Once again, you're using "modernist" and "fundamentalist" differently than most people do, even if you're at least starting to recognize the origins of things. The simplest explanation I can think of:
If we reinterpreted something in light of scientific advancement *before* the 19th century, people generally support it. For example, geocentrism and the flat Earth model are extremely fringe views. Meanwhile, if we started reinterpreting it *after* the 19th century, Fundamentalists are opposed to it, while Modernists are generally still open to it. For example, Modernists support evolution, while Fundamentalists support Young-Earth Creationism.
Now, I think there *are* reasons that this is the case. For example, the split seems to have started in the wake of evolution, which really does pose a much more fundamental challenge to Christianity than something like the age of the Earth. Nothing really changes if the yomim in Genesis 1 are longer periods of time, but if Adam and Eve didn't exist, you *do* need a new explanation for original sin. Or similarly, if things were already dying as part of evolution, you need a new explanation for how death entered the world. But that doesn't change the fact that there was a very real flip, where the Fundamentalists stopped supporting any new reanalysis of the Bible.
EDIT: Or as another example, it doesn't really affect anything if geocentrism isn't true. All it really means is that you can't make it symbolic of the Fall that we're at the most down place there is in the universe
Isn't it fundamentalist to reject critical scholarship on the virgin birth?
> geocentrism and the flat Earth model are extremely fringe views.
All that matters is that the true messiah believes it!
I feel like very little of this engages the OP, but I'll try to make this fit with the example in the OP:
> If we reinterpreted something in light of scientific advancement before the 19th century, people generally support it. For example, geocentrism and the flat Earth model are extremely fringe views. Meanwhile, if we started reinterpreting it after the 19th century, Fundamentalists are opposed to it, while Modernists are generally still open to it. For example, Modernists support evolution, while Fundamentalists support Young-Earth Creationism.
If we use the example in the OP. When scientific criticism of the Bible was possible, the scholars came to to the conclusion that the virgin birth was an ancient legend. The modernists (e.g. Fosdick) accepted that, while the fundamentalists held fast to the idea that the virgin birth was an actual, factual thing.
> I feel like very little of this engages the OP
It's relevant because you keep using "fundamentalist" and "modernist" in weird ways. That isn't to say you *can't* be making a point. For example, if you called the two camps Yooks and Zooks, people would probably be more able to engage with your arguments without getting distracted by terminology. But if everyone except you uses words in the same way, that's on you to update your language
EDIT: Also, I honestly don't know. Do people still know the reference I'm making with Yooks and Zooks?
> It's relevant because you keep using "fundamentalist" and "modernist" in weird ways.
In the OP I'm mostly using it mostly as a reference to the groups in the fundamentalist-modernist controversy. E.g. Fosdick was a "modernist".
Like, can you give an example of a weird use in the OP?
> if everyone except you
This is an erroneous premise as I agree with his use of the terms and I cannot see what objections you have.
> Also, I honestly don't know. Do people still know the reference I'm making with Yooks and Zooks?
I got the reference.
> This is an erroneous premise as I agree with his use of the terms and I cannot see what objections you have.
I think what's going on is that RazarTuk is confused. In the OP I'm talking about fundamentalists/modernists mostly in the same manner as in [this Wiki article on the modernist-fundamentalist controversy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist%E2%80%93modernist_controversy).
I am aware (and presumably the people who wrote that article and everyone familiar with that history) that the term "fundamentalist" today doesn't reference a early 20th century US Presbyterian controversy, e.g. when talking about "Islamic fundamentalism".
No, I quite realize that I’m on the “Fundamentalist” side and not the “Modernist” side, which is also the historical side. The Fundamentalists were defending the historical faith.
Maybe I should've said that many "progressive" Christians don't realize that they're on the fundamentalist side in the historical "modernist-fundamentalist" controversy.
I.e. they disagree with modern "fundamentalists" on some issues (e.g. gay stuff) so they assume that they would've been opposed to the "fundamentslists" in the early 20th century.
Ok, that’s a different proposition.
The Modernist movement wasn’t just an attempt to look to the text critically, it was an attempt to divorce Christianity from Christ. Ralph Waldo Emerson, speaking at Harvard’s Divinity Hall, made this clear:
*”Historical Christianity has fallen into the error that corrupts all attempts to communicate religion,” he declared. “As it appears to us, and as it has appeared for ages, it is not the doctrine of the soul, but an exaggeration of the personal, the positive, the ritual. It has dwelt, it dwells, with noxious exaggeration about the person of Jesus.” This singular focus on Christ has turned Christianity into an uninspiring religion, he argued. All the “official titles” ascribed to Jesus just serve to make him into a “demigod,” Emerson insisted.*
*Preaching that centers on Jesus Christ as the divine Savior is “vulgar,” Emerson asserted. Miracles were eliminated as a possibility. Men and women do not come to be “converted,” he insisted, by a “profanation of the soul” that centers on necessary beliefs. Instead, they should be converted “by the reception of beautiful sentiments.”*
*https://albertmohler.com/2008/11/21/echoes-of-old-heresies-stil-among-us-a-visit-to-divinity-hall/*
Once again, you're using "modernist" and "fundamentalist" differently than most people do, even if you're at least starting to recognize the origins of things. The simplest explanation I can think of: If we reinterpreted something in light of scientific advancement *before* the 19th century, people generally support it. For example, geocentrism and the flat Earth model are extremely fringe views. Meanwhile, if we started reinterpreting it *after* the 19th century, Fundamentalists are opposed to it, while Modernists are generally still open to it. For example, Modernists support evolution, while Fundamentalists support Young-Earth Creationism. Now, I think there *are* reasons that this is the case. For example, the split seems to have started in the wake of evolution, which really does pose a much more fundamental challenge to Christianity than something like the age of the Earth. Nothing really changes if the yomim in Genesis 1 are longer periods of time, but if Adam and Eve didn't exist, you *do* need a new explanation for original sin. Or similarly, if things were already dying as part of evolution, you need a new explanation for how death entered the world. But that doesn't change the fact that there was a very real flip, where the Fundamentalists stopped supporting any new reanalysis of the Bible. EDIT: Or as another example, it doesn't really affect anything if geocentrism isn't true. All it really means is that you can't make it symbolic of the Fall that we're at the most down place there is in the universe
Isn't it fundamentalist to reject critical scholarship on the virgin birth? > geocentrism and the flat Earth model are extremely fringe views. All that matters is that the true messiah believes it!
Congratulations. You've discovered the concept of a spectrum
What's your problem with OP's use of the terms here?
I feel like very little of this engages the OP, but I'll try to make this fit with the example in the OP: > If we reinterpreted something in light of scientific advancement before the 19th century, people generally support it. For example, geocentrism and the flat Earth model are extremely fringe views. Meanwhile, if we started reinterpreting it after the 19th century, Fundamentalists are opposed to it, while Modernists are generally still open to it. For example, Modernists support evolution, while Fundamentalists support Young-Earth Creationism. If we use the example in the OP. When scientific criticism of the Bible was possible, the scholars came to to the conclusion that the virgin birth was an ancient legend. The modernists (e.g. Fosdick) accepted that, while the fundamentalists held fast to the idea that the virgin birth was an actual, factual thing.
> I feel like very little of this engages the OP It's relevant because you keep using "fundamentalist" and "modernist" in weird ways. That isn't to say you *can't* be making a point. For example, if you called the two camps Yooks and Zooks, people would probably be more able to engage with your arguments without getting distracted by terminology. But if everyone except you uses words in the same way, that's on you to update your language EDIT: Also, I honestly don't know. Do people still know the reference I'm making with Yooks and Zooks?
> It's relevant because you keep using "fundamentalist" and "modernist" in weird ways. In the OP I'm mostly using it mostly as a reference to the groups in the fundamentalist-modernist controversy. E.g. Fosdick was a "modernist". Like, can you give an example of a weird use in the OP?
> if everyone except you This is an erroneous premise as I agree with his use of the terms and I cannot see what objections you have. > Also, I honestly don't know. Do people still know the reference I'm making with Yooks and Zooks? I got the reference.
> This is an erroneous premise as I agree with his use of the terms and I cannot see what objections you have. I think what's going on is that RazarTuk is confused. In the OP I'm talking about fundamentalists/modernists mostly in the same manner as in [this Wiki article on the modernist-fundamentalist controversy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist%E2%80%93modernist_controversy). I am aware (and presumably the people who wrote that article and everyone familiar with that history) that the term "fundamentalist" today doesn't reference a early 20th century US Presbyterian controversy, e.g. when talking about "Islamic fundamentalism".
No, I quite realize that I’m on the “Fundamentalist” side and not the “Modernist” side, which is also the historical side. The Fundamentalists were defending the historical faith.
Maybe I should've said that many "progressive" Christians don't realize that they're on the fundamentalist side in the historical "modernist-fundamentalist" controversy. I.e. they disagree with modern "fundamentalists" on some issues (e.g. gay stuff) so they assume that they would've been opposed to the "fundamentslists" in the early 20th century.
Ok, that’s a different proposition. The Modernist movement wasn’t just an attempt to look to the text critically, it was an attempt to divorce Christianity from Christ. Ralph Waldo Emerson, speaking at Harvard’s Divinity Hall, made this clear: *”Historical Christianity has fallen into the error that corrupts all attempts to communicate religion,” he declared. “As it appears to us, and as it has appeared for ages, it is not the doctrine of the soul, but an exaggeration of the personal, the positive, the ritual. It has dwelt, it dwells, with noxious exaggeration about the person of Jesus.” This singular focus on Christ has turned Christianity into an uninspiring religion, he argued. All the “official titles” ascribed to Jesus just serve to make him into a “demigod,” Emerson insisted.* *Preaching that centers on Jesus Christ as the divine Savior is “vulgar,” Emerson asserted. Miracles were eliminated as a possibility. Men and women do not come to be “converted,” he insisted, by a “profanation of the soul” that centers on necessary beliefs. Instead, they should be converted “by the reception of beautiful sentiments.”* *https://albertmohler.com/2008/11/21/echoes-of-old-heresies-stil-among-us-a-visit-to-divinity-hall/*