Fundamentalism apparently is a part of all religious traditions. In what ways (if any) are these fundamentalist traditions similar? In Christianity, for example, there is a tendency to view its sacred writings as literal. Is that true of other religions?

Quote:

---

Christianity, for example, there is a tendency to view its sacred writings as literal.

---

'literally' Identical to sacred writings- "The living word / The word became flesh", AKA Jesus- Not similar to other religions...The Defining Difference

Quote:

---

In what ways (if any) are these fundamentalist traditions similar?

---

communal fundamentalism (India)?

All religions teach the same principle of loving and serving for the greater good of sentient beings. They teach us the values of filial piety, loyalty, righteousness, compassion and kindness. This is why they are all so similar.

I actually think the question why are they different and what makes them distinct in terms of their histories, cultures, promises, and principles is actually a more interesting question. One that I would invite you to pursue, especially when looking at the life and principles of Jesus Christ.

I looked at basics in Wikipedia, to see what its definition is. I found this:

***Islamic fundamentalism has been defined as a movement of Muslims who regard earlier times favorably and seek to return to the fundamentals of the Islamic religion and live similarly to how the prophet Muhammed and his companions lived. Islamic fundamentalists favor "a literal and originalist interpretation" of the primary sources of Islam and seek to eliminate (what they perceive to be) "corrupting" non-Islamic influences from every part of their lives.***

From the above, I gather that Islamic fundamentalism isn't so much about how the words in the Quran are interpreted and understood, but a preference toward living as Mohammed lived, a fundamentalist lifestyle. And I'm still not sure what THAT means.

Ah, dictionary.com says:

***A movement that has gained momentum in recent decades within several Muslim nations. Islamic fundamentalists oppose the infiltration of secular and Westernizing influences and seek to institute Islamic law, including strict codes of behavior.***

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waltero

'literally' Identical to sacred writings- "The living word / The word became flesh", AKA Jesus- Not similar to other religions...The Defining Difference

---

I don't understand what this means. Could you re-phrase it? Thanks.

Quote:

---

communal fundamentalism (India)?

---

??

Quote:

---

All religions teach the same principle of loving and serving for the greater good of sentient beings. They teach us the values of filial piety, loyalty, righteousness, compassion and kindness. This is why they are all so similar.I actually think the question why are they different and what makes them distinct in terms of their histories, cultures, promises, and principles is actually a more interesting question. One that I would invite you to pursue, especially when looking at the life and principles of Jesus Christ.

---

This wasn't the question. The question is are the sacred writings of other religions treated as literal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

From the above, I gather that Islamic fundamentalism isn't so much about how the words in the Quran are interpreted and understood,

---

I take this to mean that the sacred writings of Islam, the Quran, are not taken literally.

Fundamentalism is just a nice way to say extreme hardcore loons. Even the Hindi's are patrolling the street in India cracking heads.

Thank you all.

I was hoping for contributions from members who are part of that faith, respectively.

Maybe there aren't any here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

Thank you all.

I was hoping for contributions from members who are part of that faith, respectively.

Maybe there aren't any here.

---

I was thinking that same thing, searching the recesses of my memory for the names of current AMHD members who belong to religions other than Christianity. I couldn't think of any.

Quote:

---

there is a tendency to view its sacred writings as literal.

---

What's the alternative?

How about taking writings of ancient man conceptually instead of literally? Much easier to understand the concepts through the alliterive nature of ancient speech I would think, more objectively and without dealing with obvious bias or possible (More likely than not) exaggerations.

Quote:

---

How about taking writings of ancient man conceptually instead of literally? Much easier to understand the concepts through the alliterive nature of ancient speech I would think, more objectively and without dealing with obvious bias or possible (More likely than not) exaggerations.

---

I'm not completely following you. Are you saying, for instance, that we should not literally believe that Jesus lived, or that Paul became a missionary, or that the Christian faith spread throughout the area of the Mediterranean sea?

What do you mean by "alliterive"?

Alliterative refers to the language style of ancient man. Often the case when there is a limited vocabulary, not the fault of ancient man but vocabulary has expanded greatly in 2000 years. No I don't dispute any of the things you outlined in your first paragraph.

Quote:

---

No I don't dispute any of the things you outlined in your first paragraph.

---

Practically everyone accepts parts of the Bible as literal accounts, so the question becomes one of what basis is used to decide what is literal and what is symbolic. Perhaps fundamentalism is a matter of degree.

Quote:

---

Alliterative refers to the language style of ancient man.

---

Not really following you on that one. Alliterative refers to the use of alliteration. Are you saying that ancient writers usually wrote with alliteration?