement are “renewed controversy” is an opinion that should only be added to the article if it can be attributed to a notable authority. I personally doubt that any expert would make this statement, because no self-describe “Fundamentalist” who would call the “9-11 terrorist” fundamentalist. To document such a foolish assertion one would have to find evidence that the adjective “fundamentalist” was used to describe the “9-11 terrorist”, and that Christian Fundamentalist renewed their objection to the expanded use of the word, then after wasting their time in this fruitless pursuit they would need to write and publish their findings.
I have no interest in arguing the merits of the above statement; if it is a true statement I would like the editor who added it to provide a citation. The previous argument this editor has provided in support of his assertion is: 
“first of all nothing in the section is sourced…”
 I would like to point out that if he doubts the other assertions in this article he can removed them. I personally believe that the other assertion made in this section could be cited.--N0nr3s (talk) 00:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, thank you for bringing this to the talk page.  Secondly, the section says that the feeling about the term changed on two fronts since the 1980s, the first of which was included in the section when I found it.  The second of which I added.  I'm not doubting that self-described Fundamentalist Christians would take offense to being grouped with other so-called fundamentalist groups, but to deny that people in this country haven't sought to lump the two together is absurd.  I'll agree that there is no cite, but since you're the one that has a problem with my addition not having a cite, I think it should be you that either removes everything in the article without a cite or allow my addition to stand.  Grant.alpaugh (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting argument---I don’t need to cite contested material I add if other non-contested material is not cited.--N0nr3s (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just think that if you're going to get upset about my inclusion, you should get equally upset about the whole section.  Nothing in the section was particularly objectionable, and you singled out my addition as out of place.  Grant.alpaugh (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Renewed Controversy

message: This thread is vandalized on a weekly basis, sometimes more.  Is there a way to nominate the thread for semi-protection from non-registered users?--The Saxon (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-Protection 

message: In my opinion this section should be removed. What is the basis for listing these denominations? Have they made some claim to be fundamentalist? Are they included based on some individual's opinion? I know the Southern Baptist Convention is not self-identified as fundamentalist, and since non-denominational churches are not a denomination it makes no sense at all to list them. What about the other denominations? What qualifies them to be included here? The section makes no sense and should be removed.
Columcille (talk) 05:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fundamentalist Denominations? 

message: I've done some editing on this to hopefully clarify what can be an difficult topic to define. An unregistered user just deleted some of what I did with the comment "removed biased wording". My concern is that he replaced my text with "...who believed what was taught in the Bible". IMO that is far more biased than my edit as Bible interpretation is a contentious subject. I've therefore reverted it in my latest edit, but have also attempted to improve the neutrality of my wording. I would appreciate comments and any further editing so that we can reach a consensus. 
On the previous question, I think listing groups that would be regarded as fundamentalist is helpful and makes the article more useful.
I was also wondering if this article would be best moved to Christian Fundamentalism to give consistency with the other entries given in Fundamentalism (disambiguation) Sidefall (talk) 08:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New editor/NPOV question 

message: Why is the legacy of Christian fundamentalism being traced back to the abolitionist movement - and other issues of "public morality" that followed in the pietistic/Progressive movement?  The segregationists were just as fervent Christians, they also used religious rhetoric to justify their positions - and Biblical literalism, the holy grail of the fundamentalist movement, was much more reflected in them than in their opponents.  Slavery and the consumption of alcohol are both explicitly okayed in the Bible; the abolitionists were more similar to modern, pro-gay churches like the UCC which neither have nor claim Biblical literalism as part of their theology.  
Since the segregationist movement was both conservative and Biblically literal, it would be them, not the politically progressive and theologically liberal abolitionists/pietists/Progressives, that are the actual forefathers of the modern fundamentalists. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 10:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abolition? 

message: Fundamentalists are NOT, I repeat NOT Extremists. 
There are some who hold to extremists views, like on the King James Bible, for example. But to label the ENTIRE movement as extremist. Is wrong. I personally object to it and I removed it.
-Chuck  —Preceding unsigned comment added by K8cpa (talk • contribs) 06:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel Word removed 

message: The article currently lists Churches of Christ as a fundamentalist group.  Do we have a source for that?  They do tend to be theologically conservative, but there's a fair amount of diversity among churches of Christ these days, and given the congregational autonomy of that movement, there's no central organization that can stake out an official "fundamentalist" position.  
I have similar concerns about categorizing non-denominational churches as "fundamentalist."  If anything, there's even more diversity among this broader movement than among the churches of Christ alone.  Again, while many may be theologically conservative, there doesn't seem any basis for concluding that the entire movement is fundamentalist. EastTN (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Churches of Christ as Fundamentalist? 

message: There are some glaring issues with this article that deserve some attention. Biblical inerrancy is upheld by the overwhelming majority of Christian denominations... if the bible's message is flawed, afterall, you haven't got a leg to stand on when it comes to the person of Jesus or his miracles, teachings, etc.  However, this article seems to suggest that anyone who believes in biblical inerrancy is therefore a "fundamentalist".
Secondly, there is an erroneous and sometimes inconsistent equation of fundamentalists with evangelicals. Even the idea of shared historical roots is questionable. In the words of the main article on Evangelicalism:
::Especially toward the end of the 20th century some have tended to confuse evangelicalism and fundamentalism, but they are not the same; the labels represent very distinct differences of approach which both groups are diligent to maintain. Both groups seek to maintain an identity as theological conservatives; however evangelicals seek to distance themselves from stereotypical perceptions of the "fundamentalist" posture, of antagonism toward the larger society, advocating involvement in the surrounding community rather than separation from it.
Thirdly, we should be using capital-F "Fundamentalism", not "fundamentalism", to distinguish between the denomination and the general characteristic, as the article is clearly referring to the former. Hopefully in this way we can clarify the confusion surrounding the usage of the term as a derogatory label for the kind of narrow-minded, antagonistic, god-burns-fags "christians" that everyone loves to hate.
Jaybird88 (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some issues 

message: This article is in bad shape. There are no cites in the historical section, the definition of Fundamentalist Christianity can't seem to focus on anything meaningful, many schools of religion are given w/o elaboration as to their meaning or their role, lots of weasel words, a list of generalizations with almost no citations, and in general a lot of assertions that have no citations to back them up. I'll try to fix things up as best I can, but there is a lot to be done. Soxwon (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is a mess