Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
My only reason to separate out creationism was to point out that it came along at that time. It is an essential part, but it should also be considered a semi-autonomous sub-belief-system, one with its own tenets and massive literature that theorises about the gaps or the correct literal interpretation and tries to prove it (or at least disprove science), something that goes further than just declaring the Bible history (='biblical literalism'). Hence creationism doesn't apply to earlier Christians who were biblical literalists.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 05:35:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It just occurred to me that a way to avoid confusion and misunderstanding on this matter is to reserve "fundamentalist" for "post-Darwinian" literalists, so that Luther and Calvin were literalists, but not fundamentalists.

A bomb, H bomb, Minuteman / The names get more attractive / The decisions are made by NATO / The press call it British opinion -- The Three Johns
by Alexander on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 05:54:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But that is too restrictive. The word fundamentalism can describe any where-have-we-gone-wrong, back-to-the-fundaments view, so I rather stick with the 'modern' qualifier or the (historically correct) capitalised Fundamentalist form.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 at 06:05:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series