No, I’m just pointing out that all the differences you appeal to don’t make any difference to all the similarities (which you avoid). As I’ve pointed out more than once, those points of similarity are precisely the points which mainstream scholarship uses to identify fundamentalism.
Oh wow, you’re really going there. I’d rather be called a fundamentalist.
Has he? In a quick look I found one other definition here (which is also more consistent with my impression of the kind of things he says on the subject).
I don’t avoid them, but I don’t need to dwell on them, because they are obvious to everyone. What is not obvious to everyone is the set of tacit similarities between fundamentalism and modernity, so that’s what I try to introduce to the discussion. Yes, most of the early Christians thought the earth was young, and in that they resemble modern YECs. But the mental framework, the world view, of modern YECs is very different from that of those early Christians. In between then and now, massive changes have happened to drastically modify our views of nature, science, God, miracles, the origin of the Biblical text, human nature, political life, other religions, the nature of religious writing, etc. The modern YEC may seem on paper to be saying exactly the same thing as some ancient Christian commentator regarding the age of the earth or the Flood, but the framing of the YEC writer is the framing of a mind shaped by centuries of modern developments, whereas the ancient Father remained in all crucial respects an ancient mind.
I wouldn’t. But it’s likely that your conception of Plato is shaped by modern anti-Plato polemics, coming from both Christian and non-Christian quarters. I spent about ten years reading Plato’s work (often in Greek) under massively educated and philosophically wise Christian Platonist teachers, and I read masses of modern scholarship on Plato, and have never ceased to read in the Platonic Christian tradition. Plato surpasses modern philosophy in almost every respect, in my judgment. In any case, the most beautiful and moving formulations of Christianity tend to be laced with Platonic themes and language. If all traces of Platonism and other classical elements were removed from Christianity, it would be nothing but another quasi-materialistic desert religion, with an appeal only for the literal-minded. That is, it would be something like modern American fundamentalism.
Maybe write a book to put all those scholars straight? Perhaps a journal article at least?
In that and a whole lot more. Their exegetical method was simplistic, they had none of the tools of the modern era. When they read the Bible they often simply made a lot of stuff up, like fundamentalist today. The Jewish scholars had the same problem with fully internalized exegetical methods and little comprehension of the text’s original meaning, descending into endless word games and arguments, and sometimes flat out acknowledging the meaning of the text was incomprehensible to them.
The anti-science sentiment, and the anti-intellectualism of the current day fundamentalists can also be found in pre-modern commentators. Some of their more enlightened contemporaries even protested against it. Aquinas on the other hand, well we can thank him for his contribution to a couple of centuries of witch hunts. On this issue, as with others, he was certainly aligned with the fundamentalists of the current era. Also like contemporary fundamentalists, Aquinas begins his philosophy and doctrine knowing where he wants to end up; he is writing justifications for what he believes, rather than seeking truth. This is manifest very obviously in his attempt to combine Aristotle with church dogma.
No. It’s shaped by reading Plato.
I should have guessed there would be yet another reveal of yet another illustrious academic career you’ve somehow found time for.
I have to ask, in all seriousness is this actual parody?
So that’s your characterization of first century Christianity?
There are no data that I am aware of to support your speculations as to the reasons. You’re just making crap up. I can speculate too, and channel my inner Augustine, and claim that the so-called decline is almost entirely at the expense of the visible church, not the invisible church. And I can continue speculating that the reason is obvious–the stigma associated with non-belief has declined considerably, and many non-believers are coming out of the closet and leaving a church they were never really a part of.
I tend to agree, and I’m just making crap up, too. 
It’s gone beyond a stigma being removed to where disbelief is fashionable now. I think that Jonathan is also correct, though, that the church had failed to see certain trends and pivoted too late. The church in general is doing a much better job of articulating their message and position, now however. And, fashionable atheism is, I predict, something that many will grow out of as they mature.
I also agree in this sense: The only actual harm to the church can come from Christians. Only Christians can harm Christianity, and they do so by not glorifying God. And I personally think the religious right will have a lot to answer for in this regard.
EDIT: This was a reply to Michael Callen.
Today in the US, Christian Nationalists do a lot of harm to both Christians and non-Christians. With Christian Nationalists in high levels of the US Government, policies of discrimination, intolerance, and personal liberty and choice, are being pushed on to both Christians and non-Christians.
@Patrick It is a shame because there is good intention behind what they do. They believe it is right and true and will protect their families. All families, really. So conversations like this are good. It’s always good to evaluate what one is doing, personally, to ensure that it results in a positive outcome.
I don’t see how the level/strength/extent of such a stigma could ever be independent of the actions of Christians.
Interesting reading.
This one is particularly insightful, from a Christian.
If you are a Christian, Jesus says the world will hate you (John 15:18-20). But here’s the thing: Christians are hated today not for following Jesus too much but for following Jesus too little.
Unlike hardcore atheism. That we take to the grave
Hardcore atheism could easily change into ambivalent agnosticism once Christian Nationalists stop pushing their religion on people. I would love to become a “don’t really care agnostic” again.
I wouldn’t hold my breath
Truly. That’s the difference, commitment.
True aspirations, indeed!
This is where you draw the line, Patrick? Is it those who assume that America is a Christian nation and that Christianity is a state religion, and then make assumptions from there?
Nobody should assume that America is a Christian nation or that Christianity is a state religion. That would completely betray the founders of the nation.
Right, I’m looking for Patrick’s definition of a Christian Nationalist. Clearly they are a significant stumbling block to him. I’m trying to understand where they start and end so that we can get him back into agnosticism. 
Well my definition would absolutely include anyone who believes the US is a Christian nation or that Christianity is a state religion. It would also include anyone who believes it is legitimate to use the apparatus of the state to impose Christian law on its citizens. I believe this is a good statement.
Andrew Seidel’s book “The Founding Myth - Why Christian Nationalism is Un-American” explains who the Christian Nationalists are.
If you want names, how about the Vice President, the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Education to name a few. Note that to his credit, the NIH Director isn’t a Christian Nationalist.
I was really only interested in where you drew the line. What the aspects are that would lead you for instance to, as you said, ambivalent agnosticism.